Talk:Garcinia gummi-gutta

First remarks

A previous contributor removed the line:

"a study in 1998 (Garcinia cambogia (Hydroxycitric Acid) as a Potential Antiobesity Agent, JAMA 280: 1596-1600, by Steven B. Heymsfield, MD, et al.) found no statistically significant difference in weight loss between those given the compound and those given a placebo."

"Because there is no mention of what kind of study or who conducted it." This supposition was incorrect. I visited the link directly and readily found the information. (*Click the link to author affiliations on above citation:From the Department of Medicine, Obesity Research Center, St Luke's–Roosevelt Hospital, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, NY.)

I highly recommend you read the pdf at the following link regarding nomination to the National Toxicology Program of Garcinia Cambogia Extract as an alternative to ephedra - it shows no differences in body weight on treated mice, no change in anti-oxidant enzymes, and no common adverse effects of use of GCE. As such, it might be worth a try - if it can't hurt you, right?

http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/htdocs/chem_background/exsumpdf/garciniacambogiaext_508.pdf

Garcinia Cambogia does reduce weight. But I am not adding it because I too do not have any study at the moment that proves it loses weight, except for my personal experience where I lost 10 kgs in 25 days. I used to eat the dried version around 2-3gms before each meal(3times a day). I am searching for a study conducted by a noted Indian Doctor who recomends the malabar tamarind as the only safe anti-obesity supplement which works.

I only tried this without any fear because I had a pdf file which i downloaded from one the american army's .gov sites. It recomended Garcinia cambogia as a way to loose weight fast. It said that consuming 5 gms a day can give upto 1 pound weight loss everyday. I just cannot find that pdf file. I will search it among my old dvds and will get back and edit this page. I think this is some sort of disinformation campaign because as far as i know it does help loose weight and so fast that it is unbelievable. This is a real wonder plant. 125.22.203.254, 09:48, February 13, 2007 (UTC)

I have added more information, including about the dangers of Hydroxycitric Acid. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Dubious article

This might be a shill page to prop up claims from bogus diet pills. Also, I can find no definition for the word "precoction". Perhaps the author mean "decoction" or "concoction". Noahspurrier —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 21:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The article is more balanced now, with information about the dangers involved with Hydroxycitric Acid. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Removed Potential Hepatoxicity link, as they are not double blind studies. The cases with I have read in the link(and the references) is not conclusive. The patients were already sick and were on other drugs and supplements. Also I think that the warning should be on the Hydroxy-cut supplement page. The study is not a study but an assumption and guesswork. They are ignoring medical conditions of the patients and also tons of supplements and drugs they were taking at that time. I think the researcher are not aware that it is a staple in India, with many consuming more than 10 grams a day of the fruit and extract.(not Hydroxy-cut)

Dried Garcinia Gambooge has(and is) being consumed since ages in Kerala and Coorg region of Karnataka(India). It is the staple and used in almost all curries.

You can't remove material from Wikipedia because you personally disagree with it. If it's a WP:RS, and represents a significant viewpoint, as it does, it must go in.

The fact that they are not double-blind studies is no reason to delete them. Most toxicity reports are not from double-blind studies, especially in alternative/complementary drugs, since by definition alternative/complementary drugs are not supported by double-blind studies. --Nbauman (talk) 17:47, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

FYI: This article is the subject of comment spam on blogs. I've seen several instances of this, and just had one hit the spam queue on a blog I own. Seems highly likely this product is dubious, at best. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 04:47, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

This is a real species of plant, although the product is pretty dubious. Please add more criticism of the product/marketing if you're so inclined. Plantdrew (talk) 06:50, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment spam campaign on blogs is currently very active. On two blogs that I run, I've received over 40 spam comments mentioning this article. Obviously, someone involved with this article has a vested interest in its content. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 20:40, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Strange. Spam links get regularly added to the article, but are quickly removed. I just doublechecked all the current links, and nothing is spammy. I also looked at some of the reverted spam links, and it appears that at least 3 different outfits have spammed this article (some multiple times). I'm curious what the spam links on your blog are like; I can think of a couple ways linking this article might help with SEO (though I'm not at all certain these would work). Perhaps if a blog comment includes a link to both the Wiki article and a spammers website, it would make the spam site seem more relevant to search engines? Google knows Wiki is a good source of information about a particular topic, if the Wiki link often appears near another link, Google might think the other link is also relevant? Maybe a spammer could link to an old revision of the article which included their to link to increase its visibility? Plantdrew (talk) 03:25, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

They link directly to this article. My guess is that the comment spammers don't know the spam links have been removed. This is a fairly new tactic, from what I've seen, and it's definitely not limited to this Wikipedia article. The common denominator is that they all post the link to a Wikipedia article about something that is being used for a product that's an obvious scam, just like this one. ~~ Gmatsuda (talk) 09:09, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

About this very same scam, more watchers would be an asset at Garcinia. 15:50, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I have indefinitely semi-protected this article and also the genus article for six months. Any edits can be thus discussed by accounts rather than passing IPs. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:54, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

This article must distinguish between descriptions of the plant, and speculations about the benefits of extracts of it. There was a tag on a sentence that said that the dried outer covering was used as a condiment or spice in South Asian cooking. Since little research is conducted into cooking condiments --the world isn't ready for PhD's in meta-culinary analysis--how is one to document this fact? Here is a reference to a recipe that uses the material: .

I resent any fooling with documentation about the material (the dried outer covering, whatever it is called --in Sri Lanka it appears to be called Goraka--) in the eagerness to discredit the weight-loss claims for it. I know nothing about the weight-loss claims, but suggesting that claims of the culinary use of the material are false do not help. User talk: Arch5280 —Preceding undated comment added 21:32, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Some useful links for reference:

http://www.charakayurveda.com/GARCINIA%20CAMBOGIA.pdf

http://www.discovery.org.in/PDF_Files/s_20130702.pdf

http://www.aliyaleekong.com/kodampuli-or-malabar-tamarind/

Malabar tamarind in culinary use

Malabar tamarind in culinary use

http://www.kudampuli.com/medicinal_properties.html Jee 02:48, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

References

Scientific name

It looks like everybody gets the scientific name wrong. From what I can tell, the plant was first described by Linnaeus with the name Cambogia gummi-gutta. In 1792, Desrousseaux published the name Garcinia cambogia ([2]) apparently ([3] using an epithet previously established by Gaertner (presumably Gaertner's name for it was Cambogia cambogia). Desrousseaux and Gaertner were not justified in changing the species epithet to "cambogia". In 1814, Roxburgh transferred it to the genus Garcinia, it became Garcinia gummi-gutta ([4]), which should be the first case where it was published in Garcinia with the proper species epithet. However, Robson is also credited with publishing Garcinia gummi-gutta in 1962 ([5]). Unfortunately, my library doesn't have volume 20 of Brittonia, where Robson published, so I'm not sure what's going on with Robson's name. Garcinia cambogia remains for more widely used in the literature, and when Garcinia gummi-gutta appears, it is almost always credited to Robson, not Roxburgh.Plantdrew (talk) 21:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Media attention

I added some mention of Dr. Oz's promoting this plant as a weight loss aid. It could be phrased better, but I think the article need more content describing the recent media hype (and debunking bogus medical claims). Traffic was ~150 hits a days prior to October 2012. Traffic spiked on October 29 2012 ([6]), and has climbed to 1500 hits/day in recent months. Traffic spiked again on 23 May 2013 ([7]) and is now running 4000+ hits/day). The article is receiving a lot of attention right now, and could use a lot of work. Plantdrew (talk) 03:59, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Subtropical?

Should it be a tropical species, not suubtropical, Indonesia is entirely tropical. (unsigned)

Good point. I've added a citation that says it is native to tropical Asia. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:36, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Several Additional Studies

"Safety and mechanism of appetite suppression by a novel hydroxycitric acid extract (HCA-SX).

A 1998 randomized controlled trial looked at the effects of hydroxycitric acid, the purported active ingredient in gambooge, as a potential antiobesity agent in 135 people. The conclusion from this trial was that "Garcinia cambogia failed to produce significant weight loss and fat mass loss beyond that observed with placebo".

In a previous article it was shown that in the rat brain cortex a novel HCA extract (HCA-SX, Super CitriMax) increases the release/availability of radiolabeled 5-hydroxytryptamine or serotonin ([3H]-5-HT), a neurotransmitter implicated in the regulation of eating behavior and appetite control.

The aim of the present study was 2-fold: (a) to determine the effect of HCA-SX on 5-HT uptake in rat brain cortex in vitro; and (b) to evaluate the safety of HCA-SX in vivo.

Conclusions: HCA is a safe supplement, lethal dose in rats is greater than 5,000mg/kg. HCA also increased the levels of serotonin in the brain which may be beneficial in appetite control, depression, insomnia, migraine, among other serotonin deficient conditions.

Diabetes Obes Metabol. 2004 May;6(3):171-80.

Effects of a natural extract of (-)-hydroxycitric acid (HCA-SX) and a combination of HCA-SX plus niacin-bound chromium and Gymnema sylvestre extract on weight loss.

HCA-SX has been shown to reduce appetite, inhibit fat synthesis and decrease body weight without stimulating the central nervous system.

Hydroxycitric acid (HCA-SX) alone and in combination with niacin-bound chromium (NBC) and a standardized Gymnema sylvestre extract (GSE) on weight loss in moderately obese subjects was evaluated by monitoring changes in body weight, body mass index (BMI), appetite, lipid profiles, serum leptin and excretion of urinary fat metabolites.

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled human study was conducted in Elluru, India for 8 weeks in 60 moderately obese subjects (ages 21-50, BMI >26 kg/m(2)). Subjects were randomly divided into three groups. Group A was administered HCA-SX 4667 mg, group B was administered a combination of HCA-SX 4667 mg, NBC 4 mg and GSE 400 mg, while group C was given placebo daily.

Results: At the end of 8 weeks, body weight and BMI decreased by 5-6% in both groups A and B. Food intake, total cholesterol, low-density lipoproteins, triglycerides and serum leptin levels were significantly reduced in both groups. A non-significant effect was observed in all parameters in group C.

J Med. 2004;35(1-6):33-48.

An overview of the safety and efficacy of a novel, natural(-)-hydroxycitric acid extract (HCA-SX) for weight management.

This study was a 90-day toxicity study. The dose dependant effects of HCA-SX were assessed on body weight, selected organ weights, hepatic and testicular lipid peroxidation and DNA fragmentation, hematology and clinical chemistry, and histopathology in male and female Sprague-Dawley rats. No toxicity was found after this trial.

Furthermore, clinical studies to evaluate the safety and efficacy of HCA-SX over a period of eight weeks were conducted in 60 human volunteers. Subjects were given a 2,000 kcal diet/day, participated in a 30 min walking exercise program 5 days/week and given an oral dose of placebo or 4666.7 mg HCA-SX (providing 2,800 mg HCA) in three equally divided doses 30-60 min before meals, Body weight, BMI, lipid profiles, serum leptin, serotonin and excretion of urinary fat metabolites were determined at 0, 4 and 8 weeks of treatment. At the end of 8 weeks, body weight and BMI decreased by 5.4% and 5.2%, respectively. Food intake, total cholesterol, LDL, triglycerides and serum leptin levels were significantly reduced, while HDL and serotonin levels, and excretion of urinary fat metabolites (a biomarker of fat oxidation) significantly increased. No significant adverse effects were reported.

Results: These results demonstrate the safety, bioavailability and efficacy of HCA-SX in weight management.

Physiol Behav. 2000 Oct 1-15;71(1-2):87-94.

Effects of (-)-hydroxycitric acid on appetitive variables.

Eighty-nine mildly overweight females were prescribed 5020-kJ diets for 12 weeks as part of a double-blind, placebo-controlled parallel group study. Forty-two participants ingested 400-mg caplets of Garcinia cambogia 30-60 min prior to meals for a total dose of 2.4 g/day. Forty-seven participants ingested matched placebos. Weight and body composition were assessed at baseline and every other week for 12 weeks. Both groups lost body weight with the active group achieving a significantly greater reduction (3. 7+/-3.1 kg versus 2.4+/-2.9 kg).

JAMA. 1998 Nov 11;280(18):1596-600.

Garcinia cambogia (hydroxycitric acid) as a potential antiobesity agent: a randomized controlled trial.

The objective of the present study was to evaluate the efficacy of G Cambogia for body weight and fat mass loss in overweight human subjects. 12 week randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Subjects received either 1500 mg of hydroxycitric acid per day or placebo and were assigned to a high fiber, low energy diet.

Results: A total of 135 subjects were included in the study. Both the active group, and placebo group lost significant amounts of weight over the 12 week period. However, between-group weight loss differences were not statistically significant. The active group lost 3.2kg vs 4.1kg. (p=0.14).

Conclusions: Garcinia Cambogia failed to produce significant weight loss and body fat loss beyond that observed with placebo" which placebo was a diet.

A 1998 randomized controlled trial looked at the effects of hydroxycitric acid, the purported active ingredient in gambooge, as a potential antiobesity agent in 135 people. The conclusion from this trial was that "Garcinia cambogia failed to produce significant weight loss and fat mass loss beyond that observed with placebo" with the placebo being a high fiber, low energy diet

Results: A total of 135 subjects were included in the study. Both the active group, and placebo group lost significant amounts of weight over the 12 week period. However, between-group weight loss differences were not statistically significant. The active group lost 3.2kg vs 4.1kg.

References

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Andrewa (talk) 08:01, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

---

Gambooge → Garcinia gummi-gutta – Minor spelling variation in transcription of a vernacular name, gambooge versus gamboge, has resulted in a false dichotomy between this one species of tree and the dye derived from various trees that share the vernacular name, including this species. The common name gamboge has also come into English for the tree Garcinia hanburyi. In cases like this where the common name is ambiguous, WP:FLORA recommends using the scientific name as the name of the page. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:04, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Support, per nom. DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 10:38, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Support per WP:FLORA guidelines. Plus most other species of genus at scientfic name pages. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:38, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Support Too much ambiguity, per WP:FLORA. First Light (talk) 01:25, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Support per all those above. Gambooge/gamboge/G. hanburyi mix up is very confusing. Hamamelis (talk) 13:10, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment/Support The most commonly used name at the moment is "Garcinia Cambogia" (sic). This is a very heavily viewed article right now (the 17th most popular plant article last month [8]) As with other dietary fads, interest in this plant is unlikely to continue at present levels over the long term (Hoodia, a previously trendy weight loss supplement went from ~600 daily page views in Dec 2007 [9] to ~120 recently [10]). Page views have dropped some for this article in the last month ([11]), although this is likely to be due to snake oil salesmen using SEO to improve the rank of their pages, rather than a drop in interest (Google trends show a continuing upward spike in search interest [12]). At any rate, "gambooge" is certainly not the common name for the plant at present. I'm not very comfortable titling the article by an obsolete synonym, Garcinia cambogia, although I do wonder whether using the title that people are actually searching for would lead to a higher Google rank and more people arriving at the Wikipedia article rather than some shady scamsters snake-oil website.Plantdrew (talk) 20:45, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Proposed sections to include on the page

The following proposed section follows the Wikipedia Manual of Style of drugs, medications and devices.

The fruit’s dried rind contains Hydroxycitric acid (HCA), the active ingredient that claims to have weight loss effects.

Contraindications

• Allergy/hypersensitivity to Garcinia Cambogia.

Adverse Effects

When taken orally, Garcinia has been shown to cause the following:

• Nausea
• GI upset/discomfort
• Headache

Overall safety and dosage

According to Food and Chemical Toxicology paper on safety assessment of (-)-hydroxycitric acid (HCA), animal and human studies indicate that HCA consumption of up to 2800 mg/day is safe in humans.

Safety: When taken orally using the rind, HCA is likely to be safe. Possibly unsafe: HCA theories of having hypoglycemic action render it potentially harmful to patients with diabetes mellitus.

In general, there is heterogeneity with Garcinia dosing across studies and there is no well-known standardization.

Interactions

In a case report, a patient taking herbal medicine with 50% HCA experienced an incidence of rhabdomolysis. Based on this finding, taking “statins” and HCA together may theoretically increase the risk of rhabdomyolysis.

Mechanism of Action

HCA is believed to be a competitive inhibitor of the extramitochondrial enzyme called adenosine triphosphate-citrate pro-3s-lyase that is responsible for converting citrate to acetyl-CoA and oxaloacetate. Such inhibition ultimately results in decreasing acetyl-CoA accessibility, which is a building block of fatty acid synthesis and lipogenesis. HCA also claims to promote appetite suppression, but the mechanism is not well understood and has not been extensively studied in humans.

Conclusion

Weight reduction is not convincing and there is questionable clinical significance due to conflicting results as well as heterogeneity across studies. Additionally, HCA-containing products in the market that claim weight loss properties also have other active ingredients. It is, therefore, difficult to specifically attribute weight loss results to Garcinia Cambogia alone. Further clinical studies must be conducted on a larger scale and at a longer duration of treatment in order to provide more definitive evidence of its weight loss effects. CharismaU (talk) 17:32, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

References

Merge in Wikidata

Can someone merge this Wikidata item (Q18187249) with Q2089493? It looks like I don't have editing privileges. Wildbill hitchcock (talk) 10:04, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

"No Significant Effect on Weight Loss"

It's questionable to use this verbiage, as the first source for this text in the article literally states the opposite. "The meta-analysis revealed a small, statistically significant difference in weight loss favouring HCA over placebo (MD: −0.88 kg; 95% CI: −1.75, −0.00)." It goes on to say that the difference "is no longer statistically significant when only rigorous RCTs are considered," but of course the authors/researchers of those RCTs might dispute the idea that their RCTs are not "rigorous."

The second link is not "clinical evidence"; it is another secondary source (drugs.com) that cites the first source as a primary reference, along with a literature review that states "in some analyzed works, there was observed that the GC showed positive effects on weight loss process, appetite reduction, body fat percentage, triglycerides, cholesterol and glucose levels, lipogenesis process, while others had no effect."

That said, it would probably be better to rephrase this to state that clinical evidence has provided mixed results. 172.58.22.202 (talk) 02:23, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

References

Case report: acute pancreatitis

A recent report recommends that doctors whose patients present with Acute Pancreatitis should check for use of this supplement, PMID 31328067. 4Cancer (talk) 16:51, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Note that this is one case report of an elderly man who may have had any number of pathologies that could explain or contribute to this condition, so is inconclusive and unencyclopedic. Case reports are considered primary research and are not used as sources on Wikipedia, WP:MEDASSESS. --Zefr (talk) 19:11, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Zefr I appreciate it.

Ineffective Appetite Suppressant / No Observable Toxicity

https://examine.com/supplements/garcinia-cambogia/

https://examine.com/supplements/garcinia-cambogia/research/#safety-and-toxicology

The plant is an established food in its native countries, with no reputation for being poisonous. We have articles on HCA and on Hydroxycut.

Drsruli (talk) 15:59, 13 June 2021 (UTC)