Turning to three different experts in the areas of weight loss counseling, natural remedies, and obesity research, this story brought home the point that there is virtually no evidence to support the use of raspberry ketones for weight loss. Even the hypothetical explanation of how these supplements might work doesn’t seem to make much sense.
Despite an almost total lack of supporting evidence, raspberry ketones have somehow emerged as the hot new weight loss supplement. It’s a testament to the influence of hucksters like Dr. Oz, who has shamelessly plugged the supplements as a “miracle fat burner” on his popular daytime television show. It’s sad to see a professor of surgery at Columbia University engaging in this kind of blatant quackery, and somebody needs to provide the evidence check to counter his wild claims.
The story gives pricing information for some of the supplements mentioned — $3.79 for a month’s supply of one ketone capsule product, and $68 for a month’s supply of ketone/coffee bean extract combo.
The story emphasizes the fact that the only published studies on raspberry ketones were conducted in rodents. Since the story makes it clear that these studies are inadequate to establish a benefit, we won’t dock points for not quantifying the results of those studies.
The story mentions an unpublished manufacturer-funded safety study which purportedly found no side effects from one raspberry ketone product. However, it emphasizes the fact that neither the study author nor the funding company would provide a copy of the paper, suggesting that the results wouldn’t hold up to scrutiny. The story also warns that people with cardiac issues or high blood pressure should avoid these supplements, which may produce stimulant effects. It could have mentioned that dietary supplements are not well regulated, and that many products — especially weight loss products — have been shown to contain undeclared drugs and other potentially dangerous ingredients.
The story makes it clear, through its evaluation of the available studies and comments from independent experts, that raspberry ketones are supported by the flimsiest of evidence. It points out that even the concept that underlies these products doesn’t make much sense biologically if the goal is to achieve weight loss.
If we had to raise one quibble, it would be that the closing paragraph might give some readers the impression that green coffee bean extract has been well studied as a weight loss aid in humans. We dispelled that notion here.
The story recruits three independent experts to bat down unfounded claims about raspberry ketones.
There’s no mention of any evidence-based strategies for achieving and maintaining weight loss — a significant gap considering how useless these ketones are likely to be.
It’s clear from the story that supplements containing raspberry ketones are widely available.
The story doesn’t make any inappropriate claims about the novelty of these products or the related research.
There’s enough original reporting that we can be sure this story wasn’t based on a press release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
More for milk debates: "Switching to skim #milk may slow biological aging" https://upi.com/6975065t via @upi cc @garyschwitzer @joansalgeblake
"We can't say that this was caused by milk fat." As is often the case with nutrition studies: correlation ≠ causation.
#RelaxDammit
@HealthNewsRevu @mcjaklevic HealthNewsReview once again revealing hype that far outstrips reality. I suspect that one day, AI will meaningfully contribute to good patient care. Whether that's in 10 years or 100, I couldn't say. What is clear is that we ain't there yet.
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