Skinny Water to help weight-loss

[Big Les]

Breakfast TV here in Britain ran a short, moderately sceptical (more cynical) piece on "Skinny Water" (http://www.skinnywater.com/Press_Release-05022007.pdf) this morning - supposedly it uses chromium as an appetite suppressant and an "amino-acid" to "increase fat burning".

Is this is bonkers as it sounds?

[Professor Yaffle]

The research they talk about seems to be by a Harry Preuss.

I think this is the study they are citing - not on skinny water per se, but one of its ingredients, hydroxycitric acid:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=PubMed&cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=15056124

And this seems to be some more recent work in the area, but on animals.

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=1540426

[Big Les]

So it's an appetite-suppressant ready-dissolved in water. Fair enough I suppose. Ironically their sales pitch as represented on TV reeked of BS; yet it sounds like there's more to this than say, ordinary mineral or bottled water in terms of potential benefits.

Or the hilarious Evian "hydrating" spray that costs £3 for 50ml of pure water. With a spray top.

[casebro]

The NIH study gave the dosage of 4667 milligrams, or almost 5 grams per day. How many gallons of "Skinny Water" would one have to drink to get that?

[Big Les]

Enough to make the shareholders very, very happy. I had missed that low doseage (though even then, it's still more legit than bottled water!).

[Slimething]

From the NCBI link:

HCA-SX has been shown to reduce appetite, inhibit fat synthesis and decrease body weight without stimulating the central nervous system. NBC has demonstrated its ability to maintain healthy insulin levels, while GSE has been shown to regulate weight loss and blood sugar levels.


From the US law that defines a drug:

The FD&C Act defines drugs by their intended use, as "(A) articles intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease..and (B) articles (other than food) intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of man or other animals" [FD&C Act, sec. 201(g)(1)].


I am surprised that this ingredient is being freely sold in drinking water. Maybe someone here who is knowledgeable in why this is being allowed can reconcile this for me?

[my_wan]

From the NCBI link:
HCA-SX has been shown to reduce appetite, inhibit fat synthesis and decrease body weight without stimulating the central nervous system. NBC has demonstrated its ability to maintain healthy insulin levels, while GSE has been shown to regulate weight loss and blood sugar levels.
From the US law that defines a drug:
The FD&C Act defines drugs by their intended use, as "(A) articles intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease..and (B) articles (other than food) intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of man or other animals" [FD&C Act, sec. 201(g)(1)].
I am surprised that this ingredient is being freely sold in drinking water. Maybe someone here who is knowledgeable in why this is being allowed can reconcile this for me?

Neither appetite, fat synthesis, or body weight is considered a disease. Although there has been recent controversy over classifying obesity as a disease. Not "stimulating the central nervous system" is not a medical claim either just a physiological one. There is a method to making hype look like medical claim and the average person often don't know the difference. If it's not testimonials it usually comes in the form of physiological theory that implies cure. The wooers sometimes dance a fine line but the legal lines have been drawn.

I think the best solution is to create a wing of the FDA for the purpose of funding trials that drug companies lack the incentives to fund. They would also have the power to make specific medical claims for specific things legal. Like the old favorite that it is illegal to say the oranges you are selling will cure scurvy. The issue with drug companies being the only people that can establish medical claims is real enough. The woo people certainly give the ammunition needed for the laws to try to overreach in order to protect people from the BS. I think the penalty should go way up for the BSers but have a mechanisms for establishing valid medical claims within the FDA. It could even be done as research grants to doctors and colleges. Proposals can be likewise submitted by doctors or colleges. It would work like other science issues rather than the sole domain of drug companies.

[Slimething]

Neither appetite, fat synthesis, or body weight is considered a disease. Although there has been recent controversy over classifying obesity as a disease. Not "stimulating the central nervous system" is not a medical claim either just a physiological one.

Thanks for claryfing the situation. I was mistaken in that I thought obesity had been identified as a disease. My eye was drawn to the claims "inhibit fat synthesis" and "regulate..blood sugar levels" which, to my thinking, are undoubtedly physiological effects. Of course, as you point out, this could be hyperbole for "inhibiting fat synthesis" and "regulating blood sugar levels" by suppressing appetite. If so, the active ingredient in these products is the water, not the additives.


I think the best solution is to create a wing of the FDA for the purpose of funding trials that drug companies lack the incentives to fund. They would also have the power to make specific medical claims for specific things legal. Like the old favorite that it is illegal to say the oranges you are selling will cure scurvy. The issue with drug companies being the only people that can establish medical claims is real enough. The woo people certainly give the ammunition needed for the laws to try to overreach in order to protect people from the BS. I think the penalty should go way up for the BSers but have a mechanisms for establishing valid medical claims within the FDA. It could even be done as research grants to doctors and colleges. Proposals can be likewise submitted by doctors or colleges. It would work like other science issues rather than the sole domain of drug companies.

Agreed. Perhaps the Orphan Drug Program (http://www.fda.gov/orphan/)can undertake some of these responsibilities as they probably have the most experience with drugs of marginal effect. As shysters become more sophisticated, governmental protections will have to follow suit. I used to believe that caveat emptor was all we needed until I realized that the cost of rescuing fraud victims was coming out of my pocket anyway. Besides the rescuing, it would be nice to throw these @55holes in jail.

[casebro]

From the US law that defines a drug:

The FD&C Act defines drugs by their intended use, as "(A) articles intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease..and (B) articles ( OTHER THAN FOOD ) intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of man or other animals" [FD&C Act, sec. 201(g)(1)].

That's the loophole. "It's just food." Actually, processed berry peels. If sugar is a food, made from processed sugar beets, Hmm, I guess you could sell a food product with the claim that it DOES cure cancer. I guess that is the loophole used by many supplements?

[my_wan]

Thanks for claryfing the situation. I was mistaken in that I thought obesity had been identified as a disease. My eye was drawn to the claims "inhibit fat synthesis" and "regulate..blood sugar levels" which, to my thinking, are undoubtedly physiological effects. Of course, as you point out, this could be hyperbole for "inhibiting fat synthesis" and "regulating blood sugar levels" by suppressing appetite. If so, the active ingredient in these products is the water, not the additives.

Agreed. Perhaps the Orphan Drug Program (http://www.fda.gov/orphan/)can undertake some of these responsibilities as they probably have the most experience with drugs of marginal effect. As shysters become more sophisticated, governmental protections will have to follow suit. I used to believe that caveat emptor was all we needed until I realized that the cost of rescuing fraud victims was coming out of my pocket anyway. Besides the rescuing, it would be nice to throw these @55holes in jail.

Yes an expansion of the Orphan Drug Program (http://www.fda.gov/orphan/)would work quiet well. As it stands its' domain is with rare diseases so that development doesn't compete with the drug companies cash cows. It needs to include trials on readily available ingredients and/or herbs that may trump the high priced pharmaceuticals irrespective of any given companies ability to control that market. Of course we'll get new CTs here when the FDA rules that someones favorite herb is worthless.