ASA Adjudication on IGEA Life Sciences Pty Ltd

Ad

Two national press ads, for a weight loss system. a. The first ad included a testimonial from an actress, who it said had struggled to lose weight. Text stated " … until she came across the revolutionary Bodytrim Weight Loss System. 'The turning point came when I realised I was eating the wrong foods in the wrong patterns each day … My weight dropped away so suddenly everyone thought I was using expensive meal replacement shakes, pharmacy pills or had been working out in the gym. After all how else could I lose 24 pounds, including 4 inches from my thighs … 5 inches from my buttocks and 3 inches from my stomach, so quickly? As you can imagine, my friends were shocked when I told them I simply bought the right fat-burning foods from my local supermarket ... '. It's nearly routine for clients of the Bodytrim program to lose inches off their hips, thighs and buttocks within just a few short weeks … 'I know it sounds impossible' says … a nutritionist … 'but the Bodytrim system is the exact opposite of a diet, because it shows you how to trick your body into burning excess stored fat, while you eat as much as your heart desires. It forces your body to go into an almost non-stop fat burning frenzy while you indulge your taste buds with as many as six rich, full flavoured and filling meals every day' … you can get the slim, beautiful slender thighs and hips similar to those belonging to some of Hollywood's biggest stars … ". b. The second ad was headlined “MELT BODY FAT and flabby skin fast”. Text below stated “Here is a glimpse of the system that will show you: Why 90% of the weight loss equation has nothing to do with how much you eat or go to the gym. Once you understand this, you’ll be able to burn fat quicker than you ever thought possible ... What it is that accounts for 70-75% of calories burnt daily. Hint: It’s not exercise! … How many meals to eat each day. Do you eat three meals a day? If so, discover why you will never truly reach your ideal weight. Do you snack on fruit throughout the day? If so, it’s probably stopping you from losing weight. This system will reveal what to eat instead, so you can start burning fat faster than you ever dreamed possible … Why will power [sic] doesn’t work … ”. The ad included also an image of the actress; adjacent text stated “ … She recently lost 4 inches off her thighs after previously failing with dozens of diets”. It also included testimonials, which stated “‘ … Within weeks of following Bodytrim I had lost two stone and felt fantastic … ‘” and “’ … I lost four stone 10 in just a few months …’”.

Issue

Two complainants challenged whether claims in ad (a) were misleading and could be substantiated, that:

1. there were "fat-burning foods";

2. consumers could lose weight by eating "as much as [their] heart desires";

3. the system "forces your body to go into an almost non-stop fat burning frenzy while you indulge your taste buds with as many as six rich, full flavoured and filling meals every day".

Another complainant challenged whether claims in ad (b) were misleading and could be substantiated, that:

4. " ... 90% of the weight loss equation is nothing to do with how much you eat or go to the gym";

5. eating three meals per day was detrimental to weight loss;

6. snacking on fruit was detrimental to weight loss;

7. " ... will power doesnt work".

The ASA challenged references to:

8. specific amounts of weight loss for the actress in ad (a) without stating a time frame;

9. specific amounts of weight loss for those who had provided testimonials in ad (b) without stating an exact time frame;

10. weight loss from specific parts of the body.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

IGEA Life Sciences Pty Ltd (IGEA) said the system was based on the developers combined specialist professional knowledge and experience in the fields of medical science, sport science and nutrition.  The programme was based on years of research, clinical experience and case based observations.  Their advertising was unashamedly strong because they sought to highlight that some information, particularly in relation to irresponsible fad diets, might be outdated or incorrect.  Some diets still focused on achieving weight loss through fat reduction; that was based on outdated science and recent research showed that was a flawed strategy.  They also sought to redress the myth that exercise was the key to weight loss because research had shown that diet, assisted by moderate exercise, was the key; Bodytrim therefore recommended participants took 10,000 steps per day.  They referred to several studies and said the claims in the ad were truthful and could be substantiated.   

1. IGEA referred to studies they believed had shown that eating certain types of food could affect the bodys ability to burn fat.  Higher protein intake resulted in lower circulating insulin; high circulating insulin was the limiting factor to fat burning and therefore foods that kept insulin low forced the body to oxidise more fat for energy compared to those, such as simple carbohydrates, that raised insulin.  Other studies had shown that protein regulated energy metabolism. Even partially replacing a complex carbohydrate diet with more protein increased the circulating fatty acids available for energy use, as recommended by the Bodytrim system.  They said the claim that there were "fat-burning foods" was truthful and scientifically supported.

2. IGEA said Bodytrim incorporated three main meals, each with unlimited salad and vegetables, plus three snacks; each meal also incorporated a protein source because they had been found to give high satiety levels.  They noted the NHS also recommended three small meals and three snacks per day.  There was no restriction on overall food intake, because they had observed that food restriction was a major factor that contributed to failure on eating plans, but there were rules to govern the consumption of energy-dense foods.  The system ensured that total energy intake during the weight loss period was below the requirement for the average man or woman.  Although additional snacks were allowed, that was within guidelines.  Because more frequent protein intake meant less of a desire to have additional meals or energy dense foods, Bodytrim clients could eat "as much as [their] heart desires"; the programme would decrease the amount they wanted to eat and the foods that were unlimited had very low calorific value.

3. IGEA said readers would be aware that individuals had different tastes, however it was their view that clients could indulge their taste buds.  They accepted that was subjective, however every recipe had been either developed or reviewed by a qualified chef. The statement was therefore accurate and it was true that clients would eat six times per day.  There was an overall negative energy balance on the programme, which meant that the body had to find fat from existing stores; it ensured that the body was in a fat burning state.

4. IGEA said a weight loss equation, which was firmly based in scientific understanding, had been developed for the programme to provide a guide for clients so they could easily recognise the factors that contributed to daily energy expenditure.  IGEA said studies stated that physical activity had been found to contribute between 25% and 40% of daily energy expenditure however basal metabolic rate (BMR), which had nothing to do with exercise and was the largest component of daily energy expenditure in Western societies, could contribute between 60% and 70%. In addition, the thermic effect of food could contribute up to 10%.  A study had shown that an increase in physical activity did not equate to an overall increase in energy expenditure.  The Bodytrim weight loss equation was 70% food, 20% walking and 10% exercise, hence the claim that 90 per cent of weight loss was nothing to do with the gym.  

5. IGEA said many studies had shown that weight loss was greater in those that ate six meals per day than in those who ate meals of equal calorific value in three sittings.  On Bodytrim increased meal frequency usually led to a reduced intake of calories because, due to the protein consumed with each meal, satiety was increased.

6. IGEA said that because fruit was high in simple carbohydrates it was a poor choice for weight loss in comparison to protein, which created more of a thermic effect on the body.  Fruit also did not initiate insulin secretion, which meant eating fruit could in turn lead to overeating, and it would also allow hunger to increase faster than Bodytrim recommended snack foods would.  They acknowledged that fruit should form part of a healthy diet but said all vitamin and mineral RDAs were met on the Bodytrim programme.

7. IGEA cited a study that stated that suppressing unwanted thoughts was generally an ineffective thought control strategy, which could in turn result in an increase in unwanted thoughts.  They said that study showed that attempts to lose weight using willpower alone would in fact cause a greater urge to eat unhealthily. The majority of people who intended to eat more healthily failed to do so and some people lacked the cognitive control to wilfully execute health knowledge or diet decisions.  Weight loss strategies involving diet and exercise worked only for a minority of highly motivated individuals but failed completely for the vast majority.  To acknowledge that willpower alone was an ineffective weight loss strategy Bodytrim gave members access to a qualified nutritionist online and by telephone as well as providing weekly support letters, an online support forum and a variety of other positive reinforcement tools and motivational media.  They said a study had shown that incentives of that type make it easier for people to maintain weight loss.  

8. & 9. IGEA said they had not stated precise timeframes in the ads because the amount of weight lost would exceed 2 lb per week and would therefore breach the CAP Code.  They provided testimonials signed by the people who appeared in the ads.  They said it was important to tell consumers about the amount of weight lost so they could see that results could, and had, been achieved using the system.  The weight was lost safely and, in the case of the actress, under the supervision of a doctor, who helped develop the programme.  

10. Although the reference in ad (a) to weight lost from specific areas of the body was truthful of the actresss personal experience, IGEA had amended the ad to make clear that weight loss would be from the entire body; it still referred to the actresss experience of losing weight from specific areas but added statements to make clear that weight loss would also occur elsewhere.

Assessment

1. Upheld

The ASA noted the system was based on a theory that some foods could encourage the body to metabolise faster.  We also noted that although IGEA referred to some studies, we had not seen robust evidence, such as peer reviewed or clinical trial evidence carried out on people, to show that there were "fat-burning foods".  We concluded that the claim was misleading.

On this point, ad (a) breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 51.1 and 51.4 (Weight control).  

2. Upheld

We noted we had not seen evidence that Bodytrim clients could lose weight by eating "as much as [their] heart desires".  We also noted the programme comprised specific restrictions on food intake and only vegetables and salad were unlimited.  We considered, because it did not make clear that only certain foods were not restricted on the plan, the claim was likely to be interpreted to mean that consumers could lose weight by eating an unlimited amount of any food they chose.  Because we had not seen robust evidence, based on people who had undertaken the programme, to show that the Bodytrim method could safely and successfully result in weight loss by participants eating "as much as [their] heart desires" we concluded that the claim had not been substantiated.

We were also concerned that the ad did not make clear how the Bodytrim method worked and the claim that consumers could lose weight by eating "as much as [their] heart desires" implied that dieters could eat as much as they liked and still lose weight, which was a breach of the Code.  

On this point, ad (a) breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 51.1, 51.4 and 51.8 (Weight control).   

3. Upheld

We noted we had not seen evidence that Bodytrim clients could lose weight by indulging their " ... taste buds with as many as six rich, full flavoured and filling meals every day" or that the programme "forces your body to go into an almost non-stop fat burning frenzy ... ".  We considered the claim, when read as a whole, was likely to be interpreted to mean that there was little restriction to the amount and type of food that could be consumed on the programme but that clients would still lose weight at a very quick rate.  Because we had not seen robust substantiation for the claim, we concluded that it was misleading.  

On this point, ad (a) breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 51.1, 51.4 and 51.8 (Weight control).

4. Upheld      

We noted the claim was intended to refer to a specific "weight loss equation" that formed the basis of the Bodytrim programme, in which 10 per cent of energy expenditure was attributed to exercise. We considered, however, that readers were unlikely to be aware of Bodytrims specific weight loss equation and were instead likely to understand the claim to refer to weight loss in general. The claim was therefore likely to be seen to imply that exercise in general and the amount of food one consumed, had little or no effect on the amount of weight a person could lose. We considered we had not seen robust evidence to show that and concluded that the claim was misleading.

On this point, ad (b) breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 51.1 and 51.4 (Weight control).

5. & 6. Upheld

We noted the theories behind the Bodytrim system. We also noted the ad stated "Do you eat three meals a day?  If so, discover why you will never truly reach your ideal weight.  Do you snack on fruit throughout the day?  If so, it's probably stopping you from losing weight" and considered that readers were likely to understand from the ad that eating three meals per day and snacking on fruit were generally detrimental to weight loss.  We noted that, although IGEA made reference to some studies, we had not seen robust evidence, based for example on clinical trials on people, to substantiate the claims that eating three meals per day or snacking on fruit were detrimental to weight loss.  We concluded that the claims were misleading.  

On points 5 and 6, ad (b) breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 51.1 and 51.4 (Weight control).

7. Upheld

We acknowledged IGEAs belief that it could be beneficial to supplement a weight loss attempt based on willpower alone with additional moral support.  We considered however the claim was likely to be interpreted not as a suggestion that supplementary support could help with weight loss but as an absolute claim that willpower would not help with any weight loss attempt.  We noted we had not seen evidence to support that absolute claim and concluded that the ad was misleading.

On this point, ad (b) breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 51.1 and 51.4 (Weight loss).   

8. & 9. Upheld

We noted the testimonials IGEA sent included full addresses and were signed and dated but nevertheless any claims based on testimonials must comply with the Code.  We noted the ads did not state the exact amounts of weight lost together with the period involved and as such breached the Code.  We noted IGEA asserted that the rate of weight loss was greater than 2 lb per week.  However, we considered that that rate of weight loss was unlikely to be compatible with good medical and nutritional practice for those who were normally overweight. It therefore should not have been stated in the ads and the omission of the period involved did not make such claims acceptable.  We concluded that the ads breached the Code.

On points 8 and 9, ads (a) and (b) breached CAP Code clauses 14.3 (Testimonials and endorsements) and 51.10 (Weight control).  

10. Upheld

We noted IGEA had amended the ad to make clear that weight loss would occur from parts of the body other than those included in the actresss testimonial. However the amended ad still made reference to weight loss from specific body parts.  We considered it was unacceptable to claim that weight or fat could be lost from specific parts of the body, whether or not the ad also claimed that weight would also be lost elsewhere.  We concluded, because it made reference to weight loss from specific parts of the body, the ad breached the Code.

On this point, ad (a) breached CAP Code clauses 14.3 (Testimonials and endorsements) and 51.9 (Weight control).

Action

The ad must not appear again in its current form.  We told IGEA not to make claims for which they did not hold robust substantiation.  We also told them not to refer to weight loss from specific parts of the body and to make claims that individuals had lost precise amounts of weight only if that amount was stated together with the period involved and if the rate of weight loss was also compatible with good medical and nutritional practice.  We advised IGEA to seek advice from the CAP Copy Advice team when advertising in the future.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)