More Anti-Supplement Media Bias…
Sigh…
Just got through eyeballing an LA Times article “Here’s what’s in those weight-loss supplements“. As is often the case, it’s one of those semi-factual hatchet jobs we’ve all come to know and expect from the mainstream media.
This para was a real standout…
The labels rarely clarify the contents. Where details and dosages are provided at all, they are frequently presented as a bewildering mix of Latin plant names, trademarked monikers for a company’s own mix of ingredients and, often, invented words that sound scientific but mean nothing to chemists or pharmacologists. Hydroxycut’s “Hardcore,” for instance, touts its “norepidrol intensity focus blend” as an aid to focus and attention. Another supplement, TheraStress, declares that its active compound of “adaptogens” helps fight weight gain brought on by stress.
For consumers seeking full disclosure, these labels may as well declare the product is made of genuine atoms.
The author, Melissa Healy, is right to ding Iovate for creating silly names for its proprietary blends. But she’s seriously mistaken if she thinks the term ”adaptogens” is in the same class. You’d think a reporter who knows her stuff might wander over to the National Library of Medicine database, PubMed, and try a search, first – just to make sure.
When I did this search, I came up with links to 89 scientific journal abstracts for “adaptogens” and 184 for “adaptogenic”. It’s a pretty common scientific term, so I’d be willing to wager at least some pharmacologists are familar with it.
Healy’s also on pretty shaky ground when she criticizes supp labels for being confusing. I’m sure she’s correct in her assumption that most consumers wouldn’t recognize the ”bewildering mix” of botanical names. But has she picked up a box of Twinkies lately? Does she think consumers understand what sodium stearoyl lactylate, “natural and artificial flavors”, calcium caseinate or polysorbate 60 are, either?
The ingredient label for a Twinkie is an equally “bewildering mix”, methinks…and you’re out of luck if you’re looking for full disclosure – you sure won’t find it on the box or product web site. Customers seeking “full disclosure” need to buy 3rd party books like “Twinkie, Deconstructed“, if they want to understand what they’re consuming. 
Nice double standard, Ms. Healy.
In fairness, I don’t particularly like the use of scientific names for ingredients, when common ones will do nicely – but the intent isn’t sinister, as Healy insinuates. It makes the label look scientific, which impresses consumers. In other words, it’s a tactic straight out of Marketing 101. It’s a bit sneaky, to be sure, but then again, consumers aren’t defenseless… For example, it’s not hard to “Google” supp ingredients, to find out what they are. And – of course – “full disclosure” can be found right here at UltimateFatBurner.com.
At any rate, the rest of the article consists of descriptions of random supp ingredients…with one exception (at the end). In virtually each case, Healy digs up as much “dirt” as she can, while limiting (if not omitting altogether) any mitigating information. Fair and balanced she ain’t. For example, she writes…
One study found that CLA can prevent some human cells from taking up glucose and fatty acids. That could increase blood sugar and lipids in the blood and raise the risk of diabetes and heart disease.
But somehow fails to reveal that CLA was found to be perfectly safe in doses of 6g/day in humans over 12 full months - blood tests measuring serum lipids, glucose and insulin showed no adverse effects.
Now, we certainly can debate the efficacy of CLA…but that’s not what Healy is arguing here.
Here’s a trickier – but just as deceptive – example:
Hydroxycitric acid
The ingredient from which the Hydroxycut name was originally drawn is a derivative of the Malabar tamarind, or Garcinia cambogia. Used in traditional medicine to treat high cholesterol, it is touted as an agent that interferes with fat metabolism and possibly suppresses appetite. Its prospects were considered sufficiently promising that the pharmaceutical giant Hoffman-LaRoche in the 1960s committed significant funds to develop it as a possible weight-loss pill. The company dropped it, however, when rat studies showed that, at doses that appeared effective at reducing fat deposits, hydroxycitrate caused “potent testicular atrophy and toxicity.”
Emphasis mine.
Now, testicular atrophy is serious stuff. So naturally, I went prowling to see how much hydroxycitric acid it took to produce that effect. A relevant paper wasn’t hard to find…
The highest dose of HCA-containing Garcinia cambogia (154 mmol HCA/kg diet) showed significant suppression of epididymal fat accumulation in developing male Zucker obese rats, compared with the other groups. However, the diets containing 102 mmol HCA/kg diet and higher (778 and 1244 mg HCA/kg BW/d, respectively) caused potent testicular atrophy and toxicity, whereas diets containing 51 mmol HCA/kg diet (389 mg HCA/kg BW/d) or less did not. Accordingly, 51 mmol HCA/kg diet (389 mg HCA/kg BW/d) was deemed to be the no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL).
Ok, so the no observed adverse effect level was 389 mg/kg/day. And what’s the human equivalent dose? I got out my calculator and figured it out, using the formulas and constants in this paper. I came up with a figure of 63mg/kg/day.
Ok, class, I weigh 125 pounds, which is roughly 57 kg.
63mg/kg/day x 57 kg = 3591 mg/day
In other words, a fly weight like me could safely consume nearly 3.6 grams of straight hydroxycitrate per day. Actually, since I don’t have testes, I could probably consume more…but that’s besides the point. The point is that this is a larger amount than what you’ll find in most OTC diet supps.
But just as she did with CLA, Healy fails to inform us that there are HUMAN studies on hydroxycitric acid that indicate the stuff is pretty benign. There are several human trials, such as here, here, here, here and here. Once again, we can debate the effectiveness of hydroxycitrate, but this ISN’T the point Healy is making…she’s implying it’s unsafe and/or capable of producing adverse effects in the amounts consumed in OTC weight loss supps. Needless to state, this is a point that’s not supported by the (overall) evidence.
It gets even better (or worse, depending on your point of view) at the end…
Aristolochic acid
Wild ginger (Asarum canadense) is among a family of plants widely used in Chinese and traditional medicine for stomach ailments, to restore a woman’s energy after the birth of a child, to treat cough, allergy and breathing problems, and in some weight-loss formulas.
Aristolochic acid, says Grollman, “is one of the most potent human carcinogens ever known.” Declaring the substance to be both cancer-causing and toxic to human kidneys, the FDA in 2001 advised the U.S. dietary-supplements industry not to manufacture products using the chemical and banned its importation. But a 2003 letter to the FDA from UC Berkeley’s Carcinogenic Potency Project identified 112 herbal products still available online that contain, or were likely to contain, aristolochic acid.
Ruh-roh…Healy is pulling a fast one here…all her other examples are actual supp ingredients…but aristolochic acid is a horse of a different color. Yes, it’s potentially toxic, but it’s strictly an unintentional addition – much like the mycotoxins in peanut butter or apple juice.
But are extracts high in aristolochic acid common in popular weight loss products? By including it in her list, Healy implies this is so and even provides us with an example: Asarum canadense, or wild ginger.
All righty, everybody: there are a TON of commercial diet supps discussed here on the UltimateFatBurner.com site. Just for shitz and giggles, try searching the database for Asarum canadense. Take your time, I’ll wait…
Nothing? Out of ALL those supps?
Uh-huh. While ginger is frequently used in North American weight loss supps, we’re talkin’ Zingiber officinale – the same stuff used to cook with…NOT wild ginger. It’s a completely different species.
While there are some fringe herbal supps that contain known sources of aristolochic acid, the vast majority of OTC weight loss supps, for all their faults, don’t. But I suppose Healy wanted to find something really damning…so she simply pulled this one out of her…well, you-know-where.
I really, really hate going to the mat like this to defend the weight loss supp industry, since I DON’T like the unsupported claims and exaggerations employed by many manufacturers. But I like it even less when various self-appointed consumer advocates USE SIMILARLY DECEPTIVE TACTICS, all the while gazing skyward and piously proclaiming they’re on the side of the angels. What writers like Healy are doing, is presenting their biases as objective “information” – which it clearly is NOT. I really wish they’d knock that s**t off. If they’re going to be self-righteous, they should at least try to get it right.
Share
Makster on 26 May 2009 at 12:29 pm #
I may be wrong, but it just seems to me that Ms. Healy is just taking a current “hot topic” and throwing her somewhat judgemental and unresearched opinion at it.
She has no more business bashing supplements than I do. The difference is she gets published in a news paper for the average person to read. Thus causing them to ” pass judgement ” on something after being misinformed.
Another black eye for the supplement companies and more ammunition for the ” anti-supplement ”
people.
Will it ever stop?????
Elissa on 26 May 2009 at 2:20 pm #
Will it stop? Unfortunately not: when you view a particular issue like the current Hydroxycut recall in isolation, it’s easy to lose perspective. In an ideal world, no one’s health should be threatened by taking a diet supplement…but then again, no one’s health should be threatened by consuming peanut butter or spinach, either; let alone the meds the doctor prescribes.
It’s the (comparatively slack) regulation of supps that gives superficial thinkers like Ms. Healy the willies. Even though she doesn’t actually use the words, her writing reeks of the “there oughta be a law!” mindset discussed here. In this parallel universe, when thousands are sickened by peanuts or Vioxx, it’s perceived as an anomaly – a breakdown of the system, basically. On the flip side, when a handful of people are sickened by a supp, it’s regarded as a flaw inherent to the system, that would magically be fixed if supp manufacturers were subject to the same rules that…errr…peanuts and Vioxx are produced under.
This makes exactly zero sense, when you think about it, but it satisfies peoples’ need to “do something” in a crisis – whether it actually helps or not.
Ironically, I’m not ideologically opposed to sensible regulations, and see nothing wrong – in principle – with the notion that various herbals and supplement formulas should be thoroughly vetted for both safety and efficacy. Where the concept falls down is in execution: to peremptorily draw all supp formulas and ingredients currently on the market into the system used for food/drugs would effectively shut down the entire industry, and ensure that only the largest food/pharma manufacturers would be allowed – due to the costs involved – to bring products to market. This would place a wide range of useful and benign substances (like, say, green tea extract and creatine) out of reach to people like thee and me.
That’s bulls**t.
What I would like to see, is an industry consortium that would work with the FDA to set up a parallel GRAS (generally recognized as safe) list. Just like the GRAS list for food additives, this would provisionally “grandfather” certain well-studied and/or food-derived components in (like amino acids, creatine, green tea extract, fish oil, etc.). Then, the consortium would establish a basic testing process for other compounds, which – when/if passed – would likewise be given GRAS status. Manufacturers adhering to consortium standards and using GRAS ingredients would be given a “seal of approval” – and manufacturers peddling questionable ingredients/compounds (like colloidal silver, for example) or therapies (like homeopathy) would be given an official “thumbs down”. Rather than forcing unapproved or pre-approved products off the market, however, I’d prefer to see prominently displayed official disclaimers (much like the warning messages on ciggies or alcohol) that they’re unproven and/or associated with certain health risks. If consumers still want to make those choices, so be it.
Naturally, products adulterated with undeclared, illegal ingredients, or are contaminated with toxic substances would be subject to recall or withdrawal, just as they are now.
Needless to state, regulation of claims would (should) also be tightened. Purveyors of unproven or risky substances/therapies need to be held accountable for wild-ass, exaggerated health claims.
A system like this would eventually bring some order out of chaos, without substantially depriving people of choices.
Paul on 26 May 2009 at 5:51 pm #
It seems to me reporting (i.e. “news”) is all about sensationalism first, and an accurate and balanced reporting of the “truth” second.
For example, about a week or so ago, I was watching a news piece about the Swine flu and a scientist who was tracking changes in the virus’ genetic code as it mutated from generation to generation. “See here,” he said as he pointed to a slightly modified string of ‘ATCGs’ on a computer monitor; “the virus is mutating.”
“So this could be a new and more deadly strain of swine flu?” asked the reporter.
“Yes”, responded the scientist. And so ended the interview on this rather frightening note.
Here’s the thing though…
The reporter could have asked,”could this be a new and LESS deadly strain of swine flu?”,or “could this new variation of the swine flu have no perceptible difference in its impact on humans?
The scientist would have responded “yes” to both of these questions.
Instead, the reporter chose to perpetuate “fear” by giving the impression that the virus was some sort of intelligent, malevolent creature, striving to become more deadly. Sure, it’s sensational. But that’s not how viruses-or anything else for that matter, evolve. Mutations can lead to beneficial, detrimental, or indifferent results. It all depends on the environment to which they are
introduced.
For example, a mutation in the Swine flu virus may make it more susceptible to anti-viral drugs like Tamiflu. Or it may make it more resistant. The strain of the virus that is more susceptible to Tamiflu won’t survive to pass its characteristics on to the next generation of viruses. The strain of virus that is more resistant, will. And if the mutation doesn’t directly effect the virus’ ability to survive, that new trait will pass on to surviving generations.
Anyhow, I’m getting a bit off track here, so let me return to my point; this reporter was not focused on educating viewers and
presenting anything but a sensational story (although it is quite possible she had no idea how mutations occur herself. In this case she is not exactly the right person to present the story).
And that appears to be exactly what happened here; a sensationalist story that feeds on an existing bias, and a convenient ignoring of the existing facts that do not support the presented view.
For shame!
Vitamin Guru on 26 May 2009 at 6:01 pm #
Every person needs to have caution when putting anything into their bodies. Supplements get a bad rep a lot, there are bad ones that will harm you, and there are many that can help you if taken properly with a good diet and an active lifestyle. I have been trying and testing many over the years. I have had many good results from them. But I read the labels and have strict guidelines on what I will use. I wont even get into the media side of this mess, I don’t own a TV ! For all the right reasons!