I'm doing linear regression on compositional data using log-ratio transformation with census data. The IVs are compositional (percents summing to 100). The DV is non-compositional and continuous.
The alr and clr results are more easily interpreted. They all produce the same measure of fit. I'm inclined to go with alr (or clr). Aitchison characterizes ilr as the "pure mathematics" approach, but my audience is not statisticians or mathematicians.
If my objective is only to communicate insight from the analysis, why should I go with the much more difficult to interpret ilr (with balances) approach?
I've read heaps of research by Aitchison, Juan Jose Egozcue and Vera Pawlosky-Glahn but not looking to debate.