Quote:
|
...the study was read by a committee of their peers (researchers at other universities), so I suspect they would have detected a glaring error of signficance had it been made.
|
I believe that statement is probably the most significant in this entire argument. Yeah, Volek and Kraemer are two of the most respected researchers in their field, but their study was independantly reviewed by their peers. If any of them came up with the same contradictory statistical info that Bryan has come up with, it would be my guess that at least one of them would have spoken up and their comments would have been documented somewhere. My money's on the study, the researchers and the peer review. No offense, Bryan.
Also, Adam thanks for taking the time to look into an answer to my question above.
Thanks for your input, too, Tracey.