jarbulldog
bulldog god
is this stuff worth a shit Hydroxycut?
Hydroxycut
- Thread starter jarbulldog
- Start date
tommy_big_guns
New member
imo....no
jarbulldog
bulldog god
what does imo mean?tommy_big_guns said:
jarbulldog
bulldog god
so would you go witha eca stack instead.
but doesn't ephedria burn muscle?
but doesn't ephedria burn muscle?
Warmachine
Your Girls Pay my Bills
im using some now since i had got it for free. its not very good, just caffiene
gator_mclusky
Man on a Mission
Its garbage.
read through this:
For all you people who back MuscleTech's "University Tested" junk, read this. Then look at the points below... This I found on the internet where anyone could find it, so there is no secret. Everyone has the right to know exactly what is going into their body, after reading this do you know what you are really putting in your body with their products? Do a little thinking...
http://www.ago.state.mo.us/lawsuits/2003/032703hydroxycut.pdf#search='muscletech%20advertis ement'
MuscleTech’s web site and advertisements did not adequately disclose
safety risks associated with Hydroxycut. Some advertisements or
material supplied by MuscleTech to magazine publishers specifically
stated that Hydroxycut is effective in reducing bodyfat “without any
unwanted side effects,” that it is “extremely safe” and that “studies”
have shown the herbal equivalents to ephedrine and caffeine to be “very
safe,” that potential users can be “reassured” that Hydroxycut is “safe,”
and that even prescription drugs do not yield as much fat loss as the
ingredients in Hydroxycut “with as little negative side effects.”
However, the results of MuscleTech’s studies regarding safety did not
accurately indicate the safety risks for most consumers of Hydroxycut
because MuscleTech carefully screened all study subjects for health
risks. This screening meant that there was no testing done on persons
with physical and health characteristics of many consumers purchasing
Hydroxycut over the counter (such as high blood pressure), making the
results of such studies misleading for those consumers. Moreover, even
after this screening was performed, MuscleTech’s studies were still
tainted in at least the following respects:
When persons participating in several of MuscleTech’s studies
had to drop out because it became too dangerous for the subjects
to continue or because the subjects could not tolerate
Hydroxycut, the subjects were replaced by other people. In at
least one study published by MuscleTech, these dropouts were
concealed and not reported as an adverse effect.
One researcher at MuscleTech questioned the Manager of
Research and Development of MuscleTech as to whether
substituting subjects who experienced an “adverse event” was
“legal.” The Manager claimed that substituting subjects was
acceptable clinical practice, which is not true, leading to
misleading results that were touted by MuscleTech.
In at least one instance, a subject was rushed to a hospital for
atrial fibrillation, which is a precursor to ventricular fibrillation
(a lethal arrythmia that results in sudden cardiac death). The
study of which he was a subject did not treat this event as an
adverse event for purposes of its statistical analysis.
As a result of screening and drop-outs, one study began with 32
potential subjects, but only 17 completed the study. The other
15 were ignored in the results, greatly skewing the results.
Further, of the 17 persons who completed the study, only 10
were using Hydroxycut, and 4 of those 10 had their dosage
reduced during the study time as a result of adverse health
effects.
The Hydroxycut label fails to adequately warn of the risks inherent in
taking the product in at least the following ways:
A thorough reading of the disclaimers on the Hydroxycut label
(which would be very difficult for most consumers)
demonstrates that the disclaimers would preclude use of
Hydroxycut by most of the adult population in the United States.
MuscleTech, however, has no procedure for screening out the
vast majority of consumers for whom MuscleTech represents the
product to be inappropriate. Despite the fact that, according to
the nearly illegible portion of the Hydroxycut label, very few
persons could safely use Hydroxycut, MuscleTech does not state
in its advertising or marketing materials that few persons can
safely take Hydroxycut.
MuscleTech has not disclosed in any of its marketing or advertising
materials that its own consultants believe there are serious concerns as
to the safety of Hydroxycut. At least one person whom MuscleTech
hired as an expert in litigation stated under oath that he believes people
should not take products with ephedra and caffeine, such as
Hydroxycut, and that he cautions people not to take these “drugs.”
Both he and another expert hired by MuscleTech testified separately
that they would not recommend Hydroxycut to anyone.
MuscleTech states in its marketing materials that Hydroxycut “contains
pharmaceutical-quality fat-loss ingredients.” This statement is false
and/or misleading, in that at least one person responsible for the
manufacture of Hydroxycut has admitted under oath that they did not
follow pharmaceutical standards for content uniformity.
MuscleTech used deception, misrepresentation, unfair practice and/or the
concealment, suppression, or omission of material fact in connection with the sale andadvertisement of MuscleTech in regard to Hydroxycut’s efficacy, including but not limited to the following:
MuscleTech’s website, advertisements, or information supplied to
magazines stated that Hydroxycut was subjected to rigorous scientific
tests, was a “fat-burner,” and would raise the consumer’s metabolic
rate. The Hydroxycut label states “Lose Fat Fast” and “Clinically
Proven.” These statements are deceptive in that:
At least one of MuscleTech’s own studies showed that even
when there was a weight loss, there was an increase in fat,
meaning that the loss was of muscle. MuscleTech has cited this
study in its advertising materials, despite a written statement by
MuscleTech’s president that data obtained from the study was
“useless.”
Another study commissioned by MuscleTech, conducted by the
University of Guelph in Canada, showed that Hydroxycut does
not “burn fat” and if there is any benefit, it comes from the
product’s anorectic (appetite-suppressing) effect.
Another study commissioned by MuscleTech showed that the
subjects using a “new and improved” version of Hydroxycut
showed no statistically significant weight loss that was greater
than the placebo group, and even lost less weight than the
placebo group. MuscleTech misrepresented the true results of
this study by having one of its marketing persons submit a letter
to the researcher suggesting that the researcher attribute the
study’s result to the horrific events of 9-11-01. The researcher
complied, without explaining why the events of 9-11-01 would
affect the placebo group differently.
MuscleTech ran advertisements using deceptive “before” and “after”
pictures. The pictures are deceptive in that, among other things:
The pictures use different lighting to convey an artificial
fattening and slimming effect.
The models in the pictures use different poses to convey
an artificial fattening and slimming effect.
The pictures and the accompanying copy do not fully
disclose the extent of weight loss and muscle toning
activities used by the models in conjunction with the use
of Hydroxycut.
MuscleTech has used one picture (in multiple
advertisements) showing a “before” photograph of a
woman with a much larger abdomen than in the after
picture. A copy of one such advertisement is attached as
Exhibit B. The advertisements identify the woman as
Marla Duncan and tout that she lost 35 pounds. At least
some advertisements did not indicate that the “before”
picture reflected post-pregnancy weight. Nor did the
advertisements state that Marla Duncan has been a
swimsuit and fitness model since at least 1983 (when she
was 19 years old), has appeared on more than 100
magazine covers, and was Miss Fitness USA in 1990.
credit to MCTRAINER.
read through this:
For all you people who back MuscleTech's "University Tested" junk, read this. Then look at the points below... This I found on the internet where anyone could find it, so there is no secret. Everyone has the right to know exactly what is going into their body, after reading this do you know what you are really putting in your body with their products? Do a little thinking...
http://www.ago.state.mo.us/lawsuits/2003/032703hydroxycut.pdf#search='muscletech%20advertis ement'
MuscleTech’s web site and advertisements did not adequately disclose
safety risks associated with Hydroxycut. Some advertisements or
material supplied by MuscleTech to magazine publishers specifically
stated that Hydroxycut is effective in reducing bodyfat “without any
unwanted side effects,” that it is “extremely safe” and that “studies”
have shown the herbal equivalents to ephedrine and caffeine to be “very
safe,” that potential users can be “reassured” that Hydroxycut is “safe,”
and that even prescription drugs do not yield as much fat loss as the
ingredients in Hydroxycut “with as little negative side effects.”
However, the results of MuscleTech’s studies regarding safety did not
accurately indicate the safety risks for most consumers of Hydroxycut
because MuscleTech carefully screened all study subjects for health
risks. This screening meant that there was no testing done on persons
with physical and health characteristics of many consumers purchasing
Hydroxycut over the counter (such as high blood pressure), making the
results of such studies misleading for those consumers. Moreover, even
after this screening was performed, MuscleTech’s studies were still
tainted in at least the following respects:
When persons participating in several of MuscleTech’s studies
had to drop out because it became too dangerous for the subjects
to continue or because the subjects could not tolerate
Hydroxycut, the subjects were replaced by other people. In at
least one study published by MuscleTech, these dropouts were
concealed and not reported as an adverse effect.
One researcher at MuscleTech questioned the Manager of
Research and Development of MuscleTech as to whether
substituting subjects who experienced an “adverse event” was
“legal.” The Manager claimed that substituting subjects was
acceptable clinical practice, which is not true, leading to
misleading results that were touted by MuscleTech.
In at least one instance, a subject was rushed to a hospital for
atrial fibrillation, which is a precursor to ventricular fibrillation
(a lethal arrythmia that results in sudden cardiac death). The
study of which he was a subject did not treat this event as an
adverse event for purposes of its statistical analysis.
As a result of screening and drop-outs, one study began with 32
potential subjects, but only 17 completed the study. The other
15 were ignored in the results, greatly skewing the results.
Further, of the 17 persons who completed the study, only 10
were using Hydroxycut, and 4 of those 10 had their dosage
reduced during the study time as a result of adverse health
effects.
The Hydroxycut label fails to adequately warn of the risks inherent in
taking the product in at least the following ways:
A thorough reading of the disclaimers on the Hydroxycut label
(which would be very difficult for most consumers)
demonstrates that the disclaimers would preclude use of
Hydroxycut by most of the adult population in the United States.
MuscleTech, however, has no procedure for screening out the
vast majority of consumers for whom MuscleTech represents the
product to be inappropriate. Despite the fact that, according to
the nearly illegible portion of the Hydroxycut label, very few
persons could safely use Hydroxycut, MuscleTech does not state
in its advertising or marketing materials that few persons can
safely take Hydroxycut.
MuscleTech has not disclosed in any of its marketing or advertising
materials that its own consultants believe there are serious concerns as
to the safety of Hydroxycut. At least one person whom MuscleTech
hired as an expert in litigation stated under oath that he believes people
should not take products with ephedra and caffeine, such as
Hydroxycut, and that he cautions people not to take these “drugs.”
Both he and another expert hired by MuscleTech testified separately
that they would not recommend Hydroxycut to anyone.
MuscleTech states in its marketing materials that Hydroxycut “contains
pharmaceutical-quality fat-loss ingredients.” This statement is false
and/or misleading, in that at least one person responsible for the
manufacture of Hydroxycut has admitted under oath that they did not
follow pharmaceutical standards for content uniformity.
MuscleTech used deception, misrepresentation, unfair practice and/or the
concealment, suppression, or omission of material fact in connection with the sale andadvertisement of MuscleTech in regard to Hydroxycut’s efficacy, including but not limited to the following:
MuscleTech’s website, advertisements, or information supplied to
magazines stated that Hydroxycut was subjected to rigorous scientific
tests, was a “fat-burner,” and would raise the consumer’s metabolic
rate. The Hydroxycut label states “Lose Fat Fast” and “Clinically
Proven.” These statements are deceptive in that:
At least one of MuscleTech’s own studies showed that even
when there was a weight loss, there was an increase in fat,
meaning that the loss was of muscle. MuscleTech has cited this
study in its advertising materials, despite a written statement by
MuscleTech’s president that data obtained from the study was
“useless.”
Another study commissioned by MuscleTech, conducted by the
University of Guelph in Canada, showed that Hydroxycut does
not “burn fat” and if there is any benefit, it comes from the
product’s anorectic (appetite-suppressing) effect.
Another study commissioned by MuscleTech showed that the
subjects using a “new and improved” version of Hydroxycut
showed no statistically significant weight loss that was greater
than the placebo group, and even lost less weight than the
placebo group. MuscleTech misrepresented the true results of
this study by having one of its marketing persons submit a letter
to the researcher suggesting that the researcher attribute the
study’s result to the horrific events of 9-11-01. The researcher
complied, without explaining why the events of 9-11-01 would
affect the placebo group differently.
MuscleTech ran advertisements using deceptive “before” and “after”
pictures. The pictures are deceptive in that, among other things:
The pictures use different lighting to convey an artificial
fattening and slimming effect.
The models in the pictures use different poses to convey
an artificial fattening and slimming effect.
The pictures and the accompanying copy do not fully
disclose the extent of weight loss and muscle toning
activities used by the models in conjunction with the use
of Hydroxycut.
MuscleTech has used one picture (in multiple
advertisements) showing a “before” photograph of a
woman with a much larger abdomen than in the after
picture. A copy of one such advertisement is attached as
Exhibit B. The advertisements identify the woman as
Marla Duncan and tout that she lost 35 pounds. At least
some advertisements did not indicate that the “before”
picture reflected post-pregnancy weight. Nor did the
advertisements state that Marla Duncan has been a
swimsuit and fitness model since at least 1983 (when she
was 19 years old), has appeared on more than 100
magazine covers, and was Miss Fitness USA in 1990.
credit to MCTRAINER.
IMO = In My Opinion, IMHO = In My honest opinion
Just do the EC stack.
Just do the EC stack.
Last edited:
jarbulldog
bulldog god
thanks guys i appreciate your opinions
Similar threads
