BackgroundThere is a universal need to increase the number of adults meeting physical activity (PA) recommendations to help improve health. In recent years, electrically assisted bicycles (e‐bikes) have emerged as a promising method for supporting people to initiate and maintain physical activity levels. To the best of our knowledge, there have been no meta‐analyses conducted to quantify the difference in physiological responses between e‐cycling with electrical assistance, e‐cycling without assistance, conventional cycling, and walking.MethodsA systematic review and meta‐analysis was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. We identified short‐term e‐bike studies, which utilized a crossover design comparing physiological outcomes when e‐cycling with electrical assistance, e‐cycling without electrical assistance, conventional cycling, or walking. Energy expenditure (EE), heart rate (HR), oxygen consumption (VO₂), power output (PO), and metabolic equivalents (METs) outcomes were included within the meta‐analysis.ResultsFourteen studies met our inclusion criteria (N = 239). E‐cycling with electrical assistance resulted in a lower energy expenditure (EE) [SMD = −0.46 (−0.98, 0.06), p = 0.08], heart rate (HR) [MD = −11.41 (−17.15, −5.68), p < 0.000, beats per minute], oxygen uptake (VO₂) [SMD = −0.57 (−0.96, −0.17), p = 0.005], power output (PO) [MD = −31.19 (−47.19 to −15.18), p = 0.000, Watts], and metabolic equivalent (MET) response [MD = −0.83 (−1.52, −0.14), p = 0.02, METs], compared with conventional cycling. E‐cycling with moderate electrical assistance resulted in a greater HR response [MD 10.38 (−1.48, 22.23) p = 0.09, beats per minute], and VO₂ response [SMD 0.34 (−0.14, 0.82) p = 0.16] compared with walking.ConclusionsE‐cycling was associated with increased physiological responses that can confer health benefits.