LOSE ALL THE WEIGHT

YOU WANT!!!

Really??
 

“Finally A Weight-Loss Product That Really Works!!
LOSE ALL THE WEIGHT YOU WANT!
NO SPECIAL DIETS OR EXERCISE!”

How about this: “Not only does hydroxycitric acid (HCA) help burn off unwanted body fat, but it also allows you to eat more food without gaining body fat.”

Lies. Lies. And more lies. “Amazingly, weight-loss is only one of the many benefits associated with the ingredients in the patch’s proprietary blend! Regular use will nourish your muscles, remove toxins, and even reduce cholesterol levels; just to name a few! It works by stimulating the thyroid gland. The iodine contained in the Fucus Vesiculosus gently boosts the metabolism to help promote the breakdown of fatty tissues.”

Choose your poison: more than half - fifty five percent - of the ads collected in a recent Federal Trade Commission (FTC) analysis from TV, newspapers, magazines and the internet contained at least one representation very likely to be false, or lack substantiation.

Why is all this important? Because obesity and related disorders cost 300,000 American lives a year. Because Americans spend an estimated 18 billion dollars a year (and growing) on weight loss products. And because, of the 68 million American adults trying to lose weight, approximately 196,000 are Lee County residents, and they form part of all the above statistics.

Media advertisements are seductive, no doubt about it, and are growing more so. A historical comparison of magazine ads in the same study reveals a much higher frequency of questionable claims and marketing techniques in 2001 compared to a decade before. For example, ads in year 2001 magazine sample were much more likely to use dramatic before-and-after photos and other consumer testimonials; to promise substantial, rapid and permanent weight loss, often without any diet or exercise; and to promise "guaranteed" and "scientifically proven" results.

The truth: there is no miracle pill. Here is the simple, if painful, bottom line: To lose weight, you must burn more calories than you eat. Diet change and lifestyle change should and must be the goals of anyone truly desiring to lose, and keep off, excess pounds. Of course, we all know that this is much simpler said than done, but that is for another discussion.

According to a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) study, between 1996 and 1998 an estimated 17.2 million Americans used one or more non-prescription weight loss products. If you were or are one of these, please become educated. Below are the seven basic advertising fallacies and a condensation of their analyses as given in the September 2002 FTC report, “Weight Loss Advertising: An Analysis of Current Trends.”

False Claim #1. The product causes weight loss of two pounds or more a week for a month, or more without dieting or exercise.
FTC Staff Analysis: To lose one pound of weight, according to a credible expert, the average individual needs a deficit of approximately 3,500 calories between caloric intake and caloric output. Although drugs may make it easier to achieve this deficit, they cannot alter this basic equation. The amount of weight loss that can be achieved through the use of nonprescription products without reducing caloric intake or increasing exercise is likely to be no more than one-fourth to one-third of a pound per week, with additional weight loss being attributable to reduced caloric intake.

Accordingly, weight loss in the range of two pounds per week over periods of time beyond four weeks (eight or more pounds per month) without restricting caloric intake or increasing exercise is not now scientifically feasible.

False Claim #2. The product causes substantial weight loss, no matter what or how much the consumer eats.
FTC Staff Analysis: This claim is largely a variation of the claim that users can lose weight without reducing caloric intake or increasing exercise, because the essence of the claim is that users can lose weight without reducing caloric intake and may even increase caloric intake and still lose weight. This would defy the laws of physics.

False Claim #3. The product causes permanent weight loss (even when the consumer stops using the product).
FTC Staff Analysis: Assuming that a product causes weight loss through a reduction of calories, through either an appetite suppression or malabsorption mechanism, weight would be regained once the intervention stops and calorie consumption returns to pre-intervention levels. In fact, it is well established that most people who lose weight gain it back within five years. No long-term studies on the weight loss maintenance of any of the covered products have been brought to the staff's attention, and we are not aware of any such studies in the published literature. Accordingly, a claim that a nonprescription drug, dietary supplement, cream, wrap, device, or patch can cause permanent weight loss is not scientifically feasible.
False Claim #4. The product blocks the absorption of fat or calories to enable consumers to lose substantial weight.

FTC Staff Analysis: The biological facts do not support the possibility that sufficient malabsorption of fat or calories can occur to cause substantial weight loss. To lose even one pound per week would require the malabsorption of about 500 calories a day or about 55 grams of fat. To lose two pounds per day, as stated in the sample ad, would require the malabsorption of 7000 calories per day, which is impossible given that it is several times the total calories that most people consume on a daily basis, let alone the number of calories consumed from just fat.

Based on its past experience, as well as the discussion at the workshop, written comments, and published studies, the staff concludes that the claim that a nonprescription drug, dietary supplement, cream, wrap, device, or patch will cause substantial weight loss through the blockage of absorption of fat or calories is not scientifically feasible.

False Claim #5. The advertised product enables consumers to lose more than three pounds per week for more than four weeks.
FTC Staff Analysis: There are significant health risks associated with medically unsupervised, rapid weight loss over extended periods of time. This conclusion does not mean that every person who loses more than three pounds per week will suffer serious side effects, but it does mean that weight loss in this range can create medical risks. In general, "the more restrictive the diet, the greater are the risks of adverse effects associated with weight loss."

One of the best documented risks is the increased incidence of gallstones. Added to this risk is the fact that a covered product could be sold as part of a "program" that includes a very-low-calorie diet and that very low calorie diets can be nutritionally inadequate and result in serious injury or even death.

False Claim #6. The product causes substantial weight loss for all users.
FTC Staff Analysis: Although there are common characteristics among the relevant population, there is not just one cause of overweight or obesity. In some people, the cause may be more closely linked to genetic factors, while in other instances, the principal causal factor may be environmental. Moreover, it should be obvious that diets, metabolic rates, and levels of physical activity vary from one individual to another and that compliance levels will vary. Thus a claim that a nonprescription drug, dietary supplement, cream, wrap, device, or patch will cause substantial weight loss for all users is not scientifically feasible.

False Claim #7. The product causes substantial weight loss by wearing it on the body or rubbing it into the skin.
FTC Staff Analysis: The products at issue for this claim include creams, wraps, patches, earrings, shoe inserts, and rings, among others, that can be purchased without a medical prescription. Based on the investigative experience of FTC staff, as well as the discussion at the workshop, written comments, and the published literature, a claim that users can lose substantial weight though the use of the advertised product that is worn on the body or rubbed into the skin is not scientifically feasible.

###