Mechanism, Mechanism, On the Wall, Will You Keep Our Sales Tall?

Looking for the next best alternative to ephedra may not be a long term solution to the industry’s weight loss woes.

ByAnthony L. Almada, B.Sc., M. Sc.

“Mechanism Number One is a 28-year-old American with a robust peak in metabolic rate and a degree in metabolic engineering from MIT. He’s studying to become an HVAC expert and likes skiing and other winter sports. Mechanism Number Two is a 20-year-old from Europe sporting a pair of designer UnCouplingProtein genes, and has an advanced degree in functional genomics from Cambridge. His hobbies include French cooking and his favorite cereal is Futile Cycle Loops®. And last, but definitely not least, is Mechanism Number Three. He’s a tall 32-year-old from the San Francisco Bay area with a towering spike in growth hormone and insulin-like growth factor. He graduated with honors from UC San Diego, loves to play basketball and enjoys the circus. Now let’s meet our Brandor-ette. She’s a slender and fit 29-year-old from Miami Beach, Florida who’s looking for a Mechanism that can make her a star and desired by millions. She likes to play it safe but won’t turn away from a little stimulation, as long as it’s harmless. She says that she’s tired of Mechanisms who lay the “Ephedra” pitch on her but is looking for a handsome and honest Mechanism who can fill Ephedra’s shoes and will always be there for her. She’s a personal injury attorney and graduated magna cum laude from Boalt Law School. In her spare time, she produces genetic mutants of caffeine overproducing coffee and cocoa beans. Won’t you please welcome Ms. Slim Safe!”

I have dedicated several columns to the topic of ephedra and its émigrés. It is both a lightning rod and a revenue beacon, still in 2003. As many note, the beacon continues to slowly dim, no doubt accelerated by the near constant lightning flashes of fear emanating from the media and political clouds. What clearly is e­merging is a new cloud mass, lacking the ephedra signature platinum and black lining, and echoing the phrase “ephedra-free.” Imagine another class of consumer consumable products, let’s say smokeless cigarettes, divided by a line of with (tacit) or without nicotine (“nicotine-free”). Despite the ravages associated with nicotine, the “with nicotine” brands continue to thrive economically, while the nicotine-free are more of a novelty. Ask the local C&G attendant which one is selling better and you’re likely to hear a response such as, “I’ve had a lot of people try the nicotine-frees but almost everyone comes back jonesing for the ‘real deal.’” Most people know that nicotine could be bad for them—all that news about people having strokes and heart attacks and stuff—but the “nic” nicks their appetite. It just plain works—they lose weight.

The parting of the Ephedra Sea has, like a vortex, sucked in a boatful of newcomers, many playing with the world’s most favorite drug served hot, caffeine. Unsung and sung botanicals abound from yerba mate and damiana to green tea and guarana, and the song of the Muses is “Thermogenica.”

I have a keen fondness for the descriptor thermogenic, as I was the first to introduce it to the dietary supplement industry, appearing on a “thermogenic” Ephedra + caffeine (E+C) product back in 1991 (I am allowed one shameless self-promotion every 2 years). However, it is just that: a descriptor that is a plausible biological mechanism. For E+C products, at least synthetic E+C, the majority of the weight lost is NOT due to thermogenic mechanisms (increased calorie burning) but through anorexigenic effects: acute appetite suppression. Here is the friction apex: if a product displays acute and substantial thermogenic effects, as seen by Arkopharma’s AR25™ proprietary, patent-pending green tea extract, or Cytodyne’s Xenadrine® EFX, does this mean that substantial weight loss will follow like a domino stack? Ineffective until proven effective.

What does the consumer ultimately seek: augmented thermogenesis or augmented weight/fat loss? No cerebral tissue needed for that one. Do either of these products have independently conducted randomized controlled trials, presented at a biomedical research meeting or publish­­ed in a reviewed journal, showing weight/fat loss over a month or longer, that is greater (with statistical significance) than a placebo? Not yet. The ideal placebo would be one wherein the caffeine content was identical to the active product, as evidenced in the December 1999 American Journal of Clinical Nutrition paper with AR25. This would then exalt the active product to the rarefied altitude of additive or synergistic efficacy, as all of the “Ephedra-free” products require a PDA to recall all of the other bioactives. If these studies are ongoing, I welcome their communication in the world of science first, not on the tradeshow floor.

Defocusing “mechanisms” and targeting consumer-substantial effects, with spotlight intensity, is the call of the wild and unsatisfied consumer. For the company(ies) that obtain these effects and brand them to the brand, they may come close to mirroring even half of the consumer frenzy botanical E+C engendered.NW