I don't think they need to, most people already eat more food than they need to whether they walk or drive. I'd wager the average person wouldn't need to change a thing in their diet and would overall only improve their health by walking more.

I've read that unless the person riding the bike is vegetarian, the ebike actually has a lower carbon footprint than the normal bike. They're still both far better than the car (ice or EV).

No, I had the same thought.

I wondered that too. I imagine it would be very inaccurate to include that as the amount of calories needed would vary wildly person to person. For example, I burned around 2000kcal to cycle 100km in hilly terrain at the weekend, while a friend burned roughly twice that on the same ride.

a proper electric bike can go 45kmh as well.

There's some debate about that. E-bicycles above class 2 (with assistance/drive at over 20mph) are not allowed on a lot of bike lanes, so they're more like electric mopeds

The fact remains that cars are faster than bikes. Driving a car usually means going faster and hence wasting more energy. Sure, plenty of people deal with distances that necessitate such speeds to be practical in daily life, but that's a different problem to be solved.

I think the speeds are the average speed of each transport type, so it's fair.

Acoustic bikes? I think analog may be more fitting here but honestly I'm not sure. I've just never heard acoustic referenced outside of sound.

True, but the comparison in this case seems reasonable nonetheless. I just wish they had included fossil fuel cars, too

Not really. The F150 Lightning's efficiency is ~270Wh/km city which means a small EV is only a 50% improvement vs 95% for ebike.

Also, this graph is helpful given our current situation. Maybe once we're mostly at the 95% better than an F150 Lightning solution (e-bikes), it might be worth being concerned with energy efficiency, but we're not there.