|
Last month’s column dealt with the fact that sport supplements, despite what a misinformed but persistent lobby group might think, are safe and efficacious. The supplements referred to in the context of the article which dealt with the issue of young sportsmen wanting to get big and strong, were primarily mass builders.
However, there is another side to the supplement coin and one that is just as much in demand, the ubiquitous fat burner. This is an especially apposite subject for today’s column bearing in mind that in the first two weeks of February we had a local fat burner, Simply Slim, pulled from the market by the MCC, and in the USA the fat burner with the greatest market share, Hydroxycut, was banned for the second time in 6 years by the FDA.
So, what exactly is going on here? Are fat burners the black sheep of the supplement industry? Are the doomsayers correct in writing them off as both an ineffectual foodstuff with no ergogenic benefits, and, in a startling metamorphosis, a dangerous and druglike product with regard to side effects? The answer is yes and no-the scenario is a complicated one and requires for elucidation not only product analysis, but also a dissection of the social construct of western society.
Let’s get the simple answers out of the way first. Simply Slim was banned because it was found to contain a prescription drug, Sibutramine. The question posed in the previous column-why would a supplement company deliberately include an illegal substance in a product when sooner or later it is bound to be found out with devastating financial consequences as is the case in point-is pertinent. The answer is that while the company did not want to include Sibutramine, they were not in control of their manufacturing processes. Apparently three different Chinese companies were subcontracted-no further comment required here! South African sports supplement companies operate much closer to home so this scenario is not reproduceable.
The second case is more intricate. There are starkly relevant echoes to the first banning of Hydroxycut for containing ephedra six years ago. This was related to a general ban on all ephedrine related substances. A handful of deaths supposedly linked to the ingestion of such substances was quoted as the reason-the primary case being the death of Baltimore Orials pitcher, Steve Belcher. The obvious counter argument here, and one used vociferously by the supplement industry, is that it is medically almost impossible to prove a death is caused by ephedrine(unless a lethal concentration in the blood is found -which was not the case in any of these deaths). In fact the inquest into Steve Belcher’s death found that ephedrine was not to blame! Steve was morbidly obese, had high blood pressure and heart disease. This time round the banning is on even more flimsy grounds with the FDA not even able to pinpoint the ingredient in Hydroxycut supposedly responsible for a number of complaints!
Where does this leave us? The benefits of fat burners are clear despite what any self proclaimed expert may say. The ingredients have been indisputably proven to burn fat through different metabolic pathways in a number of clinical trials. An analysis of the risk scenario, however, highlights a fascinating scenario. The ingredient in a fat burner that is primarily responsible for its fat burning effect-up to 90 percent-is caffeine. And caffeine is related more than most realize to its big brother, ephedrine. It is a natural pesticide that paralyses and kills insects, has similar side effects-heart palpitations, hypertension, insomnia, muscle twitching, diabetes and even mania-and as long ago as 1985 the Journal of Applied Toxicology reported two cases of death from a lethal concentration of caffeine! So why is coffee-the most widely consumed legal pyschoactive substance-not banned along with ephedrine, or at least accorded the same negative press as fat burners? When one draws an analogy to the legal status of alcohol and cigarettes vs marijuana the answer is clear- the consumption of alcohol, cigarettes and coffee has become a cultural imperative in Western society, and as such is untouchable in much the same way as polygamy is for Zuma.
In conclusion it is fair to say that fat burners need to be treated with more caution than their mass inducing counterparts. And in fact there are regulatory health warnings on the labels. However, used prudently the benefits outweigh the risks. After all, coffee drinkers are a growing, not a dying breed!
Ewan Kromhout - Owner, Supplements SA
|