More on Hydroxycut

Posted By elissa on May 6, 2009 | 1 comment

Iovate just released a consumer Q & A on the Hydroxycut recall, which is posted on a special site: HydroxycutInformation.com.  I instinctively rolled my eyes at this para:

We conduct internal analyses of individual ingredients, and undertake extensive medical, scientific and toxicological literature reviews on the safety of the ingredients during the development stage of each product. Additionally, third-party experts from the leading independent scientific firm specializing in ingredient assessment, toxicology and product safety for the nutritional and pharmaceutical industry review the safety of Iovate’s ingredients and formulas before products are introduced in the marketplace. Only after this external review is completed does Iovate release a formula.

Translation: we went to the library and collected information on our ingredients; then had someone else double-check our work.

In other words, it’s your typical Iovate/Muscletech bafflegab.  Nowhere do they state what they mean by “internal analyses” (lab tests?), nor is there any mention of actual safety testing.  Doing a “toxicological literature review” sounds great in theory…but what if there isn’t much literature to review in the first place?  The sad truth is that the research on many herbal compounds is incomplete and of debatable quality.

In the end, however, the review process is less critical than the decisions that flow from it.  This is what’s missing from their so-called information page.  What criteria were used to judge the relative safety of each ingredient?

I think it’s an interesting question, since – as it turns out – there’s at least one hepatotoxic ingredient in Hydroxycut Max: Aralia mandshurica.

The hepatotoxic effect of a dried root extract of Aralia mandshurica over a period of 60 days (0.16 g/kg, 1.5 g/kg and 3 g/kg) was studied in Landrace pigs of both sexes. The toxic effect of Aralia mandshurica was evaluated by measuring serum alanine amino transferase (ALT), gamma glutamil transpeptidase (gGT) and serum alkaline phosphatase (SAP). Blood samples were obtained by venopuncture on days 0, 7, 30, and 60 after the administration of Aralia mandshurica and the body weight was registered weekly. At the end of the experiment the liver was examined histologically. The levels of ALT and gGT were increased significantly with all the concentrations of Aralia mandshurica at day 60. A subclinical hepatitis characterized by the presence of lymphocytes and polymorphonuclears in the portal and periportal region was observed. A hepatobiliary toxic effect of Aralia mandshurica dried root extract after chronic administration in pigs is concluded.

Emphasis mine.

Now I just grabbed Aralia at random from the list of ingredients and googled it…I put all of 3 minutes into the search.  But it’s enough to make me wonder: did the Iovate folks miss this?  Or did they think this study was worthless?

So how did Iovate account for this? Inquiring minds want to know…

Now, don’t get me wrong…I don’t believe Aralia’s the problem (such as it is) at all.  It’s the 5th ingredient in a blend that’s only 274 mg…Personally, I think it’s label decoration, and pretty much irrelevant.  It’ s just a quick example that illustrates why the company’s explanation of the review process is an EPIC FAIL.  The words are meant to reassure, but they’re largely empty.  The process is nothing, unless the decision making process is sound…and they tell us NADA about that.

It’s par for the course, though.  Maybe I’m just cranky from deconstructing too many Iovate/Muscletech sales pitches, but – just this once – I wish they’d cut the crap, and give consumers some straightforward, honest information.