Articles

Garcinia Probably Works But Is Far From a Weight Loss Miracle

Women make up a majority of Dr. Oz’s audience. The majority of women would like to lose weight. That is a match made in heaven, a marketer’s dream. And Oz has never hesitated to exploit that fact to increase audience share, playing fast and loose with sensationalized evidence instead of giving his viewers science-based advice.Garcinia

Dr. Oz has promoted a series of weight loss supplements on his show. Raspberry ketones were presented as a fat-busting miracle, then green coffee bean extract was touted as “magic,” “staggering,” and “unprecedented.” And now both of those miracles have apparently been superseded by an even greater miracle: Garcinia cambogia extract.

Dr. Oz calls it “The newest, fastest fat buster.” A way to lose weight without “spending every waking moment exercising and dieting.” “Triples your weight loss.” “The most exciting breakthrough in natural weight loss to date.” “The Holy Grail.” Oz claims that “Revolutionary new research says it could be the magic ingredient that lets you lose weight without diet or exercise.” That sounds too good to be true, and it is. Garcinia probably does work to some extent to improve weight loss, but the evidence doesn’t begin to justify such grandiose claims.

Garcinia cambogia extract (GCE) comes from a tropical fruit grown in India and Southeast Asia. The active ingredient has been identified: hydroxycitric acid (HCA). It is said to block fat and suppress the appetite. It inhibits a key enzyme, citrate lyase, that the body needs to make fat from carbohydrates. It suppresses appetite by increasing serotonin levels; low serotonin levels are associated with depression and emotional or reactive eating.

It allegedly decreases belly fat, suppresses appetite, controls emotional eating, and changes body composition by increasing lean muscle mass. It doesn’t just produce weight loss, but it improves overall health. It is said to decrease cholesterol, LDL, and triglycerides by 10-30% and to raise levels of the “good cholesterol” HDL.

Dr. Oz recommends a dose of 500-1000 mg of Garcinia cambogia potassium before each meal. (Some experts believe the potassium salt is more effective than other formulations.) He says not to take it if you are pregnant or breastfeeding, or if you have Alzheimer’s disease or other forms of dementia, because it can worsen dementia. If you have diabetes, it can cause hypoglycemia, and if you are on a statin, it can increase the risk of harmful side effects like rhabdomyolysis or muscle degradation. Oz contradicts himself: he suggests that it can produce weight loss without diet or exercise, yet he clearly recommends it be used along with exercise and properly portioned meals.

An independent analysis found that some brands contain far less active ingredient than claimed. Consumers are advised to look for at least 50% GCE with potassium but with no fillers, binders, or artificial ingredients. It should be taken on empty stomach 30-60 minutes before a meal. Results increase with dosage, but doses over 3 000 mg a day should be cleared with your doctor.

With Dr. Oz’s track record, I was not willing to simply accept his word for the wonders of Garcinia. I went to PubMed, where a search for hydroxycitric acid brought up 64 articles. Some were irrelevant, and the relevant ones included a lot of animal studies and a smaller number of human studies with inconsistent results.

Guinea pigs on a high cholesterol diet who were given a different Garcinia species (atriviridis) had a tendency to decrease lipid composition levels and fat deposition in the aorta. HCA caused congenital defects in rats. Another rat study found that it decreased body weight gain and visceral fat accumulation by reducing food intake but had no lasting beneficial effects on hypertriglyceridemia and hyperinsulinemia. Yet another rat study showed that it suppressed body fat accumulation but was toxic to the testes.

To try to make sense of the inconsistent results, Onakpoya et al. did a systematic review of the published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) as of 2011. Their analysis found a small, statistically significant difference in weight loss (1.75 kg vs 0.88 kg, less than 2 pounds). They commented that the studies all had methodological weaknesses, so these results could be due to GIGO (garbage in/garbage out). The two studies with the best methodology found no statistically significant difference from placebo. Adverse events were twice as common with Garcinia (headache, nausea, upper respiratory and gastrointestinal symptoms). The authors concluded:

The evidence from RCTs suggests that Garcinia extracts/HCA generate weight loss on the short term. However, the magnitude of this effect is small, is no longer statistically significant when only rigorous RCTs are considered, and its clinical relevance seems questionable.

Oz featured a patient testimonial on the show from a woman who had lost 10 pounds in 4 months. She started noticing results after a week; she reported that her sugar cravings were decreased, she had more energy, and she went down a dress size from 10 to 8. She had no side effects. Says she was at a plateau and wanted a jump-start.

At this point, I don’t think we can reliably say whether Garcinia has a clinically relevant advantage over simple calorie reduction and exercise. It appears to be safe, and it may have a role in helping patients lose weight by assisting motivation and enlisting placebo effects.

Dr. Oz’s popularity is enduring, but diet fads aren’t. I confidently expect another “miracle” to supplant Garcinia in the Land of Oz in the not-too-distant future.

Posted in: Herbs & Supplements, Science and the Media

Leave a Comment (46) ↓

46 thoughts on “Garcinia Probably Works But Is Far From a Weight Loss Miracle

  1. windriven says:

    I guess I just don’t get it. The secret to weight loss is no secret: eat less, exercise more. And why are people eager to take drugs for what should be trivial reasons? Have these folks not learned the lesson of unintended consequences?

    There are, of course, those who struggle with weight because of real disorders. But these should be treated by an endocrinologist or bariatrician, not by a carnival barker with a stethoscope and not with a drug that you can buy in the large industrial size at Costco.

    This really goes back to the supplement theme that Scott Gavura touched on the other day. Eat a balanced, nutritious diet and exercise regularly. If you have difficulty losing (or maintaining) weight on that regimen, see a physician as you may have some hormonal disorder. But buttered pecan ice cream is not a hormonal disorder and there is no dietary supplement that will prevent it going from lips to hips.

    1. Lawrence says:

      Given that a number of these “weight loss miracles” come with some significant downsides & side-effects, why would one take a chance when Windriven is correct – for the most part, diet & exercise will have an effect all out of proportion to whatever you might get from a drug (or supplement)?

    2. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

      I really, really can’t see how consuming something that prevents carbohydrates from being converted into fats, if it’s actually effective, could be a good thing. Particularly considering if you’re taking something to lose weight, you’re probably already obese, and therefore probably borderline type II diabetes in the first place. Where does the sugar go? Does it just stay in the blood? In which case, aren’t you taking someone with an already high blood sugar and keeping it there longer? Does it convert to glycogen? That’d be a good thing, if you were a marathon runner (in which case, is it an ergogenic aid?) but otherwise it seems unlikely. Do people who take this consistently increase the stickiness of their blood, and do they face greater risks of infection?

      Do you pee it out? In which case, what kind of kidney damage are you looking at?

      1. Andrey Pavlov says:

        @WLU: excellent point. Prevent one pathway and something backs up. The problem is that peeing it out is not a good option. That means your blood sugar must be >180mg/dL at a minimum (since until that point your proximal tubule resorbs everything) and could be up to ~300mg/dL since that is the point at which the PCT becomes saturated. At those levels (assuming you are actually losing weight doing it) you will suffer all the same short and long term consequences of diabetes. Peeing it out, however, does not DIRECTLY affect the kidney. It is the high blood levels that cause the problem. Hypothetically you could pee out a pound of sugar and it wouldn’t actually matter. Except for the fact that it makes UTI’s more likely since bugs love sugar.

        As for storing it in glycogen… also not feasible. The limit of glycogen storage is actually primarily weight and volume of storage capacity. Glycogen is extremely hydroscopic and it is estimated that to store a few days worth of energy as glycogen would require the person to add on the order of 100′s of kilograms of weight in water, which is why we only ever store ~12-16 hours worth.

        So yeah… what happens to those carbs? They don’t just magically disappear. They have to exist as glucose (since otherwise they wouldn’t have been absorbed from the gut – the brush border of the gut is what splits carbs down to glucose and absorbs it). That glucose must go somewhere. If not fat, then where? Granted, some of it could be just burned off since glucose is a more readily available fuel source. I do not know how much that would be (I doubt there is any good data on that particular question) but even being generous and saying 50% of it somehow gets metabolized directly, that still leaves 50% unaccounted for. And I really think 50% is stupidly optimistic.

        If it actually does work as advertised, there should be significant downstream issues. But hey, who cares about those stupid first principles and biochemistry right? I can’t say with ABSOLUTE certainty that it doesn’t work and I can’t say with ABSOLUTE certainty that if it does work there would be significant and negative downstream effects. In medicine ANYTHING is possible, right? What happens to the carbs? Shut up. A wizard did it.

      2. Vicki says:

        If you’re taking something to lose weight, you might be “borderline obese,” or you might be a perfectly healthy woman whose parents criticize her eating choices, or whose boyfriend or husband puts her down for being “fat,” or who sees too many ads and ad-driven magazine articles about the wonders of being thin. If everyone around you says that you should be thinner than you are–either by some arbitrary standard or some all-purpose advice that everyone, or at least everyone female, should lose 10% of their body weight, regardless of their starting weight–you’re likely to believe them.

        There doesn’t seem to be much correlation between whether people are at a healthy weight and whether they believe they are.

    3. vanessa says:

      Please do some research before saying that anyone can lose weight by exercising more and eating less. Dieting doesn’t work longterm for 95% of people, and for most people, upon reaching your natural weight, it is very nearly impossible to lose OR gain weight.

      1. windriven says:

        @vanessa

        “Please do some research before saying that anyone can lose weight by exercising more and eating less”

        I hope I didn’t leave the impression that I thought it was easy. Eating less really means changing dietary habits – and that can be devilishly hard. What, when and how much people eat is part of a complex mix of biology, psychology, economics, sociology and family dynamics.

        Whatever an individual’s personal situation, weight that cannot be conveniently managed through diet and exercise should be evaluated by a physician. The answer is not likely to be found in magic fruit.

      2. Arik says:

        Please direct us to the study where you get the following statistic:

        “Dieting doesn’t work longterm for 95% of people,”

        I suspect you pulled this number out of your posterior.

  2. pjecohn says:

    “They” say a safe weight loss is about 1.5 lbs/week. So 10 pounds in 4 months? That’s less than a pound/week- not such an exciting breakthrough to me. I don’t need to buy something to lose that much- skipping snacks or sugary things and walking a little more will do it for this middle-aged woman.

  3. Andrey Pavlov says:

    Personally I love mangosteen. Definitely one of my all time favorite fruits. When I was in Thailand I ate it every day. Buying a 2kg bag of it was cheap and sitting by the beach munching on it is heaven. I’d much rather eat the fruit substituted for other foods that are more calorically dense than take a pill.

    Also, I personally dropped ~70lbs in less than 5 months (yes, nearly 4lbs per week) some years ago when I finally decided to get fit and healthy. I used this magical thing called eating a LOT less and exercising a LOT more. I’ve kept the weight of since then (6 years) by maintaining good eating and exercise habits. Weight loss is simple, though far from easy.

    1. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

      Fresh mangosteens are quite possibly the best-tasting fruit in the world. Too bad they look like awful, sticky, slimy little brains.

      1. DevoutCatalyst says:

        Either of you a durian fan ?

        1. Andrey Pavlov says:

          I love durian! My fiance makes me keep it outside of the house whenever I get it though. I ate durian most days when I was in Thailand.

        2. windriven says:

          Don’t know about those two but for me: NO. I like the custardy texture and even the flavor … at first. But that is a taste that you just can’t get out of your mouth. Gargle with Draino, floss with barbed wire, brush your teeth with a Dremel. In China there are tales of women eating it till they faint.

          But mangosteens :-)

      2. Andrey Pavlov says:

        Wait… why is it looking like awful sticky slimy brains a negative?

  4. Harriet Hall says:

    You know, Oz could use his platform to present cases of people who lost weight without the aid of supplements, and to reinforce the factors that led to their success. It could be inspirational and might even increase audience share. But it seems he prefers hype and false hope to real hope…

    1. D.Simpson says:

      As with a lot of CAM, it’s all about differentiation. You make money by offering something the competition doesn’t – even if it’s bogus.

  5. Frederick says:

    My comment is a little of topic but it is about that «DR. »
    Speaking of Wizard of OZ, yesterday i was talking to my wife about him and how he push people to believe in woo-woo. As i talk about his cell-phone cancer fear mongering we realize that it was him on TV: so the subject of yesterday show ( i don’t know if it was a live one or a old show ) was about 7 energy type for healing and what-not. I did not really pay attention during the 1 min it was at that channel ( i can’t tolerated him for long ) But there was a women showing how to do move with you fingers, peace and love sign, and how it was good for the heart. So the Wizard say, «Peace sign, you know, there people right that cannot see right now how making peace sign with your finger can be good for you heart» something like this, and she replies « Keep him mind that more and more hospital used touch healing and energy base healing now»
    Yeah Germany health care pay for Homeopathy, that does make it trust
    I think that show need a topic on his own! that was ridiculous.

  6. charles grashow says:

    Speaking of so-called woo – what are your thoughts on this

    http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/818115_3
    9. Chelation Therapy

    Nothing has become more virtuous in the practice of medicine than clinical evidence. We have set out the rules: The scientific method will determine the best treatments for our patients. One group gets treatment A and the other treatment B. Then we measure outcomes — the simpler the better. These are the rules of the game; they can’t be changed when we don’t like how the game turns.

    The TACT investigators have followed the rules. They compared 322 diabetic patients with coronary heart disease who were treated with chelation vs 311 similarly matched patients treated with placebo infusions.[11] The primary endpoint, a composite of death, MI, stroke, revascularization, and hospitalization for angina, occurred in 80 of 322 (25%) treated with chelation and 117 (38%) on placebo. That’s an absolute — not relative — reduction of 13%, and an astounding NNT of 7. For comparison, statin drugs for primary prevention, or NOAC drugs vs warfarin in patients with AF, have NNTs greater than 100.

    What makes chelation in diabetics a top story of the year is more than just the data. By the authors’ own account, these findings need to be replicated. What’s really big here is the voracity of opposition from the establishment. I re-read what I said in my opinion piece from November. I’m sticking to it: “It would be a huge mistake to dismiss this science because chelation does not conform to preconceived notions or because it is practiced outside the mainstream of medicine. Let’s not forget about the patients with this terrible disease. It’s not as if we have good treatments for them.”

    http://www.ibcmt.com/AmericanHeartAssoc-TheEffectOfAnEDTABasedChelationRegimenOnDiabetesMellitus.pdf

    Background
    —The Trial to Assess Chelation Therapy (TACT) showed clinical benefit of an EDTA-based infusion regimen in patients aged ≥ 50 years with prior myocardial infarction. Diabetes mellitus before enrollment was a prespecified subgroup.
    Methods and Results
    —Patients received 40 infusions of EDTA chelation or placebo. A total of 633 (37%) patients had diabetes mellitus (322 EDTA and 311 placebo). EDTA reduced the primary end point (death, reinfarction, stroke, coronary revascularization, or hospitalization for angina; 25% versus 38%; hazard ratio, 0.59; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.44–0.79; P<0.001) for over 5 years. The result remained significant after Bonferroni adjustment for multiple subgroups (99.4% CI, 0.39–0.88; adjusted
    P=0.002). All-cause mortality was reduced by EDTA chelation (10% versus 16%; hazard ratio, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.36–0.88; P=0.011), as was the secondary end point (cardiovascular death, reinfarction, or stroke; 11% versus 17%; hazard ratio, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.39–0.91; P=0.017). However, after adjusting for multiple subgroups,
    those results were no longer significant. The number needed to treat to reduce 1 primary end point over 5 years was 6.5 (95% CI, 4.4–12.7). There was no reduction in events in non–diabetes mellitus (n=1075; P=0.877), resulting in a treatment by diabetes mellitus interaction (P=0.004).
    Conclusions
    —Post–myocardial infarction patients with diabetes mellitus aged ≥
    50 demonstrated a marked reduction in cardiovascular events with EDTA chelation. These findings support efforts to replicate these findings and define the mechanisms of benefit. However, they do not constitute sufficient evidence to indicate the routine use of chelation therapy for all post–myocardial infarction patients with diabetes mellitus

    1. MadisonMD says:

      Charles, you seem confused about the difference between EBM and SBM. There are so many excellent articles here on this topic, I hardly know where to point you. You should really read through them.

      Perhaps you could start with this series and the links therein:
      Kimball Atwoods Redux series.

      Cliffs note version is that if you run 1000 clinical trials of treatments that in reality doesn’t work, you get 50 “proven therapies” by chance (well more if you include biases, secondary endpoints, and various freedoms of investigators to interpret their study as positive–although I am not claiming this is what happened with TACT). Hence before even starting a clinical trial, you had better have some pretty damn good preliminary evidence–maybe from the lab, mechanism, clinical observation, or preliminary positive trial. Such preliminary evidence for TACT.

      1. MadisonMD says:

        Ugh so many trouble with posts today.

        Such preliminary evidence for TACT…. appears lacking.

  7. If garcinia works by increasing serotonin, why do SSRIs cause weight gain?

    1. Chris says:

      They don’t all necessarily. Prozac has been used off-label for weight loss. It tends to be most pronounced at the beginning if it’s going to occur.

      Modifying serotonin has been a target of weight loss before. Belviq, Meridia, and even fenfluramine all modified serotonin receptors.

  8. dh says:

    Scientism is a creed like any other. It is one way of looking at the universe, but certainly not the only way. It is limited by the tools it uses; what it doesn’t know, it conjectures as theories, hypotheses and “putative mechanisms”. And like all creeds, it excludes every other creed – only its tenets can be correct.

    The adherents of scientism are as dogmatic as the adherents of any church, mosque, synagogue, temple, spirits, deities or beliefs. The orthodoxy or priesthood is maintained by scientists working in institutions, thought & opinion leaders, funding agencies, scientific journals. It is an industry which manufactures belief like all other industries of belief; the only difference is the language and the labeling – “evidence”, “science-based”, “hypothesis-directed” and so forth.

    Scientism cannot stand uncertainty, and it cannot see what lies beyond its torch light. It does not and cannot see the damage caused by reckless proliferation of scientific technology (industrial pollutants, thermonuclear weapons, fossil fuel consumption).

    Scientism, in short, has many limitations – but you would never know it by reading here.

    1. MadisonMD says:

      @DH:
      I’m not sure what ‘scientism’ means. Do you mean Scientology?

      Scientism cannot stand uncertainty, and it cannot see what lies beyond its torch light

      Yes, this can be a problem with Scientology and other religions. Fortunately, science is always developing new tools to reveal things previously unknown. Science thrives on uncertainty–trying to resolve it. If there was no uncertainty, it would stop.

    2. Frederick says:

      you say : “It does not and cannot see the damage caused by reckless proliferation of scientific technology (industrial pollutants, thermonuclear weapons, fossil fuel consumption).”

      if your scientism is science.. yes it does see those, in fact we know about those issue because it was demonstrate by science. Global warming, impact of over exploitation of resources etc are all topic demonstrate by science. On the contrary science is the only way of seeing those topic, pseudo-science and belief can “believe” that X does Y impact, but they cannot demonstrate it/prove it.
      You need the tool and the method of science. Of course a lot of WOO-WOO believers believe in things that science have shown to be false and non-existent. But since it is a belief and a Dogma, instead of being humble and accept reality, they try to discredited science, with blinded vision of what it is.
      No offence, but you post demonstrate that you clearly do not understand what science is.

    3. Harriet Hall says:

      Susan Haack has written an article explaining the difference between science and scientism, and the “six signs of scientism.” http://pervegalit.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/haack-six-signs-of-scientism-october-17-2009.pdf It is excellent, and provides concrete examples. I highly recommend that anyone interested in the subject read her article.

      Alternative medicine is often guilty of her points 1 and 2. Her final 2 points are arguably the most important:

      5. Looking to the sciences for answers to questions beyond their scope, for instance trying to use science to prove or disprove the existence of God.

      Science can’t “prove” that God exists or that one religion is the right one, but it can test the testable claims that religions make about the material world. Science can investigate whether the Earth existed before 4004 BC, whether a statue is weeping blood, or whether intercessory prayer improves outcomes in illness. That is science, not scientism.

      6. Denying or denigrating the legitimacy or the worth of other kinds of
      inquiry besides the scientific, or the value of human activities other than
      inquiry, such as poetry or art.

      I don’t remember anyone on this blog ever doing that. I think we all agree that “other kinds of inquiry” yield meaning and have value. I am particularly sensitive to that, since my undergraduate degree was in the humanities, and my education was broad enough to get me elected to Phi Beta Kappa. I even wrote a term paper defending both science and poetry as legitimate areas of inquiry and comparing their approaches. I read novels in 4 languages, and I don’t rely on science to justify the pleasure I feel in that or in listening to music or viewing art or watching Monty Python.

      But when it comes to evaluating testable beliefs about how the material world works, science is the only viable approach. For instance, “Which is more important, science or literature?” is a completely misguided question. But we might well look to science to answer a question like whether people who read a lot of novels tend to have more empathy or donate more money to charities. We only reject “other ways of knowing” when they are inappropriately applied to testable claims and used as an excuse not to put that claim to the test.

      1. MadisonMD says:

        Well said. Thank you for helping me understand what scientism is and how it is distinct from science.

    4. windriven says:

      “Scientism is a creed like any other.”

      Now that’s a curious thought; a non sequitur, really. Science is pretty much an anticreed in that the only real dogma is that evidence, replicable evidence, is the coin of the realm.

      “It is an industry which manufactures belief like all other industries of belief; the only difference is the language and the labeling – “evidence”, “science-based”, “hypothesis-directed” and so forth.”

      No, not so much. You seem to have a Marvel Comics understanding of science. Science is obsessed with what it doesn’t know and with the limits of what it thinks it does know. For a scientist few things are as exciting as to find a defect in a long held theory. Further, evidence is the antipode of belief. Belief is acceptance without evidence. Are you suggesting that evidence is acceptance without evidence? That seems a little recursive, not to say jaw-droppingly stupid.

      Your entire comment is a study in misunderstanding and non sequitur. Did you actually have a point buried in there? If so you might want to have another go. This time with more thought and fewer words, hmmm?

  9. Dave says:

    “The adherents of scientism are as dogmatic as the adherents of any church, mosque, synagogue, temple, spirits, deities or beliefs”

    Really? Scientific thought changes as more information becomes available. Read any science textbook from 50 years ago and compare it to any science textbook now. Students entering medical school are ROUTINELY told that half of what they learn will eventually be modified – “found to be wrong” is how it’s usually put, to shock them out of the concept that the ideas they learn are set in stone.

    FYI, some religions have shown the capacity to change also. There is a papal encyclical stating that the evidence for evolution is strong enough that it must be regarded as fact and the Vatican has hosted scientific conferences on cosmology attended by the likes of Stephen Hawking, probably to help make up for their previous actions against people like Galileo. Not every religious person is a young earth creationist or fundamentalist.

  10. bruce cohen says:

    Women trying to lose weight are a big target of scams. But another group is an even bigger target: those who suffer from anxiety and depression. All sorts of vitamin and diet cures are pushed on them, and then they are blamed if they don’t work. Lately, I’ve been seeing ads for something called the “fisher-wallace” brain stimulator. It’s supposed to cure insomnia and depression. They’ve got a sophisticated website, and because it’s only available by prescription, they have doctors standing by who (for a small fee) will write the script. Has anyone here seen or read anything about the fisher-wallace brain stimulator?

    1. Xplodyncow says:

      The site says you can get a prescription for this miracle device by calling someone named Sandy Root — who is licensed in acupuncture, evidently.

  11. windriven says:

    @bruce Cohen

    I don’t know anything about the device but would recommend this article in Psychiatric Times. The most important point is that the existing devices are marketed under what is called a 510(k) declaration of substantial equivalence. That is to say that FDA has not been provided with documentary evidence of safety and efficacy as would generally be required of a Class III device.

  12. logesh says:

    Remember that our BMI (body mass index) is more important than our actual weight. BMI is a number that represents the ratio of our body fat . So we have maintain good BMI Level.
    How to Loss Weight by EFT

    1. dork says:

      The link is just someone pushing another weight-loss scheme on a terribly-designed site, nothing to see here.
      Notably though, BMI is certainly not an accurate representation of the ratio of body fat, nor an accurate measurement of fitness. We even have a measure for body fat in particular, aptly called the body fat percentage. I’m not even sure how you would come to the conclusion that BMI can represent the ratio of body fat when it has nothing to do with it at all. If you weigh more for a given height or are shorter for a given weight, does this consistently translate to higher body fat? Clearly not.

  13. Well Traveled says:

    Seems Dr Oz doesn’t even know what he is promoting. On his website he calls the fruit tamarind but shows a picture and describes a mangosteen. Mangosteen is the actual source of the magic ingredient he is hocking. I would forgive his self-serving merchandizing of magic “cures” if he was to get Mangosteens imported as fresh fruit into the US. They are the best fruit I’ve ever eaten. I enjoy a good durian too which ripens during the same season but that isn’t a universally accepted fruit. Mangosteens would sell like hot cakes because that white flesh on the inside of the thick purple cover is pure juice with a wonderful flavor.

  14. cosmicaug says:

    I think I might have seen this promoted for bodybuilders and bodybuilder wannabes (the latter mostly, as real bodybuilders use more heavy duty drugs and might be less likely to waste their time with this) since at least a decade ago.

  15. I much like the treasured info you furnish inside of your reports.I will bookmark your web log and look at once more right here frequently.I am somewhat absolutely sure I’ll gain knowledge of quite a lot of new stuff appropriate the following! High-quality luck to the subsequent!

  16. Ali says:

    I have used Garcinia for about 2 weeks now and have lost 5 pounds already. Dr. Oz is the best!!!

    1. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

      If you’ve lost five pounds in two weeks, that’s an unsafe level of weight loss. Most likely it is water weight (assuming you even exist and aren’t simply a robot), in which case it’ll come back when you stop taking whatever diuretic you are taking. If it is fat that you are losing, that means you have somehow burned an extra 15,000 calories in two weeks. Did you notice symptoms like sweating, a noticeably faster heart rate, anxiety or headaches? Because a metabolic boost like that, an extra thousand calories per day, that’s borderline methamphetamine, which can kill you pretty quickly. If it’s lean body mass, that’s a little terrifying. That means that Garcinia is preferrentially destroying your muscles, which probably includes heart muscle, or other non-fat organs. Do you think that’s a good idea? Losing weight by breaking down and excreting your kidneys, liver, bones, skin, eyes and so forth? I mean, are you so preoccupied with your weight that you’re willing to die in the next couple years if it means being skinny when you do so? You know what’s great for weight loss? Cancer. Perhaps you should look into getting a nice tumor.

      And naturally, all of this assumes you aren’t simply lying out of your ass. Given William of Ockham’s wonderful guidance in situations like this, I think you’re simply a liar, a salesperson attempting to drum up business for whoever sells Garcinia.

      1. mousethatroared says:

        WLU “If you’ve lost five pounds in two weeks, that’s an unsafe level of weight loss. Most likely it is water weight (assuming you even exist and aren’t simply a robot), in which case it’ll come back when you stop taking whatever diuretic you are taking. If it is fat that you are losing, that means you have somehow burned an extra 15,000 calories in two weeks.”

        WLU – It’s not that unusual for folks to lose 5#s in the first 1 or 2 weeks of a weight loss program…I saw it a lot at weight watchers. With a healthy weight loss plan, folks will level off to 1 to 2#s a week after that. As to water weight, if you are a women, 5# up or down depending upon where you are in your cycle is not unusual, no need for diuretics.

Comments are closed.