Cited by 83Pharmacology and Obesity TreatmentObesity, Physical Activity, DietBotanical Research and Applications

A natural fiber complex reduces body weight in the overweight and obese: A double‐blind, randomized, placebo‐controlled study

Open access
Grube, Barbara, Chong, Pee‐Win, Lau, Kai‐Zhia, Orzechowski, Hans‐Dieter·2013·Obesity

Abstract

Objective: A proprietary natural fiber complex (Litramine IQP G‐002AS) derived from Opuntia ficus‐indica, and standardized on lipophilic activity, was previously shown in preclinical and human studies to reduce dietary fat absorption through gastrointestinal (GI) fat binding. Here, we investigated the efficacy and safety of IQP G‐002AS in body weight reduction. Design and Methods: One hundred twenty‐five overweight and obese adults participated in the study. Subjects were advised on physical activity, and received nutritional counseling, including hypocaloric diet plans (30% energy from fat and 500 kcal deficit/day). After a 2‐week placebo run‐in phase, subjects were randomized to receive either 3 g/day of IQP G‐002AS (IQ) or a placebo. The primary endpoint was change in body weight from baseline; secondary endpoints included additional obesity measures and safety parameters. Results: One hundred twenty‐three subjects completed the 12‐week treatment phase (intention‐to‐treat (ITT) population: 30 male and 93 female; mean BMI: 29.6 ± 2.8 kg/m 2 and age: 45.4 ± 11.3 years). The mean body weight change from baseline was 3.8 ± 1.8 kg in IQ vs. 1.4 ± 2.6 kg in placebo (P < 0.001). More IQ subjects lost at least 5% of their initial body weight compared to placebo (P = 0.027). Compared with placebo, IQ also showed significantly greater reduction in BMI, body fat composition, and waist circumference. IQ was well tolerated with no adverse reactions reported. Conclusions: These results suggest that the natural fiber complex Litramine IQP G‐002AS is effective in promoting weight loss.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/oby.20244

Cites

29 of 29 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • There were no differences in lean body mass between fiber and placebo groups, though both groups lost lean body mass; from total weight lost, the fiber group lost approximately 50% of lean body mass while the placebo group lost approximately 36% of lean body mass, showing that the fiber did not offset lean body mass loss.

    “There were no differences in LBM, though both groups did lose LBM suggesting the fiber may have contributed to increased weight loss in the treatment group but did not effectively offset LBM losses in this study; from the total weight lost, the fiber group lost approximately 50% of LBM while the placebo group lost approximately 36% of LBM showing that the fiber did not offset LBM loss [39].”

    From Body Composition Changes in Weight Loss: Strategies and Supplementation for Maintaining Lean Body Mass, a Brief Review (2018) · cites this paper as [39]

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 1 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • In a 12-week study with obese women and men, the group assigned to the fiber supplement lost significantly more body weight and body fat than placebo.

    “The group assigned to the fiber supplement lost significantly more body weight and body fat than placebo.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [18]US Food and Drug Administration. Safety orlistat (marketed as Alli and Xenical): early communication about an ongoing safety review 2009 180057 180057

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Grube, B., Chong, P., Lau, K., & Orzechowski, H.
Affiliations
Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin (DE)
Corresponding author
Chong, Pee‐Win
Venue
Obesity
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2013-01
Volume
21
Issue
1
Pages
58-64
ISSN
  • 1930-7381 (ISSN-L)
  • 1930-739X
OpenAlex
W1972920113
Cited by
83
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 2
FWCI
5.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Obesity (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Pharmacology and Obesity Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Obesity, Physical Activity, Diet
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Botanical Research and Applications
Keywords
Opuntia ficus-indica, dietary fat absorption, weight loss, overweight, hypocaloric diet, body mass index, body fat content, waist circumference, supplement safety
MeSH terms
Adipose Tissue, Adult, Body Composition, Dietary Fiber, Double-Blind Method, Female, Humans, Male, Phytotherapy, Middle Aged, Obesity, Weight Loss, Body Mass Index, Anti-Obesity Agents, Plant Preparations, Opuntia, Overweight, Waist Circumference, Intention to Treat Analysis

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review