Conjugated linoleic acid (CLA) is a family of fatty acids found in small amounts in beef, lamb and dairy. As a supplement, it is usually sold as a factory-made oil from safflower oil, with roughly equal amounts of two forms, or isomers: cis-9,trans-11 (c9,t11) and trans-10,cis-12 (t10,c12). It is marketed for fat loss and “toning,” often under the Tonalin and Clarinol ingredient names.
The most important fact is the gap between mice and people. In an early study, mice fed CLA had more than 50% less body fat than controls. In a meta-analysis of 70 human trials covering 4,159 adults, the average fat loss was under half a kilogram, and the effect on fat mass disappeared in the higher-quality trials. EFSA, the European food safety regulator, rejected a body fat claim in 2015 because the fat loss came with rising markers of lipid peroxidation and inflammation.
This page summarizes what the FDA record, EFSA and clinical trials report. It is for education only and is not medical advice.
| Property | Detail |
|---|---|
| Type | Fatty acid (18-carbon isomers of linoleic acid); dietary supplement and food ingredient |
| Main supplement forms | About 1:1 c9,t11 and t10,c12 oil; Clarinol and Tonalin TG 80 are about 80% CLA |
| Food sources | Mainly ruminant foods such as beef, milk and cheese; over 90% of dietary CLA is c9,t11 |
| Intake from food | About 212 mg/day in men and 151 mg/day in women in a US duplicate-meal study; about 0.3 g/day estimated for Europe |
| Doses in cited trials | Mostly 3–6 g/day, for 4 weeks to 1 year |
| Half-life | No value established here; EFSA says it follows the standard metabolic pathways for dietary fatty acids |
| US status | FDA “no questions” letters on a GRAS notice for use in specified foods, up to 3 g per person per day |
| EFSA position | Safe for up to 6 months at the proposed doses; safety over 6 months and in type 2 diabetes not established; body fat claim rejected |
| WADA status | Not named on the 2026 Prohibited List |
What it is
Linoleic acid is an omega-6 fat with two double bonds. In CLA, those double bonds sit next to each other in a “conjugated” arrangement, and they can have cis or trans geometry. Natural CLA is a mix of isomers with double bonds mainly at positions 8 and 10, 9 and 11, 10 and 12, or 11 and 13 (FDA GRN 232).
Two isomers matter for this page. EFSA attributes the main unfavorable effects to t10,c12, though the trials below show the picture is not that simple (EFSA 2010):
| Isomer | Where it comes from | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|
| c9,t11 (rumenic acid) | Main form in food, at over 90% of dietary CLA; about half of a typical supplement | Makes up nearly all CLA in a normal diet |
| t10,c12 | A small share of dietary CLA; about half of a typical supplement | Linked to the fat loss in animals, and to most of the adverse metabolic findings |
Food compared with supplements
Ruminant foods such as beef, milk and cheese appear to have the highest CLA content (FDA GRN 232). In a US study of 93 adults using duplicate meals, total CLA intake averaged 212 mg/day in men and 151 mg/day in women, of which 193 and 140 mg/day was c9,t11 (Ritzenthaler et al., J Nutr 2001). Diet records and questionnaires underestimated these amounts. EFSA estimated a European average of about 0.3 g/day (EFSA 2010).
A supplement is therefore a different exposure from food. EFSA calculated that 3 g/day of CLA from a 1:1 oil raises total CLA intake about 10-fold, c9,t11 about 6-fold and t10,c12 about 50-fold compared with the European diet. Results from supplement trials cannot be assumed to apply to dairy or meat.
How supplements are made
The FDA notice describes the process. Safflower oil is split with alkali, which also shifts the linoleic acid into its conjugated forms. The product is then neutralized, washed, dried and distilled. A lipase enzyme attaches the fatty acids to glycerol, and the oil is bleached and deodorized (FDA GRN 232).
About “natural safflower CLA.” The name can suggest that CLA occurs naturally in safflower. In EFSA’s composition table, crude safflower oil contained about 78% linoleic acid and 0% of the two main CLA isomers. Three batches of Clarinol made from it contained about 37% of each isomer. The CLA is created during processing.
Batch data for Clarinol showed 78%–80% total CLA, so about 3.75 g of oil supplies about 3 g of CLA (EFSA 2010). This matters when reading labels and trials, since some report grams of oil and others grams of CLA.
How it works in the body
EFSA notes that CLA follows standard fatty acid metabolism, and that animal studies show a large share is burned for energy. It provides about 9 kcal/g, like other fats (EFSA 2010).
Most mechanism data come from animals and cell culture:
- In mice and cultured fat cells. Lower fat deposition and more fat breakdown (lipolysis), possibly with more fat burning in muscle and fat cells (Park et al., Lipids 1997).
- In mouse liver. t10,c12, but not c9,t11, caused high insulin levels and raised genes for fat uptake and fat synthesis (Clément et al., J Lipid Res 2002).
- In human fat cells in culture. t10,c12 appears to affect fatty acid synthesis and suppress insulin sensitivity (EFSA 2010).
Some of these mechanisms may not transfer well to people. A review comparing animal and human studies points out that fat synthesis in human white fat tissue is very low, and that humans are relatively insensitive to the peroxisome proliferation proposed as a route to higher liver fat burning (Navarro et al., J Physiol Biochem 2006).
Regulatory status
United States
CLA’s FDA record is a GRAS (generally recognized as safe) notice, not a drug approval. The notice, GRN 232, came from Lipid Nutrition and Cognis:
- July 2008 letter. The notice covered specified foods within soy milk, meal replacement beverages and bars, milk products and fruit juices, at up to 1.5 g per serving. FDA had “no questions” about the firms’ conclusion.
- September 2009 letter. FDA also had no questions about use at levels up to 3 g per person per day. FDA’s inventory page words this as up to 3 g per serving, but the letter itself says per person per day.
- What the letters do not mean. FDA stated that it had not made its own GRAS determination. It also did not evaluate whether the data support any label claims (FDA GRN 232).
The uses in the notice are foods, not supplement capsules. The safety statements in the notice, such as safe use at up to 6 g/day for 1 year, are the notifiers’ conclusions. They are not FDA findings.
European Union
EFSA has assessed CLA several times:
| Year | Subject | Outcome |
|---|---|---|
| 2010 | Clarinol as a novel food, 3 g CLA/day | Safe for up to 6 months in adults; not established beyond 6 months or in type 2 diabetes (EFSA 2010) |
| 2012 | Update on Clarinol and Tonalin TG 80 (3–3.5 g CLA/day) | New data did not change the conclusions; longer-term effects on insulin sensitivity, the artery wall and fatty liver still unaddressed (EFSA 2012) |
| 2015 | “Contributes to a reduction in body fat mass” claim for Clarinol and Tonalin | Cause-and-effect relationship with a beneficial physiological effect not established (EFSA 2015) |
The 2015 rejection did not turn on whether fat is lost. EFSA said the applicants had not shown that a reduction in body fat is a beneficial effect when it comes with higher markers of lipid peroxidation and inflammation. The panel’s concern was a “potential” for long-term vascular damage. In 2010 it had noted that no human data on the artery wall were provided, so this is a question raised by markers, not a demonstrated harm.
What the research shows
Fat mass and body weight
Meta-analyses agree on the direction of the effect and that it is small. They differ on how much of it survives quality checks.
| Analysis | Population | Body weight | Fat mass | Lean or fat-free mass |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Asbaghi et al., Br J Nutr 2024 | 70 RCTs, 4,159 adults | −0.35 (95% CI −0.54 to −0.15) | −0.44 (95% CI −0.66 to −0.23) | +0.27 (95% CI 0.09 to 0.45) |
| Onakpoya et al., Eur J Nutr 2012 | 7 RCTs of at least 6 months, overweight or obese | −0.70 kg (95% CI −1.09 to −0.32) | −1.33 kg (95% CI −1.79 to −0.86) | Not given in abstract |
| Whigham et al., AJCN 2007; Schoeller et al., APNM 2009 | 18 double-blind RCTs in humans | Not the outcome analyzed | −0.09 ± 0.08 kg/week vs placebo, adjusted to 3.2 g/day | +0.3 ± 0.7 kg (P = 0.05) |
The Asbaghi abstract does not state units for these values; they are presumably kg. Effects are CLA compared with control.
These numbers do not add up neatly, and they are not expected to. In both Asbaghi and Onakpoya, fat loss is larger than weight loss. Each outcome is pooled separately from whichever trials reported it, so fat, lean and total weight estimates can come from different sets of trials. A small rise in lean mass could also contribute.
Key findings beyond the headline numbers:
- Quality matters. In Asbaghi’s high-quality subgroup, CLA did not change fat mass or body fat percentage, although small changes in weight, BMI and fat-free mass remained. The authors concluded that weight-loss effects may not reach clinical importance.
- Long-term data are limited. Of the seven trials in Onakpoya, four had serious reporting flaws. The authors said the evidence does not convincingly show clinically relevant long-term effects.
- The rate does not hold. Whigham found a roughly linear effect for up to 6 months, which then slowly leveled off toward 2 years. Multiplying the weekly figure over many months would overstate the effect.
Single long trials show why results vary:
| Trial | Who | Design | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gaullier et al., AJCN 2004 | 180 healthy adults, BMI 25–30, free diet | CLA as triglyceride or free fatty acid vs olive oil, 1 year | Fat mass 8.7% (triglyceride) and 6.9% (free fatty acid) lower than placebo; lean mass 1.8% higher in the free fatty acid group only. From baseline, LDL rose in the free fatty acid group, HDL fell in the triglyceride group, and lipoprotein(a) rose in both |
| Larsen et al., AJCN 2006 | 101 obese adults, BMI over 28, after losing over 8% of body weight | 3.4 g/day vs olive oil, 1 year | No difference in regain: 4.0 kg of weight in both groups; fat regain 2.1 vs 2.7 kg (not significant) |
Lean mass and strength
The pooled lean mass effect is real in statistical terms but small. Schoeller’s analysis found a rise of about 0.3 kg, under 1%, with no link to dose or treatment length (Schoeller et al., APNM 2009). Asbaghi’s estimate of +0.27 is similar and held in the high-quality subgroup.
Trials with resistance training are mostly short and small, and they disagree:
| Trial | Who | Dose and length | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pinkoski et al., MSSE 2006 | 76 subjects resistance training 3 days a week | 5 g/day, 7 weeks | Lean tissue +1.4 vs +0.2 kg; fat −0.8 vs +0.4 kg. Most strength measures similar; bench press rose more in men on CLA. A 17-person crossover phase showed minimal body composition change |
| Kreider et al., JSCR 2002 | 23 experienced resistance-trained subjects | 6 g/day, 28 days | No significant effect on fat-free mass, fat mass, bone mass or strength |
A 2023 meta-analysis of 18 randomized and 2 crossover trials combined CLA with exercise. Compared with exercise alone, CLA lowered body fat (SMD −0.42; 95% CI −0.70 to −0.14) and insulin resistance (SMD −0.25; 95% CI −0.44 to −0.06), but it did not improve body weight, exercise performance or lipids. SMD is a standardized effect size, not a weight in kg. Significant results were linked to BMI of 25 or higher, female sex and interventions longer than 4 weeks (Liang et al., Nutr Rev 2023).
We found no good evidence that CLA is a meaningful muscle-building or strength aid in trained lifters. The one trial above in experienced lifters was small and short, so it cannot rule out a small effect.
Animal results compared with human results
| Measure | Mice | Humans |
|---|---|---|
| Body fat | 57%–60% lower with 0.5% of the diet as CLA (Park et al., Lipids 1997) | Pooled loss of about 0.4–1.3 kg in the Asbaghi and Onakpoya analyses above |
| Lean mass | 5%–14% higher in the same study | Under 1% (Schoeller et al., APNM 2009) |
| Liver | t10,c12 at 0.4% of the diet for 4 weeks caused fat tissue loss, high insulin and fatty liver; c9,t11 did not (Clément et al., J Lipid Res 2002) | Most trials found no effect on liver enzymes; rare severe case reports (see below) |
EFSA says mice seem particularly sensitive to CLA, and that effects on insulin, liver fat and cardiovascular markers appear to depend on species. For that reason, it based its safety assessment mainly on human studies (EFSA 2010).
Navarro and colleagues list possible reasons for the gap. Rodents usually got higher doses and were often still growing, while human studies enrolled adults. Human trials mostly used mixed isomers, which dilutes t10,c12. Diet and genetics also vary (Navarro et al., J Physiol Biochem 2006).
Side effects and risks
Insulin resistance and blood glucose
Results depend on the population, the isomer and how insulin sensitivity was measured. The clamp method in the table is considered the standard measure.
| Trial | Who | Treatment | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Risérus et al., Diabetes Care 2002 | 60 abdominally obese men | 3.4 g/day t10,c12, CLA mix or placebo, 12 weeks (clamp) | t10,c12: insulin resistance +19%, glycemia +4%, HDL −4%. Mix: no glucose change, HDL −2% |
| Risérus et al., AJCN 2004 | 25 abdominally obese men | 3 g/day c9,t11 or olive oil, 3 months (clamp) | Insulin sensitivity −15%; urinary 8-iso-prostaglandin F2α, a lipid peroxidation marker, +50% |
| Moloney et al., AJCN 2004 | 32 adults with diet-controlled type 2 diabetes | 3 g/day 1:1 mix or control, 8 weeks | Fasting glucose +6.3%; lower insulin sensitivity. HDL +8% and lower LDL:HDL ratio |
| Syvertsen et al., Int J Obes 2007 | Overweight or obese adults; 41 completed both clamps | Clarinol or olive oil, 6 months (clamp) | No effect on glucose metabolism or insulin sensitivity |
Two points stand out. The common idea that only t10,c12 is the problem isn’t fully supported, because purified c9,t11 also lowered insulin sensitivity in the small clamp trial above. Also, these were short trials of surrogate measures, and none of them measured new cases of diabetes.
The pooled picture is modest. In patients at risk of cardiovascular disease, a meta-analysis of 13 RCTs found fasting glucose rose by 4.49 mg/dL (95% CI 2.39–6.59), with no effect on HbA1c or HOMA-IR. The authors said the effects may not reach clinical importance (Ghodoosi et al., Nutr J 2023). The exercise meta-analysis above found lower insulin resistance, so the direction is not consistent across settings.
EFSA concluded that the 1:1 mix does not appear to harm insulin sensitivity or glucose control in non-diabetic people for up to 6 months. It did not establish safety in type 2 diabetes, since the mix appeared to worsen surrogate insulin markers and fasting glucose (EFSA 2010).
Blood lipids
- Isomers can diverge. In healthy men, t10,c12 raised the LDL:HDL and total:HDL cholesterol ratios, while c9,t11 lowered them. Doses ran up to about 2.5 g/day of each isomer in sequential 8-week periods (Tricon et al., AJCN 2004).
- Pooled effect on HDL. In 56 RCTs, CLA lowered HDL slightly (−0.40 mg/dL; 95% CI −0.72 to −0.07), with no significant change in triglycerides, total cholesterol or LDL, whose confidence intervals crossed zero. The paper’s abstract says HDL “increased” and “improved,” but its results section reports a significant reduction, which matches the negative value (Asbaghi et al., Front Nutr 2022).
- EFSA’s reading. The 1:1 mix had no effect on LDL or the LDL:HDL ratio. A modest fall in HDL and rise in triglycerides could not be excluded, but these were judged unlikely to affect heart disease risk (EFSA 2010).
- Lipoprotein(a). EFSA described a rise from 0.24 to 0.28 g/L at 12 months and 0.30 g/L at 24 months in one long study. EFSA said this stayed below the generally accepted 0.30 g/L cut-off, although the 24-month value equals that figure. In another 6-month study, the rise was similar with placebo.
Comparator oils complicate these results. Many trials used olive oil as the placebo, and in the meta-analysis EFSA reviewed, HDL was significantly lower with CLA only in the olive oil trials.
Lipid peroxidation, inflammation and blood vessels
This is the finding that drove EFSA’s 2015 decision:
- Isoprostanes. EFSA found that plasma and urinary F2-isoprostanes, markers of lipid peroxidation, “consistently and markedly” rise with the CLA mix in humans, and more with t10,c12 than with the mix (EFSA 2010).
- Inflammation markers. A prostaglandin-derived urinary marker rose consistently, and C-reactive protein rose in some studies but not in others.
- Blood vessel function. In 40 healthy volunteers with BMI over 27, 12 weeks of a CLA mix lowered flow-mediated dilation, a measure of artery function, by 1.3% (P = 0.013), and raised plasma F2-isoprostanes. BMI and total body fat did not change significantly (Taylor et al., ATVB 2006).
A meta-analysis found that CLA lowered malondialdehyde, a different oxidation marker (Haghighat et al., Pharmacol Res 2022). EFSA has said that malondialdehyde alone, measured without urinary F2-isoprostanes, is not a reliable marker of lipid peroxidation, so this does not cancel the isoprostane signal. No human data show whether these marker changes lead to artery disease.
Liver
Controlled trials and case reports give different signals:
- Pooled enzymes. In 22 RCTs of adults, ALT and AST did not change (Haghighat et al., Pharmacol Res 2022). In patients at cardiovascular risk, AST rose slightly (+2.54 IU/L; 95% CI 0.06–5.01), and ALT did not change (Ghodoosi et al., Nutr J 2023).
- Liver fat. In the 12-week blood vessel trial above, CT scans showed no significant change in liver fat (Taylor et al., ATVB 2006). EFSA said that effects on fatty liver over longer than 6 months have not been adequately studied in humans, and that ultrasound is unreliable for measuring liver fat.
- Long-term enzymes. In a study of up to 24 months, 2 of 134 people had above-normal ALT and AST at the end, and these returned to baseline 4 weeks after stopping, according to EFSA.
Severe injury has been reported, though rarely:
| Case | Exposure | Course |
|---|---|---|
| Healthy woman; causality scored as probable | CLA mix, 3 g three times daily, 14 days | Toxic hepatitis confirmed by biopsy; enzymes normal within 2 months of stopping (EFSA 2010) |
| 42-year-old woman, US, with Gilbert syndrome and past alcohol use | About 200 mg/day of CLA by the authors’ estimate, in a multi-ingredient fat burner, for 1–1.5 months | Acute liver failure and liver transplant (Saffran et al., J Clin Exp Hepatol 2024) |
The US case is hard to attribute with certainty. The product also contained L-carnitine tartrate, caffeine, choline, cayenne and grains of paradise, and the authors also discussed green tea extract as possibly hepatotoxic. They considered CLA the most likely cause, after ruling out other causes. The same report cites an earlier transplant case in a 63-year-old woman. Case reports cannot establish how often this happens or prove cause. In 2010, EFSA noted that only one case had been published, against reported European sales of 170–180 tons of CLA per year.
Common side effects
In trials, adverse events were generally rare and moderate, and occurred at similar rates with placebo (EFSA 2010). Mild digestive complaints are the most consistent, including constipation, diarrhea and soft stools (Onakpoya et al., Eur J Nutr 2012). In a Spanish post-market survey, about 2% of consumers (25 of 1,235) reported adverse effects, mostly digestive, though causality was unclear because most were taking medicines (EFSA 2010). With exercise, the pooled risk ratio for adverse events was 1.32 (95% CI 0.94–1.84), not statistically significant (Liang et al., Nutr Rev 2023).
Who the safety data do not cover
- People with type 2 diabetes. EFSA did not establish safety.
- Use beyond 6 months. EFSA did not establish safety, even though some trials ran for 1–2 years.
- Children and teenagers. EFSA’s assessment concerned a product intended for adults.
Legal status and use in sport
CLA is not named on the WADA 2026 Prohibited List. CLA is also sold in multi-ingredient fat burners, as in the liver case above, and a page on CLA does not describe the status or risks of the other ingredients.
For other fat-loss supplements in the library, see Garcinia cambogia and Forskolin. For a fat supplement with a different evidence base, see Fish oil (omega-3).
Key takeaways
- Small effect in people. A 70-trial meta-analysis found about 0.4 kg less fat mass and 0.35 kg less body weight than control, and the fat effect disappeared in high-quality trials.
- Much stronger in mice. Mice had 57%–60% less body fat than controls in an early study, which is not a useful guide to human results.
- Little support as a muscle builder. Pooled lean mass gains are about 0.3 kg, and evidence for strength in trained lifters is thin and mixed.
- Isomers differ, but neither is cleared. t10,c12 has the most adverse findings, yet purified c9,t11 also lowered insulin sensitivity in a small trial of obese men.
- Regulators are cautious. FDA has “no questions” on a GRAS notice for specified foods but made no determination of its own. EFSA accepted safety only for up to 6 months, excluded type 2 diabetes from that conclusion and rejected the body fat claim.
- Liver injury is rare but documented. Pooled trials show little change in liver enzymes, but case reports include acute liver failure, some involving multi-ingredient products.
Sources
- US Food and Drug Administration. GRAS Notice No. GRN 232: Conjugated linoleic acid isomers. Agency response letter, July 11, 2008; additional correspondence, September 8, 2009. FDA.
- EFSA Panel on Dietetic Products, Nutrition and Allergies (NDA). Scientific Opinion on the safety of “conjugated linoleic acid (CLA)-rich oil” (Clarinol®) as a Novel Food ingredient. EFSA J. 2010;8(5):1601. EFSA Journal.
- EFSA Panel on Dietetic Products, Nutrition and Allergies (NDA). Statement on the safety of the “conjugated linoleic acid (CLA) rich oils” Clarinol® and Tonalin® TG 80 as Novel Food ingredients. EFSA J. 2012;10(5):2700. PubMed.
- EFSA Panel on Dietetic Products, Nutrition and Allergies (NDA). Scientific Opinion on the substantiation of a health claim related to an equimolar mixture of the CLA isomers c9,t11 and t10,c12 (marketed as Clarinol® and Tonalin®) and “contributes to a reduction in body fat mass” pursuant to Article 13(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006. EFSA J. 2015;13(1):3953. EFSA Journal.
- World Anti-Doping Agency. The 2026 Prohibited List. WADA 2026 Prohibited List.
- Asbaghi O, Shimi G, Hosseini Oskouie F, et al. The effects of conjugated linoleic acid supplementation on anthropometrics and body composition indices in adults: a systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis. Br J Nutr. 2024;131(3):406–428. PubMed.
- Onakpoya IJ, Posadzki PP, Watson LK, et al. The efficacy of long-term conjugated linoleic acid (CLA) supplementation on body composition in overweight and obese individuals: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Eur J Nutr. 2012;51(2):127–134. PubMed.
- Whigham LD, Watras AC, Schoeller DA. Efficacy of conjugated linoleic acid for reducing fat mass: a meta-analysis in humans. Am J Clin Nutr. 2007;85(5):1203–1211. PubMed.
- Schoeller DA, Watras AC, Whigham LD. A meta-analysis of the effects of conjugated linoleic acid on fat-free mass in humans. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab. 2009;34(5):975–978. PubMed.
- Liang CW, Cheng HY, Lee YH, et al. Effects of conjugated linoleic acid and exercise on body composition and obesity: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Nutr Rev. 2023;81(4):397–415. PubMed.
- Gaullier JM, Halse J, Høye K, et al. Conjugated linoleic acid supplementation for 1 y reduces body fat mass in healthy overweight humans. Am J Clin Nutr. 2004;79(6):1118–1125. PubMed.
- Larsen TM, Toubro S, Gudmundsen O, et al. Conjugated linoleic acid supplementation for 1 y does not prevent weight or body fat regain. Am J Clin Nutr. 2006;83(3):606–612. PubMed.
- Pinkoski C, Chilibeck PD, Candow DG, et al. The effects of conjugated linoleic acid supplementation during resistance training. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2006;38(2):339–348. PubMed.
- Kreider RB, Ferreira MP, Greenwood M, et al. Effects of conjugated linoleic acid supplementation during resistance training on body composition, bone density, strength, and selected hematological markers. J Strength Cond Res. 2002;16(3):325–334. PubMed.
- Risérus U, Arner P, Brismar K, et al. Treatment with dietary trans10cis12 conjugated linoleic acid causes isomer-specific insulin resistance in obese men with the metabolic syndrome. Diabetes Care. 2002;25(9):1516–1521. PubMed.
- Risérus U, Vessby B, Arnlöv J, et al. Effects of cis-9,trans-11 conjugated linoleic acid supplementation on insulin sensitivity, lipid peroxidation, and proinflammatory markers in obese men. Am J Clin Nutr. 2004;80(2):279–283. PubMed.
- Moloney F, Yeow TP, Mullen A, et al. Conjugated linoleic acid supplementation, insulin sensitivity, and lipoprotein metabolism in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Am J Clin Nutr. 2004;80(4):887–895. PubMed.
- Syvertsen C, Halse J, Høivik HO, et al. The effect of 6 months supplementation with conjugated linoleic acid on insulin resistance in overweight and obese. Int J Obes (Lond). 2007;31(7):1148–1154. PubMed.
- Ghodoosi N, Rasaei N, Goudarzi K, et al. The effects of conjugated linoleic acid supplementation on glycemic control, adipokines, cytokines, malondialdehyde and liver function enzymes in patients at risk of cardiovascular disease: a GRADE-assessed systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis. Nutr J. 2023;22(1):47. PubMed.
- Tricon S, Burdge GC, Kew S, et al. Opposing effects of cis-9,trans-11 and trans-10,cis-12 conjugated linoleic acid on blood lipids in healthy humans. Am J Clin Nutr. 2004;80(3):614–620. PubMed.
- Asbaghi O, Ashtary-Larky D, Naseri K, et al. The effects of conjugated linoleic acid supplementation on lipid profile in adults: a systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis. Front Nutr. 2022;9:953012. PubMed.
- Taylor JS, Williams SR, Rhys R, et al. Conjugated linoleic acid impairs endothelial function. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 2006;26(2):307–312. PubMed.
- Haghighat N, Shimi G, Shiraseb F, et al. The effects of conjugated linoleic acid supplementation on liver function enzymes and malondialdehyde in adults: a GRADE-assessed systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis. Pharmacol Res. 2022;186:106518. PubMed.
- Saffran NL, Gross AS, Yu AT. Conjugated linoleic acid-induced hepatotoxicity requiring liver transplant. J Clin Exp Hepatol. 2024;14(6):101408. PubMed.
- Park Y, Albright KJ, Liu W, et al. Effect of conjugated linoleic acid on body composition in mice. Lipids. 1997;32(8):853–858. PubMed.
- Clément L, Poirier H, Niot I, et al. Dietary trans-10,cis-12 conjugated linoleic acid induces hyperinsulinemia and fatty liver in the mouse. J Lipid Res. 2002;43(9):1400–1409. PubMed.
- Navarro V, Fernández-Quintela A, Churruca I, et al. The body fat-lowering effect of conjugated linoleic acid: a comparison between animal and human studies. J Physiol Biochem. 2006;62(2):137–147. PubMed.
- Ritzenthaler KL, McGuire MK, Falen R, et al. Estimation of conjugated linoleic acid intake by written dietary assessment methodologies underestimates actual intake evaluated by food duplicate methodology. J Nutr. 2001;131(5):1548–1554. PubMed.