Table 6 Comparisons of IL between curcumin supplement and placebo

(a) IL preexercise

Nicol LM

17

0

0

17

0

0

Tanabe Y

14

0.85

0.14

14

0.7

0.14

McFarlin BK

14

2.84

0.41

14

3.51

0.68

Tanabe Y scan pre

10

2.66

0.41

10

2.33

0.25

Tanabe Y scan post

10

2.58

0.41

10

2.62

0.66

Mallard AR (0–10)

13

12.1

10.1

14

10.1

22

UMD (95% CI)

 − 0.03 (− 0.35. 0.32)

(b) IL at 24 h

Nicol LM

17

0

0

17

0.42

1.875

Tanabe Y

14

0.77

0.21

14

1.13

0.56

McFarlin BK

14

2.36

0.41

14

3.72

0.68

Tanabe Y scan pre

10

2.7

0.5

10

3.11

0.99

Tanabe Y scan post

10

2.99

0.33

10

2.7

0.86

Mallard AR (0–10)

13

13.5

10.7

14

10.7

11.1

UMD (95%CI)

 − 0.46 (− 1.12, 0.02)

(c) IL at 48 h

Nicol LM

17

0.56

1.03

17

0

0

Tanabe Y

14

0.92

0.28

14

0.92

0.42

McFarlin BK

14

2.5

0.34

14

3.58

0.68

Mallard AR (0–10)

13

14.4

12

14

12

11.6

UMD (95%CI)

 − 0.49 (− 1.52, 0.54)

(d) IL at 72 h

Tanabe Y

14

0.92

0.42

14

1.27

0.56

McFarlin BK

14

2.64

0.41

14

3.45

0.68

Tanabe Y scan pre

10

3.15

0.58

10

2.82

0.62

Tanabe Y scan post

10

2.53

0.82

10

2.78

0.49

Mallard AR (0–10)

13

12.2

11.6

14

11.7

10

UMD (95%CI)

 − 0.29 (− 0.72, 0.14)

(e) IL at 96 h

Tanabe Y

14

1.76

2.53

14

1.9

1.97

McFarlin BK

14

2.3

0.41

14

3.51

0.68

UMD (95%CI)

 − 1.00 (− 1.83, − 0.16)