GARCINIA CAMBOGIA EXTRACT

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?