The meta-analysis probably made a good conclusion that the studies lacked statistical power. However, that doesn't change the fact that those studies failed to find a statistical effect. You would never refer to them as studies that "have confirmed CLA can significantly reduce body fat", since they haven't, no matter what explanation a meta-analysis gives for those findings. You're exaggerating the evidence, plain and simple. There are not "dozens" of studies showing that CLA has a statistical effect on fat loss in humans.
You can say some studies found "more significant" results than others insofar as they had lower P values. But you continue to fail to recognize that the 10 studies had results that were "insignificant" since they did not reach a level of significance. This is why the meta-analysis says they "reported no statistical effect", contrary to your claims.
I find it funny that your ignorance leads you to equate the refutation of a false claim about the research with "bashing the product". I haven't said anything about the product. Nor have I said it lacks scientific support. I agree with the meta-analysis that you could expect to lose a modest 0.09 kg of fat per week from CLA supplementation.
Nope. The meta-analysis was right on point, recognizing that the "10 reported no statistical effect," contrary to your wishful thinking and specious marketing claim.
It does no good to stress that you're supporting your claims with peer-reviewed studies and clinical research. No one is disputing that. The problem is that you're exaggerating the evidence. The meta-analysis in no way constitutes "dozens" of studies confirming a significant effect from CLA. Even if every study in the meta-analysis reported a significant effect (which is NOT the case, as stated in the meta-analysis itself), it STILL would not be "dozens" of studies, would it now?
Uhmm... Ok, on their own each study lacks statistical power. However, when you combine the results of a bunch of studies lacking statistical power then, bada-bing, the weakness is overcome and you can infer utility from a trend that is based on non-significant individual components? You may want to do some remedial Stats work to determine the true utility of a meta-analysis.
If you think you "certainly can," then I'll call you to it. The meta-analysis listed 7 studies that showed statistically significant reductions in fat mass. Of the 10 with non-significant findings, 7 showed a (non-significant) reduction in fat mass, while 3 showed no reduction. That's a total of 14 studies from the meta-analysis that "show a positive trend (statistically and/or non-statistically significant)." Interestingly, Invalid Link Removed in resistance-trained men (the population most applicable to bodybuilders) showed not only no fat loss, but a relatively large fat gain from the CLA supplementation. It was treated in the meta-analysis as an outlier.
Both of the Gaullier studies you posted were already included in the meta-analysis. The Sneddon study is the one that I referred to in my last post that found fat gain in the lean, young group (though changes in fat mass in all groups were extremely non-significant).
I wouldn't say "so again"... so for the first time. We've just changed the criteria from studies showing a "significant" decrease in fat mass to studies showing any decrease, even if trivial and likely due to chance. Your original statement about "significant" decreases in body fat is definitely unsupported by the research. We're just seeing if you can find two dozen studies even if we make the standard of inclusion ridiculously low. It looks like you probably will, though you still need a few more.
It looks like one of the studies was left out (#33), but the other one you gave (#20) was not left out.
I hope you don't think that trivial, non-significant results (most of the 24) are "studies showing positive results in humans with CLA supplementation." Those are studies that FAILED to demonstrate results. They failed to show a statistical effect (and the meta-analysis doesn't magically change them into studies that did).
Yes, that was without changing the criteria from something ridiculously low (non-significance, other confounding variables, poor controls) to something even lower. Congrats, lol.
You absoultely have NOT shown enough research to support your statement. All you've done is seen if you could find 24 studies, even if we ignored significance and controls. Your statement, however, was about studies confirming SIGNIFICANT reductions in body fat. If you want to show support for your statement, give us 24 studies showing a significant effect on fat loss. You'd be doing good to muster half that. Don't kid yourself into thinking that all these studies with non-significant effects somehow support your original statement about significant reductions in fat mass.
A "statistically insignificant benefit" LOL. You're joking, right? Apparently the the meaning of statistical insignificance is over your head. It entails the failure to demonstrate a benefit. It means that the difference in the mean values is assumed to be due to random chance, NOT a "benefit" from the independant variable. Do you seriously not get that? That's the whole purpose of using t-tests for significance instead of just comparing the mean values from the two groups.
And apparently the implications of a meta-analysis are over your head. The meta-analysis in no way makes them 10 studies showing a statistically significant effect. :frustrate As the meta-analysis ITSELF stated, those 10 studies did NOT show a statistical effect. They never will.
You apparently didn't follow the thread well enough to understand what's going on...
Unbelievable, lol. You're still talking about "statistically insignificant benefits." That's an oxymoron. It makes no sense at all. I've already tried to explain to you why that is, but apparently it's not registering.
This again confirms you do not understand what statistical significance means. You keep conflating it with practical significance or "real world benefit." When you have a bunch of studies showing statistical significance and a bunch showing insignificance, it says absoultely nothing about the practical significance, which is what you think it bears on. The number of studies with statistical significance vs. insignificance HAS NOTHING TO DO with the real world, practical significance.
Wake up call: There IS NO BENEFIT when a study finds a statistically insignificant effect. That's the WHOLE POINT OF STATISTICS. When there's not statistical significance, it means the difference is attributed to CHANCE and NOT AT ALL to the independant variable. There is no middle ground. There is no "benefit." The fact that you keep talking about it as such indicates ignorance of rudimentary statistical principles.
There is no confusion about the fact that the meta-analysis concluded that based on all of the available studies, it is likely that CLA has an effect (a matter of statistical significance) and that the effect is modest (a matter of practical significance).
You're now backpeddling and trying to restate your position. What you said is NOT that "overall" there is a benefit that is significant. No. It was much more specific than that. You said there are "dozens of studies," which you then qualified as studies that "confirmed CLA can significantly reduce body fat." You're not talking about "overall." You're talking about dozens of studies THAT are a certain type of study, the type that concluded a significant reduction in fat mass. Don't try to restate what you said in terms that are more vague and forgiving.
It's not overcritical sniveling. It's a legitmate criticism of your dishonest exaggeration of the research. At best, there are around a dozen studies that confirmed a significant reduction in body fat. There are around just as many that FAILED to confirm a significant reduction in body fat. It's as simple as that. If you don't think you were exaggerating, then it's a testament to your poor comprehension of statistical principles and the meaning of statistical "significance."
Exactly, D. Apoptosis is a genetically programmed cell death (suicide). It typically manifests when a cell presents as either a threat, malformation, or cancerous agent to the body.
There are chemicals agents that can be locally introduced to illicit cellular death, but the risk factors of complications (mainly to healthy surounding tissue) are fairly significant as well.
I have a lot of CLA information I need to post up here on AM; that is once this baby finally decides to make an entrance.
Here before you know it.
You know now I will have to call you Papa John!
Lol - My wife HATES their pizza, haha. I think the thin crust isn't too bad myself.
If I haven't said it lately, "You're a good man Charlie Brown!"
