[piva00]

Science confirming "common knowledge" is still important not only to cement the common knowledge with supporting data but also to open avenues to find mechanisms, which also leads to your question:

> A better analysis would be 'which people do not benefit for anxiolytic effects doing sport'. That's unknown, do these people even exist?

If there was no scientific validation of the benefits this question wouldn't be able to be researched.

[somethingsome]

I totally agree on that, I was not saying that it is not important, I just found the paper lacking depth