4 ms·
The irony of the headline is that even the article itself is wrong. "A 2004 review of the evidence said that while CLA seemed to benefit animals, there was a l
by sjtrny 13y ago
The irony of the headline is that even the article itself is wrong.
"A 2004 review of the evidence said that while CLA seemed to benefit animals, there was a lack of good evidence of human health benefits, despite the many claims made for it."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conjugated_linoleic_acid http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conjugated_linoleic_acid
- taeric 13y agoThat seems to say more that we need more studies. That is, lack of good evidence is not necessarily bad evidence. Right?
- jaggederest 13y agoDamned by faint praise - when a review says 'more studies are needed', they mean 'you haven't proved a damn thing yet'. That's essentially the default conclusion of a review study, lack of good evidence means any claim at all is bogus. CLA could be a stone cold killer, or it could be Lazarus juice, but there's no way to tell from the current state of affairs. As such, the article is incorrect when it says CLA does X, where X is anything.
- taeric 13y agoFair enough. I can understand the article's bend, though. Basically, that beats a lot of what has passed as official health advice; where not only were the claims unproven, the evidence was usually contrary.