Green coffee bean extract in AGF Factor I

7. June 2012 William Davis (16)
Track Your Plaque's new and proprietary formulation, AGF Factor I, is designed to to support a program to achieve low levels of endogenous glycation.

Endogenous glycation, discussed at length in a recent Track Your Plaque Special Report, makes LDL particles (especially small LDL particles) more prone to oxidation and thereby more atherogenic, i.e., more likely to contribute to atherosclerotic plaque. Endogenous glycation also exerts unhealthy effects on long-lived proteins in the body, such as the proteins in the lenses of your eyes (cataracts), the lining of arteries (hypertension), and the cartilage cells of joints (brittle cartilage and arthritis).

Endogenous glycation is reduced by slashing carbohydrates in the diet, especially the most offensive carbohydrates of all, the amylopectin A of wheat, sucrose, high-fructose corn syrup and other fructose sources. Endogenous glycation can also be blocked by using blockers of the glycation reaction, such as benfotiamine (lipid-soluble thiamine), pyridoxal-5'-phosphate (a form of vitamin B6 with greater glycation blocking effect), and chlorogenic acid from green coffee beans, all components of AGF Factor I, which also contains Portulaca oleracea (Portusana), or purslane, for reduction of glucose.

Green coffee bean extract, and thereby chlorogenic acid, is receiving increased attention, most recently due to a study demonstrating substantial weight loss with 750-1050 mg green coffee bean extract, providing approximately 325-500 mg chlorogenic acid per day. Participants lost 15.4 pounds over 8 weeks at the higher dose (500 mg chlorogenic acid per day), while participants lost 8.8 pounds over 8 weeks at the lower dose (325 mg chlorogenic acid per day).

AGF Factor I was not formulated for weight loss but, taken twice or three times per day, does indeed mimic the dose of chlorogenic acid from green coffee bean extract used in the weight loss study. If you wish to take advantage of this application of chlorogenic acid/green coffee bean extract, while also maximizing protection from endogenous glycation, our AGF Factor I is one excellent choice to do so.
Tags :

Comments (16) -

  • Susan

    6/8/2012 1:11:38 PM |

    Thank you, Dr. Davis,
    Do you know what the mechanism is that would explain the weight loss? Is there caffeine in the green coffee extract? If yes, would it be sufficient to explain weight loss?
    Susan

  • Dr. Davis

    6/9/2012 12:52:08 PM |

    There is no caffeine, Susan.

    The mechanism is unknown, though at least part of the effect may be due to a reduction in formation of endogenous products of glycation.

  • Gene K

    6/9/2012 10:43:45 PM |

    Dr Davis,
    To those with APOE-4 who still rely on statins (Crestor) to control their smLDL, would you advise to try the green coffee bean extract instead?

  • Susan

    6/11/2012 12:40:14 PM |

    I just bought some green coffee extract from GNC. For 200 mg chlorogenic acid, the label said there was "no more than 16 mg. caffeine," (whatever that means)! I am going to try it and will report back if I get skinny or not. Smile

  • johnny

    6/12/2012 2:26:27 PM |

    Hi Dr.Davis,
    Does the green coffee bean extract need to be taken with meals?
    Thanks!

  • jaxrph

    6/14/2012 1:53:55 PM |

    With the B vitamins Is this safe to take post-intracoronary stent?

  • Dr. Davis

    6/15/2012 5:09:10 PM |

    I have no reason to believe that the components in this preparation pose any risk, Jax.

    I'm not convinced that the folates (NOT in this preparation) are truly a risk, either.

  • Dr. Davis

    6/15/2012 5:09:29 PM |

    No, but it might blunt any minimal nausea that arises.

  • Dr. Davis

    6/15/2012 5:10:52 PM |

    Hi, Gene--

    No, I don' think so.

    You could make a case for either chlorogenic acid/green coffee bean extract or the AGF Factor I to block glycation of small LDL particles, however.

  • Gene K

    6/17/2012 2:17:50 AM |

    Dr Davis,

    I think I didn't word my question clearly.

    I wonder whether it is worthwhile for APOE-4 patients to consider the AGF Factor I supplement as a replacement for statins to control smLDL while staying on a strict low-carb diet.

    Thank you.

  • Gene K

    6/19/2012 2:45:33 PM |

    Dr Davis, I take my question back. I reread your answer and now I understand that oxidation and glycation are two separate processes, and the supplement in question may help block glycation from AGEs. Oxidation of LDL particles, on the other hand, can be controlled with a low-carb diet. Is my interpretation correct?

    Thank you.

  • Dr. Davis

    6/20/2012 6:48:36 PM |

    I believe it is, Gene.

    Oxidation is a complex multi-faceted phenomenon. If we are looking for methods to inhibit or minimize oxidation that involve natural methods, not ingesting oxidized foods is a big factor. Not having particles prone to glycation, and thereby oxidation, is another.

  • Ms Martin

    7/23/2012 5:58:44 PM |

    i was just prescribed simvastatin, I believe 20mg per dose...is it safe to take green tea extract with this medicine?

  • RPF

    7/24/2012 5:46:50 PM |

    Is green coffee extract a blood thinner?

  • Green Coffee Bean Extract to Lose Weight | My Weight Loss Journey

    9/4/2012 3:35:31 PM |

    [...] quit taking it.  Check out this link for more information or to purchase Green Coffee Bean Extract.Green coffee bean extract seems to be a supplement that can make weight loss a lot easier.  Accordi... is coffee in its rawest, purest form, before roasting takes place. The unroasted beans of coffea [...]

  • Kay Belvin

    10/20/2012 12:37:28 AM |

    Is it safe to take green coffee extract with Simvastatin 40 Mg. and also is the extract a blood thinner as I take Warfarin?

Add comment

Loading
Chicken Little

Chicken Little

11. August 2007 William Davis (1)
Clinical studies can be designed in a number of ways. The ease and cost of these studies differ dramatically, as does the confidence of the findings.

The most confident way to design a clinical study is to tell neither the participants nor the investigator(s) what treatment is being offered, then to administer treatment or placebo. Neither the people doing the research nor the participants know what they are receiving. Of course, there needs to be some way to find out what was given at the end of the study in order to analyze the outcome.

This is called a “double-blind, placebo-controlled” clinical study. While not perfect since it tends to examine a treatment phenomenon in isolation (e.g., the effects of a single drug in a select group of people), it is the best sort of study design that is most likely to yield confident results, both negative and positive. This sort of design is followed, for instance, for most prescription drugs.

There are pitfalls in such studies, of course, and some have made headlines lately. For instance, beyond tending to examine single conditions in a select group of participants, a double-blind, placebo-controlled study can also fail to uncover rare effects. If a study contains 5000 participants, for instance, but a rare complication develops in 1 person out of 20,000, then it’s unlikely such an ill-effect will be observed until larger numbers of people are exposed to the agent.

Another pitfall (though not so much of study design, but of human greed) is that study outcomes that are not favorable can be suppressed by simply failing to publish the results. This has undoubtedly happened numerous times over the years. For this reason, a registry has been created for all human clinical trials as a means to enforce publication of outcomes, both favorable and unfavorable.

Despite its weaknesses, the double-blind, placebo-controlled study design remains the most confident way to show whether or not some treatment does indeed yield some effect. It is less prone to bias from either the participant or the investigator. Human nature being what it is, we tend to influence results just to suit our particular agenda or interests. An investigator who knows what you are given, drug or placebo, but owns lots of stock in the company, or is hoping for special favors from the pharmaceutical company sponsor, for instance, is likely to perceive events in a light favorable to the outcome of the study.

Now, most studies are not double-blind, placebo-controlled studies. These are notoriously difficult studies to engineer; raise lots of ethical questions (can you not treat a person with an aggressive cancer, for instance, and administer a placebo?); often require substantial numbers of participants (thousands), many of whom may insist on payment for devoting their time, bodies, and perhaps even encountering some risk; and are tremendously expensive, costing many tens of millions of dollars.

For this reason, many other study designs are often followed. They are cheaper, quicker, may not even require the active knowledge or participation of the group being studied. That’s not to say that the participants are being tricked. It may simply be something like trying to determine if there are more heart attacks in people who live in cities compared to rural areas by comparing death rates from heart attack from public records and population demographic data. Or, a nutritional study could be performed by asking people how many eggs they eat each week and then contacting them every month for 5 years to see if they’ve had a heart attack or other heart event. No treatment is introduced, no danger is added to a person’s established habits. Many epidemiologic studies are performed this way.

The problem is that these other sorts of study designs, because they generate less confident results, are not generally regarded as proof of anything. They can only suggest the possibility of an association, an hypothesis. For real proof to occur, a double-blind, placebo-controlled may need to follow. Alternatively, if an association suggested by a study of lesser design might, by reasons of a very powerful effect, be sufficient. But this is rare. Thalidomide and catastrophic birth defects are an example of an association between a drug and fetal limb malformation that was so clear-cut that no further investigation was required to establish a causative association. Of course, no one in their right mind would even suggest a blinded study.

Where am I going with this tedious rambling? Lately, the media has been making a big to-do about several studies, none of which are double-blind, placebo-controlled, but were cross-sectional sorts of observations, the sorts of studies which can only suggest an effect. This happened with Dr. Steve Nissen’s study of Avandia (rosiglitazone) for pre-diabetes and risk for heart attack and the recent study suggesting that cancer incidence is increased when LDL cholesterol is low. Both were observations that suggested such associations.

Now, those of you following the Heart Scan Blog or the www.cureality.com website know that we do not defend drug companies nor their drugs. In fact, we’ve openly and repeatedly criticized the drug industry for many of its practices. Drugs are, in my opinion, miserably overused and abused.

But, as always, I am in the pursuit of truth. Neither of these studies, in my view, justified the sort of media attention they received. They are hypothesis-generating efforts—that’s it. You might argue that the questions raised are so crucial that any incremental risk of a drug is simply not worth it.

Despite the over-reaction to these studies, good will come of the fuss. I do believe that heightened scrutiny of the drug industry will result. Many people will seek to avoid prescription drugs and opt for healthy changes in lifestyle, thus reducing exposure to costs and side-effects.

But beware of the media, acting as our Chicken Little, reporting on studies that prove nothing but only raise questions.
Tags :

Comments (1) -

  • jpatti

    9/11/2007 10:26:00 AM |

    There's another issue with double-blind studies, for things other than drugs or supplements, they're impossible.  

    Your example of the number of eggs in a person's diet is a good example; there's no "placebo" for eggs.  Similarly, if I increase my level of exercise, I notice that - it can't be blinded.  For diet and other lifestyle changes, we will never be able to gain the amount of evidence as for drug trials.

    I think this is why many doctors don't think so much about prescribing these types of things, except for a cursory instruction to "eat better, lose weight and exercise," they're just not as strongly convinced of the benefit of these changes because they can't be proven as strongly.  But... not being able to prove something doesn't mean it's not important to health!  

    As a diabetic, I measure my bg multiple times a day and make changes to my food intake, exercise and medication dosage to hit established bg goals.  While I think tightly-controlling bg is probably the number one thing I can do for my heart health, it can never be proven in a double-blind study.

Add comment

Loading