As a scientist, I found that there is no such thing as an iron clad study. Even really good studies leave questions - this is why there is research and not 'search', because every experiment produces leads, questions, and sometimes useful answers that we try to verify through repetition. So it (science) is all actually just an ongoing venture. Really it all just points in further directions. There are always some other variables to consider, especially with people, and especially with fitness programs - which is like arguing religion and politics.
The study looks 'okay', I think it is at least strong enough to go with the conclusion that CM is possibly
a supplement to enhance performance and recovery. I also would not assume the biochemical roles they attribute to certain compounds, e.g. CM, is entirely correct or fully defined.
Originally Posted by Steven Low
You're not missing anything.
Most studies have flaws like this.
The best way to find if something works is if there's a general concensus about it (e.g. creatine, BCAAs, whey, etc all show fairly consistent beneficial results) or try it yourself.
That's my strategy when dealing with information. Over so many sources you will start to see trends in a supplement's use and results. And when you try it and it works, even if it is placebo effect - you got the results you wanted! That's a problem with self experimentation...