MikeyOz said:Surely you can see the point trying to be made ??
It's a shame there's not more public funding for exercise research?
Seriously, the take-away from the study is that a nice glycaemic sugar hit and a small amount of protein is ideal to improve recovery. I don't really see what the problem with the funding source is. There is limited funding for exercise research. If someone wants to actually stump up money to get scientific validation of claims they make, then I respect that a lot more than just getting out there and making overblown marketing claims. And it gives some grad student a chance to learn more about research methodology - plenty of spillovers with public benefits.
So yeah, I can kind of see what you people are getting at, but seriously, what is the point? It's easy to make snide remarks about funding sources, but given that the methodology appears sound and the result is in line with what you'd expect, should it matter who payed for his study? Read it skeptically, but read it, make up your own mind and move on.
If you want to get upset about funding for research... go looking for pharmaceutical companies who suppress negative data and look for positive effects in sub-groups that they never tried to isolate in the initial experimental design.