A new over the counter (OTC) weight loss product has hit the shelves in the US. alli is a fat-blocker reputed to block absorption of about 25% of the fat you take in. The major drawback, besides the embarassing and uncomfortable side effects, is that alli will be most effective and least invasive when used with the low-calorie, low-fat diet plan and exercise regime marketed with the product’s starter pack.
Side effects of not following the low-fat plan include diarrhea, unplanned bowel movements and gas with an oily discharge. The product’s website actually suggests wearing dark pants and carrying an extra pair around, in case of accidents. This hasn’t stopped consumers from purchasing the product, as reported here. Sales of the moderately stocked but massively hyped product have surprised vendors, who are being questioned about whether the drug works, not how or at what physical cost.
The problem as I see it, is that while marketing of the drug states that it is most effective when used in conjuction with lifestyle changes, such as fitness and following a low-fat, low-calorie diet, perusal of the alli message board left question marks as whether this prescribed diet is realistic for a typical user. And whether the lifestyle changes will indeed be heathier. In one location of the product’s webpage, “treatment effects” can be minimized by eating meals with less than 15 grams of fat - more and you risk the leakage and painful digestion issues. But on the message board, consumers of the product are concerned as to whether they should eat less than the recommended 19 grams of fat per meal or risk the drug not working to help them lose weight…this specific number of fat grams was based on their own “alli diet plan”.
One user went so far as to explain the diet plans available in the product’s diet plan book and this is where the red flags were raised. She describes having a choice between a 1200, 1500 and 1800 calorie plan, each with specific fat intake recommendations. But let’s examine this, based on the calorie recommendations, alone…
The average Canadian woman weighs 153 pounds and is 5 feet, 3.4 inches tall; American women are 10 pounds heavier, while being 0.4 pounds taller. This means, using this caloric calculator, an average 35 year old Canadian woman needs 2,063 calories daily and her American counterpart, 2,170. Using alli’s suggested 1,200 calorie per day diet plan means a deficit of over 900 calories for some women. Add three thirty-minute sessions of jogging per week, she could burn an extra 750 calories weekly, totalling a loss of 2 pounds per week.
So, without even introducing fat-blockers - non-digestion of a quarter of the fat you eat (not to mention what else you won’t be absorbing: fat-soluble vitamins, for one) - you can expect to lose 2 pounds a week if you’re an average woman living in the US, eating 1,200 calories a day and jogging for a total of an hour and a half a week. So, what’s the point of the fat blockers, again? Why deal with anal leakage? Sounds great, right? Sounds like a plan?!
It sounds fishy to me.
In my personal experience, the very devoted anorexics I’ve known adhere to a diet of between 100 and 1,200 calories daily. So, yes, I question how many women are setting themselves up for the fall, here - in an effort to lose 10 to 20 pounds. I know that it would send me into a spiral of starvation. Would it be worth it for you - the mess, the lack of food, the lack of control?
alli, anal leakage, calories, diet pills, low-fat
