Something has definitely gone wrong in either the study, the journalism, or with the person who wrote the headline. From the reporting here, there is nothing whatsoever that makes me believe the one minute of strenuous exertion had anything to do with the result.<p>Why on earth didn&#x27;t they have a control group that did 10 minutes of slow cycling instead of a bunch of couch potatoes that did nothing? For all we know, the people who actually turned up for the study regularly to do the actual rides walked far further to get to and from the study than the people who did nothing. And for all we know, 10 minutes of slow cycling has the same measurable effect as 45 minutes of cycling.<p>What on earth is wrong with medical science&#x2F;science journalism, that this is the end result of however many dollars of public money? Are they worried that if they actually do a really large, robust study that all future funding will have dried up?<p>Surely there is a massive public interest in such research. Why doesn&#x27;t someone just do the sodding research and find out once and for all?