This news release suggests that supplementing the diet with capsaicinoids, the heat producing chemicals in hot peppers, increases metabolism and therefore weight loss. But it relies too heavily on extrapolation to make the claim that capsaicinoids cause weight and fat loss. The release summarizes a small, short-term study of 40 participants that was published in Obesity: Open Access.
The release would have been improved had it addressed harms of heavy supplementation and acknowledged the conflicts of interest among researchers involved in the study.
Obesity is a health concern around the world. A wide variety of behavioral, drug and other interventions have been introduced but weight loss and weight management remain a difficult challenge for many. A simple supplement that would help people control their weight would be newsworthy — if its usefulness were borne out in larger and longer studies.
The cost of Capsimax (or products containing the Capsimax proprietary supplement) is not mentioned.
The release claims that the supplement would increase a person’s metabolic rate which would be equivalent to burning an additional 116 calories a day. The release further suggests that this could translate into 1 pound of fat loss monthly. But it’s important to note that as weight is lost, the metabolic rate decreases. What starts as 1 pound per month, regardless of the method used to lose weight, the metabolic rate would decrease with time and not remain linear. That should have been noted in the release.
More importantly, perhaps, the study lasted just two weeks. Participants received the active ingredient for one week and then crossed over to placebo. That’s a very brief period of time from which to draw conclusions about benefit.
The release says that multiple studies have shown the supplement is safe, however, the safety hasn’t been evaluated or demonstrated in this or other research we could find. A search of PubMed found only three studies involving capsicum supplementation. All were short-term and none were designed to look at safety.
WebMD says that taking capsicum supplements is generally safe for adults if taken for a brief period of time. However, taking large doses for a long period of time can lead to serious harms including liver or kidney damage.
The release relies heavily on extrapolation when it claims taking the capsicum extract will burn the equivalent of “an extra 116 calories per day.” The study didn’t look at a full day’s resting energy expenditure (REE), but rather extrapolated from REE measured at 1, 2 and 3 hours post intervention. There’s no evidence provided that consuming capsicum extract would impact a person’s REE for a full day.
The release doesn’t list any funding sources or potential conflicts of interest. The study states that researchers have no conflict of interest but then provides conflicting information suggesting that’s not true. The study also notes that one of the researchers involved with the study is an employee of the supplement manufacturer and another holds a patent for the device used to measure metabolic changes and also received funding from the supplement manufacturer. Those are two clear examples of conflicts of interest that should have been mentioned in the release.
The release doesn’t mention any alternatives (such as exercise, medications, diet or other supplements) or offer any comparisons with other methods of speeding up metabolism to effect weight loss.
The loss of 1 pound per month is readily achievable through other interventions, including those that are free and don’t involve taking supplements that do not have proven safety and efficacy profiles.
The release doesn’t offer any advice to readers about where to acquire Capsimax — just that it’s available in “hundreds” of products. An online search for “Capsimax” turns up numerous products containing the extract but can people shopping for supplements online be assured of purity of ingredients and accuracy of dosing? The release could have done a lot better job by directly people to reputable sources of the supplement.
The release doesn’t claim that the compounds in hot peppers are a novel approach to weight control nor does it suggest that capsacian’s ability to increase metabolism is a new concept. The release doesn’t establish what is new about the findings.
The release doesn’t rely on sensational or unjustified language.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Monday at #ADA2021, an infectious disease epidemiologist, a journalist, and a researcher shared perspectives on communication of risk in the era of COVID-19: http://ow.ly/ROfR30rMeE7 @AstleyCM @garyschwitzer @berthahidalgo @ADA_DiabetesPro
Shoutouts to @susan_bewley @drkevinknopf @MichaelBaum11 in this call for more than fawning coverage from press releases for these kinds of stories.
Also, linked history inside goes back 5 years just on Grail apparently trying to become Holy Grail. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1408849696416841731
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like