The asterisk was not a misprint--I know the author, and he has confirmed in many places that it is signficant. My point was that we don't really need you reworking the statistics on a peer-reviewed study because you don't believe the results. Nothing wrong with questioning the methodology, or even questioning the results. My problem is that you gave the impression that it must be wrong because you couldn't find signficance when calculating yourself. That's taking things too far to try to prove your point. However, if you want, I'll make sure to let Volek and Kraemer know that you're available to run their stats on their next study.
|