Response to discrepancies in publications related to HMB-FA and ATP supplementationby Jacob M. Wilson, Nutrition & Metabolism 2017 14:42. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12986-017-0201-7 Recently, Gentles and Phillips  wrote a communication requesting further explanations regarding our recent publications on ATP , HMB-FA  and co-ingestion of ATP and HMB-FA  on training adaptations, resulting from the same study with the clinical trial identifier: NCT01508338. We acknowledge that the authors have invested a great deal of time following our work on multiple platforms, and our reexamination only serves to further our understanding of the significance of these studies. In their effort to better understand our research, Gentles and Phillips  have submitted questions pertaining to the homogeneity of subjects’ characteristics between the three different published papers, and why there appears to be differences in the number of subjects in placebo groups across studies [2, 3, 4]. Our response addresses each of these issues and demonstrates that there are no discrepancies between papers but rather a misunderstanding of the papers previously published. Gentles and Phillips  question the homogeneity between papers, providing a table showing that subject characteristics for Wilson et al.  and Wilson et al.  are even identical. The table by Gentles and Phillips is incorrect. The correct participant characteristics in Wilson et al.  are as follows: age 23.4 ± 0.7 with 1-RM of 1.71 ± 0.04, 1.34 ± 0.03 and 2.05 ± 0.04 times body weight for squat, bench press, and deadlift, respectively. We are uncertain as to where the numbers presented by Gentles and Phillips came from in their Table 1. We have provided the corrected Table 1 below. The values in the corrected table add a degree of heterogeneity which may reasonably be expected, but are still quite homogenous. This was accomplished by the randomization procedure. We arranged the subjects by strength, and then performed the randomization. Table 1: Sample means and standard deviations
Wilson et al. according to  Entire group (n = 21)
Actual Wilson et al.  Entire group (n = 21)
Wilson et al.  Entire group (n = 20)
Lowery et al.  Entire group (n = 17)
21.6 ± 0.5
23.4 ± 0.7
21.6 ± 0.5
21.7 ± 0.4
1.7 ± 0.04
1.71 ± 0.04
1.7 ± 0.04
1.7 ± 0.07
1RM bench pressa
1.3 ± 0.04
1.34 ± 0.03
1.3 ± 0.04
1.3 ± 0.05
2.0 ± 0.05
2.05 ± 0.04
2.0 ± 0.05
2.0 ± 0.06
“The ATP trial was completed in a later semester and thus, two additional subjects were recruited to the placebo group to blind the treatments. One of the additional placebo subjects was lost due to injury.”There are several major problems with this statement. First, consider what the above quote implies. This means the control group from the first study, which compared control vs. HMB vs. HMB + ATP cohorts, was used again in the study which occurred during a later semester that compared control vs. ATP cohorts. To reiterate, they used the same control group twice. If that does not sound odd enough, this issue is more troubling when you consider the fact that all three papers describe these studies as double-blinded. So Jacob Wilson, I have two questions for you.
- If these studies were blinded, how would you have known which subjects were in the control group from the first study to reenlist them as controls during the second study performed in a later semester?
- If blinded, how would you know to add two more control group participants to replace the two that dropped out? Thanks to Stuart Phillips and Douglas Kalman for raising this point.
How does one blindly add to the placebo group as Wilson claims? https://t.co/YTTZHZqJEt— Douglas Kalman PhD (@dougkalmanphdrd) December 10, 2017
Gasoline thrown on fire! Admits same control group used three times, changes clincicaltrials record to match description, says new subjects were added… when will it end?— Stuart Phillips, PhD (@mackinprof) December 11, 2017
“In short yes we did all these studies at once. It was one large study divided into 3 papers which we mention in the HMB-ATP paper. So we had a control, HMB and HMB+ ATP group. For all 3 papers half of the subjects would be identical.”So, this “change” in methods was not communicated in any of the studies, it was not mentioned in the ClinicalTrials.gov description of study methods (until they recently edited them), and Wilson said the exact opposite to me via email. What version of the methods are we to believe? The different versions presented in the 3 papers, the version originally presented on ClinicalTrials.gov, the version currently listed in this response, or the version presented in Wilson’s email to me?
- Gentles JA, Phillips SM. Discrepancies in publications related to HMB-FA and ATP supplementation. Nutr Metab. 2017;14:42. View Article Google Scholar
- Wilson JM, Joy JM, Lowery RP, Roberts MD, Lockwood CM, Manninen AH, et al. Effects of oral adenosine-5′-triphosphate supplementation on athletic performance, skeletal muscle hypertrophy and recovery in resistance-trained men. Nutr Metab. 2013;10:57. View Article Google Scholar
- Wilson JM, Lowery RP, Joy JM, Andersen JC, Wilson SMC, Stout JR, et al. The effects of 12 weeks of beta-hydroxy-beta-methylbutyrate free acid supplementation on muscle mass, strength, and power in resistance-trained individuals: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2014;114:1217–27. View Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
- Lowery RP, Joy JM, Rathmacher JA, Baier SM, Fuller JC Jr, Shelley MC 2nd, et al. Interaction of beta-hydroxy-beta-methylbutyrate free acid and adenosine triphosphate on muscle mass, strength, and power in resistance trained individuals. J Strength Cond Res. 2016;30:1843–54. View Article PubMed Google Scholar