GARCINIA CAMBOGIA EXTRACT

What is wrong with just eating healthier with substantially more protein in your diet. You want an appetite suppressant? Eat lean protein.

What is wrong with just eating healthier with substantially more protein in your diet. You want an appetite suppressant? Eat lean protein.

Amen to lean protein! Great appetite suppressant.

What's wrong with adding supplements to the dietary intake? As long as they are taken in balance and with plenty of knowledge of the available research? We all believe getting the recommended daily allowances of vitamins and minerals is best done through food choices. However, reality is what it is, and on a calorie-restricted diet, sometimes it's difficult to get all the RDA intake necessary. Most physicians recommend taking vitamin and mineral supplements. The body of scientific evidence in favor of taking vitamin and mineral supplements is huge, in spite of the debates and dissenting studies.

Edit: That being said, I am in no way equating GC with vitamin and mineral supplements in the framework of necessary to optimal bodily function. I am not saying that GC is needed. I just wanted to clarify that.

What's wrong with adding supplements to the dietary intake? .

Only supplement I could say is potentially worth taking is a micronutrient supplement like vitamins if you are at a known deficiency. Supplementation is a crutch and one that should only be leaned upon if you are somehow medically unable to supply yourself with the appropriate nutrients. Relying on an artificial means of modifying your metabolism (assuming it even has that affect which hasn't actually been demonstrated reliably) is a very very poor substitute to proper eating and exercise. If you are morbidly obese and at risk of stroking out at any moment perhaps there is a place for such things but if you want to lose a few pounds for aesthetics reasons or just to be a bit healthier then you should be looking at improving your diet not jumping to supplementation.

What is "wrong" with supplementation is the exact same thing that is wrong with any time your mind starts looking for a quick fix to a problem rather than addressing it headlong and making the appropriate lifestyle changes that can maintain that desired effect long term. Its lazy, its ineffective and its potentially detrimental.

We KNOW for a fact that good diet and exercise can make you healthy. Most people on this forum have access to nutritious food and have the ability to do exercise. Everything else is excuses and excuses are detrimental.

What does the body of research say about GC?

Also, meeting your micronutrient minimums isn't that difficult if you are losing slowly and steadily.

The body of research about GC is incomplete, so forming an opinion on small-scale, mostly C-level research is premature. Once some A-level studies are completed, a more reliable conclusion can be drawn. Too many of the studies cited were very small scale, especially for human trials.

Meeting micronutrient minimums is a learning process for most people, especially those who aren't well educated on how to eat healthy in the first place. If someone has an annual physical that shows they are low in vitamin D, for example, the doctor will likely try to educate them on foods high in D, and also to take a supplement. Supplementation is not the goal-- it is a means to an end while someone is learning how to make better food choices.

We all have to start somewhere.

I'm a scientist and I admittedly have no idea what you mean by "A-level" research and "C-level" research. There aren't levels there is only data and the analysis of that data. If data has been inconclusive then that would suggest that there is no clear significant effect. Why would you look at inconclusive data and assume a positive result?

I'm a scientist and I admittedly have no idea what you mean by "A-level" research and "C-level" research.

If you take a look at the Examine.com article on GC, you will find a section headed "Human Effect Matrix". The level of evidence in the research will tell you what i'm talking about. A-level research is large scale, double-blind, independent research and will have the most comprehensive results for interpretation. Even a majority of B-level research would have been preferable to draw conclusions from. But as it currently stands, the main body of research on GC has been limited to C-level and therefore the conclusion scientifically is that the jury is still out.

If data has been inconclusive then one should assume that it has no effect.

I would agree with that if there were a large body of A-level and B-level research and the majority conclusion of those large scale studies was that it had little to no effect.

If the product has been around for ages then shouldn't more research be available by now?

If the product has been around for ages then shouldn't more research be available by now?

Unfortunately, no. The reasons are complicated, but alot boils down to who's funding the research and who's conducting it. In the area of nutritional supplements, generally the companies manufacturing the items fund the research, but those tend to be small scale studies and limited in number. That fact and the huge, huge backlog of studies that the FDA has to conduct-- it's just a situation of alot of either potentially beneficial or potentially harmful substances aren't getting fully vetted.

Edit: As an example, the JAMA article cited a double-blind study. Sounds good, but there were only 135 people in the study. That's just too small a sampling to get a really conclusive body of evidence. I took note of the fact that compliance with the dietary restrictions of the participants in the study was not monitored. Hard to know if someone's "cooking the books" on their diary and pill count. Not to say anyone did-- but the possibility exists and therefore skews the data.

If the product has been around for ages then shouldn't more research be available by now?

Unfortunately, no. The reasons are complicated, but alot boils down to who's funding the research and who's conducting it. In the area of nutritional supplements, generally the companies manufacturing the items fund the research, but those tend to be small scale studies and limited in number. That fact and the huge, huge backlog of studies that the FDA has to conduct-- it's just a situation of alot of either potentially beneficial or potentially harmful substances aren't getting fully vetted.

Edit: As an example, the JAMA article cited a double-blind study. Sounds good, but there were only 135 people in the study. That's just too small a sampling to get a really conclusive body of evidence. I took note of the fact that compliance with the dietary restrictions of the participants in the study was not monitored. Hard to know if someone's "cooking the books" on their diary and pill count. Not to say anyone did-- but the possibility exists and therefore skews the data.

See that is my point! I know politics and bureaucracy plays a part in just about every aspect of society. However, the manufacturers of those type of products shouldn't be making claims that they cannot back up with science. It's one thing to add a vitamin and mineral supplement to a weight lose plan but it should be coming from a real doctor and not some fluffy advertisement and the Internet in general. I am a very literal person. If a company claims that their product is a “fat burner” then I expect them to prove it. A product that suppresses the appetite and increase energy is not the same as a "fat burner" product in my book. I know some people have issues with the FDA and that is their choice but they have still done far more good than harm in protecting society from harmful products.

I used it for two months and invented a miraculous method to lose money but not fat.

Seriously? Why can't people accept that the only way to lose weight is to create a caloric deficit and commitment to changing? This is just another product people will waste their money on.

Just put in hard work and you'll find the success you're looking for.

Probably for the same reason that people can't accept that there might be supplements that can help the hard work to be more effective.

If the product has been around for ages then shouldn't more research be available by now?

Unfortunately, no. The reasons are complicated, but alot boils down to who's funding the research and who's conducting it. In the area of nutritional supplements, generally the companies manufacturing the items fund the research, but those tend to be small scale studies and limited in number. That fact and the huge, huge backlog of studies that the FDA has to conduct-- it's just a situation of alot of either potentially beneficial or potentially harmful substances aren't getting fully vetted.

Edit: As an example, the JAMA article cited a double-blind study. Sounds good, but there were only 135 people in the study. That's just too small a sampling to get a really conclusive body of evidence. I took note of the fact that compliance with the dietary restrictions of the participants in the study was not monitored. Hard to know if someone's "cooking the books" on their diary and pill count. Not to say anyone did-- but the possibility exists and therefore skews the data.

See that is my point! I know politics and bureaucracy plays a part in just about every aspect of society. However, the manufacturers of those type of products shouldn't be making claims that they cannot back up with science. It's one thing to add a vitamin and mineral supplement to a weight lose plan but it should be coming from a real doctor and not some fluffy advertisement and the Internet in general. I am a very literal person. If a company claims that their product is a “fat burner” then I expect them to prove it. A product that suppresses the appetite and increase energy is not the same as a "fat burner" product in my book. I know some people have issues with the FDA and that is their choice but they have still done far more good than harm in protecting society from harmful products.

Yes. Thalidomide. http://guides.main.library.emory.edu/content.php?pid=156723&sid=1327606

I have some cardboard over here and there has been no research showing that it doesn't effectively help you burn fat...as long as you do at least 30 minutes of cumulative activity a day.

$19.95 or your money back if you get no results with my regimen in 60 days.

I'll buy 2 so I can lose twice as fast!

You want appetite suppressant - eat the fattiest cut of meat you can get. Fat keeps you satisfied longer.

I both agree and disagree. Or, maybe I should say, yes I agree under certain conditions.

I agree that cuts of meat with fat on them, sausages, balogne, bacon, etc. are not the bad guy here. If you're eating fewer calories overall than you burn, then eating non-lean meats with a diet that is also balanced by a small to moderate amount of carbs that includes lots of fruits and veggies, plus you exercise at leat 3x a week -- then that fat on the meat is going to be converted to energy before it can be stored as fat.

Simple carbs+sugars+no exercise = the bad guy.

Carbs and sugar aren't the bad guys either. Obesity/an unhealthy weight resulting from a calorie surplus over time is. Period. This can be reversed even while eating carbs (regardless of complexity) and while eating sugars. It can even be done w/out exercise (although that should be included for various other health benefits).

I have lost 22 lbs since February 1st using Garcinia Cambogia and MFP. The Garcinia curbs my appetite, and I feel great. It amazes me how many people say it doesn't work, yet they have no experience with it.

What happens to your appetite when you stop taking it? Or do you plan to take it forever?