I've seen that bogus study before but the key there was that if someone read the full paper the red herrings were there. The HMB-FA study has been out for awhile, Wilson has provided all the supplemental material to the JISSN for review (obviously), the findings were very positive but they were very positive for the placebo control group as well, and the training protocol and monitored diet was the best designed and executed thus far that I have come across (which would make a huge difference in your results). He also cherry picked the subjects so if anything, the training, diet, and response to it all is not going to apply to the majority of people, but that doesn't change the data being the data or suggest that the data has been doctored or manipulated in any way (the raw data is going to be accurate since the study design was double blinded so even if one wished to manipulate the outcome, they couldn't).
He's only had one study with phenomenal results, the HMB-FA study. The PA and ArA results which came out of his lab (he conducted the PA study, not sure about the ArA study) were nowhere as impressive but none were as demanding as what the subjects were placed through in the HMB study.
The key takeaway however is that his HMB study was a replication of Kraemer's 2009 HMB study. Both studies used what is essentially a daily undulating training model. The difference being that Kraemer's was not as intense and used recreationally trained subjects whilst his study consisted of well trained subjects (and thus the training was scaled to such a demographic). Kraemer's study actually saw better gains with both studies seeing about the same amount of body fat loss.
I completely agree with at least one of his studies/endorsements being utter nonsense, the one with the frog training machine thing which is also endorsed by Mike O'Hearn.
