Quote Originally Posted by OakLeaf View Post
That still doesn't make sense to me. If they couldn't find enough women cyclists who ride 100k, and if 60k is enough for there to be a correlation with the health metrics they were looking at, why not look at men cyclists who ride 60k?

And yeah, me too, I'm not trying to argue that sweating and getting your heart rate up aren't good for you. But the way most scientific studies pretend women don't even exist, this is supposed to be so much better to compare women who ride shorter AND slower, and it just ticks me off.
Hell, many animal studies are done with male rats, unless for some reason you specifically need females. Supposedly males are less bitey than females, so it makes handling easier, or something.

It really sounds like they just asked the local bike club if they'd like to make $20 by participating in the study and took what they got, and those points happened to be where neat clusters formed.