Physiological demands of riding an electric-assist bicycle
Advisor Information
Dustin Slivka
Location
Dr. C.C. and Mabel L. Criss Library
Presentation Type
Poster
Start Date
6-3-2015 11:00 AM
End Date
6-3-2015 12:30 PM
Abstract
The American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) recommends adults participate in weekly aerobic activity. The electrically assisted bicycle may help individuals achieve the ACSM’s aerobic recommendations and introduce inactive individuals to physical activity. PURPOSE: To compare the physiological requirements of riding a bicycle with electric-assist versus no assist. METHODS: Participants (n=14, 23.2 ± 0.7 y, 174 ± 2 cm, 77.8 ± 4.0 kg, 20.8 ± 2.0 %body fat, 3.2 ± 0.3 L/min) completed two randomized cycling trials using 1) electric assist and 2) no assist. Cycling trials were over a 3.5 km course with varying terrain. RESULTS: Time to completion was faster in the electric-assist (12.5 ± 0.3 min) than the no assist (13.8 ± 0.3 min, p=0.01). Rating of Perceived Exertion (RPE) was lower in the electric-assist (12.0 ± 0.4,) than the no assist (14.8 ± 0.5, p<0.001). There was no difference in VO2 between electric-assist (2.3 ± 0.1 L/min) and no assist (2.5 ± 0.1 L/min, p=0.45). There was no difference in power output when comparing electric-assist (115 ± 11 Watts) to no assist (128 ± 11 Watts, p=0.38). There was no difference in heart rate between electric-assist (147 ± 5 bpm) and no assist (149 ± 5 bpm, p=0.77). CONCLUSIONS: The electric-assist bicycle was faster and perceived to be easier compared to the no assist. However, oxygen utilization, power output and heart rate were no different. Both the electric-assist and no assist exercise bouts met criteria for vigorous exercise according to ACSM guidelines.
Physiological demands of riding an electric-assist bicycle
Dr. C.C. and Mabel L. Criss Library
The American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) recommends adults participate in weekly aerobic activity. The electrically assisted bicycle may help individuals achieve the ACSM’s aerobic recommendations and introduce inactive individuals to physical activity. PURPOSE: To compare the physiological requirements of riding a bicycle with electric-assist versus no assist. METHODS: Participants (n=14, 23.2 ± 0.7 y, 174 ± 2 cm, 77.8 ± 4.0 kg, 20.8 ± 2.0 %body fat, 3.2 ± 0.3 L/min) completed two randomized cycling trials using 1) electric assist and 2) no assist. Cycling trials were over a 3.5 km course with varying terrain. RESULTS: Time to completion was faster in the electric-assist (12.5 ± 0.3 min) than the no assist (13.8 ± 0.3 min, p=0.01). Rating of Perceived Exertion (RPE) was lower in the electric-assist (12.0 ± 0.4,) than the no assist (14.8 ± 0.5, p<0.001). There was no difference in VO2 between electric-assist (2.3 ± 0.1 L/min) and no assist (2.5 ± 0.1 L/min, p=0.45). There was no difference in power output when comparing electric-assist (115 ± 11 Watts) to no assist (128 ± 11 Watts, p=0.38). There was no difference in heart rate between electric-assist (147 ± 5 bpm) and no assist (149 ± 5 bpm, p=0.77). CONCLUSIONS: The electric-assist bicycle was faster and perceived to be easier compared to the no assist. However, oxygen utilization, power output and heart rate were no different. Both the electric-assist and no assist exercise bouts met criteria for vigorous exercise according to ACSM guidelines.
Additional Information (Optional)
Winner of Best Graduate Poster Presentation