Guest viewing limit reached
  • You have reached the maximum number of guest views allowed
  • Please register below to remove this limitation

Effective CLA brands

Which brand of CLA has been good to you?

  • NOW

    Votes: 37 39.4%

  • Tonalin

    Votes: 31 33.0%

  • BAC powder/caps

    Votes: 4 4.3%

  • Other?

    Votes: 22 23.4%
  • Total voters
    94

Jcc

Member
The brand of CLA seems to be debated throughout the whole anarchy stack thread. I'm trying to decide on a cost effective brand of CLA to throw into the stack, and I figure a small poll might be beneficial to all the undecided out there.
 
I think you would want any CLA w/the Tonalin logo because of the specific isomers they have but I could be wrong. I'm not 100% positive.
 
Yeah, I've heard that. I know instynct has a sweet price on tonalin caps, but it's a lot of money to drop at one time. I was hoping some of the others would be at least somewhat effective.
 
the 10- and 12- isomers are supposed to be the effective ones, so i just compare the amount of those in CLA brands per dollar.

-5
 
cla

i having great results with thinfat from xpx, its cheap and it has more mg's per dosage. i was 250 with about 23% bf, im now a month and a half later 230 and 17% bf. im doing alot of cardio and watching my diet but i know the cla is doing its job as my muscle has increased as well. its great, i will definitelt get more.
 
Thinfat from VPX is excellent stuff. Using it to diet down now and finding it to be very helpful for the maintenance of mass during my low carb diet!
 
i was seeing very little result from the "now " brand @ 6 grams/day. i think they're usually pretty legitimate. maybe my dose was just too low. don't know if i can afford to buy a quantity to do 10-20 grams/day unless i KNOW there will be huge results.
 
The problem with the NOW brand is that it contains only half dosages of the 10 and 12 isomer. You would have to double the NOW to get the same effectiveness from a Tonalin.
 
i am going to try another brand. I was at the store a month ago and I told the lady I use NOW. She said I will be amazed if I try another brand they have. She also suggested that I can double the NOW dosage.
 
Tonalin's not actually a brand, it's just patented formula(and I think it involves the manufacturing process).

But anyway, because of cheesy supplement companies popping up to take advantage of money making market, I look for the Tonalin tag on CLA products.
 
I see that CLA oil powder is being sold. I guess you could just cap it right? Wouldn't this be cost effective for $33 for 500 grams of CLA oil powder?
 
I agree, but CLA is derived from safflower or sunflower oil. The process to turn an oil into a powder seems it would denature the effectiveness of the CLA...
 
what benefits do you guys get from CLA? i have some and i have taken it before, but what are you guys really seeing from usage of it?
 
I have only used tonalin and was not impressed. I see a lot of conflicting info on its effectiveness
 
Tonalin is a process that turns linoleic acid from safflower or sunflower into CLA. A problem with Tonalin is that it contains unnatural isomers.
The tonalin used by USDA researchers at University of California -- "CLA made up 65% of the fatty acids in the Tonalin capsules, with the following isomeric composition: t10, c12, 22.6%; c11, t13, 23.6%; c9, t11, 17.6%; t8, c10, 16.6%; and other isomers 19.6%."

Natural CLA (including the CLA in human milk) from animals is almost entirely c9t11.
CLA from plants is about half c9t11 and half t10c12.
That means 60% of the CLA in Tonalin is unnatural.
 
Physicist said:
Tonalin is a process that turns linoleic acid from safflower or sunflower into CLA. A problem with Tonalin is that it contains unnatural isomers.
The tonalin used by USDA researchers at University of California -- "CLA made up 65% of the fatty acids in the Tonalin capsules, with the following isomeric composition: t10, c12, 22.6%; c11, t13, 23.6%; c9, t11, 17.6%; t8, c10, 16.6%; and other isomers 19.6%."

Natural CLA (including the CLA in human milk) from animals is almost entirely c9t11.
CLA from plants is about half c9t11 and half t10c12.
That means 60% of the CLA in Tonalin is unnatural.
Click to expand...
Maybe I'm wrong, but the way you use the term "unnatural" is sorta like the way some people emphasize a product or compound is "not organic" - the implication being that the product or compound is either inherently dangerous, ineffective, or simple not what "nature" intended. That type of implication/assumption is often untrue. If in fact the t10, c12 isomer is the one that is predominantly active with regard to fat loss in humans, then the fact that it is "unnatural" becomes irrelevant if fat loss is one's primary goal (qualifier: Yes, I am aware of some recent data that suggest the t10,c12 isomer may have some negative health effects, but the question of safety isn't the intended focus of my comments because that is a completely different topic with reams of conflicting data).

Now Foods is the only brand of CLA that I have seen with a label that specifies the amount of c9,t11 and t10,c12 isomers in each dose.
 
tonalin.com has the isomer breakdown. It is made by cognis corporation who then sells it to other companies such as iron tek, solaray, ect. They make it in softgel form and ship the bulk pills out. I take six grams a day and it works well. If you shop around you can get it cheap.
 
CLA is bunk. The benefits people get from it are essentially benefits any one gets from using any 'healthy fat' source. The only human study that showed any promise (and the one that is quoted all over the place) had its results from menopausal and post-menopausal women, and at that, only reduced their bodyfat by a small percentage over a years time. THE SAME STUDY showed the SAME group had increased bad cholesterol, decreased good cholesterol, increased blood pressure, etc. If ever a product lived on hype, this is it. Spend your money on flax and fish oils; men - throw in some pumpkin seed and ladies - use evening primrose as well.

Google "CLA human studies" and you'll see tons of pages (from people NOT selling CLA) that refer to the fact that most of the claims made by CLA are from animal studies and while small studies on humans have shown some promise, there remains more to be done. In the only large, double-blind, human study, there were several groups studied. Only one lost any significant bodyfat... the group I refered to above.

IF NOTHING ELSE... IF CLA WORKS ETC... ONE THING IS TRUE -- IT DOES NOT HAVE THE PROPER BACKING FOR ITS CLAIMS. And you hardly ever hear anyone talking about the negatives that the same study pointed out were real concerns in long-term use.

Here is a clip from an article that articulates better than I:

Conjugated linoleic acid, or CLA, is not all it’s cracked up to be. CLA is a supplement of the n--6 (linoleic) fatty acid that has been hydrogenated into twisted trans- fats that can damage the body and interfere with the important functions of essential fatty acids (EFAs).

A research review on CLA shows disappointing results. Most human studies find no benefits in the degenerative conditions for which CLA is recommended: weight loss, impaired immune and antioxidant function, and cardiovascular problems. Animal studies are mixed and, in fact, encourage us to be cautious about using higher doses of CLA due to the possibility of worsening some degenerative health problems.

Instead of using CLA, we need to focus on getting enough EFAs in the diet. Many people are already deficient in one or both of the two essential fatty acids: n--3s and n--6s.

And a chart of many human studies, not just ONE with ONE group with positive results!

Human Studies


Compared with Animal Studies, Human studies with CLA are far fewer and less impressive. Here they are:

Invalid Link Removed




  • 3.9g/day of CLA for 63 days did not show benefits regarding the prevention of atherosclerosis; blood cholesterol and lipoprotein levels did not change;42
  • 3.9g/day of CLA for 63 days did not show benefits regarding blood coagulation and platelet function;43
  • Increasing CLA in the fetus correlated with decreased length of gestation;44
  • 3.9g/day of CLA for 63 days did not show benefits regarding immune function in human females;45
  • 4.2g/day of CLA increased lipid peroxidation in men with abdominal obesity after one month of use;46
  • In patients with chronic renal failure, CLA did not help;47
  • At 3 g/day, CLA resulted in no fat loss, no change in appetite, no change in blood glucose, but increased insulin and produced a transient decrease in leptin; CLA did not affect these parameters in a manner that promotes fat loss;48
  • At 3 g/day, CLA provided no change in body composition, energy expenditure, fat oxidation, or respiratory exchange ratio;49
  • 4.2 g/day of CLA increased lipid peroxidation, apparently by both enzymatic and non-enzymatic processes;50 3.4 g/day of CLA reduced body fat mass; more than 3.4 g/day did not provide any additional benefit;51
  • 16 g/day of n-6 LA from safflower oil did not result in any increase in CLA in the body, i.e. the human body does not make CLA from LA;52
 
no human research on megadoeses so onw will have to try it out for himself
I did Tonalin 3 grams ED for 3 months and it did jack **** for me.
 
Actually a study was released recently that used CLA on humans for a full year and showed it working well. Sorry, I don't have it handy right now.

By the way, 3g is not enough anyway. It's more like 10g per day. And quoting studies of safflower oil is not right by the way. That's not the same product as the tonalin isomers.

Full disclosure: I believe that cut-and-pasted list above is from a website that sells a competitor to CLA.
 
Um... a competitor to CLA? Hmm... It is from the web site of Udo Erasmus. I know he is associated with Flora, but I don't see why he/they couldn't put out a CLA product if they wanted to..?? So it's not quite the same scenario as a direct competitor of product.

As for the other comment... I really hate it when people say, "I saw a study" but have no idea where or what. I saw a study too... the ONE that is almost always quoted from in nearly all the CLA ads. In THAT study there were positive results among the panel. The significant results were in older women. And across the board, THE SAME positive study lists a series of concerns about increased blood pressure, lowered 'good' cholesterol, etc.

I used CLA and so did my wife. However, after I looked into some of the claims and looked up the studies footnoted at the bottom of pages espousing it as some great body re-comp tool, I decided to drop it.

If you want to use it, great. If you believe it works, fine. If you don't care about the other stuff, ok with me. But facts are facts... especially when it is from the primary human study on the subject that is quoted from to establish the positives!

Note the following: "Research on Conjugated Linoleic Acid weight loss supplements in human is still very limited. What we know is that the effect of fat loss is more convincing in animal studies than in human studies; some human trials did found that CLA can reduce body fat. Safety and toxicity levels have not yet established. In addition, side effects have not been well-documented."

Source: Arbor Clinical Nutrition Updates 2003 Nov
 
CLA: Does it Really Help Burn Fat?


Written by Tom Venuto

Saturday, 01 May 2004

Conjugated Linoleic Acid (CLA) is a fatty acid (an isomer of linoleic acid) found naturally in foods such as dairy products and red meat. A number of studies have shown increases in lean body mass and decreases in body fat from supplementation of CLA.Problem is, nearly all of these studies were done on rats and mice! Whether or not CLA improves body composition in humans still has yet to be proven because human research studies are few in number and the results are conflicting. What I find ironic is that in the mid to late 90's when CLA was first marketed like crazy in the magazines as a "miracle" fat burner and muscle builder, all the hype was based on the animal studies alone! Although the initial hype has long since faded (because people tried it and nothing happened), CLA keeps popping up in the muscle mags and on the Internet to this day each time a new human study is completed.


 Back in the days when he owned EAS supplement company, Bill Phillips was one of the first to promote CLA in Muscle Media magazine and in his Sports Supplement review book. However, even Mr. Phillips was quick to point out that the data wasn't conclusive. Phillips said, "CLA isn't yet 'tried and true,' so it didn't make my top ten supplements list. The animal data is compelling. It has been postulated from these studies that CLA may be a growth factor for at least some species. Whether or not this translates to humans at this point is somewhat up in the air."


At least Phillips was up front about the research, but that didn't stop him (or other "supplement gurus") from selling the stuff. Basically, Phillips was saying that the animal research looks promising and it might do something in humans, so if you want to try it, I'll be happy to sell it to you.


 There have indeed been some human studies in the past several years, but the research is very limited and far from conclusive. In one study by Lowery et al ("CLA enhances muscle size an strength gains in novice body builders," Medicine & Science in Sports and Exercise, 1998, 30: S182), gains in arm size were greater in the CLA supplemented group than the placebo group.


 There were no differences however, in body fat. In a "Fat Roundtable" discussion from Testosterone Magazine, the author of this study himself, Lonnie Lowery, pointed out that "Despite often rigorous dietary and activity controls, I've yet to see CLA affect fat mass in weight trained men at any dose. It (CLA) just doesn't seem to do anything for leaning-out active adult men."


Folks, let me warn you about something. When you see those brief columns in the muscle magazines quoting a new research study "proving" that a supplement works, do not accept the claims at face value until you have dug a little deeper! For example, further analysis of the 1998 MSSE study by other researchers suggested "Questionable methodology in measurement of arm girth." Antonio and Stout, writing in the book Sports Supplements, note that, "The (author's) interpretation of the data is not appropriate... In a sense, the authors are looking for something that is not there."


 Furthermore, while there are now selected human studies that suggest fat loss or muscle building benefits of CLA, there are just as many studies that show the exact opposite. Supplement companies are quick to selectively quote studies that show positive findings, but naturally, they make no mention of the rest of the body of research on the subject. In a 2002 study by Krieder, et al in the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, no difference in lean body mass, fat mass or strength was found after 4 weeks of supplementation and resistance training in a group given 6 grams of CLA versus a control group given a placebo.


 What do other experts say? In "An evaluation of popular Fitness-Enhancing Supplements," the authors Neal Spruce and Allen Titchenal, PhD., agree: "Much work needs to be done to determine if CLA can help to reduce body fat in humans."


Phil Kaplan, a fitness consumer advocate and author of The Best You've Ever Been says, "CLA has been making a few headlines as a fat burner, and those headlines use the all-too-common words, 'research has proven.' The problem with these words is compounded by the fact that supplement sellers will only share research that appears to lend some credence to their offerings. Personally I'm not sold on CLA. It's expensive and the preponderance of available evidence suggests that it isn't a bodybuilding or fat loss aid."


 In Diet Supplements Revealed, Independent researcher and industry columnist Will Brink says, "Although some of the findings with CLA in people have been exciting and interesting, there continues to be too many conflicting studies. For increasing muscle mass or improving performance, CLA gets a thumbs down until more human research is done."


 Although CLA may have possible health benefits, it is still completely unproven as a fat burner or muscle builder in healthy humans, not to mention it's expensive and probably not cost effective even if it did have some small benefit. If you look closely at the studies, you'll see that the dosages given were enormous:


 According to John Ivy, PhD., and Robert Portman, PhD., authors of Nutrient Timing, "Some research has shown that supplemental CLA can reduce body fat content. however, this effect has been shown only in laboratory mice that received massive quantities of CLA, which humans could never practically match pound for pound. While CLA is an important nutrient, it is probably not a worthwhile supplement for reducing body fat or increasing muscle strength."


 Bottom line: Essential fatty acids (EFA's) are very important in human nutrition. I would recommend however, that you skip the CLA and instead focus on fixing your diet before even considering any supplements. Then, after you're sure you're getting plenty of EFA's from your food, if you want to take an EFA supplement, consider flaxseed oil or an essential oil blend such as Udo's Choice. Another option is fish oil, although, again, fix your diet first: If you eat fatty fish such as Salmon a couple times per week, you've got yourself covered.

 
Yes, Grant is right that there are health-related downsides to CLA even if it works for you.
 
fantastic post ShootMeAgain. Thanks for posting all the summaries and giving their source. Very nice!
 
Thanks for those words. I appreciate it because I am just trying to share some facts and differing points of view with people so they can make the best decisions for themselves.

I can't stand people who pick a position and then just defend it blindly. I'm not anti-CLA across the board... it may have benefits and for some people they may be substantial benefits, however, you need to know ALL the info and be aware that it is not, by any means, universally thought of as an effective supplement and it may carry with it some potential negative consequences.
 
shootmeagain said:



Bottom line: Essential fatty acids (EFA's) are very important in human nutrition. I would recommend however, that you skip the CLA and instead focus on fixing your diet before even considering any supplements. Then, after you're sure you're getting plenty of EFA's from your food, if you want to take an EFA supplement, consider flaxseed oil or an essential oil blend such as Udo's Choice. Another option is fish oil, although, again, fix your diet first: If you eat fatty fish such as Salmon a couple times per week, you've got yourself covered.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I think that the CLA I assume with Udo's oil is enough to not justify a CLA specific supplement.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top