Unfortunately, the technical meaning of the terms “significant” and “insignificant” differs radically from what the average reader would assume they mean.
The term “significant” in no way means that the average observed effect must be large or potentially worthwhile in the slightest.
It has just absolutely nothing to do with such considerations.
Likewise, the term “insignificant” in no way means that the average observed effect must be small or cannot be large enough that if real would be worthwhile.
It has just absolutely nothing to do with those considerations.
Instead, the terms have to do with whether the degree of “statistical noise” as judged by random variation that was observed is small enough to have confidence that there was a real cause to the observed average result or not.
A “significant” effect may have been microscopically and trivially small, but if the random variation is much smaller yet than that is no barrier to being "significant.
An “insignificant” effect may have been on average quite large and important if real, but is deemed “insignificant” if the random variation was too severe to be confident that randomness wasn’t the cause.
The specific data would be needed to say anything, not this writeup which is fundamentally meaningless for the above reasons.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Unfortunately, the technical meaning of the terms “significant” and “insignificant” differs radically from what the average reader would assume they mean.
The term “significant” [b]in no way means that the average observed effect must be large or potentially worthwhile in the slightest.[b]
It has just absolutely nothing to do with such considerations.
Likewise, the term “insignificant” in no way means that the average observed effect must be small or cannot be large enough that if real would be worthwhile.
It has just absolutely nothing to do with those considerations.
Instead, the terms have to do with whether the degree of “statistical noise” as judged by random variation that was observed is small enough to have confidence that there was a real cause to the observed average result or not.
A “significant” effect may have been microscopically and trivially small, but if the random variation is much smaller yet than that is no barrier to being "significant.
An “insignificant” effect may have been on average quite large and important if real, but is deemed “insignificant” if the random variation was too severe to be confident that randomness wasn’t the cause.
The specific data would be needed to say anything, not this writeup which is fundamentally meaningless for the above reasons.[/quote]
What form of Zinc do you think is best?
You activity on the forums is appreciated. Too much bro talk lately with a lack of intelligent discussion before your increased presence.
Thank you for the kind words though I have confidence there was no lack before, either!
So far as having some small advantage such as you might need taking 5 fewer milligrams of zinc for same effect if using this organic form vs that organic form, almost undoubtedly there would be such differences if a comparison, human use study was done between the types one was interested in and provided that study managed to have random variation low enough to not hide small effects.
I would tend to think that if a study picked up, say, some small difference in the hair but could detect no change in serum, while the hair probably would indicate that other tissues are also finding higher availability of zinc to them, if the serum measures the same it’s hard to assume there is functionally a big difference.
Personally I would be happy with any of the organic zincs, or zinc sulfate.
Price differences between products of different companies would seem more relevant than whether to get exactly X effect, with one brand you’d need say 50 mg zinc per day and the other brand, say 45 mg or 55 mg.
The amount of variation in how much zinc one gets from the diet is a bigger factor in than that is.
But some like saying “This is the optimum” even when no practical difference results.