If you actually read the study referred to by the article, you'll see that they aren't making the claim you and jackshultz are arguing against. Nor does the ar

If you actually read the study referred to by the article, you'll see that they aren't making the claim you and jackshultz are arguing against. Nor does the article define "cheating" the way you seem to. They measured some basic indicators of metabolic health, and found that e-biking is moderately effective cardiovascular exercise. The metabolic response they saw is well outside the noise, which is typical for these experiments: Sedentary humans respond remarkably well to exercise. (If that's not good enough for you, they also analyzed heart rate and GPS logs and found that their e-bikers were averaging about 5 METS for 40 minutes a day, 3 days a week. This is roughly what a doctor will recommend to an office workers who wants to lose some weight.) Thus, you are not 'cheating' by pretending to exercise. If you want to know whether e-biking is "cheating" compared to regular biking, you can look up similar studies on the health benefits of biking and compare the numbers. Controls are necessary when you're looking for more subtle effects, but the health benefits of replacing no exercise with moderate exercise are not at all subtle. All this experiment had to do was establish that e-biking elevates one's heart rate. Which is a gigantic 'duh'. So what exactly are you hoping to accomplish by kvetching in the comments about their lack of scientific rigor?