Anthony Almada10.01.10
Location: Consumer Retorts cloud magazine, Editorial Virtual room, 5 October 2014.
Jasper Elliott, Editor in Chief: “Good morning, team. We’ve got a lot on the docket today so let’s dive in. Jane, I’d like you to take the lead as to what test results we have the opportunity to report in our next issue…”
Jane Wilcken, MD, PhD, Vice President of Consumer Products Research: “Thank you, Jaz. We have three different studies that have been completed this past month: 1) a deodorant also claiming to promote axillary hair loss, 2) socks that claim to exert an anti-fungal effect against athlete’s foot and toenail fungus and 3) a widely distributed and marketed dietary supplement claiming to burn fat, build muscle and improve performance. This issue will enter the cloud the week before the Triton Marathon and Swimathon. I think for this issue that the deodorant and antifungal socks studies stink, and that we come out strong with the ‘muscle and performance builder’ product results. We had two different university laboratories test the product, with similar athletes, and the results will stir the pot into a frenzy.”
Jasper: “Ok Jane. You’ve sold me. Team, do you concur? (He looks around and sees a chorus of nodding heads). Show and tell us what you got!”
Jane: “Ok. This was a challenging project, because so many of these sports nutrition brands make claims that are unrelated to any disease or physical condition and yet the claims they DO make lure in a large segment of consumers—and their cash. Many of these products focus on ‘mechanism’ or ‘marker’ claims, praying for evangelist-inspired inferential reasoning by the consumer that IF Product ‘X’ burns more fat, or increases testosterone, red blood cell count, or muscle protein synthesis after exercise, THEN the consumer will lose body fat, get stronger, have more endurance, or even bigger muscles.
“We reconnected with the same two university laboratories that did the clinical studies on Resurrectol two years ago—the exercise recovery product that all those athletes were paid spokespersons for, and which was on the cover of our magazine in the December 2013 issue. We had each lab recruit 50 subjects that were already working out—not untrained persons, which are very often used in studies on these types of products. One university enrolled endurance athletes—competitive female ultraendurance gravity cyclists—and the other enrolled strength athletes—non-competitive male bodybuilders. We had blood samples—collected at three different times throughout the study—sent to a NADA anti-doping lab—to confirm they were ‘clean.’ We measured body composition, sport-specific performance, and whole body calorie and fat ‘burning’ in a biochamber, where each athlete also performed a workout. We also performed bioresonance scanning of each subject’s non-dominant thigh and upper arm. The subjects were randomly assigned to receive either a full sensory-matched (taste, odor, appearance, texture) placebo with the same amount of calories and protein as the branded supplement, or the branded supplement Lean Machene. We measured all of these variables four times, over two months.”
Jasper: “So Jane, what’s the upshot?”
Jane: “It’s very simple. Nothing. The ‘fat burning’ was greater among the Lean Macheners—but only in the first two weeks. Thereafter there was no difference in ANY of the parameters. We also used harmonic frequency ID containers, which told us if and when the subjects opened their containers of study product. This is a far better, more objective measure of ‘compliance’ over the old style returned ‘capsule count’ or container method.”
Cooper Raymond, General Counsel: “Jane, you know that these results will likely initiate a black hole within the marketers of Lean Machene? (Jane nods, smugly). Let’s go with it. The public wants to know the truth.”
