Anti-cellulite Treatments: Cellulite Pills

Since cellulite affects majority of women, the lecture about the latest in anti-cellulite treatments given by research scientist Len Kravitz during the Idea World Fitness Convention was well attended. Last week, I shared his review on anti-cellulite creams. This week's column is about the effectiveness of herbal supplements in the treatment of cellulite.

The idea that you can reduce cellulite by taking a pill is both revolutionary and controversial. Revolutionary because all other treatments focus on creams, massage (whether manual or mechanical), diet and exercise. It's controversial because a legal battle is ongoing between the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Rexall, the United States' distributor of Cellasene, the most popular cellulite pills.

The FTC took issue with Rexall's use of the phrases "It helps eliminate cellulite at its source" and "fights cellulite from the inside" in its marketing materials, because, according to the FTC, Rexall did not have the clinical evidence to back up these claims.

Kravitz's opinion on Cellasene is that there is not enough scientific evidence to say if it works or not because many of the studies were poorly designed and there are independent conflicting studies.

The theory behind the use of Cellasene is that cellulite is basically a circulation problem. According to the website of Bionax, local distributor of Cellasene, the product "improves blood circulation to cellulite areas, so your body can use the trapped fat as a source of energy. It also increases your body's metabolic rate, so that fat can be used at a faster rate." Additionally, the website mentions that Cellasene can "counteract fluid retention."

So the four main benefits of taking Cellasene are supposed to be increased blood circulation, reduced fluid build-up, stimulation of metabolism and reduction in localized fats.

Cellasene was invented by Italian chemist Gianfranco Merizzi in 1997. It was launched in Australia in 1999 with a high-profile ad campaign that featured women almost stampeding to get their hands on the product. The reaction was the same in the US.

It's easy to understand why something like Cellasene could cause a mini-riot. Who would not want to take a pill twice a day (or three times daily for a more "intensive" program) for eight weeks and watch her cellulite vanish into thin air?

Many women believed in the Cellasene promise that Rexall sold $54 million worth of the product in six months, according to the Miami Herald. The amazing sales and media hype that surrounded Cellasene eventually caught the attention of the FTC. The case has not yet been settled.

Sales were never the same after the initial six months because as Rexall president Tim Richerson told the Herald, "There was significant positive PR that drove a lot of consumers to try the product, but once we got the challenge from the FTC, we did not dedicate any additional marketing dollars for the brand and spent all our resources on resolving the FTC challenge." Richerson added that the "sales fall-off also stemmed in part from the disappointment of consumers who mistakenly expected Cellasene to cure their cellulite almost immediately."

Legal battles over marketing techniques and unrealistic consumer expectations aside, does the product work? That's what many women, including me, want to know. With no conclusive scientific evidence in sight, knowing both sides of the story is the only way to make an informed decision.


The initial research study that was used by Rexall as clinical evidence in its Cellasene campaign was done at the University of Pavia in Italy. It involved 25 women. The study claimed that hip, thigh and ankle measurements were smaller after taking Cellasene for eight weeks. Since there was no control group and no placebo group, it was criticized by the scientific community as being poorly designed. Additionally, the study was never published in any peer-reviewed scientific journals, and that is always a "kiss of death" for serious scientists.

A second Pavia study confirmed the findings of the first. It involved 40 women. Twenty-five women took the product while 15 women took a placebo. Neither group knew who was taking what but the researchers did because only the Cellasene group underwent periodic blood tests. Not quite as good as a double-blind placebo experiment where neither the participants nor the researchers know who is taking the real thing but better designed than the first experiment. Unfortunately, this study was never published either.

US plastic surgeon George Beraka conducted a 12-week study on 10 women and concluded that Cellasene was effective. However, this study was not published in a scientific journal also.

At this point, you may be wondering why being "published" is a big deal. Publication in a peer-reviewed journal means that your experiment procedures will be closely scrutinized by fellow scientists in your field. Research studies that are not published or are published in non-peer-reviewed journals are not considered as reliable as those that are.

A 1998 New York study that was published in the Journal of Plastic Reconstructive Surgery could not find any difference in the blood flow or "lipolytic responsiveness" (the way fat is burned) of cellulite and non-cellulite areas on the same individual. This is in direct contradiction to the Cellasene theory that cellulite is caused by poor blood circulation causing fat to be "trapped" in the thighs. The study was headed by Dr. Michael Rosenbaum, a leading researcher of fat anatomy and physiology.

A 1999 study at the South Bank University in London concluded that there was no difference in body weight, fat content, or hip and thigh measurements between 11 women who took Cellasene and eight women who took placebo.

Stung by criticism that the Pavia experiments were not well designed, Rexall commissioned the University of Miami to do a study on 240 women. It would have been the largest Cellasene study, but head researcher Dr. Brian Berman called off the testing in because the participants were required to show up six times to be tested but most did not.

The largest and longest study to date was published in the August issue of Flebologia, The Journal of the Argentina Medical Association. The study involved 45 women and ran for two months. According to the Bionax website, the main aim of the study was to determine the effect of Cellasene on microcirculation in the thighs. Seventy percent of the participants showed a decrease in fluid build-up, 68 percent showed an improvement in capillary density, 30 percent showed an improvement in skin surface and body contour.

Cellasene is a mixture of several herbs that are supposed to "form a powerful partnership against cellulite." Here is a list of the active ingredients, what they do according to various Cellasene websites, and what Dr. Stephen Barrett, head of Quackwatch and the National Council Against Health Fraud, has to say about them (in italics):

Dried sweet clover extract can increase blood circulation and assist in removing fluid build-up. This ingredient may have mild diuretic action, but "fluid buildup" is not a factor in the appearance or composition of fatty tissue.

Ginkgo biloba assists in blood circulation and stimulates the metabolism of fats. Although ginkgo can increase circulation, it does not stimulate fat metabolism. Even if it did, there is no reason it would exert a localized effect.

Grapeseed extract contains powerful antioxidants that protect cells and blood vessels from damage. Whether antioxidant supplements help protect tissues is not scientifically settled. Regardless, any such mechanism has nothing to do with quantity or appearance of fatty tissues.

Fucus vesiculosus or bladderwrack stimulates metabolism and can help reduce localized fats. This herb contains significant amounts of iodine and could adversely affect the thyroid gland. The US Recommended Daily Allowance is 150 micrograms. The average American woman ingests 170 mcg from food (not including iodized salt). Each capsule of Cellasene contains 240 mcg of iodine. If enough were taken to increase thyroid function, the result would be unhealthy.

Evening primrose oil and fish oil are rich in polyunsaturated fatty acids, a source of energy that increases metabolic levels and helps in diminishing saturated fatty acids. The "energy" is simply the caloric value. Neither oil increases metabolism nor reduces the amount of other fats one eats.

Soya lecithin helps break down fats. The body makes all the lecithin it needs. Lecithin supplements do not cause the body to shed fat.

As you can tell from his comments, Dr. Barrett is definitely a Cellasene skeptic. As for the rest of us, we will have to wait for more conclusive scientific studies before passing judgment. Cellasene could be "The One That Works" as stated in the original ads, or it could be the most-hyped cellulite disappointment.

Continue reading here: The P.R.I.C.E. is Right for Exercise Injuries

Was this article helpful?

0 0