Recent Studies Show That CLA Might Improve Anabolic Levels
( Advanced Supplementation Science & Research ) ..
Conjugated linoleic acid (CLA) consists of a series of positional and geometric dienoic isomers of linoleic acid that occurs naturally in foods. That's the technical definition, but in plainspeak, CLA is a fatty acid found mainly in cooked beef that has undergone a minor
structural change. But with that change comes a tremendous alteration in its biological properties. You're thinking: "Fat is fat. How can it be good for me" Well, this fat is unlike any other.
For one thing, CLA exhibits antioxidant and anticancer properties. Michael Parixa, PhD. who has done the hulk of existing CLA research, has shown that in laboratory mice with skin lesions and tumors, those treated with CIA had very minor or small lesions compared to untreated
mice to another experiment. Parixa fed rabbits 0.5 gram of CLA per day and found that 12 weeks t if treatment reduced low-density-lipoprotein ("had") cholesterol and triglycerides dramatically. The aorta (the large vessel leaving the left ventricle of the heart) of these rabbits
was less clogged with plaque than those of the rabbits not fed CLA.
Additionally, CLA has been shown to overcome some of the catabolic effects of endotoxin (a poison contained in a cell) injection in mice. You might ask: "So what? So it helps fight heart disease and cancer heck, I could just eat a bunch of fruit and veggies or load up on Vitamin F.
But will it make my workouts better? Will it make me bigger, leaner and more muscular".
POTENTIAL EFFECTS
A study presented at the 1997 National Strength and Conditioning Association conference examined the idea that CLA supplementation might have a similar effect in humans as it does in our four-legged friends - producing a leaner, more muscular creature. This time, scientists used
resistance-trained men, not rodents, who complemented daily with either 9 grams of olive oil (a placebo) or CLA (6 grams plus 3.2 grams of fatty acids). After a 28-day supplementation period, no differences were found in the subjects' gross measures such as bodyweight, fat mass or
fat-free mass. Researchers did, however, find some interesting data suggesting that a longer supplementation period might have produced statistically significant differences.
An analysis of the subjects strength showed that the CLA group increased their bench press by 55 Pounds and their leg press by 30.6 pounds Though not statistically significant. these changes could he indicative of a trend. In addition, sonic differences existed in the ratio if blood
urea nitrogen to creatine which, as a marker of anabolic/catabolic status, would suggest a potential net anabolic effect.
Certainly the human study' could he criticized for showing no statistically significant differences, which you might say once again proves what a worthless hunch of **** this supplement is. On the other hand (this is the view I'd take). just because the differences weren't
statistically significant doesn't mean they weren't physiologically significant. As a real life example, compare the times of world-class 100-meter sprinters over the course of a season and you'd he hardpressed to find statistically significant differences (they often vary by only
hundredths of a second) Yet an obvious difference exists for a bodybuilder.
A 1%-2% difference in muscle mass is physiologically huge! Furthermore, the human studies examined a four-week supplementation period, whereas Pariza's animal studies lasted eight weeks, and those particular animal studies did exhibit both physiologically and statistically significant
changes in lean body mass - and one week for a rat is a much longer period relative to that animal's life span than it is for a human. If this type of study were carried out for several months on humans, I think it's wholly possible that you'd get demonstrable differences. Perhaps
that study is being carried out as you read this. Nonetheless, is it worthwhile to supplement with CLA? Maybe. As mentioned, CLA is found in its highest concentrations in cooked meats such as beef and less so in poultry and eggs. Vegetable fats are a poor source.
|
