Can anyone please help me understand what does p-value in the study signify?

Such a great story! Be proud of you mate...

Given that this is just an abstract, there are limits to how much I can draw from it. BUT, I also think it's preliminary to dismiss this as meaningless.

First off, from what I've gathered, anything that leads to a calorie-independent reduction in liver fat (i.e., leads to loss of liver fat without overall caloric restriction) is of both academic and clinical interest. I've seen the debate over whether sugar causes fatty liver disease circle around this question for years, with anti-sugar researchers arguing sugar has detrimental effects independent of its caloric value and others arguing sugar overconsumption is merely a marker for caloric overconsumption. It's a politically, clinically, and academically important debate, as it helps us understand the specific factors that contribute to disease, and so the specific factors that we need to focus on reducing in our diets (by whichever means you prefer socially and politically).

I'm very sympathetic to the argument that to any extent the data indicates sugar has contributed to the major epidemics of metabolic disease, much of the same data (especially larger-scale, correlative data) could be used to point the finger at distortions in omega 3 and omega 6 fatty acid ratios. To the extent we can interpret these results, they would seem to provide compelling evidence that omega 6 fatty acids are specifically deleterious, and not merely a marker for poor diet. The magnitude of effect is less than that shown in similar, calorie-independent sugar restriction studies (see link below), but if these effects are additive, it would indicate the rise in the prevalence of fatty liver disease, especially among adolescents, may be attributable to a specific type of food - i.e., that rich in both sugars and n6 fatty acids.

At a glance, I've found a handful of other papers exploring this same issue, and I'm looking forward to diving into them. That suggests this is a hypothesis with at least some substance, particularly given these other sources suggest elevated n6 consumption may also exacerbate inflammation, fibrosis and other forms of NAFLD progression. I'm looking forward to reading these and better understanding this hypothesis.

I also am sympathetic to the predicament these researchers may be facing. NAFLD, despite its prevalence, appears to be a condition where (1) its clinical significance is broadly under-appreciated and (2) the majority of the funding and interest supporting its research is oriented toward pharmaceutical solutions, despite the wealth of data indicating dietary changes can dramatically prevent or reverse disease severity. Accordingly, I wouldn't be surprised if funding for studies like this one is hard to come by. While I'd love to believe we are past the point of studying this hypothesis using small, uncontrolled trials, this may be just the data necessary to justify a larger, more rigorously designed trial to more clearly understand the consistency and the magnitude of any negative impact omega 6 fatty acids may have on liver condition.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0016508517356858
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23862644
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17869370
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5996979/

Vishal,
Great job!  You are very inspirational.  Keep up the good work.

What a motivating way to start the week! What a great story this man has shared with us. 

I love this story. Thank you for sharing. 

A great story! From one of the greatest people I’ve ever had the pleasure of knowing! Keep it up!

Awesome story Vishal, thank you for sharing. Keep it up!

👍🏽🤛🏽💪🏽👏🏽 Beautiful! Way to go!

I don't understand. This doesn't show anything meaningful at all. What does the change in the average fat of a population show (especially with such large errors)? Did everybody lose a little fat (not likely with the error), etc. Did one guy lose a lot while all the others, gained?

This is, of course, an un-reviewed (why?) abstract but one figure could have told the story: values for each participant before and after. None of the authors know this?