SlimQuick is touted as the world’s first and most advanced fat burner designed specifically for the woman’s body, and claims to be “scientifically engineered” to help women “overcome the physiological and hormonal barriers” of losing fat.
*Updated June 2015*
Review: SlimQuick Fat Burner For Women
SlimQuick’s exclusive complex, according to the advertising anyway, helps women lose weight through 6 unique means; the product is backed by science, and is “aimed at supporting fat loss through separate mechanisms.”
It all sounds pretty intriguing, but in reality, SlimQuick has a lot more to do with marketing hype and advertising to a specific market segment (fat burners for women are big business—click here to view the most popular women’s fat burners on this site!) than real science and ground-breaking, fat burning technology.
Success is likely to be as a result of the sensible diet and exercise program that accompanies the product, and not the product itself. And…
Most ingredients are undoubtedly present in only the tiniest amounts, and they are hidden behind a proprietary blend label that makes assessing the efficiency of this product very difficult.
The previous version of this product actually revealed the total milligram amount of each of the 6 proprietary complexes. Now, all the ingredients are lumped together, and we no longer know how much of any ingredient is included, or even the overall total milligram amount of a single serving).
Yes, this product does contain ingredients obviously focused on the specific needs of women, in most cases, they too are included in sub-optimal doses.
Why is Ingredient Dosage Important?
The medicinal plants, food compounds and herbs that are typically found in weight loss products are much like pharmaceutical drugs; they need to be present in a potent enough dosage to have any effect.
When you find a product that contains 10 or 20 ingredients, you’re likely to receive only a few of them at a potent dosage (and that’s not even guaranteed). The remainder of the ingredients serve only as label dressing; they are there to make the label look good, but are not present in a dosage large enough to elicit an effect.
Other “women-oriented” ingredients are useless for fat burning.
In other words, they have no proven effect on metabolism, or any mechanism that will actively facilitate weight loss.
Let’s take a closer look at the compilation, to see if there’s any justification behind the hype…
1. Vitamin & mineral blend:We all know that vitamins and minerals are important for optimal health. That’s true for men, women, and children.
While it’s not a bad thing that SlimQuick contains vitamins a blend of B vitamins and calcium, rest assured these won’t do any more for spurring on additional weight loss than your typical drug store vitamin. When was the last time you lost weight taking them?
2. SlimQuick 6-Ways™ Weight Loss Complex:This is the bulk of the formula and is comprised of…
a. Green tea extract: Green tea is a quality fat burning ingredient, when standardized for the appropriate dose of EGCG and related polyphenols—and it is in this case. Clinical evidence also indicates that when green tea is combined with caffeine (as it is here), it seems to encourage greater weight loss effects (Obes Res. 2005 Jul;13(7):1195-204).
Ok, but apparently SlimQuick contains a special green tea extract, “Green Select Phytosome.” It is this ingredient that the mysterious “clinical study” touted on the product site is all about…
“In a clinical study, overweight women using a key ingredient in SLIMQUICK along with a 1,350-calorie diet lost an average of three times the weight compared to those who just followed the 1,350-calorie diet! That means you could get three times the weight results with SLIMQUICK.”
Let’s not jump to any conclusions just yet…
For starters, while that clinical study is published in a peer-reviewed journal, it’s one that’s devoted to “Alternative Medicine” – a status that almost certainly has an influence on the rigor of the peer-review process. This more “relaxed” attitude can be seen in the paper itself… which reveals that no placebo was used for the control (diet alone) group – it was diet only, or diet plus MonCam (the name of the actual commercial product used).
This is a serious methodological issue, as it’s well-known that people respond strongly to pills, particularly those given in a clinical setting.
And the study write up makes no mention of blinding, either – how the researchers interact with the subjects and set expectations is critical.
That’s why placebo-controlled trials are also typically “double-blind” – that is, neither the subject nor the experimenter knows which treatments being dispensed are the “real” or “dummy” ones. That way, the experimenter cannot subtly (or overtly) influence the subjects’ behavior.
Placebo-controlled, double-blind studies are the “gold standard.” This one fell short, and inexplicably so, since it would not have been difficult to add this extra layer of care. Thus, this study is suggestive, but far from conclusive.
In the light of past research on green tea, it’s easy to believe that Green Select Phytosome had some positive effect on the subjects’ weight loss, but until a better-controlled study is done, it’s impossible to say if it really is a superior alternative to other standardized green tea extracts as a weight loss supplement ingredient.
A common ingredient in most weight loss products, as it cheaply and effectively addresses the fatigue issue common to dieters and non-dieters alike.
It does offer established weight loss benefits, mild though they may be (see Am J Clin Nutr. 1989 Jan;49(1):44-50, Am J Clin Nutr. 1980 May;33(5):989-97). Unfortunately, caffeine’s effects are largely dose-dependent, and we really don’t know how much of it is in this product.
If I had to guess however, I would say it’s likely SlimQuick contains approximately 75-100 mg of caffeine per serving; that’s the amount shown helpful (in conjunction with the green tea) in this clinical study.
Since caffeine is cheap and gives most people a much-needed “lift” it is also quite possible it is present an a dose double this size. Who knows for sure?
Rhodiola rosea is an adaptogenic herb used in Russian folk medicine. There is some evidence that Rhodiola has positive effects on physical/emotional stress—at a dosage of 340 or 680 mg/day over a 6-week period.
This herb is typically used to ease symptoms of premenstrual syndrome, and best of all, there is evidence to support this claim. Other evidence (J Altern Complement Med. 2009 Aug;15(8):853-62) indicates it may help with symptoms of menopause, too.
Does SlimQuick contain enough to be helpful?
e. Soy extract (isoflavones):
f. Brown Seaweed (Undaria pinnatifida) [contains fucoxanthin]:
Fucoxanthin is a carotenoid isolated from brown seaweed, and used in diet pills for its supposed fat blasting characteristics. This, based on the strength of positive animal studies. Newer studies show the combination of fucoxanthin and pomegranate seed oil to be beneficial for weight loss. Human data on fucoxanthin alone is highly lacking, however.
g. Uva ursi:
Yawn. Another diuretic. Can also be used to combat urinary tract infection.
h. Japanese knotweed:
Normally used as a source of resveratrol.
: Naturally occurring to plants, these phytochemicals have cholesterol lowering effects—when consumed in the correct dosage.
That’s a lot to pack into 738 mg, if you’re trying to give your customers useful doses of each ingredient.
For example, the phytosome green tea study used 300mg (600mg/day). A typical dose of caffeine is 100mg – 200mg. So between these two ingredients, we’ve already used up more than half of the “room” in one serving… leaving only 238mg – 338mg left to cover the remaining 8 ingredients.
That’s not enough.
Human studies on l-theanine, for example, suggest 200mg (400mg/day total) is a useful dose – yet l-theanine is the last, and least ingredient in the full complex.
Now don’t get me wrong; this “caffeine-green tea” combination is a pretty good one, and one most women will find helpful. It’s just that it isn’t particularly revolutionary, it’s no more effective for women than men, and isn’t likely to deliver miraculous results.
SlimQuick Review Conclusion: Not Bad. Pricey Though.
SlimQuick certainly isn’t a bad product, however, the “women’s” aspect of it is oversold.
There is little evidence that soy or chaste tree extracts facilitate weight loss in women.
And diuretics like Uva ursi don’t actually help women lose fat – just body water, which is readily replaced.
This is important to keep in mind, because SlimQuick is more expensive than it looks – one 60 capsule box provides only 20 servings. At two servings a day (recommended), you’ll need 3 boxes per month – an investment of nearly $60 US if purchased from a discount retailer like Walmart.
That aside, a large percentage of visitors who have written in about their experience with Slim Quick are really happy with the product (you can read Slim Quick feedback here).
Regardless, despite this positive feedback (remember, that diet and exercise alone will bring about some results), I would suggest you do not expect miracles from it.
|Summary of SlimQuick|