Talk:Hydroxycut/Archive 1

Needs referencing
I moved the following off the page until citations support them. The ingredients need to be referenced and then cross referenced with the published studies to verify that the references below have anything at all to do with the product. Additionally, citations for the endorsing doctors are advised if including the following. Furthermore, including information about the statistical significance of the published studies is suggested given the tomfoolery in interpretation that is possible and probable with pilot studies like this. The following content was added by the following IP address: 66.252.146.130. --Xris0 (talk) 00:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hydroxycut has been formulated by Dr. Marvin Heuer, MD, FAAFP. Heuer is a medical doctor and the Chief Scientific Officer at Iovate Health Sciences (Note Iovate Health Sciences is the company that markets Hydroxycut).  According to published studies, key ingredients in the Hydroxycut formula may help people lose up to 4.5 times the weight than they would with just diet and exercise alone. This is supported by two 8-week studies in which all groups followed a diet and exercise plan, subjects using the key ingredients in Hydroxycut lost, on average, significantly more weight than subjects who were using a placebo (14.99 vs. 3.06 lbs. and 12.54 vs. 3.53 lbs.).  The formula in the form of Rapid-Release Capsules. Its primary weight-loss driving ingredients have been clinically studied and include garcinia cambogia, gymnema sylvestre, chromium polynicotinate, caffeine, green tea.

I've restored the copy. Both studies cited are used by the manufacturer to support claims on packaging and marketing material, as well as in documents supplied to the Electronic Retailing Self-Regulation Program (ERSP) and National Advertising Review Council  to support the claims listed. (14.99 vs. 3.06 lbs. and 12.54 vs. 3.53 lbs.). All other material tagged for a source appears to be culled directly from the packaging of the product (formulated by, rapid release and primary weight loss ingredients). -- Quar te t  18:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Lead removal
I disagree with this edit. The lead needs to summarize relevant aspects of the subject. The single most relevant aspect of Hydroxycut - if we judge by coverage in independent, reliable sources - is the harm caused by the supplement, the questionable behavior of its (previous) manufacturers, and its ultimate withdrawal from the market because of serious safety concerns. I don't see how the current lead satisfies WP:LEAD in any way. Since I have been active in editing this article recently, I'd prefer to comment here and wait for feedback before editing the lead again. Anyone? MastCell Talk 18:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd agree with you if the material in the lead was current and was actually expanded on later in the article, but it's not. The lead of an article is an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects. Previous to the edit above, the lead served as nearly 1/3 of the articles content, and none of the material I moved out of the lead was expanded on or placed in context later in the article. Also that particular content only contains two references - one an outdated New York Times article from 2003, and another that is a paper on the hepatoxicity associated with weight-loss supplements and references Hydroxycut because it happens to be a top seller at the time the paper was written (it also references Metabolife). This leads me to question how relevant those references are to the product today and wether or not they're sufficent to be used for the majority of the negative claims in the article. I'm not saying, the material should be removed from article, nor am I saying the lead is good to go as is, however I've noticed the article seems to source most of it's negative material from this particular article and assert it as fact, which is probably not encyclopedic. I think the lead should be resummarized/rewritten and the sources and content of this article improved so as to show all majority and significant minority views. The article seems to strangely omit numerous defense pieces written after the 2009 recall (it doesn't even state that the recall was voluntary), nor does it present a worldview of the subject - which makes me wonder about motives of some editors who have been adding material to this article.
 * Back to the lead issue - I would suggest working out a lead that actually does what a lead should do - summarize the content of the article. If your entire content about the "internal documents from the manufacturer of Hydroxycut" is actually in the lead, then the material shouldn't be there, but instead should be placed in proper context in the article and not given undue weight. Hope that makes sense - it's important that we provide the most neutral, accurate, and well sourced and up to date information as possible. Alot of product articles on Wikipedia don't seem to do that because, in this case for example, it's easy to pull up source after source that talks about lawsuits, recalls etc., but much more difficult to find material that talks about product history, sales, ownership, endorsements, studies etc. Anyways, I've rambled too much - I think we can work towards a well written and concise lead without too many issues. --Yankees 76 Talk 00:12, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Saying that the manufacturer voluntarily recalled Hydroxycut is like saying that Richard Nixon voluntarily resigned the Presidency - it's accurate in a narrow, legalistic sense, but misleading if presented devoid of the relevant context. If you believe that sources are out of date, then we need more up-to-date sources for perspective. If you know of any additional independent, reliable sources, then I'm all ears. I would note that some of the medical and media sources date to 2009, which is quite recent. More to the point, I don't think that we as editors should be turning over rocks looking for "positive" material about Hydroxycut. We need to go where the reliable sources go. If they focus primarily on the product's safety record and recall, then we need to follow their focus, not water it down out of a misguided understanding of "neutrality". If it's "too easy" to pull up independent, reliable sources detailing Hydroxycut lawsuits/recalls/side effects, then one possible conclusion is that these are the things that are actually notable about the supplement, and thus the things we should be covering. MastCell Talk 05:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I couldn't have said it better, MastCell. You have my support. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * MastCell - I agree for the most part, I'm just expressing my concerns that lead as you added it is out of date, too lengthy compared to the rest of the article and that the material provided in that lead is not adequately expanded on later in the article. The lead fof an article should avoid lengthy paragraphs and over-specific descriptions, because the reader will know that greater detail is saved for the body of the article. Unfortunately there is nothing expanded on later in the article because the material that was in the lead I removed is culled mostly from one single newspaper article from 2003, and one other secondary source that seems to merely promote the belief that there is a lack of oversight and regulation of the supplement industry in the US without actually providing any notable material on the subject of the article itself. The sentence that it's being used as a reference for appears to be the opinion of one Wikipedian who read and interpreted that primary source material for themselves.
 * Brangifer, Wikipedia is a consensus - not one editor vs. another editor issue. If you want to support anything - could you help us out and provide a written lead that everyone can agree works? --Yankees 76 Talk 13:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Let's take things one step at a time. First of all, WP:RS is very clear that we should be using sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. I'm confident that the New York Times, the Associated Press, the FDA, and (for the most part) the reputable peer-reviewed medical literature have such a reputation. I've therefore endeavored to base the article on material from those sources. I'm not entirely comfortable with your extensive additions of material from Iron Man magazine, the Nutrition Business Journal, and nutraingredients-usa.com. I'm not clear that those sources enjoy a similar reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, but your edits give them equal (if not greater) credence. A reliable source from 2003 is better than a poor-quality source from yesterday, because this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a news site. I'm not sure what you mean when you suggest that the article promotes "the opinion of one Wikipedian" about supplement regulation (presumably I am the one Wikipedian in question). specifically covers Hydroxycut and its associated health risks. It devotes approximately half of its length to describing the lax oversight of dietary supplements in the US, and the ways in which this lack of oversight makes it difficult to deal with dangerous products like Hydroxycut (see the paragraph starting: Poor regulation of dietary supplements in the US has been noted by consumer advocates, researchers and policymakers...) The full text of the article is freely available, so it should be easy for anyone to verify that I'm reflecting the content of a reliable source rather than engaging in original research. Since this appears to be a fairly low-traffic page, I will probably post to the Medicine WikiProject to solicit some additional outside viewpoints to help move forward. MastCell Talk 18:03, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Nutrition Business Journal and NutraIngredients-USA.com certainly are reliable sources. Both are industry leading trade publications. NBJ is used as a source in numerous articles on Wikipedia, and NutraIngredients-USA is a Decision News Media publication and both would certainly pass scrutiny if an RFC was initiated for them.
 * By the way, I take offense to some of the statements posted here . I posted a link to an Iron Man article as an external link - I did not use it as a source. Nor did I question your motives. I've questioned the motives of numerous editors who have added content to this page in the past, but not yours specifically. If you want to ask for help on the article, you should post your request in a neutral tone and comment on content, not contributors. I was actually looking forward to working with you on this article, but the post above when asking for help with the topic is disturbing. --Yankees 76 Talk 22:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll agree that I could have, and perhaps should have, used different language in my post at WT:MED. On the other hand, it seemed to me that you were clearly questioning my motives. You've tended to phrase things obliquely ("the opinion of one Wikipedian", "the motives of some editors"), but since I'm the only person who's made any edits of substance here in the months leading up to your comments, perhaps you understand why I understood them as directed to me. In any case, it's usually unproductive to question other editors' motives - if you weren't questioning mine, then I apologize for misunderstanding, and I hope we can move on to continue to discuss the content issue. I continue to disagree about the encyclopedic utility of supplement-industry trade websites and trade journals. While these may be acceptable in some circumstances, they seem to clearly fall short of the bar for preferred sourcing - that is, independent venues with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. We have numerous such sources - the New York Times, the U.S. FDA, the Associated Press, the peer-reviewed medical literature... so I don't think we need to lower the bar in this case. Moreover, supplement-industry websites should clearly not be given the same weight as third-party reliable sources from the news media or scholarly literature. MastCell Talk 23:34, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I would suggest we have a third party comment on those sources then. In my mind both NBJ and NutraIngredients.com meet WP:RS - no they're not the New York Times, but they're also not being used to assert the strong claims that the NY Times article is. Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. Both of these publications are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject. --Yankees 76  Talk 23:50, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * With regards to the World J Gastroenterol - my main issue is that an accurate assessment of any dietary supplement in the United States is going to be hampered by lack of regulation - this isn't an issue solely with Hydroxycut, and this paper does not specifically say that about Hydroxycut. And "was" hampered? What has changed since then that no longer makes it hampered? Dietary supplements are still largely unregulated. I've rewritten it - hopefully this works for both of us. The sentence still seems out of place to me, but perhaps can be used in the future. --Yankees 76 Talk 23:25, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not really understanding your reasoning in this case. The journal article is about Hydroxycut. It specifically says that existing case reports "may underestimate the true incidence of hepatoxicity by several degrees of magnitude." The article's title clearly indicates that it views the Hydroxycut story as "A case for better post-marketing surveillance." Most of the article is taken up with a description of the lax oversight of dietary supplements in the US. I don't want to be pushed into plagiarizing the article text - we need to have the breathing room to summarize it without copying it verbatim, but that's difficult in the face of these sorts of objections. How would you summarize the article's content? Do you think it says anything relevant about dietary supplement regulation as it touches on Hydroxycut? MastCell Talk 23:40, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * But the article is not strictly about Hydroxycut. Yes, it includes Hydroxycut, but it's more commentary and a call for stricter regulatory practices for dietary supplements, and opinion than actual fact finding about the subject of this article. I summarized the article as follows: "An accurate assessment of the safety of dietary supplements in the United States, including Hydroxycut and other weight loss supplements, is hampered by a lack of oversight and regulation of the supplement industry." Hope that works for you. --Yankees 76 Talk 00:45, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That sounds fine to me. Thanks. MastCell Talk 01:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Just did a quick review of two papers, the first of which is a general review cited by MastCell and another of which is on conflict of interest surrounding the subject ( and ). From that, I have to broadly agree with with MastCell. PubMed also seems to list another case review,. Does anyone have access to that? I doubt it would say anything very much different, but for medical articles, we should be going off of those reviews of the literature that is available, not just the newest of the semi-reliable newspaper stories. NW ( Talk ) 19:42, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Came here due to request for an outside opinion from WT:MED. I think the recently re-added material quoting the FDA is currently dubiously sourced and should not be re-added until we have a more reliable source.  The FDA website still warns consumers not to use Hydroxycut nor do I see more reliable (read: more independent than a trade website) source reporting this. As this particularly set of information is about safety issues, I think WP:MEDRS applies here, and we need to be very careful with what we say and how we source this article.  A trade website probably does not meet these standards. Yobol (talk) 15:59, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Further comment: with respect to the other source (i.e. Nutrition Business Journal), it appears to be sourcing a comment as an industry response to the recall, which it seems reliable for. A change I would make, however, is to be very clear that this belief that the FDA recall is "overhyped" is an industry response, which is not as clear as I would like it to be.  (Off topioc, how exactly can an FDA call for recall and stop usage be "over-hyped"?  Isn't the point of the FDA calling for people to stop using it exactly to spread it out in the media as widely as possible?) Yobol (talk) 20:46, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Additional third-party sources
Some additional third-party, reputable sources for consideration, particularly as some of the links to the Missouri Attorney General website appear to be dead:

Medical literature (some may already be cited)

 * Lobb A. Science of weight loss supplements: Compromised by conflicts of interest? World J Gastroenterol. 2010 October 14; 16(38): 4880–4882.
 * Lobb A. Science of weight loss supplements: Compromised by conflicts of interest? World J Gastroenterol. 2010 October 14; 16(38): 4880–4882.
 * Lobb A. Science of weight loss supplements: Compromised by conflicts of interest? World J Gastroenterol. 2010 October 14; 16(38): 4880–4882.
 * Lobb A. Science of weight loss supplements: Compromised by conflicts of interest? World J Gastroenterol. 2010 October 14; 16(38): 4880–4882.

I'm just putting them here for now, to help think about whether and how some or all should be incorporated into the article. MastCell Talk 22:04, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It looks like the Hawaii Medical Journal article NuclearWarfare noted above can be found here. Yobol (talk) 22:31, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The lead
Per WP:LEAD: "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points&mdash;including any prominent controversies" (emphasis mine). This supplement has been the subject of lawsuits, has caused liver failure severe enough to require liver transplantation, caused at least one death, and has been pulled from the market at least once. In any sane world, that's an important aspect of this topic and it needs to be covered in the lead. But for some reason, it keeps getting removed as "propaganda" or "bias".

Also per WP:LEAD: "The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources." Now, reliable published sources - both in the medical literature and in the reputable press - give a large amount of coverage to the serious safety concerns associated with this supplement. That emphasis needs to be reflected in the lead, as a basic matter of Wikipedia policy.

Finally, I'm concerned about our ability to deliver accurate medical information here. I don't view this as particularly negotiable. If a supplement has been described by reliable sources as potentially dangerous or deadly, then we need to accurately communicate that to the reader. I'm not OK with burying or downplaying the safety issue when reliable sources clearly emphasize it. MastCell Talk 19:13, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * This sounds reasonable (I came over from WT:MED). Does the "other side" have anything to say? Biosthmors (talk) 19:36, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I've been uninvolved here until just a moment ago, when I restored MastCell's edits - I agree that it is appropriate that this information be in the lead - it is notable and reliably sourced. Dawn Bard (talk) 19:47, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * While I agree that the information is relevant to the article, I feel that having it repeated multiple times through the article comes off as making negative statements about the products as opposed to giving relevant information. While the issue of the death is relevant there is more to the product. The page as it stands reflects only negative information about the product instead of a balanced view via WP:Five Pillars. If the lead already states it, I feel it does not need to be stated in background as well as having it's own section.Loganfalco (talk) 20:17, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * If reliable sources publish ~80% of "negative" information about a topic, we are compelled to reflect that with ~80% of "negative" text to remain neutral. Trying to make things 50/50 or whatever arbitrary number we decide is not following the sources and is not neutral. Biosthmors (talk) 20:24, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Anyhow, maybe this artice could be improved though copy editing. Is something repeated three times in the article? Once in the lead and once in the body should be enough. Biosthmors (talk) 20:27, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * If that is the case, would it be acceptable to remove the repetitions from the background portion of the page since it is already mentioned within the lower portion of the body? I agree that while the majority of the information on the product is "negative", that does discredit the other relevant and general information. I believe that people who are legitimately researching the product would find the general information on Hydroxycut relevant.Loganfalco (talk) 20:41, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The lead could be condensed somewhat, or the body could be reworded to avoid repetition. In general, important aspects should be summarized in the lead and then fleshed out in the body of the article. There's always going to be some "repetition" - we shouldn't have important info appearing only in the body or only in the lead. I can think of a few ways to condense the lead - for instance, by removing the list of specific adverse events and simply mentioning "severe adverse events including one death" - but before making any more edits I'd rather let things sit for awhile and discuss here. MastCell Talk 20:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree to some extent with the dissenter. I do believe the negative information needs to be covered in the article, but at some point it starts to feel like piling on.  At one point are we giving undue weight to the negative information?  Chicken Wing (talk) 16:07, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Not at this point, certainly. The negative information is vital and must be given high emphasis. Coretheapple (talk) 19:04, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Perhaps we should revisit the Updating with new information section to rework on a draft what we can agree on based on the one above. I will work on a similar draft and attempt to create one that would be most encyclopedic and informative. Afterwards we can revisit it.Loganfalco (talk) 13:20, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Why? The points raised in that discussion thread (which was initiated by a company rep) were already addressed. I'm getting a little bit concerned here about WP:COI especially in light of the article you submitted for an obscure search engine optimization and online reputation management company. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:32, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Since at least one person with a declared affiliation with the company is seeking to make changes in the article of a promotional nature, I think it behooves us not to make changes without seeking guidance from a subject matter expert, if one can be located. Until that point is reached I would oppose any changes made that may be tainted by COI. Coretheapple (talk) 16:10, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The weight of the most reliable sources appears to be to give prominence to the issues of efficacy and safety, so I think we should too. The proposals to remove negative material appear to be focussed around the mistaken idea that we aim for some sort of equal balance between opposing viewpoints, no matter how prominent in the sources.
 * As an aside, I also think from a common sense approach if people die from taking a product maybe we should mention that prominently. In that regard, potentially over-emphasising the safety issues is a lot less of an issue than under-emphasising them. not that I think there is currently an issue of emphasis. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:48, 18 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I couldn't agree more. But on the"wikiproject" status, you don't believe this should be dealt with by the alternative medicine group? It is a dietary supplement. Coretheapple (talk) 18:00, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Updating with new information
I represent Hydroxycut and I am looking to reach out to see how we can update this page to reflect our current information, products, and studies. We are not looking to refute or remove any claims from the past, but rather add in how our formula has changed (esp. since the recall), our new research and clinical trials etc. I am able to provide third party sources and substantiation info which has been submitted to the FDA. Please let me know next steps, or what is possible. Thank you. Officialhydroxycut (talk) 14:26, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * You might want to start by familiarizing yourself with WPs general policies and procedures:
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style
 * Sourcing for subjects dealing with medical science is outlined in WP:MEDRS. In addition, since you seem to have a conflict of interest that would preclude you from directly editing the article, you might want to read up on WP:COI. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:56, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Welcome to Wikipedia! You may indeed have information that can be used, as long as it's done according to our policies. The best way is to present your suggestions and sources on this talk page. Here we can discuss how it can be used in the article. Then others will do it. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:40, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Echoing some of the above comments, I think the most important thing is to look at the policies that this site uses to govern content. The most relevant is probably the policy on verifiability (which states that all material in our articles should be verifiable through a reliable source). Some guidance on what constitutes a reliable source can be found here, and specific guidelines for medical/health-related claims can be found here. Please feel free to contribute and to bring up for discussion any sources you think would be appropriate (with reference to those sourcing guidelines). MastCell Talk 17:31, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

If you have any open-source information you can provide, we can try to fix the article. The prose of the article is not good, and even though you have a conflict of interest in editing the article, that doesn't mean that articles should read as a "wall of shame" against a product, company, individual, etc. If you feel there are facts that should be updated or sections that are unduly negative, it is fair for those sections to be revised. Chicken Wing (talk) 02:48, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. In terms of the article not reading as a wall of shame, I agree. What we are looking to do is update with current information. Is there anything we can do about dead links and external references that no longer exist?Officialhydroxycut (talk) 20:16, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, if you have any third party sources that are better, more relevant, or newer, we can use those in lieu of existing links, where appropriate. The sources cannot be published by Hydroxycut-related entities, however, as Wikipedia policy does not allow sources to be self-published.  The ability to introduce biased material through such publications would be too high.  Chicken Wing (talk) 21:37, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

What is the best way for to present updated material we have including 3rd party sources? Would it be beneficial to upload it section by section here? Or to post the changes and sources etc. directly to the article. Officialhydroxycut (talk) 18:42, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Here please. Thanks. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:35, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

See below for updates with references. This is mainly the current copy on the wiki page. The proposed the additions are in bold and followed by a hyperlink reference.

Updated Intro Paragraph:

Hydroxycut is the brand name of a series of dietary supplements manufactured by Iovate Health Sciences International Inc. and marketed as an aid to weight loss. According to a 2009 paper in the World Journal of Gastroenterology, Hydroxycut is the most popular brand of weight-loss supplement, selling approximately 1 million units per year. On May 1, 2009, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a warning after some Hydroxycut products were linked to liver damage, rhabdomyolysis, and at least one death. FDA did not know which ingredient(s) of Hydroxycut may have been responsible for producing liver toxicity The manufacturer then agreed to recall the products. Shortly after the recall, FDA confirmed that Hydroxycut had been reformulated and the only ingredient left in from the original formulation was caffeine.

Background:

Hydroxycut is sold at conventional retailers, online retailers, and through direct television marketing. Prior to May 2009, its primary ingredients included Garcinia cambogia, Gymnema sylvestre, Citrus Aurantium, chromium polynicotinate, caffeine, and green tea. '''Caffeine was maintained in the new formula, since research shows that caffeine can have a significant influence on energy balance and can promote increases in daily energy expenditure. Hydroxycut was again reformulated with green coffee extract as its key weight loss ingredient. Because of its various constituents, including chlorogenic acids, green coffee extract has been the subject of various studies and evidence is accumulating from animal as well as human research regarding its use as a weight loss supplement. These herbal ingredients have been used traditionally by Greco-Arabic, Islamic as well as in European herbalists to address various concerns related to weight management  Results from preliminary research in animals and humans on the combination showed favorable weight-loss, thermogenic and antioxidant effects This positive preliminary research published in print in the 2011 journal, Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine, set the stage for further research corroborating the efficacy of the combination in overweight subjects.

Hydroxycut includes caffeine to boost energy. An FDA monograph for over-the-counter drugs, for instance, recognizes that 100-200 mg of caffeine, taken every 3-4 hours “helps restore mental alertness or wakefulness when experiencing fatigue or drowsiness. The scientific literature associated with caffeine supplementation is extensive and besides its potential thermogenic effects it has also been shown that caffeine can facilitate sports performance. Hydroxycut has never had more caffeine per serving compared to one Starbucks Venti Moreover, caffeine is prevalent in beverages such as coffee, tea, soft drinks, and energy drinks. Further, the FDA stated that it does not have any evidence that caffeine causes liver toxicity. '''

Like many nutraceuticals, according to the New York Times, its efficacy has been questioned and not well-supported by research. However, In 2005, Hydroxycut advertising claims were found to be substantiated by the National Advertising Review Council’s ERSP .

Hydroxycut was promoted as being created and endorsed by doctors. Television advertisements for Hydroxycut featured Jon Marshall, a graduate of Midwestern University's osteopathic medical school, and still in residency. Hydroxycut was also endorsed by its formulator, Marvin Heuer, Associate Clinical Professor in the Department of Family Medicine and Community Health at the University of Florida, and Former Chief Scientific Officer of Iovate Health Sciences, the company that markets the product.

The New York Times reported in 2003 that internal documents from the manufacturer of Hydroxycut indicated that the company buried studies showing that Hydroxycut was ineffective, covered up evidence of cardiac side effects, and even tampered with the documents it submitted as evidence in the lawsuit.[5] An accurate assessment of the safety of dietary supplements in the United States, including Hydroxycut and other weight loss supplements, is hampered by a lack of oversight and regulation of the supplement industry.[2] Ultimately, scientific evidence of serious side effects from Hydroxycut products accumulated, including liver failure (requiring liver transplantation in some cases), rhabdomyolysis, and at least one death, of a 19-year-old man who used the product. On May 1, 2009, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a warning to consumers to stop using Hydroxycut immediately because of the risk of serious side effects or death. The manufacturer then recalled the products,[3] although a new formulation of Hydroxycut weight loss products has been created and is being sold.[4]

2003 lawsuit for false advertising -- '''None of the references in this section are still active. Can this be considered for removal?'''

[edit] FDA warning and subsequent voluntary recall

On May 1, 2009, the FDA issued a warning to consumers to stop using Hydroxycut products, due to 23 reports of serious health problems associated with the use of Hydroxycut, and at least one death. ''' The FDA cited a total of 23 case reports of Hydroxycut-associated liver toxicity in their CAERS database over a seven year period from 2002 to the end of April 2009. However, the FDA did not know which ingredient(s) of Hydroxycut may have been responsible for producing liver toxicity. ''' While some industry sources defended the safety of Hydroxycut and believed the media "over-hyped" the FDA withdrawal, others questioned why Iovate had not published long term safety or efficacy studies on the final Hydroxycut products despite having the money to perform such studies and the self-promoted reputation as being "research-oriented." The editors of the nutrition trade journal Nutrition Business Journal noted that this recall "will ultimately be a good thing for the dietary supplement industry if it encourages weight-loss supplement manufacturers to care as much about their products' safety and efficacy as they do about expanding and protecting their bottom lines."

New Section:

ERSP: Hydroxycut weight loss claims substantiated

''' In 2005, the National Advertising Review Council’s ERSP found that Iovate’s claims of general product performance were supported by the Preuss weight loss studies which were conducted on the primary ingredients in Hydroxycut. ERSP also determined that Iovate substantiated its more specific product performance claims including claims that “Hydroxycut contains effective weight loss ingredients at clinically studied doses based on research at a major American University.”; “Lose weight fast”; “Burn calories”; “Increase your energy control your appetite” and that “With the science of Hydroxycut, you can lose up to 4.5 times the weight than with diet and exercise alone

In a 2007 interview, Peter Marinello of the National Advertising Review Council was asked “Which weight loss pills actually work?” and he answered: “Very few weight loss products work without a simultaneous diet and exercise regimen. The Ephedra products have the well-documented safety issues and the weight loss supplement "de-jour" is the green tea products, which do stimulate the metabolism and burn calories. It's interesting to note that burning calories doesn't necessarily mean weight loss. Because of muscle and fat burning variances I've learned that calorie burning is not enough. Many of the weight loss supplements such as Hydroxycut can assist in weight loss so long as the consumer has a disciplined diet and exercise routine.” In 2011, an advertising class action against Hydroxycut was dismissed '''

Officialhydroxycut (talk) 12:45, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


 * A few comments regarding the proposed text.


 * 1.“FDA did not know which ingredient(s) of Hydroxycut may have been responsible for producing liver toxicity [3]”


 * This is somewhat misleading. The key point is that the FDA does not believe that epehdra was necessarily the cause of the serious side effects that were reported because these adverse events continued to occur after the product was reformulated in 2004 without ephedra. To not mention this explicitly would be deceptive.


 * 2. Caffeine
 * There is too much extraneous detail on caffeine in the proposed text. The most this requires is a brief mention and a wikilink to the caffeine article.


 * 3. Sources
 * Primary sources from open-source alternative medicine journals (eg ) don’t meet WP:MEDRS. In addition some of the articles cited regarding “herbal ingredients” have nothing to do with Hydroxycut (ie, they don’t mention Hydroxycut). The same applies to primary sources describing research on specific ingredients in Hydroxcut. The statement attributed to Peter Marinello (from 2007) -- “hydroxycut can assist in weight loss so long as the consumer has a disciplined diet and exercise routine” -- is contentious to say the least and is superseded by the FDAs position (in 2009) that Hydroxcut is not a safe product and therefore should not be used for weight loss. Lastly, the blog that was cited (i.e., ) does not meet WP:RS.


 * 4. “Hydroxycut weight loss claims substantiated”
 * The proposed text here cites NARC 2005 as the source; however the recall did not occur until 2009. The proposed text creates the impression that Hydroxcut was deemed to be an effective product, when in fact it was deemed by the FDA to be a dangerous product.


 * 5 Re: 2003 false advertising lawsuit -- “None of the references in this section are still active. Can this be considered for removal?”
 * No, but dead link tags can be inserted and the quest can begin to update any dead links. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:32, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I've updated the 2003 lawsuit section with new (and online-available) third-party sources. MastCell Talk 17:56, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback. Please see below for proposed changes based on the input from MastCell and Rhode Island Red


 * 1.“FDA did not know which ingredient(s) of Hydroxycut may have been responsible for producing liver toxicity [3]”


 * This is somewhat misleading. The key point is that the FDA does not believe that epehdra was necessarily the cause of the serious side effects that were reported because these adverse events continued to occur after the product was reformulated in 2004 without ephedra. To not mention this explicitly would be deceptive.

Updated intro text, please see below.


 * 2. Caffeine
 * There is too much extraneous detail on caffeine in the proposed text. The most this requires is a brief mention and a wikilink to the caffeine article.

Shortened caffeine section


 * 3. Sources
 * Primary sources from open-source alternative medicine journals (eg ) don’t meet WP:MEDRS. In addition some of the articles cited regarding “herbal ingredients” have nothing to do with Hydroxycut (ie, they don’t mention Hydroxycut). The same applies to primary sources describing research on specific ingredients in Hydroxcut. The statement attributed to Peter Marinello (from 2007) -- “hydroxycut can assist in weight loss so long as the consumer has a disciplined diet and exercise routine” -- is contentious to say the least and is superseded by the FDAs position (in 2009) that Hydroxcut is not a safe product and therefore should not be used for weight loss. Lastly, the blog that was cited (i.e., ) does not meet WP:RS.

Updated/removed references


 * 4. “Hydroxycut weight loss claims substantiated”
 * The proposed text here cites NARC 2005 as the source; however the recall did not occur until 2009. The proposed text creates the impression that Hydroxcut was deemed to be an effective product, when in fact it was deemed by the FDA to be a dangerous product.

'''This section is referencing the effectiveness of the formula. If we provide the clinical studies for the current formaula could they be placed here? '''


 * 5 Re: 2003 false advertising lawsuit -- “None of the references in this section are still active. Can this be considered for removal?”
 * No, but dead link tags can be inserted and the quest can begin to update any dead links. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:32, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I've updated the 2003 lawsuit section with new (and online-available) third-party sources. MastCell Talk 17:56, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

'''Thanks for updating. May revisit this with other sources'''

Updated text below:

Intro Paragraph

Hydroxycut is the brand name of a series of dietary supplements manufactured by Iovate Health Sciences International Inc. and marketed as an aid to weight loss. According to a 2009 paper in the World Journal of Gastroenterology, Hydroxycut is the most popular brand of weight-loss supplement, selling approximately 1 million units per year. On May 1, 2009, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a warning after some Hydroxycut products were linked to liver damage, rhabdomyolysis, and at least one death. The FDA did not believe that ephedra was among the ingredient(s) of Hydroxycut may have been responsible for producing liver toxicity The manufacturer then agreed to recall the products. Shortly after the recall, FDA confirmed that Hydroxycut had been reformulated and the only ingredient left in from the original formulation was caffeine.

Background

Hydroxycut is sold at conventional retailers, online retailers, and through direct television marketing. Prior to May 2009, its primary ingredients included Garcinia cambogia, Gymnema sylvestre, Citrus Aurantium, chromium polynicotinate, caffeine, and green tea. '''Results from preliminary research in animals and humans on the combination showed favorable weight-loss, thermogenic and antioxidant effects This positive preliminary research published in print in the 2011 journal, Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine, set the stage for further research corroborating the efficacy of the combination in overweight subjects. Caffeine has been maintained in the new formulas, since research shows that caffeine can have a significant influence on energy balance and can promote increases in daily energy expenditure. Further, the FDA stated that it does not have any evidence that caffeine causes liver toxicity. .'''

Like many nutraceuticals, according to the New York Times, its efficacy has been questioned and not well-supported by research. However, In 2005, Hydroxycut advertising claims were found to be substantiated by the National Advertising Review Council’s ERSP.

Hydroxycut was promoted as being created and endorsed by doctors. Television advertisements for Hydroxycut featured Jon Marshall, a graduate of Midwestern University's osteopathic medical school, and still in residency. Hydroxycut was also endorsed by its formulator, Marvin Heuer, Associate Clinical Professor in the Department of Family Medicine and Community Health at the University of Florida, and Former Chief Scientific Officer of Iovate Health Sciences, the company that markets the product.

The New York Times reported in 2003 that internal documents from the manufacturer of Hydroxycut indicated that the company buried studies showing that Hydroxycut was ineffective, covered up evidence of cardiac side effects, and even tampered with the documents it submitted as evidence in the lawsuit.[5] An accurate assessment of the safety of dietary supplements in the United States, including Hydroxycut and other weight loss supplements, is hampered by a lack of oversight and regulation of the supplement industry.[2] Ultimately, scientific evidence of serious side effects from Hydroxycut products accumulated, including liver failure (requiring liver transplantation in some cases), rhabdomyolysis, and at least one death, of a 19-year-old man who used the product. On May 1, 2009, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a warning to consumers to stop using Hydroxycut immediately because of the risk of serious side effects or death. The manufacturer then recalled the products,[3] although a new formulation of Hydroxycut weight loss products has been created and is being sold.[4]

FDA warning and subsequent voluntary recall (unchanged)

On May 1, 2009, the FDA issued a warning to consumers to stop using Hydroxycut products, due to 23 reports of serious health problems associated with the use of Hydroxycut, and at least one death. The FDA cited a total of 23 case reports of Hydroxycut-associated liver toxicity in their CAERS database over a seven year period from 2002 to the end of April 2009. However, the FDA did not know which ingredient(s) of Hydroxycut may have been responsible for producing liver toxicity. While some industry sources defended the safety of Hydroxycut and believed the media "over-hyped" the FDA withdrawal, others questioned why Iovate had not published long term safety or efficacy studies on the final Hydroxycut products despite having the money to perform such studies and the self-promoted reputation as being "research-oriented." The editors of the nutrition trade journal Nutrition Business Journal noted that this recall "will ultimately be a good thing for the dietary supplement industry if it encourages weight-loss supplement manufacturers to care as much about their products' safety and efficacy as they do about expanding and protecting their bottom lines." Officialhydroxycut (talk) 21:05, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * 1. How about highlighting the modified text
 * 2. Seems like you didn't take my comments on your last proposal to heart. Please re-read. Rhode Island Red (talk) 05:36, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

The modified text has been highlighted. Could you elaborate on 2? Which comments are you referring to? ThanksOfficialhydroxycut (talk) 12:03, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Any feedback on the modified text? Thank you. Officialhydroxycut (talk) 15:31, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, as I said, please go back and re-read my previous comments; i.e., regarding (a) the FDA statement and (b) caffeine.


 * I have no dog in this fight, just ambled by this article as a consumer more than a Wiki editor, but I am not thrilled by the idea of a company official assisting in the writing of this article. I would urge that any suggestions by this person be treated with caution. His "caffeine" suggestions certainly raise red flag with me, even though I am just a layman. Coretheapple (talk) 18:37, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I am not interested in covering anything up. I am interested in casting an informative article without biases. I want to highlight the facts of the company, whether they are favorable or controversial, and I am asking for help to improve this page. I believe this draft clears up some of the issues that were at fault before. I hope that my consideration could please be treated fairly.Loganfalco (talk) 15:49, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm confused. I was referring to User:Officialhydroxycut. Are you affiliated with the company? I noticed this edit. Coretheapple (talk) 13:12, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Lead

Hydroxycut is a brand of dietary supplements manufactured by MuscleTech Research and Development and marketed by Iovate Health Sciences as an aid to weight loss. In 2009, the World Journal of Gastroenterology reported Hydroxycut as the most popular brand of weight-loss supplement, selling approximately 1 million units per year. On May 1, 2009, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a warning after some Hydroxycut products were linked to severe adverse effects including one death. The manufacturer then agreed to recall the products. Shortly after the recall, FDA confirmed that Hydroxycut has been reformulated without ephedra.

Background

Hydroxycut is sold at conventional retailers, online retailers, and through direct television marketing. '''Prior to May 2009, its primary ingredients included Garcinia cambogia, Gymnema sylvestre, Citrus Aurantium, chromium polynicotinate, caffeine, and green tea. The current formulation of Hydroxycut uses a blend of four key weight loss ingredients: Lady's mantle extract (Alchemia vulgaris), wild olive extract (Olea europaea), komijn extract (Cuminum cyminum), wild mint extract (Mentha longifolia). The formulation has been clinically proven to help people lose weight.  Outcomes from preliminary research in animals and humans showed favorable weight-loss results, along with thermogenic and antioxidant effects.''' [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2943088/pdf/GRP2011-382852.pdf Caffeine was retained in the new formulas in order to influence energy balance and increase daily energy expenditure. By the beginning of 2004, Hydroxycut was ephedra-free subsequent to the FDA ban on ephedra. Though, like many nutraceuticals, according to the New York Times, its efficacy has been questioned and not well-supported by research.

Hydroxycut was promoted as being created and endorsed by doctors. Television advertisements for Hydroxycut featured Jon Marshall, a graduate of Midwestern University's osteopathic medical school, and still in residency. Hydroxycut was also endorsed by its formulator, Marvin Heuer, Associate Clinical Professor in the Department of Family Medicine and Community Health at the University of Florida, and Former Chief Scientific Officer of Iovate Health Sciences, the company that markets the product.

The New York Times reported in 2003 that Hydroxycut’s manufacturer buried studies indicating that the product was ineffective. Additionally, the manufacturer covered up evidence of cardiac side effects and tampered with the documents submitted as evidence in the lawsuit. An assessment of the safety of dietary supplements in the United States, which included Hydroxycut, has been hampered by a lack of oversight and regulation of the supplement industry. Scientifically proven side effects from Hydroxycut products have included liver failure (requiring liver transplantation in some cases), rhabdomyolysis, and at least one death, a 19-year-old man who used the product. On May 1, 2009, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a warning to consumers to immediately stop using Hydroxycut because of the risk of serious side effects. The manufacturer then recalled the products, and a new formulation of Hydroxycut weight loss products has been created and is currently being sold.

Products

Pro Clinical Hydroxycut- Tablet form supplement containing the standard formula that can help you lose weight when combined with diet and exercise to be taken approximately 30 minutes before each meal.

Hydroxycut Caffeine Free- Tablet form supplement contains the same key weight loss ingredients as Pro Clinical Hydroxycut, but caffeine free.

Hydroxycut Instant Drink Mix- Drink mix supplement containing the same weight loss ingredients to be taken approximately 30 minutes before each meal.

Hydroxycut Gummies- Gummies form supplement containing the same weight loss ingredients to be taken approximately 30 minutes before each meal.

Hydroxycut Sprinkles- Sprinkle form supplement without any sugar, calories, or sodium to be sprinkled evenly on each meal.

Hydroxycut Max! - Capsule form supplement for women containing energy enhancing caffeine anhydrous. The first two days require one capsule twice daily. The third and fourth day require two capsules twice daily. The remainder requires two capsules three times daily.

Hydroxycut Hardcore- Capsule form supplement containing energy enhancing caffeine anhydrous and weight loss ingredient green coffee. The first two days require one capsule twice daily. The third and fourth day require two capsules twice daily. The remainder requires two capsules three times daily.

Hydroxycut results are based on a three meal daily calorie reduced diet combined with a consumption of 8-10 glasses of water daily and exercise program with results after 8-12 weeks.

FDA warning and subsequent voluntary recall (unchanged)

On May 1, 2009, the FDA issued a warning to consumers to stop using Hydroxycut products, due to 23 reports of serious health problems associated with the use of Hydroxycut, and at least one death. The FDA cited a total of 23 case reports of Hydroxycut-associated liver toxicity in their CAERS database over a seven year period from 2002 to the end of April 2009. However, the FDA did not know which ingredient(s) of Hydroxycut may have been responsible for producing liver toxicity. [31] While some industry sources defended the safety of Hydroxycut and believed the media "over-hyped" the FDA withdrawal, others questioned why Iovate had not published long term safety or efficacy studies on the final Hydroxycut products despite having the money to perform such studies and the self-promoted reputation as being "research-oriented." The editors of the nutrition trade journal Nutrition Business Journal noted that this recall "will ultimately be a good thing for the dietary supplement industry if it encourages weight-loss supplement manufacturers to care as much about their products' safety and efficacy as they do about expanding and protecting their bottom lines."Loganfalco (talk) 15:49, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Iovate/MuscleTech
Today I changed the manufacturer's name, in the introduction of the article, from "MuscleTech Research & Development" to "Iovate Health Sciences". Although in the past (at the time of the false advertising lawsuit) MuscleTech does seem to have been the name of the company manufacturing Hydroxycut, Iovate has been the manufacturer's name for some time, as many of the article's sources attest. Today, MuscleTech is the name of a product, not a company - another one of Iovate's products. I therefore changed the name to Iovate in the introduction, but left it as MuscleTech in the section dealing with the false advertising lawsuit, since that does seem to have been the manufacturer's name at that time. I'm not sure if MuscleTech and Iovate are the same company, or if there is any relationship between them, and so have attempted no explanation of what, if any, relationship exists between them in the article. I am, however, sure that Iovate is the current name of the manufacturer, and thought that the article should reflect this. Phrenology (talk) 01:01, 2 February 2013 (UTC)


 * From the sources I've looked at, MuscleTech was the manufacturer and Iovate was the distributor. Regardless, there are multiple sources that identify MuscleTech as the manufacturer, and in fact, Hydroxcut products are still featured on MuscleTech website.. So MuscleTech and Iovate both need to be mentioned. I've addressed this by referring in the lead to MuscleTech as the manufacturer and Iovate as the marketer of the products. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:33, 2 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I found sources that explain the corporate history and have added them. There is still murky stuff but the general outline is pretty clear.Jytdog (talk) 01:40, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

bold edits
Hi

I happened across this article and found it really disorganized - for example, the seizures were caused by the version of the product with ephedra, but the content mentioning the seizures and the source supporting that content, were each lumped with the information about toxicity of the post-2003 product. And things were scattered around so that it made it hard to understand the story. And there were little wierd things -- the NY Times story was based on information that emerged from litigation in Oklahoma -- not the Missouri litigation. Anyway, so I was bold and re-organized this based on versions of the product -- the original one with ephedra; the post ephedra product that still had the liver issues, and the post-2009 product versions. Another thing - two articles were published in 2010 that concerned toxicity from the "pre-2009" products... the sources made that clear. But the way the article was edited, it appeared that these articles were about the post-2009 versions. Also, there are other products that are not really discussed here -- for example the atrial fibrillation case report mentioned near the end is related to a green tea product that they no longer appear to sell. Also, and importantly, I did not retain information about the clinical studies of the current products that the company mentions on their website and that the WebMD article mentions. These studies have never been published, so IMO we cannot cite them as they fail WP:MEDRS - we cannot use them to say anything about efficacy or safety. My goal was not to make the company look bad but rather just to tell the story as clearly as I could, following wikipedia policies. I am happy to discuss, and I hope I didn't upset anybody too much. But I think the article is much better now.Jytdog (talk) 00:41, 31 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Article is much better now. Good point about unpublished studies.Coretheapple (talk) 13:47, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Glad you are OK with it! Jytdog (talk) 22:21, 31 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Just one thing that I wanted to add, which was pointed out in one of the earlier comments above and I think is important. The FDA warning for customers not to use Hydroxycut, and a Q&A on the product on the FDA website, continue to warn the public not to use Hydroxycut and to destroy any stocks of the product that they have. While it is true that the product was reformulated, the FDA made a conscious decision not to withdraw this notice from its website and to retain a Q&A directed to the prospective customers, and I think that it is imperative that we mention it. Reformulated or not, the FDA does not want people to use this stuff. Coretheapple (talk) 14:09, 31 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I noticed that you emphasized this in your edit comments.  I think you are confused, and believe that the FDA still warns people not to use any Hydroxcut products.  If you look at the recall notice, you will see that it references specific Hydroxcut products.   Those products are no longer sold.   Link is here: http://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm152152.htm   I believe you made reference to the letter in the lede, b/c of your mistaken belief that is applies to all products.   As it does not, I think that the sentence you added to the lede should go ... Is that OK? Jytdog (talk) 22:21, 31 March 2013 (UTC)


 * No, it isn't. I recognize that the recall notice applies to only certain products. I realize that the reformulated product has not been recalled. However, the Q&A and public notice appearing on the FDA website, steering the public away from Hydroxycut, specifically does not refer to specific Hydroxycut brands, but to Hydroxycut, period. The notice was not updated or withdrawn. I don't believe that we can assume that this is an oversight, and that for the last four years the FDA has been providing misleading information to the public on its website. We need to report the plain language that appears on the FDA site. If we can assume anything, it is that the manufacturer has asked the FDA to withdraw these web pages and the FDA has said no. Coretheapple (talk) 22:46, 31 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't know what to say. The warning was about specific products.  Look, I will just copy/paste it here.

The Q&A page (http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/PublicHealthFocus/ucm155837.htm) starts like this (the first item on the page): Q. Which Hydroxycut products are being recalled? A. Hydroxycut products are dietary supplements, marketed for weight loss and as fat burners, that bear the Iovate or Muscletech brand name. The products include:

Hydroxycut Regular Rapid Release Caplets; Hydroxycut Caffeine-Free Rapid Release Caplets; Hydroxycut Hardcore Liquid Caplets; Hydroxycut Max Liquid Caplets; Hydroxycut Regular Drink Packets; Hydroxycut Caffeine-Free Drink Packets; Hydroxycut Hardcore Drink Packets (Ignition Stix); Hydroxycut Max Drink Packets; Hydroxycut Liquid Shots; Hydroxycut Hardcore RTDs (Ready-to-Drink); Hydroxycut Max Aqua Shed; Hydroxycut 24; Hydroxycut Carb Control; Hydroxycut Natural.

The letter to consumers (here, again http://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm152152.htm) which is dated May 2009, does start out saying "The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is warning consumers to immediately stop using Hydroxycut products by Iovate Health Sciences Inc., of Oakville, Ontario and distributed by Iovate Health Sciences USA Inc. of Blasdell, N.Y." That is what they told people on that date. It goes on to say: " Some Hydroxycut products are associated with a number of serious liver injuries. Iovate has agreed to recall Hydroxycut products from the market." And further down the page, it specifies what the recalled products are -- same list as above. You are putting too much weight on the broad first statement, which, with the use of "immediately" was clearly pinned to the time it was released -- 2009. The way you are reading this makes no sense in the real world. No company, and I mean no company - can sell products that the FDA is telling people not to use. They would already have been shut down by the FDA. Really! Jytdog (talk) 23:16, 31 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I can certainly email the FDA and ask them to clarify this. If they say its obsolete, I'll take it down. You can too, obviously, and I'll certainly take your word for it. Coretheapple (talk) 22:49, 31 March 2013 (UTC)


 * If you like, please do. Jytdog (talk) 23:16, 31 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't understand this edit . You're removed sourced content, not me. I won't revert, pending your explanation, as maybe there's something that's not meeting the eye. Coretheapple (talk) 23:00, 31 March 2013 (UTC)


 * You are right, I made a mistake. Just fixed it.  Sorry, and thanks. Jytdog (talk) 23:16, 31 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Heh, I thought I was going senile for a moment. Coretheapple (talk) 00:46, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * No brain fart was all mine :) Jytdog (talk) 01:22, 1 April 2013 (UTC)


 * On the FDA stuff, you've convinced me. Out it goes. Coretheapple (talk) 00:51, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Great!  This looks pretty good now!  Thanks for working together on this. Jytdog (talk) 01:22, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * My pleasure entirely. Coretheapple (talk) 01:31, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

liver damage from hydroxycitric acid???
re "Before 2009, formulations contained several substances that harm the liver, including hydroxycitric acid derived from Garcinia cambogia." I've been researching this for someone, and in all the literature I've seen either on Garcinia cambogia or on hydroxycitric acid I've seen no mention at all of liver problems. Hepatoxicity and testicular damage at very high doses yes, but nothing about liver damage. Was this statement from a media report or what scientific basis is there for it to remain??Skookum1 (talk) 07:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If you read the article (i.e. go past the lead) you will see that the statement is well sourced in the article.  We don't need to provide sources in the lead for restatements of well-sourced content in the article itself as per WP:LEADCITE Jytdog (talk) 12:05, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If you read the sources, there's only very loose associations with HCA and liver damage making the statment dubious at best. The World J Gastroenterol 2008 source only states that "There have also been reports of G. Cambogia toxicity by the WHO database, mostly describing an increase in hepatic enzymes". This article makes a better case for Camellia Sinensis being toxic. Using this as a source that says Garcinia Cambogia "harms the liver" is original research. The second source, World J Gastroenterol 2009, is even weaker, only making the statement that Hydroxycut "contains potentially hepatoxic hydroxycitric acid derived from the tropical fruit Garcinia cambogia". "Potenially hepatoxic" is not a statement that an encyclopedia should use to source a definitive claim - in particular a statement that flat out states Garcinia cambogia harms the liver. I've removed the statment specifying Garcinia cambogia until better sources are offered and changed the text to more accurately reflect the sources used ("Before 2009, formulations contained several substances with potential to harm the liver"). Yankees 76 Talk 16:50, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I searched pubmed for "hydroxycitric acid toxicity" and there does not appear to be consensus that hydroxycitric acid is hepatotoxic -- I accept your point. Thanks for improving the article! Jytdog (talk) 17:06, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Request Edit
Hello, my name is Adrian and I'm an employee of Iovate, the makers of Hydroxycut. I would like to remove the following sentence in the opening paragraph: "MuscleTech was sold to Iovate Health Sciences in 2003-2004 and declared bankruptcy in 2006", which is not accurate and replace it with "MuscleTech Research and Development Inc. commenced creditor protection in January 2006." I can include documents to show this, thanks kindly Iovate Corporate (talk) 15:15, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * According to the source currently cited in the article they filed under chapter 15 of the US Bankruptcy code. If you have any relevant WP:RS, put them forth. Rhode Island Red (talk)
 * Please refer to Chapter 15, case #s 06 Civ. 538(JSR)and 06 Civ. 539(JSR). Because MuscleTech was a Canadian company, proceedings were also commenced in Ontario, Canada on the same date under case #06-CL-6241 Iovate Corporate (talk) 15:33, 2 October 2015 (UTC)