Does Irvingia Really Deliver Rapid Weight Loss? Part 2

I found a study on irvingia - The effect of Irvingia gabonensis seeds on body weight and blood lipids of obese subjects in Cameroon - published in 2005. You can read it yourself here. I’ve excerpted parts below - if you are really interested, go read the source, as my interpretation could be off. 

Here’s the gist of their study:

A total of 40 obese subjects aged between 19 and 55 years were selected from a group responding to a radio advertisement. After physical examination and laboratory screening tests, diabetics, pregnant and lactating women were excluded. None of these subjects took any weight reducing medication and none was following any specific diet.

Subjects were given two different types of capsules containing 350 mg of Irvingia gabonensisseed extract (active formulation)… Three capsules were taken three times daily, one-half hour before meals (a total daily amount of 3.15 g of Irvingia gabonensis seed extract) with a glass of warm water… The subjects were also interviewed about their physical activity and food intake during the trial, and were instructed to eat a low fat diet (1800 Kcal) as well as keep a record for seven consecutive days (using household measurements).

OK - these folks were taking way more irvingia than Life Extension recommends - Life Extension recommends 150 mg twice per day, while the people in this study were taking 3 grams of the stuff - more than 10 times the amount.

So what Life Extension is reporting is somewhat ‘apples-to-oranges’ as this study and it’s results can’t really be compared when the dose is so different. These people were also counseled to adhere to a low fat diet, which helps to obscure the actual change from irvingia alone as it introduces a second variable - does any measured change have to do with the irvingia, the low-fat diet, or a combo of both?

This question can’t be answered from this study, in my estimation. 

Let’s continue. Here’s what it says about irvingia’s impact on body composition:

Irvingia gabonensis induced a decrease in weight of 2.91 ± 1.48% (p < 0.0001) after two weeks and 5.6 ± 2.7% (p < 0,0001) after one month. Although the percentage of body fat was not significantly reduced with both placebo and IG, the waist circumference (5.07 ± 3.18%; p < 0.0001) and hip circumference (3.42 ± 2.12%; p < 0,0001) were significantly reduced by IG. A reduction of 1.32 ± 0.41% (p < 0.02) and 2.23 ± 1.05% (p < 0.05) was observed with the placebo after two and four weeks respectively of treatment.

What I translate this to mean:

• Someone weighing 200 lbs. could expect to lose 10 lbs. in a month
• As body fat isn’t significantly different in the control group and the irvingia group, the weight loss must come from water, muscle, or the study didn’t control this variable properly.
• If you started out with a 40 inch waist, you were a 38 inch waist after a month.

OK - that’s not bad - but as this study only lasted a month, we can’t see the acceleration of weight loss betwen month 1 and month 2 described in the Life Extension article.

Some impressive results were seen in blood pressure and serum cholesterol:

Effect of Irvingia gabonensis on systolic (SBP) and diastolic (DBP) blood pressure

These reductions aren’t bad, but bringing down each number by 5 doesn’t seem to be all that amazing - and again - might it have had something to do with the low fat diet? Who knows? And what’s with the seemingly large margins of error here? And why would they vary so much between the active and placebo group?

For example: the margin of error for the first reading of the folks taking irvingia has a margin of error of +/- 19.57. For the placebo group, it’s +/- 5.05. 

Why would this differ by almost a factor of 4?

Next up is the reported effect on blood total cholesterol (TC), triglyceride (TRI), high density lipoproteincholesterol (HDL-c), low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-c) and glucose.

Again, looking at the reductions, it seems impressive, but do you notice that the active group starts out with total cholesterol at 215 and the placebo group at 163? The active group is defined as having high cholesterol by that number, and the control group has cholesterol that would be characterized by some as dangerously low.

I’m just a dope, but shouldn’t the control group be more or less the same as the active group in a well-designed study?

And where do you find 20 obese people with an average total cholesterol of 163? Not around here.

Also - the reported margin of error again still seems high.

Now - I have no right interpreting these results - I’m no researcher. If any one of the really smart people that read this blog see a mistake in my understanding, please post. 

But what I’m seeing is what I would say is an interesting study that leads one to believe something is going on here, but it is too poorly designed to tell us what.

Our researchers do have some speculation on what’s happening here. This is where research is replaced by guesswork. That’s not necessarily bad - an educated guess is better than saying: I dunno, but it is what it is - a guess:

The soluble fibre of the seed of Irvingia gabonensis like other forms of water-soluble dietary fibres, are “bulk-forming” laxatives. Irvingia gabonensis seeds delay stomach emptying, leading to a more gradual absorption of dietary sugar. This effect can reduce the elevation of blood sugar levels that is typical after a meal.

Controlled studies have found that after-meal blood sugar levels are lower in people with diabetes and overall diabetic control is improved with soluble fibre-enriched diets according to preliminary and controlled trials. 

Like other soluble fibers, Irvingia gabonensis seed fibre can bind to bile acids in the gut and carry them out of the body in the faeces, which requires the body to convert more cholesterol into bile acids. This can result in the lowering of blood cholesterol as well as other blood lipids. Studies have shown that supplementation with several grams per day of soluble fibre significantly reduced total blood cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, and triglycerides and in some cases raised HDL cholesterol, these being comparable with effects noticed with Irvingiagabonensis.

I’ve edited this somewhat for clarity, though I don’t think I’ve altered their point: irvingia is a bulk-forming laxative (like psyllium - Metamucil) and this type of fiber is already known to improve cholesterol numbers.

As they don’t mention weight loss at all, I imagine that they have no clue as to why anyone lost weight, but were too embarrassed to admit it.

The only conclusion that I come to after reading this is that any fiber therapy, like Metamucil, can help reduce blood lipids, and Metamucil is way cheaper than irvingia.

I’m still considering it - one poorly designed study (in my estimation) does not prove nor disprove anything.