diet pill?

[Chicklady]

Re: diet pill?

Or, an energy drink for someone who works at a job where he goes up into attics and down into basements, carrying out 200-500 pound refrigerators, 800 pound safes, 100 pound couches, day in and day out, several times per day. Some days when he goes into work he gets estate cleanouts where he gets to clean out an entire house, top to bottom, in just a few hours. Making hundreds of trips up and down stairs, carrying very heavy objects. Perhaps?

And I was responding to the posters who replied talking about miracle diet pills ... what does that have to do with the original posters question? The original poster asked about a specific product which has been studied and verified to work to a certain degree and many people respond with "There are no miracle diet pills ... blah, blah, blah" .... which in fact had very little or nothing to do with the thread.

First, I think you are rude. But more importantly, you site no links or valid medical journal reports, yet you accuse everyone else of not doing research.

[Mirya]

Re: diet pill?

1) Personally I don't think that was a wise decision as I know your aware taking all those diet fad pills is not healthy. Iunderstand the want to lose more weight or that its not leaving as quickly as you would lik ebut losing TOO much is just NOT healthy and all those pills do s screw your inner workings up. TAKE THEM BACK. Not to mention we are only given a certain allotment of carbs a day. Our bodies REQUIRE a certain amount as well and using a carb blocke while already on a low-carb moderated diet may just prove to be worse than unhealthy. Tis particular type of drug is made for people with an intake of 100-150 grams of carbs or more a day... not 20-90

2) As far as research goes and energy drinks and boosting pills... If we were MEANT to have these things in our bodies we would have been made with it.

3) I also do not appreciate everyone gettng all nasty, rude and hateful with each other. Most of us DO NOT come here to verbally slap people around. I don't come hee to read this negative crap I come here for positive support and I don't care who you are, where you are from, or whatever.... This is to everyone. IF YOU CAN NOT TACTFULLY EXTEND YOUR THOUGHTS, WITH SOME AMOUNT OF RESPECT FOR OTHERS, THEN KEEP IT TO YOURSELF AND DON'T POST IT.

[Chicklady]

Re: diet pill?

taking all those diet fad pills is not healthy. ..... and all those pills do s screw your inner workings up. TAKE THEM BACK.

I still have unused Phase 11 somewhere in the house. I took them for 30 days....they did nothing...good or bad....just nothing! But hey, I got a deal....buy three get one free. Just think how much I would have saved *sigh* fi I hadn't bought them at all.
Chitosan, on the other hand, gave me stomach aches like you wouldn't believe. I couldn't take it long enough to know if it worked. My stomach constantly felt like I had swallowed a porcupine

[Mirya]

Re: diet pill?

yah. if it isn't bad on the health it will be bad on the wallet. I just reccomend that if someone MUST take something like this then to see what their Doctor says. If the Dr. buys into diet pills I would find another Dr. UNLESS s/he can come up with some kind of argument to defend the decision wih sme sort of proof.

[not2late]

Re: diet pill?

What I don't particularly understand about using carb blockers while on a low carb diet is this....

A low carb diet already restricts the number of carbohydrates one eats. In essence, you are blocking carb absorption by not eating a great deal of them in the first place. So why would you need to take something that blocks the few carbs you are already eating?

Secondly, a low carb diet is low in carbs. Low carb isn't 'no' carb.

Therefore, using a carb blocker while on an already low carb diet, doesn't make much sense to me.

Sure, you can argue that the lower the number of carbs you eat, the faster the weight loss. But folks here on ADBB have proven that wrong. We have members who have found their weight loss rate to be "faster" when they are eating close to their CCLLs rather than if they severely restricted their carbs to Induction levels. Plus they aren't as cranky and aren't as likely to fall off the diet due to the wider variety of foods allowed during OWL and Pre-Maintenace.

[kate58]

Re: diet pill?

I tend to deal in the realm of facts and not quickly drawn conclusions that are based on nothing

I couldn't agree with you more - I am meticulous about chasing up facts. You might even call it an obsession. So I went and chased up a few about this stuff.

First, I assume that when you refer to facts you are in part at least citing your father's weight loss. While I am happy he has lost weight, his experience is merely anecdote - which does not make it untrue, but does make it irrelevant from the point of view of assessing the facts regarding efficacy of any agent or dietary approach. When it comes to facts, one person's experience has no statistical or other significance.

The product in question, like many of these carb blockers, has as its active ingredient an extract of White Kidney Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris), which is said to inhibit amylase, the enzyme responsible for breaking down starch into glucose so that it can be absorbed in the small intestine. There is in fact some evidence that this is true and that it does have an inhibatory effect on amylase.

The theory goes that this means people can have a low carb intake, while eating high carb products, because they will block the absorbtion of carbs.

First a little warning, which should be taken to heart by anyone reading the extravagant claims of advertising or anyone with a financial interest in selling a product - it is important not to equate these claims with fact, however prettily they are put.

In 2004 a company called Pinnacle Marketing, who were among the first to market phaseolas vulgaris as a carb blocker, paid $1 million to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that they made deceptive advertising containing unerified claims about a dietary supplement containing this ingredient. They would have had to pay more if they had it - the order also contains an "avalanche clause" which provides that $22.5 million will become due immediately if the court finds that they misrepresented their financial situation.

Essentially they were done because they claimed the product worked in the absense of diet and exercise - which, of course, if it blocked carbs it should do. It didn't and doesn't. That is why subsequent advertisers/marketers absolve themselves from similar cases by carefully putting in the small print that it only works in combination with dietary modification. This lets them off the hook, because if it doesn't work, they can say it's the users fault - they didn't modify their diet enough.

Lots of other diet pills have also been fined by the FTC in similar circumstances, though the numbers are fewer now, because they have all become VERY clever at absolving their products from actually having any useful effect in the small print.

This particular FTC ruling is here: http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2004/08/pvt.shtm

So, what, if any, evidence exists for the efficacy of Phaseolus vulgaris?

Studies of Phaseolus vulgaris

There are few reliable clinical studies to support the extravagant claims made for Phaseolus vulgaris, although the advertising often cite multiple studies, efforts to actually track a lot of the particular studies they mention down are futile.

There are some interesting respectable studies (ie ones not done by people with a financial interest in marketing the product) though.

A literature search at Pub Med will throw up well over 4000 articles which mention phaseolas vulgaris. I took the time to trawl through the results and to read quite a few of them in search of facts, which you can do too. Many either mention it in passing, have nothing to do with its properties as an amylase inhibitor or are to do with extracting the active ingredient from the bean, are related to toxicity trials (it's not toxic, though the original bean is) or were conducted on pigs or rats.

The ones below are about the best studies I can find wrt it's actual use in humans.

Pub Med: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez

Study One

The most frequently cited study involved 27 people, lasted 8 weeks, involved about half taking Phaseolus and half taking a placebo. No information is included in the study about what either group ate, it is assumed, though not verified, that they simply carried on with their normal diet.

Results were published in the March 2004 issue of Alternative Medicine Review. The people taking white kidney bean extract did indeed lose more weight - an average of 0.47 lb per week versus .21lbs per week - but the study concluded that "no statistical significance was reached."

Why is this, when the non-placebo group lost more?

While the difference between 0.47lbs and 0.21lbs can be quoted as "more than 200%", and often is in advertising, this is a gross distortion of the mathemathical reality - leaving aside the fat that the difference is actually a little over 100%, because even that's not relevant, the actual numbers are too small to make them significant, basically because twice of very little is still very little. But advertising a difference of about 0.2 lbs a week between taking expensive pills and not bothering is much less likely to make someone hit the buy button.

Since statistics is a difficult area, the best way of summing up the results of this study is that there is a better than one in three chance that the findings of this study occured completely by chance. One in 20 is the traditional cut-off point in statistics if a finding is to be taken seriously.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...?dopt=Abstract

Study Two

The same scientists who did the first study conducted an additional one in 2007, this time lasting 4 weeks and involving 25 people who were also prescribed a weight-loss program, including diet, exercise, and behavioral intervention.

The primary conclusion of this trial was that: "Subjects who adhere to a program including dietary modification, exercise, and behavioral intervention can significantly reduce their weight and waist size in a short period of time." Well, quite.

The placebo group again did lose less (1.17 lbs per week) than those taking the Phaseolus (1.50 lbs per week), but again the authors conclude that: "The differences between groups were not significant". The authors caution: "Longer studies with a larger pool of subjects are required to validate these findings"

This study is never cited by advertisers, perhaps because saying that you can lose "about 20% more" is much less enticing than saying "200% more" when referring to study one, even if the latter figure shows a tenuous grasp of mathemathics at best.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17658120

Study Three

This one sounds quite hopeful and you can expect to soon see it widely cited in advertising (they all copy their claims from each other, and don't seem to actually keep up with the literature so haven't found this one yet). It used 60 subjects, on a controlled diet, again with half getting kidney bean extract, half placebo for a period of 30 days. No information is given about the composition of the diet precribed or the participants adherance to it, but it was the same for both groups.

It concluded that the product: "when taken daily by overweight human subjects with the carbohydrate-rich portion of a 2000- to 2200-calorie diet ..... produced significant decreases in body fat while essentially maintaining lean body mass."

While this sounds good, it should be noted that this study refers to a specific product called Blokcal, which is marketed in Italy, and that the study was sponsored by the manufacturers of this product, Pharmachem Laboratories, Inc. Take what you will from that, but at least the product should have been well formulated as Pharachem are a major pharmaceutical company.

http://www.medsci.org/v04p0045.htm

Study Four

This study, published in the Bosnian journal of basic medical sciences in August 2006, was carried out at the University of Belgrade and took 18 healthy participants (9 male and 9 female). The participants where given either placebo or 30 minutes before a 50g oral glucose tolerance test, with blood samples drawn at 0, 15, 30, 60, 90 and 120 min.

No effect was discernable between the glucose levels of the placebo or the active ingredient groups. Not surprisingly this study is never cited in marketing material.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16995844

Study Five

Published in Aug 2006 in the European journal of medical research, this study involved over 100 participants and looked at a number of 'diet pills'. One was a formulation containing extracts of Kidney bean pods, Garcinia cambogia, and Chromium yeast. The study lasted 12 weeks.

The study concluded that: "outcome measures like: weight, BMI failed to produce significant difference between groups." However it did find that "the decrease in body fat was statistically significant".

This was a confusing study to read, but I thought it worthy of mention because of the change in body composition in the absense of weight loss that it reported.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17052970

No matter what you conclude, having looked at the published literature, lots of questions have to be asked before deciding that this is a useful product. Here are a few:

1. Is blocking these ingredients in a diet actually desirable?

2. Is it ok to continue to eat what is demonstably a bad diet (which made you fat) and meanwhile attempt to negate it's effects with drugs, natural or otherwise?

3. Even if these undesirable elements are blocked, would such a diet provide the full range of nutrients required for good health?

4. What are the long term effect of interfering with your bodies natural digestion in this way?

5. Given that no dietary or minimal dietary intervention would almost certainly accompany many people's use of these drugs, how long would the weight stay off? Do you need to take the drugs forever?

6. If, as all the respectable studies acknowledge, dietary change can have the same positive effects, is it better to pop a pill or change your diet?

7. How do you know that some arbitary unregulated product you buy (and these products ARE unregulated) actually has the ingredients it proports to, in the right proportions and in the correct formulation?

8. What advantage do these drugs have when a person is already making a positive dietary intervention? Could they do harm in the absence of excess carbs in the diet?



If you have not answered, or are unable to answer, those questions, then you are not in possession of all the facts. And as daquix so rightly pointed out, it's a very good thing to deal with facts.

[Chicklady]

Re: diet pill?

Wow Kate!! Thanks for doing our homework
Where were you when I was in college?

Personally, and YMMV, I don't ask folks here (or any forum about any subject)advice expecting scientific data, but rather anecdotal experiences. I gave up popping any kind of pills a few years back out of paranoia....nothing scientific about that. Just kept noting how many fda approved drugs were having some devastating side affects, and figured the non-approved ones couldn't be much better *shrug* Call me an earthy crunchy, but I say mother nature knows best!! And anyway, how often is it we hear that Atkins doesn't work, is dangerous to our health, and we're just losing water?
I'm eagerly awaiting the day I lose 130 pounds of water

[kate58]

Re: diet pill?

I don't ask folks here (or any forum about any subject)advice expecting scientific data

I am completely with you on that, but when someone start talking about facts, without citing any facts, I can't resist the bait!

Where were you when I was in college?

Prolly in the bar I had a very studious friend with very neat writing - I just kept her supplied with carbon paper.

[Chicklady]

Re: diet pill?

Prolly in the bar I had a very studious friend with very neat writing - I just kept her supplied with carbon paper.

LOL Kate.

[chicamarun]

Re: diet pill?

I think that you should get your money back.

Here's my thought process (none of it scientific BTW)

1) If you are doing Atkin's correctly - then you are taking in a lower amount of carbs period.

2) Most people who want to lose weight WILL try almost anything and if the scale hasn't moved in awhile they are usually more eager to jump into something and try it.

Believe me - I think I have something here that was supposed to make me feel full and well it's just taking up space in my fridge. I was desperate.

Now I drink water and have other things available. Do I still feel the "pull" of "miracle pills" - you betcha!!! But now I work very hard not to give in to it. I also feel the pull of magic foods and try hard not to give in to those either. It all has to do with the life-style you chose and stick with vs quick results that will come back.

[APanthesilia]

Re: diet pill?

I couldn't agree with you more - I am meticulous about chasing up facts. You might even call it an obsession. So I went and chased up a few about this stuff.

Thank you!

[daquix]

Re: diet pill?

What I don't particularly understand about using carb blockers while on a low carb diet is this....

A low carb diet already restricts the number of carbohydrates one eats. In essence, you are blocking carb absorption by not eating a great deal of them in the first place. So why would you need to take something that blocks the few carbs you are already eating?

Secondly, a low carb diet is low in carbs. Low carb isn't 'no' carb.

Therefore, using a carb blocker while on an already low carb diet, doesn't make much sense to me.

Sure, you can argue that the lower the number of carbs you eat, the faster the weight loss. But folks here on ADBB have proven that wrong. We have members who have found their weight loss rate to be "faster" when they are eating close to their CCLLs rather than if they severely restricted their carbs to Induction levels. Plus they aren't as cranky and aren't as likely to fall off the diet due to the wider variety of foods allowed during OWL and Pre-Maintenace.

I agree. I definately wouldn't use it on Induction, but I see no problem with using them on OWL or Maintenance. Its just something to help ... it doesn't take them away completely. Good post.

[daquix]

Re: diet pill?

I couldn't agree with you more - I am meticulous about chasing up facts. You might even call it an obsession. So I went and chased up a few about this stuff.

First, I assume that when you refer to facts you are in part at least citing your father's weight loss. While I am happy he has lost weight, his experience is merely anecdote - which does not make it untrue, but does make it irrelevant from the point of view of assessing the facts regarding efficacy of any agent or dietary approach. When it comes to facts, one person's experience has no statistical or other significance.

The product in question, like many of these carb blockers, has as its active ingredient an extract of White Kidney Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris), which is said to inhibit amylase, the enzyme responsible for breaking down starch into glucose so that it can be absorbed in the small intestine. There is in fact some evidence that this is true and that it does have an inhibatory effect on amylase.

The theory goes that this means people can have a low carb intake, while eating high carb products, because they will block the absorbtion of carbs.

First a little warning, which should be taken to heart by anyone reading the extravagant claims of advertising or anyone with a financial interest in selling a product - it is important not to equate these claims with fact, however prettily they are put.

In 2004 a company called Pinnacle Marketing, who were among the first to market phaseolas vulgaris as a carb blocker, paid $1 million to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that they made deceptive advertising containing unerified claims about a dietary supplement containing this ingredient. They would have had to pay more if they had it - the order also contains an "avalanche clause" which provides that $22.5 million will become due immediately if the court finds that they misrepresented their financial situation.

Essentially they were done because they claimed the product worked in the absense of diet and exercise - which, of course, if it blocked carbs it should do. It didn't and doesn't. That is why subsequent advertisers/marketers absolve themselves from similar cases by carefully putting in the small print that it only works in combination with dietary modification. This lets them off the hook, because if it doesn't work, they can say it's the users fault - they didn't modify their diet enough.

Lots of other diet pills have also been fined by the FTC in similar circumstances, though the numbers are fewer now, because they have all become VERY clever at absolving their products from actually having any useful effect in the small print.

This particular FTC ruling is here: http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2004/08/pvt.shtm

So, what, if any, evidence exists for the efficacy of Phaseolus vulgaris?

Studies of Phaseolus vulgaris

There are few reliable clinical studies to support the extravagant claims made for Phaseolus vulgaris, although the advertising often cite multiple studies, efforts to actually track a lot of the particular studies they mention down are futile.

There are some interesting respectable studies (ie ones not done by people with a financial interest in marketing the product) though.

A literature search at Pub Med will throw up well over 4000 articles which mention phaseolas vulgaris. I took the time to trawl through the results and to read quite a few of them in search of facts, which you can do too. Many either mention it in passing, have nothing to do with its properties as an amylase inhibitor or are to do with extracting the active ingredient from the bean, are related to toxicity trials (it's not toxic, though the original bean is) or were conducted on pigs or rats.

The ones below are about the best studies I can find wrt it's actual use in humans.

Pub Med: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez

Study One

The most frequently cited study involved 27 people, lasted 8 weeks, involved about half taking Phaseolus and half taking a placebo. No information is included in the study about what either group ate, it is assumed, though not verified, that they simply carried on with their normal diet.

Results were published in the March 2004 issue of Alternative Medicine Review. The people taking white kidney bean extract did indeed lose more weight - an average of 0.47 lb per week versus .21lbs per week - but the study concluded that "no statistical significance was reached."

Why is this, when the non-placebo group lost more?

While the difference between 0.47lbs and 0.21lbs can be quoted as "more than 200%", and often is in advertising, this is a gross distortion of the mathemathical reality - leaving aside the fat that the difference is actually a little over 100%, because even that's not relevant, the actual numbers are too small to make them significant, basically because twice of very little is still very little. But advertising a difference of about 0.2 lbs a week between taking expensive pills and not bothering is much less likely to make someone hit the buy button.

Since statistics is a difficult area, the best way of summing up the results of this study is that there is a better than one in three chance that the findings of this study occured completely by chance. One in 20 is the traditional cut-off point in statistics if a finding is to be taken seriously.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...?dopt=Abstract

Study Two

The same scientists who did the first study conducted an additional one in 2007, this time lasting 4 weeks and involving 25 people who were also prescribed a weight-loss program, including diet, exercise, and behavioral intervention.

The primary conclusion of this trial was that: "Subjects who adhere to a program including dietary modification, exercise, and behavioral intervention can significantly reduce their weight and waist size in a short period of time." Well, quite.

The placebo group again did lose less (1.17 lbs per week) than those taking the Phaseolus (1.50 lbs per week), but again the authors conclude that: "The differences between groups were not significant". The authors caution: "Longer studies with a larger pool of subjects are required to validate these findings"

This study is never cited by advertisers, perhaps because saying that you can lose "about 20% more" is much less enticing than saying "200% more" when referring to study one, even if the latter figure shows a tenuous grasp of mathemathics at best.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17658120

Study Three

This one sounds quite hopeful and you can expect to soon see it widely cited in advertising (they all copy their claims from each other, and don't seem to actually keep up with the literature so haven't found this one yet). It used 60 subjects, on a controlled diet, again with half getting kidney bean extract, half placebo for a period of 30 days. No information is given about the composition of the diet precribed or the participants adherance to it, but it was the same for both groups.

It concluded that the product: "when taken daily by overweight human subjects with the carbohydrate-rich portion of a 2000- to 2200-calorie diet ..... produced significant decreases in body fat while essentially maintaining lean body mass."

While this sounds good, it should be noted that this study refers to a specific product called Blokcal, which is marketed in Italy, and that the study was sponsored by the manufacturers of this product, Pharmachem Laboratories, Inc. Take what you will from that, but at least the product should have been well formulated as Pharachem are a major pharmaceutical company.

http://www.medsci.org/v04p0045.htm

Study Four

This study, published in the Bosnian journal of basic medical sciences in August 2006, was carried out at the University of Belgrade and took 18 healthy participants (9 male and 9 female). The participants where given either placebo or 30 minutes before a 50g oral glucose tolerance test, with blood samples drawn at 0, 15, 30, 60, 90 and 120 min.

No effect was discernable between the glucose levels of the placebo or the active ingredient groups. Not surprisingly this study is never cited in marketing material.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16995844

Study Five

Published in Aug 2006 in the European journal of medical research, this study involved over 100 participants and looked at a number of 'diet pills'. One was a formulation containing extracts of Kidney bean pods, Garcinia cambogia, and Chromium yeast. The study lasted 12 weeks.

The study concluded that: "outcome measures like: weight, BMI failed to produce significant difference between groups." However it did find that "the decrease in body fat was statistically significant".

This was a confusing study to read, but I thought it worthy of mention because of the change in body composition in the absense of weight loss that it reported.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17052970



No matter what you conclude, having looked at the published literature, lots of questions have to be asked before deciding that this is a useful product. Here are a few:

1. Is blocking these ingredients in a diet actually desirable?

2. Is it ok to continue to eat what is demonstably a bad diet (which made you fat) and meanwhile attempt to negate it's effects with drugs, natural or otherwise?

3. Even if these undesirable elements are blocked, would such a diet provide the full range of nutrients required for good health?

4. What are the long term effect of interfering with your bodies natural digestion in this way?

5. Given that no dietary or minimal dietary intervention would almost certainly accompany many people's use of these drugs, how long would the weight stay off? Do you need to take the drugs forever?

6. If, as all the respectable studies acknowledge, dietary change can have the same positive effects, is it better to pop a pill or change your diet?

7. How do you know that some arbitary unregulated product you buy (and these products ARE unregulated) actually has the ingredients it proports to, in the right proportions and in the correct formulation?

8. What advantage do these drugs have when a person is already making a positive dietary intervention? Could they do harm in the absence of excess carbs in the diet?

If you have not answered, or are unable to answer, those questions, then you are not in possession of all the facts. And as daquix so rightly pointed out, it's a very good thing to deal with facts.

Once again, I agree. There will always be questions about any dietary product, and inconclusive studies and conclusive ones. There will always be doctors who don't agree with a study and those who do. There are plenty of doctors around the world, who still swear that Atkins is going to kill you. Do you listen to them? Didn't think so. And yes - this product is to be included in a diet program with exercise.

1. Yes, in my opinion.

2. I would never recommend eating bad foods all the time and simply popping in this pill. I said that in the post that you were responding to. However, if one day a month, after you are in maintenance, you want to eat a dish of pasta and want to controll SOME of the carbs, then thise could be a product that could help you. That is how I will use it, and how I think many people should use it.

3. Dr. Atkins in the book says over and over how any diet is going to not be 100% sufficient in nutrients, thus why we should take supplements every day.

4. We don't know. Just like we don't know about 80% of the medicine on the market. In 50 years, we could find out that clearisil causis skin cancer.

5. What many people do is not my concern. My concern is to take these pills along with the diet, as a small aid. Not the lifeforce or a diet within itself.

6. Is this the 3rd question about diet, in this questionare? Once again, if you read my post before, I said that I would use these in conjuction with a diet. Not just pop pills as a miracle pill. Thats silly.

7. We don't know. Just like we don't know about half of the products that are on the shelves near the pharmacy in the store. Most of them say "Not evaluated by the FDA" (Para)

8. I doubt it, as I have seen them work. However, there is still always that chance.

Many of these questions had to do with using these as your main diet. Which isn't the purpose. And the other ones are equivalant to "What if you get on that roller coaster and it goes off the tracks?" ... we just don't know. Its a chance.

Study 1: The person you cited said that the difference is insignificant, yet that insignificance is the difference of about 13 pounds more lost per year. To many people that is not insignificant. Positive.

Study 2: Ditto, study #1, except this time it was 15 pounds more lost per year. Positive.

Study 3: positive

Study 4: inconclusive/negative

Study 5: positive

So we have 5 studies. 4 positive and 1 negative. Interesting. Sorry, but I refuse to call an extra 15 pounds lost per year, for those who don't lose weight easily, insignificant.

I do appreciate you looking those up though. Good job!

[daquix]

Re: diet pill?

First, I think you are rude. But more importantly, you site no links or valid medical journal reports, yet you accuse everyone else of not doing research.

Well, i'm sorry you think that I am rude, but you tried to throw in a backwards stab at me without knowing the situation. I have a job where, energy is CRUCIAL. There have been times, where if I didn't get something in my body to give me a boost, I would have fainted. Literally.

I didn't site any medical journals because it was late and I had to get to bed and I figured I could find them the next morning. I came on here today and another poster already did the work for me. With 4 studies that showed a positive report and only 1 that showed a negative report.

Once again, I am sorry that you think I'm rude, but you took that backwards stab at me without knowing what I was going through. Last week, we had a job where I had to pick up and carry, in buckets, hundreds of logs and pieces of wood from a back corner of a 2 lot yard, carry them across the yard and put them in our truck ... for 9 hours straight. Then I had the priviledge of transfering concrete blocks and bricks from that backyard to the front. And I do this type of work, many days a week. Perhaps you could understand why I need something to give me a boost, a bit more than the average person.

[Chicklady]

Re: diet pill?

People really love to jump all over a post and throw around ideas without doing the research required, huh?

I do Atkins. Nowhere in my ANDR does it say to pop carb blockers as part of premaint, or maint. Atkins is Atkins, anything else, isn't Atkins.