lexpress.fr
Influencer's Supplement "Anti-spike" Lacks Scientific Backing Despite Popular Appeal
Jessie Inchauspé, an influencer with 5.7 million Instagram followers, launched "Anti-spike," a \$58.50 monthly supplement claiming 40% glucose spike reduction, lacking sufficient clinical trial data to support its claims, while experts stress the unnecessary nature of such focus for healthy individuals.
- What is the scientific evidence supporting the claims made about the effectiveness of "Anti-spike" in reducing glucose spikes?
- Jessie Inchauspé, a social media influencer with 5.7 million Instagram followers, markets "Anti-spike," a supplement claiming to reduce glucose spikes by 40%. However, this claim lacks supporting clinical trials; only individual plant studies and the influencer's own data are provided. A clinical trial is planned for completion in 2026.
- What are the potential risks or downsides associated with the focus on limiting glucose spikes for healthy individuals, as promoted by Inchauspé?
- The product's marketing centers on limiting glucose spikes, a practice deemed unnecessary for healthy individuals by medical professionals. While Inchauspé's emphasis on reducing sugar intake is valid, the proposed methods lack scientific evidence and may lead to unhealthy dietary obsessions. The product costs \$58.50 per month.
- What regulatory or ethical considerations should be applied to the marketing of dietary supplements making unsubstantiated health claims, and how can consumers be better protected from misleading information?
- The lack of rigorous scientific backing for "Anti-spike," coupled with its high cost and potentially harmful effect of promoting unnecessary dietary restrictions, raises concerns about its ethical marketing. Future research should focus on the effectiveness and potential risks of such products, especially considering the impact of marketing on public health.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The headline and introduction immediately frame Inchauspé and her product in a negative light, emphasizing the lack of scientific evidence and high cost. The article's structure consistently prioritizes criticism from medical professionals over Inchauspé's claims, shaping the reader's perception towards skepticism and dismissal of her approach. The repeated mention of the product's high cost further contributes to a negative framing.
Language Bias
The article uses loaded language such as 'salé' (salty/expensive) to describe the product's price, and 'oukases' and 'régimes restrictifs' (edicts and restrictive diets) to characterize her methods. These terms carry negative connotations, influencing the reader's perception. Neutral alternatives could include 'high-priced,' 'recommendations,' and 'dietary guidelines.' The repeated use of terms like 'farfelu' (outlandish) adds to the negative framing.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on criticisms of Jessie Inchauspé's methods and products, omitting potential benefits or alternative interpretations of her approach. While acknowledging some valid points within her message (limiting sugary drinks), it doesn't explore the potential positive impacts of mindful eating or increased awareness of blood sugar levels, even for non-diabetics. The lack of balanced representation of Inchauspé's perspective beyond direct quotes weakens the analysis.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a false dichotomy by framing the issue as either completely accepting or rejecting Inchauspé's methods. It neglects the possibility of a nuanced perspective, where some aspects of her approach might be beneficial while others are questionable or lack sufficient scientific backing. The discussion overly simplifies the complexities of nutrition and blood sugar regulation.
Gender Bias
The article doesn't exhibit overt gender bias in its language or representation. However, the repeated use of Inchauspé's title ('influenceuse') might subtly imply a lack of seriousness or scientific credibility compared to the male medical professionals quoted.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article discusses the promotion of a supplement, "Anti-spike", by an influencer, without sufficient scientific evidence to support its claims. This promotes potentially harmful dietary obsessions and could negatively impact the health of individuals who follow the advice without medical supervision. The article highlights the lack of necessary clinical trials and emphasizes that for healthy individuals, efforts to control blood sugar spikes are unnecessary and can be detrimental.