Evo Slim Official Website › Journal › Guggul At 50 Milligrams Against Three Grams A Day

Guggul At 50 Milligrams Against Three Grams A Day

Reviewed by Dr. Meetal Mehta

One randomised controlled trial in JAMA is the reason guggul appears on supplement panels at all. It used three grams a day of a standardised extract. This label carries fifty milligrams of raw resin, and the gap is worth doing properly.

The row, exactly as the panel prints it

Guggul (Commiphora mukul)(resin), 50 mg, dagger. That is the whole entry, and it is joint-largest botanical on this label alongside the cinnamon bark. Read the panel top to bottom and guggul is one of the two plant ingredients that look substantial next to a list that drops to 3 mg by the end.

Three things in that row are worth pulling apart before any question about what guggul does. The species is named, which is better than most. The plant part is named, resin rather than leaf or bark. And there is no extract ratio and no standardisation, so 50 mg is a mass of resin and nothing more specific than that.

That last omission is the one that decides everything below, because the serious human trial of guggul did not use resin.

The trial that actually exists

Guggul has one well-known randomised controlled trial in a major journal, and it is worth reading rather than summarising: Szapary and colleagues, JAMA, 2003.

It enrolled 103 adults in the Philadelphia area with raised cholesterol, eating what the paper calls a typical Western diet. It was double-blind, randomised and placebo-controlled, with a parallel design, and it ran for eight weeks. Three arms: standard-dose guggulipid, high-dose guggulipid, and matching placebo.

The doses are the part that matters here. Standard dose was 1,000 mg of a standardised guggulipid extract containing 2.5% guggulsterones, taken three times a day. High dose was 2,000 mg three times a day. So the lower arm took three grams a day and the higher arm took six.

The primary outcome was the percentage change in directly measured LDL cholesterol after eight weeks, with total cholesterol, HDL, triglycerides and adverse events as secondary measures. It is a properly conducted trial and it is the reason guggul is on panels at all.

The arithmetic, done once

Three grams a day against 50 mg is a ratio of sixty to one. Six grams a day is a hundred and twenty to one. And the trial gave a standardised extract at a stated guggulsterone percentage, where this panel gives raw resin at no stated percentage.

Those are two separate gaps and they compound. Even if the resin here happened to carry the same 2.5% guggulsterone content as the trial extract, 50 mg of it would deliver 1.25 mg of guggulsterones against the 75 mg a day the lower arm received. And nothing on the label says it does carry 2.5%, because nothing on the label says anything about standardisation for this entry.

What a fair reading looks like

It would be easy to write this post as a takedown and it would be wrong. Two things are true at once and both belong on the page.

• Fifty milligrams of guggul resin is not a trial dose. No honest reading of the arithmetic above gets round that, and a page implying otherwise is a page hoping you will not look.
• This panel is not sold as a guggul product. It is a twenty-entry formula whose strongest amounts are minerals, and guggul is one of thirteen botanicals arranged around them. Judging the whole by one row is the mirror image of the mistake it is correcting.

The useful question is which half of the panel you are buying, and the dosage comparison answers it by putting six entries through the same exercise. Four of the six come out looking like this one. The chromium does not.

Why a 50 mg row is on the label at all

This is the question the arithmetic above raises and rarely gets answered.

Part of the answer is formulation reality. A capsule holds a finite mass. Twenty ingredients in one capsule means an average of well under 50 mg each once the magnesium has taken 125 mg of the space, and a formula that wanted trial doses of three botanicals would be a formula with three ingredients and a bigger capsule.

Part of it is that a named botanical does work on a label whether or not it does work in a body. A panel reading vitamin C, vitamin E, biotin, magnesium, zinc, manganese and chromium is a multivitamin. The same panel with guggul, banaba and gymnema on it is a weight management supplement, and the second sells at a different price.

That is not fraud and it is not unusual. It is the economics of the category, and the category guide sets out how widely it applies. What a buyer can do about it is read the amounts, which is only possible on a panel that prints them all. This one does.

What buying guggul properly would look like

If the guggul is the reason you are interested, the honest advice is to buy it separately. A standardised guggulipid extract at a stated guggulsterone percentage, taken at the amounts the trial used, is available and is not expensive.

Two cautions come with that advice and neither is a formality. The JAMA trial reported adverse events as a secondary outcome and a guggul product at trial doses is a different proposition from 50 mg in a multi-ingredient capsule. An overview of fifty systematic reviews of herbal medicines is the right frame for that: serious adverse effects are documented for a small number of herbs and mild ones for many, and plant-derived does not mean consequence-free.

And a trial in adults with raised cholesterol is not a trial about body weight. The outcome Szapary measured was LDL cholesterol. Nothing in it speaks to what a reader of a weight management page is usually hoping for, and a page that cited it as though it did would be doing something this one is trying not to.

How to do this with any panel

The exercise above takes about ten minutes for any ingredient on any label, and it is the single most useful habit available in this category.

1. Read the row exactly. Species, plant part, amount, and whether a ratio or standardisation is printed. Write down what is missing.
2. Find one good trial, not five. A randomised controlled trial in a real journal beats a handful of reviews for this purpose, because you need a dose rather than a conclusion.
3. Take the dose out of the methods section. Not the abstract’s summary and not a secondary source. Amounts get rounded and multiplied in retelling.
4. Divide. That number is the answer, and it is usually larger than expected.
5. Then put it back in context. One row is not a formula, and a panel with three strong minerals and a weak botanical is a different thing from a panel with neither.

The checklist turns that into twelve rows you can apply to any label, including this one, where it produces four failures printed in full.

The verdict on one row

Fifty milligrams of unstandardised guggul resin is a flavour of guggul rather than a dose of it, and the JAMA trial is sixty times the amount in a different material for a different outcome. That is the honest position and it is printed here rather than on a page nobody reads.

What follows from it is not that the capsule is worthless. It is that the reason to take this particular capsule is the mineral block at the top of its panel, where chromium sits at 191% of its Daily Value and zinc at 73%, and that the botanicals below are a garnish at these amounts.

Buy it for the first half with your eyes open and it is a fair purchase. The ingredients page has every entry with its amount, and the pricing page has what that costs a day.