Oh that's interesting

> it is possible that the type I fibers of subjects were underdeveloped in comparison with the type II fibers as a result of training methodologies. The type I fibers therefore may have had a greater potential for growth compared with the type II fibers

Maybe a mix of both types of training would be best then?

That is a very underpowered study, only 18 participants

Is there another study with more than 18 participants and results that conflict with this study here?

You don't need to disprove an underpowered study. You can just default to ignoring it. Especially in a field as notorious for replication issues as fitness and nutrition.