ZMA study

[Razz]

If anyone here is bothered to read the following study and confirm and/or tell me why it's valid or invalid it would be most appreciated.

What bothers me for now is:

Study was sponsored by ZMA patent holders

the huge difference just does not seem probable.. All hormones tested decreased in placebo and all hormones tested increased significantly in the ZMA group..

I think there was more but I forgot.......

http://faculty.css.edu/tboone2/asep/BrillaV2.PDF

[Neal Winkler]

Razz, as you said, the study was sponsored by those who can gain financially from the belief that it is an effective supplement.

That's why you should consider the totality of the evidence and look for studies that don't have this potential confounder.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18500945

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17882141

[Razz]

Damn you burst my bubble Thanks for those studies they proved (or at least pointed me towards) my 'hypothesis' that the study above was extremely biased

[Neal Winkler]

I would like to say that a study which is industry funded is not necessarily biased. If you only have one study and its industry funded then take it with a grain of salt. If more studies come out that don't have the bias and they agree with the industry funded one, then that gives more weight to the proposition that the researchers in the industry funded study were indeed being fair.

Furthermore, we should not assume that a government funded study is necessarily unbiased. The government has its hands in the pockets of big pharma, and when it comes to non-supplement subjects as well there is much power to be gained for the political class if they can assure that certain scientific conclusions are believed by the populace. Scientists cannot be entirely trusted even if they aren't supported by private companies (supplements, Big Pharma, ect.), as government funding is also a corrupting influence because if there is some "problem," the solution for which scientists must study, then this is great way to keep the government funds flowing into your lab (thus creating job security).

Bias is everywhere. Beware.

[Razz]

Yes of course, It does not seem to be the case though, as these two studies does not even agree like..1% with the first study..

[aoa]

So, in a nutshell, if money is not an issue and ZMA were free, is it worth taking it or not?

PS: I already take mineral (zinc, magnesium, etc.) and vitamin supplaments, is there anything special in the proprietary ZMA formula that makes it special?