Science-Based Medicine

Dec 11 2012

Isagenix Study Is Not Convincing

You are currently browsing comments. If you would like to return to the full story, you can read the full entry here: “Isagenix Study Is Not Convincing”.

17 responses so far

17 Responses to “Isagenix Study Is Not Convincing”

1. # DavidCTon 11 Dec 2012 at 8:22 am

   One problem of peer review is the question of who are the peers. If the journal article is pseudoscience than a peer could easily be a pseudo-scientist and still be a peer depending on journal standards. That is why the journal should be evaluated as to impact as well as a claim of peer review alone. Even then it is best to engage the brain when reading.

2. # _Arthuron 11 Dec 2012 at 9:52 am

   The Kg and lbs are inverted: ” lost 4 kg compared to 3 kg in the control group (1.1 and 0.8 pounds a week, respectively)”. Should be: lost 4 lbs compared to 3 lbs.

3. # Janeton 11 Dec 2012 at 9:57 am

   “Bullshit” was the closest thing to a scientific evaluation of this particular sCAM.

   I learned long ago to ignore the phrase “clinically evaluated” on OTC products.

4. # _Arthuron 11 Dec 2012 at 10:45 am

   I checked the article, weight loss was 4 Kg vs 3 Kg, it’s your conversion into lbs that’s off.
   Correct numbers would be 8.8 lbs vs 6.6 lbs.

5. # sarniaskepticon 11 Dec 2012 at 11:14 am

   Arthur – the calculations are based on an 8 week study. Harriet has them stated correctly.

   4kg = 8.8 pounds (over an 8 week period)
   8.8 pounds / 8 weeks = 1.1 pounds / week

   3kg = 6.6 pounds (over an 8 week period)
   6.6 pounds / 8 weeks = .825 pounds / week

6. # lizditzon 11 Dec 2012 at 1:01 pm

   Sigh.

   One of my local friends, an elementary school teacher, is also an Isagenix dealer.

   Need an etiquette guide to “this product you passionately believe in is based on hooey”.

7. # Quillon 11 Dec 2012 at 1:26 pm

   “Isagenix is a wellness system sold by multilevel marketing.”

   That is all I need to know to avoid this “system” entirely.

8. # BobbyGon 11 Dec 2012 at 2:00 pm

   How about “Zrii”?

9. # mousethatroaredon 11 Dec 2012 at 3:01 pm

   Isagenix – Isn’t that the name of the evil corporation that oversees the beautification and homogenization of the human race in the next noir sci-fi flick?

10. # Scotton 11 Dec 2012 at 4:53 pm

    I’m struck by the fact that the stated objective of the study is to test intermittent-fasting calorie-restricted diets, while the methodology is to compare two different such diets. The introduction is similar – what they’re actually testing bears no real resemblance to what they say they’re testing. And the design is entirely incapable of speaking to the latter.

    Was this a ploy to divert attention from the fact that the manufacturer of a product is trying to produce evidence that it works? (Long after starting to sell it, naturally.)

11. # Karl Withakayon 11 Dec 2012 at 5:41 pm

    Liz, that would be the companion to the also needed , “While you are not evil, your MLM is.” etiquette guide.

12. # starskepticon 11 Dec 2012 at 6:27 pm

    Dr Harriet Hall: Roller Derby Queen…

13. # actinomyceson 11 Dec 2012 at 6:40 pm

    Good article. Unfortunately multi-level marketers are impervious to logic. Anyone who can look at the income disclosure statements for these companies and see 99% of people who join lose money but somehow–they are special–so they still sign up, must be.

    And don’t bother trying talk friends involved in these cults out of it–they are trained by these companies to not associate with anyone who is “negative” (to them, reality is negative) or they won’t ever get rich–after all, that’s how the law of attraction works, just ask Oprah!

14. # Angora Rabbiton 11 Dec 2012 at 11:34 pm

    A major reason this study is bogus is because the two groups are incorrectly matched. If a group is given packaged food and told to stick with it (whether Nutrisystem or Isagenix), you will get better compliance as compared with dietitian counseling, simply because the packaging makes the person pay more attention to what they put in their mouths. This is why the packaged food diet systems, or even the book-based diets, work in the short term.

    If the authors really wanted to make their claim, they would compare their packaged product against a different, isocaloric packaged product used in the same manner. The current study compares apples and oranges, and this is why it is published where it was.

    The tipoff is the caloric calculation presented above. Crunch the calories and the weight lost matches the calories in. There’s no magic bullet here, just the classic example of distorted eating behavior mediated by paying attention to enforced diet rules. Same trick works for Atkins, as an example, for the short term. Ten weeks is not enough to show a sustained weight loss because it is a temporary behavioral change.

15. # Khym Chanuron 12 Dec 2012 at 1:50 am

    It allegedly burns fat

    The only way I can interpret that is that they’re claiming it alters your metabolism to be like one of those people who can eat as much as they want and never gain weight. Wouldn’t a claim like that make it regulatable as a drug, or does it still somehow count as a “structure/function” claim that’s covered by the DSHEA?

16. # fxhon 13 Dec 2012 at 7:42 pm

    Is there a list anywhere of what is considered a toxin?

    It seems to me that a toxin is anything you want it to be and is also anything that cannot be measured.

17. # ladentduchaton 15 Dec 2012 at 5:09 pm

    @DavidCT & Harriet

    I mostly agree with you DavidCT, but I do not really see why impact factor would be such a quality mark regarding the demarcation problem. Unfortunately, there are too many pseudoscientific journals listed by ISI and “they” could possibly just cite each-other to raise the impact factor. I have no suggestion to the problem, but neither impact factor nor peer-review makes a journal immune to nonsense.