AdvoCare: The Truth Hurts?

The original blog (Advocare: The Truth) was created out of the simple desire to help people make as educated a decision as possible. Judging by the attention it gathered, mission accomplished.

What happened to that blog?

On 10/10/13 it was “mysteriously” shut down by the web host provider. Three days later, the blog author/creator received an email from “AdvoCare Legal” (legal@advocare.com) with a .pdf attachment. This is what the email said,*

Correspondence in RED is from AdvoCare/Legal.

Correspondence in BLUE is from the Advocare:The Truth blog author.

“Dear XXXXXX:

Please see the attached letter from the Vice President and Chief Legal Officer of AdvoCare International, LP.

Sincerely,

The AdvoCare Legal Department”

The attachment said,

“Via Mail and Email

Dear XXXXXX:

Unless we are mistaken, AdvoCare International, LP {“AdvoCare”) believes you are the author of a number of websites and/or social media sites such as www.advocaretruthblog.com, www.facebook.com/AdvocareTheTruth, and http://instagram.com/thetruthaboutadvocare. Your opinions on AdvoCare are well publicized. While we disagree with a number of your assertions, we also think that having a conversation about the company and how we develop our products along with the steps the corporate office takes to help ensure our business model is ethical and in compliance with both federal and state law, would be a worthwhile discussion.

We would like to offer to fly you to the corporate office to meet with a select group of our corporate team members to address the issues you have raised and find out why you harbor strong negative beliefs about AdvoCare. Please respond as we would like the opportunity to have a thoughtful dialogue together. AdvoCare aims to have all of its customers satisfied.

Sincerely,

The AdvoCare Customer Service Team

AdvoCare International, L. P. 2801 Summit/Avenue Piano, Texas 75074 800.542.4800 www.advocare.com”

On 10/31/13 the following reply was sent to “legal@advocare.com”:

“Dear Sirs,

On October 16 of this year, I received an email appearing to have been generated from legal@advocare.com (a copy has been attached to this email). Since the email claims to have come from the, “Vice President and Chief Legal Officer of AdvoCare International, LP”, and the letter closes with an entirely illegible signature, as well as the line, “AdvoCare Customer Service Team”, I have absolutely no idea of who it is I am corresponding with. I assume that the recipient of this email will recognize the signature and promptly forward it to the appropriate person.

Before I get to your interesting invitation, I need to first correct some erroneous information that was in your letter. First, I do not now, nor have have I ever been, connected with several of the email addresses listed at the head of your letter (namely, XXXXXX@Yahoo.com, XXXXXX@insightBB.COM, and XXXXXX@AOL.COM). Second, I am not the owner of the Instagram site which you reference in the letter and have no knowledge whatsoever of who the owner may be.

While I am pleased that you consider my opinions of sufficient significance to warrant the expense of flying me to your headquarters, before I could even consider accepting your offer I believe it is important that you identify the “number of (my) assertions” with which you disagree. I have made it clear many times within the blog that I will gladly correct any misinformation and offer a sincere apology for any mistakes made. I believe that it would save us both a lot of time and expense by your providing of a listing and explanation of your disagreements.

Since we are on the subject of “disagreements”, I have some of my own that need to be addressed. When you sent your letter to the email addresses listed in the letter (since I received a copy at my addresses I have little doubt that you broadcasted it to every address listed) that means that you provided my personal information to complete strangers. Because of this, I hold Advocare and the person/s responsible for sending this letter directly responsible for any and all negative consequences that may arise directly, or indirectly, that me or my family might suffer as a consequence of this action.

With any reasonable amount of thought, one might see that the timing of my blog being suspended, and the receipt of your letter, is simply not a coincidence. This means that Advocare is directly responsible for the blog being shut down and that the info I presented is more than just something you “disagree with”. Your actions in doing so are a direct violation of my right to freedom of speech. I urge you to employ the leverage with which you used to have the blog removed and have it reinstated. Then, with your list of disagreements (and the clarification of who “you” are), we can discuss those points and I will gladly make any corrections found necessary.

Maybe then, we can discuss your generous invitation to have me visit your corporate headquarters.

Sincerely,

XXXX XXXXX”

No reply from the, “Chief Legal Officer”, the “AdvoCare Legal Department”, the “Advocare Customer Service Team”, or any other person from Advcoare, was ever received.

Four months later, the following exchange took place:

Re: “Advocare Truth” Social Media

Dear XXXXXXXXX,

We write on behalf of AdvoCare International, L.P. (“AdvoCare”) with regard to certain social media sites you author and/or maintain including https://www.facebook.com/AdvocareTheTruth and http:/advocarefacts.com/.

On October 15, 2013, AdvoCare invited you to Dallas to discuss your posts about AdvoCare. Almost immediately, you pulled your postings. Recently, however, you have begun posting again, largely replicating the same content as before. AdvoCare again offers to fly you to Dallas to meet with the AdvoCare team to discuss your concerns and the basis for your prolific and largely inaccurate posts about AdvoCare.

We encourage you to either take AdvoCare up on this opportunity, as there are a number of inaccuracies and overstatements made on your sites that should be corrected. AdvoCare goes to great lengths to ensure the quality and efficacy of its numerous products and protect its distributors, brand, and customer base. If your goal is to share the truth, then we would assume you would want to discuss these issues with AdvoCare and ensure your postings were truthful.

We look forward to hearing from you, but want to assure you that we will have no choice but to recommend that AdvoCare pursue legal action if your inappropriate conduct continues.

Dallas — 2100 Ross Avenue, Suite 950 • Dallas, Texas 75201 • 214.692.6200 • 214.692.6255 Fax

Fort Worth — 100 Throckmorton, Suite 500 • Fort Worth, Texas 76102 • 817.332.7788 • 817.332.7789 Fax

Austin — 7004 Bee Caves Road, Bldg. 1, Suite 1100 • Austin, Texas 78746 • 512.681.3732 • 512.681.3741 Fax

February 24, 2014

Page 2 of 2

Sincerely

/s/J. Sean Lemoine

_______________

J. Sean Lemoine

cc: David B. Carr (Gonzalez Saggio & Harlan, LLP)”

Sent: Monday, February 24, 2014

To: Sean Lemoine Subject: RE:AdvoCare Blog

Dear Mr. Lemoine,

Last October I replied to a letter from Advocare and their invitation to visit their corporate offices. In my reply I pointed out that they had mistakenly assigned email addresses to me that were not connected to me in any way. I also pointed out that they sent my personal contact info to these email addresses. I asked that they stop sending my info to strangers and that I hold them responsible for any negative impact this act may have on me and my family. I now ask you to do the same and also hold you responsible for any negative outcome as you have committed the very same error.

I also asked Advocare to identify any comment or claim I had made that they felt was inaccurate or incorrect as I would gladly make any necessary corrections. Advocare has never replied to my request. Since my blog (http://advocaretruth.blog.com) was taken down last October, and the Facebook page AdvocareTheTruth no longer exists, I guess it doesn’t matter much, but I’d still like to know what I said that was wrong.

Sincerely,

XXXXXXXXXXX”

Tue, Feb 25, 2014

“RE: RE:AdvoCare Blog

Dear XXXXXXX:

I write in response to your email below.

First, to the extent we addressed an email to an improper address, we apologize for the oversight. However, there is nothing privileged or confidential about your home address, nor is anything improper contained in the letters sent by AdvoCare or Wick Phillips to your attention. Your allegation that either AdvoCare or Wick Phillips has in some way misused your personal information is entirely unfounded.

Second, AdvoCare never received the letter you claim to have sent in October. How did you transmit that letter and to what address? Going forward, I will assume this email address is the best way to communicate with you and request that you direct communications to AdvoCare to my attention via email or the address below.

Third, with regards to the websites you shut down, there is still the issue of https://www.facebook.comAdvocareTheTruth and http://advocarefacts.com/, which both appear to be under your control and contain the same misinformation that raised AdvoCare’s concerns about your other websites. AdvoCare would like to set up a conference call with you to go through some of the issues you have raised and to discuss certain statements and positions which you continue to advance.

Please let us know a few days and times later this week that work for a call.

J. Sean Lemoine

Partner | Wick Phillips Gould & Martin, LLP Direct: 214-740-4053 | Main: 214-692-6200 | Fax: 214-692-6255“

To: Sean Lemoine

Subject: RE:AdvoCare Blog

Dear Mr. Lemoine,

I have copied below the email I sent to Advocare. I sent it to the address from which it came and it was not kicked back. I had declined Advocare’s invitation to visit with them because it made much more sense for them to provide to me a list of things that they believe to be incorrect so that I could make any needed corrections. Since the blog and Facebook page was shut down, and I never heard back from Advocare, I assumed that this was a done-deal.

A visit with Advocare and/or a conference call seems rather pointless unless you can identify in writing all of the inaccurate statements which you claim I made and explain why you think they are inaccurate. Although I do not believe I have made any inaccurate statements concerning Advocare, I will read your response carefully and correct anything that needs to be corrected.

Sincerely,

XXXXXXXX” ******************************************

Dear Sirs,

On October 16 of this year, I received an email appearing to have been generated from legal@advocare.com (a copy has been attached to this email). Since the email claims to have come from the, “Vice President and Chief Legal Officer of AdvoCare International, LP”, and the letter closes with an entirely illegible signature, as well as the line, “AdvoCare Customer Service Team”, I have absolutely no idea of who it is I am corresponding with. I assume that the recipient of this email will recognize the signature and promptly forward it to the appropriate person.

Before I get to your interesting invitation, I need to first correct some erroneous information that was in your letter. First, I do not now, nor have have I ever been, connected with several of the email addresses listed at the head of your letter (namely, XXXXX@Yahoo.com, XXXXX@insightBB.COM, and XXXXX@AOL.COM). Second, I am not the owner of the Instagram site which you reference in the letter and have no knowledge whatsoever of who the owner may be.

While I am pleased that you consider my opinions of sufficient significance to warrant the expense of flying me to your headquarters, before I could even consider accepting your offer I believe it is important that you identify the “number of (my) assertions” with which you disagree. I have made it clear many times within the blog that I will gladly correct any misinformation and offer a sincere apology for any mistakes made. I believe that it would save us both a lot of time and expense by your providing of a listing and explanation of your disagreements.

Since we are on the subject of “disagreements”, I have some of my own that need to be addressed. When you sent your letter to the email addresses listed in the letter (since I received a copy at my addresses I have little doubt that you broadcasted it to every address listed) that means that you provided my personal information to complete strangers. Because of this, I hold Advocare and the person/s responsible for sending this letter directly responsible for any and all negative consequences that may arise directly, or indirectly, that me or my family might suffer as a consequence of this action.

With any reasonable amount of thought, one might see that the timing of my blog being suspended, and the receipt of your letter, is simply not a coincidence. This means that Advocare is directly responsible for the blog being shut down and that the info I presented is more than just something you “disagree with”. Your actions in doing so are a direct violation of my right to freedom of speech. I urge you to employ the leverage with which you used to have the blog removed and have it reinstated. Then, with your list of disagreements (and the clarification of who “you” are), we can discuss those points and I will gladly make any corrections found necessary.

Maybe then, we can discuss your generous invitation to have me visit your corporate headquarters.

Sincerely,

XXXXXXX”

From: Sean Lemoine 3/03/14

“XXXXXXXXXX,

We certainly hope that your offer is made in good faith. To that end, we are preparing a non-inclusive list of statements and/or implications made on your blogs that are false and damaging to AdvoCare. We should have that to you by weeks end.

From there we can see whether it is possible to engage in a constructive dialogue addressing both of our concerns.”

On 3/18/14, the requested list was received:

March 18, 2014

“VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL

Re: False and misleading statements on the Advo-Truth Facebook Page and AdvoCare: The Truth Blog

Dear XXXXXX:

I write in response to your recent request that AdvoCare elaborate on its claim you are posting false and misleading information concerning AdvoCare as well as its leadership, distributors, sponsors, and products. Please carefully review the following response. We strongly encourage you to cease and desist the further proliferation of false and damaging information about AdvoCare.

∎ On March 2, 2014, you posted the following false statement: “As has been stated many many times Advocare distributors are not trained, in any way in nutrition and dietary supplements”.

o For over 6 years, AdvoCare has had scientific and/or medical professionals on staff to regularly train Distributors on AdvoCare products and nutrition. Currently, AdvoCare is proud to have 3 such professionals in-house on a day-to- day basis – Dr. Mark Miller, Dr. Michael Hartman and Dr. Aija Brameus.

o Some names of the corporate product trainings that occur on both a national and regional level include, but are not limited to, Success School, Leadership School, No Limits, AdvoCare 360, and Ladies Alive. Distributors also obtain training on a daily basis by directing questions to our corporate doctors, Scientific and Medical Advisory Board, and professionals in the AdvoCare Research and Development Department.

∎ The following statement post on the AdvoCare: The Truth Blog is false: “Advocare is quick to sell you on the business aspect of signing on as a distributor. One of the biggest carrots that they dangle in front of you is financial freedom the amount of money you can make. What they are less likely to tell you are what the odds are against you in being successful. Or, the actual average income Advocare distributors make. Why? Because the failure rate of distributors is around 95%. A person has a better chance of winning money by gambling in Las Vegas”.

Likewise, the following statement posted on the Advo-Truth Facebook Page on January 30, 2014 is false: “If you are telling people that they can make money by selling Advocare then your[SIC] scamming them because the odds of doing so are heavily against them”.

o AdvoCare does not make unethical and unreasonable promises or claims relating to potential success achievable as an AdvoCare Independent Distributor. Some people become Independent Distributors to gain a discount on products either for personal use or to sell retail products to customers, while others aim to earn a small amount of extra income each month by building a down-line organization and earning commissions off of sales.

o AdvoCare consistently stresses that hard work and dedication are the keys to being successful at AdvoCare. Reaching a higher level of income is directly dependent on the work habits of the Independent Distributor and can and does happen for Independent Distributors who entered into the business 15 years ago or even 6 months ago. In addition, AdvoCare is very proud of its generous buy-back policy, which is one of the best in the direct selling industry. The buy-back policy features a full money-back refund on undamaged, unexpired and unopened products, less tax and shipping.

o AdvoCare earning potential is transparent as AdvoCare publishes its income disclosure statement annually and provides the average income of all active Independent Distributors. This disclosure statement is also provided in the AdvoCare Distributor Kit that is given to Independent Distributors and shown to prospective Independent Distributors.

o The majority of Independent Distributors typically sell on a part-time basis to their neighbors, relatives and friends to supplement their family incomes. These Independent Distributors are operating their own businesses. They decide what products they want to sell, the hours they want to work and the people to whom they want to sell products.

o AdvoCare is also a proud member of the Direct Selling Association (DSA) and must abide by its strict Code of Ethics, which largely focuses on fairness and vets all compensation plans for characteristics of a pyramid scheme prior to acceptance. AdvoCare has also been recognized for its innovative work on the AdvoCare DebtBuster® Program that is freely available to all AdvoCare Independent Distributors. The Program teaches Distributors how to manage debt and educates them on AdvoCare’s high standards of corporate behavior and contribution to society and the DSA’s Code of Ethics.

∎ The following post on the AdvoCare: The Truth Blog is false: “Outrageous claims were made about Advocare being the only supplements allowed in pro locker rooms. All supplements used by pro athletes are screened and cleared by NSF International. Only three companies are allowed and Advocare is not one of them.”

o The Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) regulates food, supplement, and drugs products sold within the United States. AdvoCare is in compliance with FDA regulations, and offers a completely transparent ingredient list on each product. AdvoCare does not use any ingredient that is banned by any professional sporting association or that has been deemed unsafe or harmful by reputable, peer-reviewed scientific literature or leading public health organizations.

o AdvoCare utilizes Informed-Choice, a quality assurance program for sports nutrition products, suppliers to the sports nutrition industry, and supplement manufacturing facilities that is an equivalent alternative to NSF International, who AdvoCare works with to help train its employees on FDA supplement safety regulations. AdvoCare has one of the largest lists of supplements tested and certified to be free of banned substance in the world. The program certifies that products that bear the Informed-Choice logo have been tested for banned substances by the world class sports anti-doping lab, HFL Sport Science. Their experienced laboratory has analyzed more samples for banned substances than any other lab in the world.

o The Informed-Choice program adheres to regulations put forth by WADA, and the NCAA as well as professional sports organizations including the National Football League, Major League Baseball, National Basketball Association, National Hockey League, Major League Soccer, PGA, ATP, WTA, LPGA, and NASCAR.

∎ The following statement posted on the Advo-Truth Facebook Page on February 12, 2014 is false: “Another point we talk about, ad nauseam, is the fact that supplements like Advocare’s are full of synthetic compounds, chemicals, and are highly processed; all of the things you know are bad for you.”

Additionally, the following statement, initially posted on the Facebook Page on January 30, 2014, is also false: “Lastly, your claim of “I trust the science” is a lie, Why? Because there is no science supporting the products or the claims. If you can prove this wrong, we’d love for you to do so.”

Similarly, the following statement, which was also posted on the Facebook Page on January 30, 2014, is false: “Do the products work for ANYONE? There is absolutely zero scientific proof that they do. In all the years that Advocare has been in business, and with all of the people populating their “Med/Sci board”[SIC] they have never published a single clinical study in support of their claims for peer review.”

o The AdvoCare philosophy supports an entire lifestyle with an emphasis on a healthy diet and exercise, in addition to taking products that support and supplement that important cause. AdvoCare suggests a lean, whole food diet and publishes a recommended food guide that reflects this philosophy. However, AdvoCare believes in supplementation with dietary supplements to fill nutrition gaps and avoid diseases caused by deficiency. For example, about one-third of American adults fail to get their average daily requirement for vitamin C, even though vitamin C is relatively easy to obtain from foods; low intakes can lead to poor energy levels and weakness. More than 90 percent of adults fail to get their average daily requirement of vitamin E, and many fall short in other vitamins and minerals, which can impact immune function. More than two-thirds of women of childbearing age have low intakes of iron, which can impair cognitive function, physical capability, and endurance. Even the most conscientious consumers find it difficult to get all the nutrients they need from food alone.

o AdvoCare uses quality ingredients and bases its product efficacy on peer- reviewed scientific studies of its ingredients as well as its finished products in some instances. Some of these articles are included below by addendum.

∎ The following statement from the Advocare: The Truth Blog is false: “What does all of this say about Advocares Medical Advisory Board? It shows that many of these doctors do not specialize in formulating dietary supplements. Those that do work directly in creating nutritional products do so with a very personal financial bias. If anything, they espouse the benefits of eating healthy, whole foods. It shows that they are not “on staff”• and, for the most part, live in other states pursuing other endeavors.”

o While it is true that some doctors on the Sci/Med Board consult for other companies, this fact is neither a secret, nor uncommon in the medical profession. AdvoCare is proud of its Sci/Med Board members and their accomplishments and associations outside of AdvoCare. The Sci/Med Board does not list their work with AdvoCare or other companies on their job worksites because, in general, it is not allowed by University or Hospital employers.

o The Sci/Med Board consists of doctors from a variety of backgrounds selected for their combined experience and professional advice on nutrition, safety, and research. With their diverse backgrounds and expertise, the Sci/Med Board also helps AdvoCare facilitate the creation of formulas and provides product consultation for a multitude of forms of nutritional support.

o AdvoCare has never represented that the Sci/Med Board members are employees of the corporate office. It has always been very clear that they are an Advisory Board located throughout the nation. AdvoCare’s in-house physicians and the Sci/Med Board meet monthly and throughout the year to discuss product development and other AdvoCare-related matters that may arise.

∎ The following statement from Advocare: The Truth Blog is, for the most part, false:Professional and celebrity endorsements are used quite heavily as a way to gain trust. I have heard many times that these sponsors are not paid and support Advocare because of the great products they make. While I did not dig into the endorsement side of Advocare, I did stumble upon the contradiction of the claim, “unpaid endorsers” with one of their most notable endorser, Drew Brees . . . “While Advocare may not pay its endorsers directly, they supply them and their family with all of the product they want. Advocare is also a contributor to the “Drew Brees Foundation. The biggest contradiction to the “unpaid endorser” claim can be found on Drew Brees personal website. Here he lists all of the financial sponsors who support him. Advocare is on that list.”

o Drew Brees began his relationship with AdvoCare as a product-user and then went on to become an endorser of AdvoCare products in exchange for a product allowance in 2002. Drew is uniquely the National Spokesperson for AdvoCare and is compensated for his time. All other AdvoCare endorsers endorse the company in exchange for a product allowance. Using the term “unpaid endorser” is expressly prohibited on page 14 of the AdvoCare Policies and Procedures and is subject to Distributor suspension or termination.

The foregoing is not an exhaustive list of the misinformation and false propaganda continuously published by you through the Advocare: The Truth Blog and the Advo-Truth Facebook Page. Rather, this is an attempt to determine whether your goal is, as you indicate, to post the “truth” about AdvoCare or some other agenda of which we are currently unaware. If you are willing to talk to AdvoCare in good faith, please let us know.

On the other hand, if you are not acting in good faith and have no desire to post the truth, you are on notice that the misinformation and misleading comments stated above are injurious to AdvoCare and its Independent Distributors and such continued conduct will not be tolerated.

AdvoCare constantly strives to improve its business operations, product selection, and reputation. As such, the opportunity to discuss these issues by phone or in person is still open. Please note, however, the aforementioned statements are misleading, inaccurate, and a disruption to AdvoCare, its Distributors and its product users. We take these attacks very seriously and should you continue to mislead the public about AdvoCare, we will have no choice but to pursue further legal action to protect its reputation.

Sincerely

/s/J. Sean Lemoine J. Sean Lemoine

Addendum:

Eur J Appl Physiol. 2007 Nov;101(5):637-46. Epub 2007 Aug 16. Effects of a multi-nutrient supplement on exercise performance and hormonal responses to resistance exercise. Kraemer WJ, Hatfield DL, Spiering BA, Vingren JL, Fragala MS, Ho JY, Volek JS, Anderson JM, Maresh CM. Source Human Performance Laboratory, Department of Kinesiology, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT 06269, USA. William.Kraemer@uconn.edu

J Int Soc Sports Nutr. 2010 Aug 22;7:28. doi: 10.1186/1550-2783-7-28. Comparative effects of selected non-caffeinated rehydration sports drinks on short-term performance following moderate dehydration. Snell PG, Ward R, Kandaswami C, Stohs SJ. Source Creighton University Health Sciences Center, Omaha, NE, USA. sstohs@yahoo.com.

Oxid Med Cell Longev. 2010 Mar-Apr;3(2):129-44. doi: 10.4161/oxim.3.2.11157. A novel dietary supplement containing multiple phytochemicals and vitamins elevates hepatorenal and cardiac antioxidant enzymes in the absence of significant serum chemistry and genomic changes. Bulku E, Zinkovsky D, Patel P, Javia V, Lahoti T, Khodos I, Stohs SJ, Ray SD. Source Molecular Toxicology Laboratories, Division of Pharmaceutical Sciences, A & M Schwartz College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences, Long Island University, Brooklyn, NY, USA.

Int J Med Sci. 2007; 4(4): 196–202. Published online 2007 August 6. PMCID: PMC1950274 Inhibition by Natural Dietary Substances of Gastrointestinal Absorption of Starch and Sucrose in Rats and Pigs: 1. Acute Studies Harry G. Preuss,1 Bobby Echard,1 Debasis Bagchi,2 and Sidney Stohs 3

Nutr J. 2011; 10: 90. Published online 2011 September 7. doi: 10.1186/1475-2891-10-90 PMCID: PMC3180350 A multi-nutrient supplement reduced markers of inflammation and improved physical performance in active individuals of middle to older age: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study Courtenay Dunn-Lewis,1 William J Kraemer,

1 Brian R Kupchak,1 Neil A Kelly,1 Brent A Creighton,1 Hui-Ying Luk,1 Kevin D Ballard,1 Brett A Comstock,1 Tunde K Szivak,1 David R Hooper,1 Craig R Denegar,1 and Jeff S Volek1″

On 4/11/14, the following was sent as a reply:

“Dear Mr. Lemoine,

Thank you for providing a listing of quotations that Advocare finds problematic. I have reviewed each one and, in the following, have commented accordingly.

“On March 2, 2014, you posted the following false statement: “As has been stated many many times Advocare distributors are not trained, in any way in nutrition and dietary supplements”.

• For over 6 years, AdvoCare has had scientific and/or medical professionals on staff to regularly train Distributors on AdvoCare products and nutrition. Currently, AdvoCare is proud to have 3 such professionals in-house on a day-to- day basis – Dr. Mark Miller, Dr. Michael Hartman and Dr. Aija Brameus.

• Some names of the corporate product trainings that occur on both a national and regional level include, but are not limited to, Success School, Leadership School, No Limits, AdvoCare 360, and Ladies Alive. Distributors also obtain training on a daily basis by directing questions to our corporate doctors, Scientific and Medical Advisory Board, and professionals in the AdvoCare Research and Development Department.”

Advocare training materials strongly emphasize the need and use of a technique they call, “The Bullet Proof Shield”. In this technique people are taught to use phrases like, “I don’t know about that, but what I do know is…” whenever they are confronted with questions such as ones asking specifically for nutrition and dietary advice (Youtube videos of Danny McDaniels teaching this technique are easily found, as well as numerous document downloads from many of Advocare’s top sellers and teachers). In fact, this technique contains the “Golden Rule” which says, in part, “Do not get distracted by ingredients, too many details, other companies or product comparisons. This is your opportunity to lead the conversation with what you know about the AdvoCare business opportunity and products. If you don’t have a story of your own — use the testimonials of our endorsers, our Scientific & Medical Advisory Board or one of the many success stories from the Impact magazine or Solutions for Your Success DVD.” Not once are people instructed to educate themselves about diet, nutrition, or supplements. Instead, they are vehemently taught to avoid any such subject.

The very first line of Advocare’s “Bullet Proof Shield” says, “Insert any question/objection some might bring to you,” Then it instructs to say, “I don’t know about that…” (http://advocarecorporate.s3.amazonaws.com/corporate/about_advocare/360/PDF_BulletProofShield.pdf)

People qualified to dispense dietary information are highly educated specifically in that field. They have gone to school, passed rigorous tests of their knowledge, and many states require them to be licensed with the work and certification necessary for this field.

Directing questions to corporate doctors can hardly be considered training in nutrition and dietary supplements.

There also seems to be some contradictory information given out by Dr. Miller. In an Advocare video recently posted to YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hrY504lITo), Dr. Miller is driving home the point that distributors should not be giving any advice or guidance regarding a person’s health and how Advocare products might interact with whatever health condition a user might have. He wisely instructs distributors to send potential product users to seek proper health related advice from trained professionals before using and Advocare product.

If Dr. Miller (and Advocare) are this adamant about using qualified professionals to dispense health advice, then arming a sales force with little bits of nutrition focused education is a contradictory act, and a very dangerous one at that.

Direct Selling News reported this about Success School: “…attendees heard motivational speaker and former NBA guard Walter Bond; artist, author and entrepreneur Erik Wahl; and contemporary worship singer/songwriter and AdvoCare endorser Michael W. Smith.” They also quote Allison Levy as saying this about what takes place at Success School: “We have lots of product training and field leader training on business basics. We always have inspirational speakers to talk about some of the intangibles of this business.” But there is not one mention of any training regarding diet or nutrition. (http://directsellingnews.com/index.php/view/advocare_a_two_decade_marathon#.UzK2QHZX-uY)

The announcement for Success School slated for August 2014 says, “This weekend brings powerful guest speakers, huge product news and valuable business training.” This text stresses the inclusion of business training, but nothing about diet or nutrition training. A look at AdvoCare’s upcoming events shows 13 events taking place in the month of April 2014 hosted by “9 Star Emerald and above”. Of those events, one is Basic Training, one is Corporate Training, four are Corporate Events, and seven are Business Opportunity Meetings. Nothing about diet, nutrition or even mentioning those subjects, let alone making them a priority. (http://www.advocaretraining.com/upcoming-events/)

Even AdvoCare’s Success School Fact Sheet speaks to the fact that diet and nutrition training are not on the menu for attendees: “Success School is a three-day event designed to energize Distributors about the AdvoCare business opportunity, and inform them of the company’s recent accomplishments and activities, including new products and Distributor pin levels. Sessions include discussions regarding leadership and business-building strategies, as well real-life success stories from Distributors. Professional athlete endorsers, AdvoCare executives and special guests also make appearances and address topics relating to the direct selling industry, health and wellness products and entrepreneurism.” (http://advocarecorporate.s3.amazonaws.com/corporate/about_advocare/pressroom/AdvoCare20thAnniversarySuccessSchoolFactSheet.pdf)

Considering the above, along with the facts that these “schools” take place once or twice per year, and that distributors need to “qualify” at the Silver level in order attend Leadership School, it seems quite clear that few, if any, distributors are trained in diet, or nutrition; at least not properly. (http://elevatefreedom.com/leadership-school/)

I sincerely hope you don’t consider what takes place among the flashing lights, loud music, “pinning” ceremonies, testimonies of prosperity, “You can do it” cheerleading speeches, and how to build a down-line, as training equivalent to the education necessary to act as a nutritionist/dietician. Doing so would be quite an insult to all of AdvoCare’s staff, doctors, researchers and scientists who have spent countless hours in classrooms and textbooks in order to become the learned people they are today.

By typing, “AdvoCare Nutritional Advisor” into your favorite search engine, you will be rewarded with listing after listing of people calling themselves “Nutritional Advisors” and working for AdvoCare. Searching AdvoCare’s web site provides no link for a class, course, school, program, certification or even mention of anything resembling “Nutritional Advisor” as a title. As a business, I’d imagine that AdvoCare would be very upset that so many are people passing themselves off as being qualified to give anyone advice regarding nutrition…especially when so few of them have academic credentials to support that claim.

There is at least one Facebook page titled, “Independent AdvoCare Nutritional Advisors” with over 900 members. The page administrator is Timothy James Bullard who doesn’t appear to have any education in the areas of diet or nutrition; at least nothing he feels important enough to list in his professional summary, work history, or academic career. (http://www.linkedin.com/pub/timothy-james-bullard/43/870/363)

(https://www.facebook.com/groups/105825419544161/)

Simply because you teach someone how to drive a car doesn’t mean that they are automatically qualified to fix their own brakes. In fact, leading someone to believe that they can is quite dangerous.

If AdvoCare does provide diet and nutrition instruction to its distributors, then I will gladly concede that the quote you pointed out is indeed inaccurate and the words “in any way” a bit harsh. Please provide to me proof of such education on nutrition (a syllabus, for example) so that statements reflecting the education AdvoCare provides can more accurately present the truth.

“The following statement post on the AdvoCare: The Truth Blog is false: “Advocare is quick to sell you on the business aspect of signing on as a distributor. One of the biggest carrots that they dangle in front of you is financial freedom the amount of money you can make. What they are less likely to tell you are what the odds are against you in being successful. Or, the actual average income Advocare distributors make. Why? Because the failure rate of distributors is around 95%. A person has a better chance of winning money by gambling in Las Vegas”.

Likewise, the following statement posted on the Advo-Truth Facebook Page on January 30, 2014 is false: “If you are telling people that they can make money by selling Advocare then your[SIC] scamming them because the odds of doing so are heavily against them”.

• AdvoCare does not make unethical and unreasonable promises or claims relating to potential success achievable as an AdvoCare Independent Distributor. Some people become Independent Distributors to gain a discount on products either for personal use or to sell retail products to customers, while others aim to earn a small amount of extra income each month by building a down-line organization and earning commissions off of sales.

• AdvoCare consistently stresses that hard work and dedication are the keys to being successful at AdvoCare. Reaching a higher level of income is directly dependent on the work habits of the Independent Distributor and can and does happen for Independent Distributors who entered into the business 15 years ago or even 6 months ago. In addition, AdvoCare is very proud of its generous buy-back policy, which is one of the best in the direct selling industry. The buy-back policy features a full money-back refund on undamaged, unexpired and unopened products, less tax and shipping.

• AdvoCare earning potential is transparent as AdvoCare publishes its income disclosure statement annually and provides the average income of all active Independent Distributors. This disclosure statement is also provided in the AdvoCare Distributor Kit that is given to Independent Distributors and shown to prospective Independent Distributors.

• The majority of Independent Distributors typically sell on a part-time basis to their neighbors, relatives and friends to supplement their family incomes. These Independent Distributors are operating their own businesses. They decide what products they want to sell, the hours they want to work and the people to whom they want to sell products.

• AdvoCare is also a proud member of the Direct Selling Association (DSA) and must abide by its strict Code of Ethics, which largely focuses on fairness and vets all compensation plans for characteristics of a pyramid scheme prior to acceptance. AdvoCare has also been recognized for its innovative work on the AdvoCare DebtBuster® Program that is freely available to all AdvoCare Independent Distributors. The Program teaches Distributors how to manage debt and educates them on AdvoCare’s high standards of corporate behavior and contribution to society and the DSA’s Code of Ethics.“

It was never stated that someone couldn’t make money selling AdvoCare. In fact, many times it’s been said that people “do” make money with AdvoCare. These facts, and your comments, do not render false the statement that sellers are reluctant to disclose the average annual income. Nor do they contradict the claim that distributors are reluctant to disclose the odds of earning an income through AdvoCare.

The statement you reference from the Advo-Truth Facebook Page on January 30, 2014, “If you are telling people that they can make money by selling Advocare then your[SIC] scamming them because the odds of doing so are heavily against them”, is clearly part of a conversation and cannot be used on its own, removed from context. Within that conversation, it was noted that the sellers’ claims need to be supported and that if they are making specific claims without proper documentation then that seller is being deceptive. You supported this statement with your comment above regarding the inclusion and instruction of the Income Disclosure Statement.

AdvoCare’s promotional videos – designed and used to sell the business – are comprised of experienced AdvoCare Distributors who maintain positions high up the AdvoCare ladder. While the included disclaimer states that the results depicted are “not average” and no claims of success are made, it is never stated that most distributors will never come close. The picture painted is clearly one of what is possible but not what is probable. This is a deceptive practice.

If AdvoCare were to be honest and fair to those investigating the “business side” they would provide information such as the average business costs incurred, attrition rates, territory saturation figures along with the income disclosure statement. This information is vital to making a proper investment decision.

There are also plenty examples of “carrot dangling” like Emerald distributor Brandon LaRue who tries to entice people with advertising phrases like, “Would earning $1500.00 in the next 2 – 6 weeks be of interest to you?”. https://www.facebook.com/groups/AdvoDreamTeam/

As for the DSA and the enforcement of their “Code of Ethics”, we don’t need to look any further than the current FTC investigation of Herbalife (who was also a member in good standing with the DSA) to see that this means very little. In fact, MLM pay plans were banned in China, and Bhutan has banned MLM companies.

During DSA’s 2013 Annual Meeting, AdvoCare and 51 other companies were recognized as being exemplary in promoting DSA’s “Code of Ethics”.

That list included the following:

• Avon – who got into trouble over allegations of bribery in China where the MLM sales model is banned.

• Nu SKin – who paid millions of dollars to settle class action lawsuits of pyramid fraud charges. Nu Skin China was penalized in the amount of $524,000 for the sale of certain products not registered for the direct selling channel. They were also fined $16,000 for product claims that were deemed to lack sufficient documentary support, as well as having six of its sales employees fined for unauthorized promotional activities.

• Herbalife – Canada’s Competition Bureau is investigating Herbalife as being a pyramid scheme. http://nypost.com/2014/01/28/canadian-regulator-probing-herbalife/

• Mary Kay – who has a long list of court cases as well as at least one National Sales Director testifying that that Mary Kay is a “pyramid scheme”. http://www.pinktruth.com/2012/08/former-national-sales-director-amy-dunlap-alleges-mary-kay-is-a-pyramid-scheme/

• Amway, arguably the largest MLM in the world, is also a member of the DSA, as well as the IDSA. Less than one year ago the Chairman and CEO of Amway India, William Pinckney, as well as two directors, were arrested in India due to complaints that they violated Indian law regarding MLM. http://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/arrest-of-amway-india-ceo-a-big-blow-idsa-113060300611_1.html

“…the British Government has sued Amway for unethical practices. China banned all forms of network marketing in 1998; Sri Lanka, Nepal, and Australia have also tightened the noose.” http://ibnlive.in.com/news/how-multilevel-marketing-cheats-at-all-level/59842-7.html

How does the DSA feel about Amway?

“Amway was just honored by their peers for innovating IBO businesses. They earned high praise at the Direct Selling Association (DSA) Awards by receiving the Technology Innovation Award and as finalists for the Excellence in Salesforce Development Award.”

http://www.iboai.com/index.php/en/amway-news/amway-news-articles/203-amway-praised-at-dsa-awards

If you are known by the company that you keep, then citing the DSA as a reference lands quite a blow to AdvoCare’s reputation.

No discussion on ethics is complete without talking about the conflict of interest surrounding doctors who profit from the sale of AdvoCare. This arrangement capitalizes on doctor/patient trust and erodes those bonds. Doctors who sell, promote, recommend or prescribe a product and receive a personal benefit for doing so no longer have their patient’s best interest in mind.

The AMA (American Medical Association) has much to say about this:

http://www.ama-assn.org/resources/doc/ethics/ceja_1a99.pdf

http://www.ama-assn.org//ama/pub/physician-resources/medical-ethics/code-medical-ethics/opinion8063.page

“The following post on the AdvoCare: The Truth Blog is false: “Outrageous claims were made about Advocare being the only supplements allowed in pro locker rooms. All supplements used by pro athletes are screened and cleared by NSF International. Only three companies are allowed and Advocare is not one of them.”

• The Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) regulates food, supplement, and drugs products sold within the United States. AdvoCare is in compliance with FDA regulations, and offers a completely transparent ingredient list on each product. AdvoCare does not use any ingredient that is banned by any professional sporting association or that has been deemed unsafe or harmful by reputable, peer-reviewed scientific literature or leading public health organizations.

• AdvoCare utilizes Informed-Choice, a quality assurance program for sports nutrition products, suppliers to the sports nutrition industry, and supplement manufacturing facilities that is an equivalent alternative to NSF International, who AdvoCare works with to help train its employees on FDA supplement safety regulations. AdvoCare has one of the largest lists of supplements tested and certified to be free of banned substance in the world. The program certifies that products that bear the Informed-Choice logo have been tested for banned substances by the world class sports anti-doping lab, HFL Sport Science. Their experienced laboratory has analyzed more samples for banned substances than any other lab in the world.

• The Informed-Choice program adheres to regulations put forth by WADA, and the NCAA as well as professional sports organizations including the National Football League, Major League Baseball, National Basketball Association, National Hockey League, Major League Soccer, PGA, ATP, WTA, LPGA, and NASCAR.”

I’m sorry, but I fail to see anything within the above three paragraphs to prove that AdvoCare supplements are the only ones allowed in professional athlete locker rooms, that AdvoCare supplements are cleared for use by professional sports leagues, that professional sports teams recognize Informed-Choice testing, or that AdvoCare has been certified by NSF.

“The following statement posted on the Advo-Truth Facebook Page on February 12, 2014 is false: “Another point we talk about, ad nauseam, is the fact that supplements like Advocare’s are full of synthetic compounds, chemicals, and are highly processed; all of the things you know are bad for you.”

Even a quick look at an ingredient list proves the above comment as factual; supplements, such as many of AdvoCare’s products, are highly processed and contain synthetic compounds and chemicals.

“Additionally, the following statement, initially posted on the Facebook Page on January 30, 2014, is also false: “Lastly, your claim of “I trust the science” is a lie, Why? Because there is no science supporting the products or the claims. If you can prove this wrong, we’d love for you to do so.”

Again, the quoted text is part of a larger conversation. The person that comment was directed to was challenged to provide the scientific proof in which he placed his trust. Since AdvoCare does not provide such fact-based information to their sales force – and actively discourages its use (see “Bullet Proof Shield”) – that person was not being truthful.

“Similarly, the following statement, which was also posted on the Facebook Page on January 30, 2014, is false: “Do the products work for ANYONE? There is absolutely zero scientific proof that they do. In all the years that Advocare has been in business, and with all of the people populating their “Med/Sci board”[SIC] they have never published a single clinical study in support of their claims for peer review.”

• The AdvoCare philosophy supports an entire lifestyle with an emphasis on a healthy diet and exercise, in addition to taking products that support and supplement that important cause. AdvoCare suggests a lean, whole food diet and publishes a recommended food guide that reflects this philosophy. However, AdvoCare believes in supplementation with dietary supplements to fill nutrition gaps and avoid diseases caused by deficiency. For example, about one-third of American adults fail to get their average daily requirement for vitamin C, even though vitamin C is relatively easy to obtain from foods; low intakes can lead to poor energy levels and weakness. More than 90 percent of adults fail to get their average daily requirement of vitamin E, and many fall short in other vitamins and minerals, which can impact immune function. More than two-thirds of women of childbearing age have low intakes of iron, which can impair cognitive function, physical capability, and endurance. Even the most conscientious consumers find it difficult to get all the nutrients they need from food alone.

• AdvoCare uses quality ingredients and bases its product efficacy on peer- reviewed scientific studies of its ingredients as well as its finished products in some instances. Some of these articles are included below by addendum.“

In the above section you stated that “about one-third of American adults fail to get their average daily requirement for vitamin C, even though vitamin C is relatively easy to obtain from foods”.

Without citing actual studies and sources you have committed the very act the original blog was set up to combat. Simply because AdvoCare “believes in dietary supplementation” doesn’t mean that is necessary.

Based upon the information provided by the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, National Institutes of Health, Office of Dietary Supplements, your comment is misleading, at best:

“Most people in the United States get enough vitamin C from foods and beverages. However, certain groups of people are more likely than others to have trouble getting enough vitamin C:

• People who smoke and those who are exposed to secondhand smoke, in part because smoke increases the amount of vitamin C that the body needs to repair damage caused by free radicals. People who smoke need 35 mg more vitamin C per day than nonsmokers.

• Infants who are fed evaporated or boiled cow’s milk, because cow’s milk has very little vitamin C and heat can destroy vitamin C. Cow’s milk is not recommended for infants under 1 year of age. Breast milk and infant formula have adequate amounts of vitamin C.

• People who eat a very limited variety of food.

• People with certain medical conditions such as severe malabsorption, some types of cancer, and kidney disease requiring hemodialysis.

http://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/VitaminC-QuickFacts/

Based upon AdvoCare’s website, and the fact that it is illegal to tout supplements as having the ability to remedy a medical condition, the above category of people are not included in AdvoCare’s marketing plan (except for maybe those who eat a limited diet).

The American Cancer Society (cancer.org) fully agrees with your point about the importance of vitamin C (as do I) as evidenced in the following quote, “Small amounts of vitamin C are needed for healthy skin, tendons, ligaments, bones, cartilage, and blood vessels, and for the healing of wounds and injuries. It also helps to body absorb iron from foods.”

Where cancer.org and I disagree with AdvoCare’s pushing of vitamin supplementation can be found in this quoted text, “Many scientific studies have shown that diets high in fruits and vegetables (many of which contain vitamin C as well as other vitamins, fiber, and phytochemicals) reduce the risk of developing cancers of the pancreas, esophagus, larynx, mouth, stomach, colon and rectum, breast, cervix, and lungs. Many of these studies show people who eat foods to get a high level of vitamin C have about half as much cancer as those who have a low intake of these foods. Likewise, people with higher blood levels of vitamin C tend to have a lesser risk of developing cancer than do people with lower levels, although this likely reflects better overall nutrition rather than supplement use.

However, studies that observed large groups or people and clinical trials of vitamin C supplements have not shown the same strong protective effects against cancer. Apparently, vitamin C is most helpful when it comes from fruits and vegetables, because of the other active ingredients in the food.”

A study titled “Vitamin C Deficiency and Depletion in the United States: The Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1988 to 1994” shows that your claim of “about one-third of American adults fail to get their average daily requirement for vitamin C” is not accurate. The study’s conclusion states, “Health professionals should recommend consumption of vegetables and fruits rich in vitamin C and should recommend supplementation for individuals at risk of vitamin C deficiency.” http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1448351/

The FDA has recently announced recommended changes to food labeling. Among their recommendations is the removal of Vitamin C content from the nutrition facts; this infers that this information is not useful or necessary to the general public at this time. This further supports the assertion that our common diet does not need vitamin C supplementation.

http://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm387114.htm

The Annals of Internal Medicine (annals.org) list a number of studies showing the dangers of vitamin E supplementation. After participating in many of these studies, Doctor Edgar Miller MD, PhD, concluded that, “as the vitamin E dose increased, so does all-cause mortality.” and, “the risk of death starts to increase at 150 IU, but at 400 IU, which is the typical dose available in vitamin E capsules, the risk of dying from any cause is about 10% higher than for people not taking the vitamin.” Dr. Miller has also stated, “Based on our findings, high-dose vitamin E supplementation is unjustified,” and, “We recommend that the upper tolerable limit be lowered to 400 IU per day,”

If someone were to follow the product consumption recommendations that AdvoCare publishes on their “Weight-management timeline”, they would be consuming over 230 IU of vitamin E. That is 200 IU over the RDA, doesn’t account for vitamin E consumed from whole foods and places a person 50 IU over what studies suggest is safe.

(http://advocarecorporate.s3.amazonaws.com/corporate/products/pdf/TimeLine_TRIM.pdf)

The Mayo Clinic says, “Supplements aren’t intended to be a food substitute because they can’t replicate all of the nutrients and benefits of whole foods, such as fruits and vegetables.” And, “If you’re generally healthy and eat a wide variety of foods, including fruits, vegetables, whole grains, legumes, low-fat dairy products, lean meats and fish, you likely don’t need supplements.”

However, the dietary guidelines recommend supplements — or fortified foods — in the following situations:

• Women who may become pregnant should get 400 micrograms a day of folic acid from fortified foods or supplements, in addition to eating foods that naturally contain folate.

• Women who are pregnant should take a prenatal vitamin that includes iron or a separate iron supplement.

• Adults age 50 or older should eat foods fortified with vitamin B-12, such as fortified cereals, or take a multivitamin that contains B-12 or a separate B-12 supplement.

Dietary supplements also may be appropriate if you:

• Don’t eat well or consume less than 1,600 calories a day

• Are a vegan or a vegetarian who eats a limited variety of foods

• Are a woman who experiences heavy bleeding during your menstrual period

• Have a medical condition that affects how your body absorbs or uses nutrients, such as chronic diarrhea, food allergies, food intolerance or a disease of the liver, gallbladder, intestines or pancreas

• Have had surgery on your digestive tract and are not able to digest and absorb nutrients properly

http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-living/nutrition-and-healthy-eating/in-depth/supplements/art-20044894

The above people are obviously not the people AdvoCare targets with their marketing.

Given the above information, the following statement is false: “Even the most conscientious consumers find it difficult to get all the nutrients they need from food alone.”

“The following statement from the Advocare: The Truth Blog is false: “What does all of this say about Advocares Medical Advisory Board? It shows that many of these doctors do not specialize in formulating dietary supplements. Those that do work directly in creating nutritional products do so with a very personal financial bias. If anything, they espouse the benefits of eating healthy, whole foods. It shows that they are not “on staff”• and, for the most part, live in other states pursuing other endeavors.”

• While it is true that some doctors on the Sci/Med Board consult for other companies, this fact is neither a secret, nor uncommon in the medical profession. AdvoCare is proud of its Sci/Med Board members and their accomplishments and associations outside of AdvoCare. The Sci/Med Board does not list their work with AdvoCare or other companies on their job worksites because, in general, it is not allowed by University or Hospital employers.

• The Sci/Med Board consists of doctors from a variety of backgrounds selected for their combined experience and professional advice on nutrition, safety, and research. With their diverse backgrounds and expertise, the Sci/Med Board also helps AdvoCare facilitate the creation of formulas and provides product consultation for a multitude of forms of nutritional support.

• AdvoCare has never represented that the Sci/Med Board members are employees of the corporate office. It has always been very clear that they are an Advisory Board located throughout the nation. AdvoCare’s in-house physicians and the Sci/Med Board meet monthly and throughout the year to discuss product development and other AdvoCare-related matters that may arise.“

While AdvoCare may have never made the claim that Sci/Med Board members are “employees of the corporate office”, they have made it clear that Dr. Stohs was an employee of AdvoCare as senior vice president of Research and Development. This fact is easily found in the doctor’s AdvoCare bio.

An online listing of AdvoCare’s corporate directory has Stanley Dudrick is listed as “staff”, William Kraemer listed as “staff” and Kenneth Goldberg listed as “staff”. The directory also lists them all in Plano Texas where AdvoCare maintains their corporate headquarters. This leaves Carl Keen and Leanne Redman as the only two members of the Sci/Med Board not direct employees of AdvoCare.

https://connect.data.com/directory/company/list/pUoAWxlhguxzzXelZhlENw/advocare-international

These people are indeed highly accomplished in their fields of work and I don’t believe that fact was ever disputed. As accomplished as these professionals may be, the above evidence further demonstrates that a bias towards AdvoCare cannot be eliminated. This bias does affect credibility.

There is also the very important question of the ethicality surrounding doctors profiting from the products they recommend to the people who come to them seeking their professional opinion, as well as their close to tie to manufacturers.

“But having a financial stake in promoting any health product to patients represents a serious conflict of interest. It subverts the responsibility of physicians to place their patients’ interests before their own opportunity for financial gain. It also places undue pressure on the patient, especially if the pitch is aggressive. And it can erode trust in the doctor, as was the case with my friend.

For those reasons, the American Medical Association advises that physicians who distribute nonprescription health products provide them free or at their own cost. That removes the temptation of personal profit that can interfere with the physician’s objective clinical judgment.”

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/2012/05/your-doctor-as-salesman/index.htm

“The following statement from Advocare: The Truth Blog is, for the most part, false: Professional and celebrity endorsements are used quite heavily as a way to gain trust. I have heard many times that these sponsors are not paid and support Advocare because of the great products they make. While I did not dig into the endorsement side of Advocare, I did stumble upon the contradiction of the claim, “unpaid endorsers” with one of their most notable endorser, Drew Brees . . . “While Advocare may not pay its endorsers directly, they supply them and their family with all of the product they want. Advocare is also a contributor to the “Drew Brees Foundation. The biggest contradiction to the “unpaid endorser” claim can be found on Drew Brees personal website. Here he lists all of the financial sponsors who support him. Advocare is on that list.”

• Drew Brees began his relationship with AdvoCare as a product-user and then went on to become an endorser of AdvoCare products in exchange for a product allowance in 2002. Drew is uniquely the National Spokesperson for AdvoCare and is compensated for his time. All other AdvoCare endorsers endorse the company in exchange for a product allowance. Using the term “unpaid endorser” is expressly prohibited on page 14 of the AdvoCare Policies and Procedures and is subject to Distributor suspension or termination.“

If using the term “unpaid endorser” is expressly prohibited on page 14 of the AdvoCare Policies and Procedures and is subject to Distributor suspension or termination, then AdvoCare needs to reassess how they enforce their rules because there are many examples of distributors making this claim.

Here are examples of AdvoCare sellers promoting the “unpaid endorser” fallacy:

http://advocareisalifestyle.com/unpaid-endorsers/

http://advocaresportsnutrition.weebly.com/

http://advocare4success.blogspot.com/2011/01/see-why-danny-woodhead-new-england.html

There is a Facebook photo page titled, “Advocare’s UNPAID Endorsers”, showing pictures of AdvoCare endorsers, that has been up for over a year:

https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.207137815970264.61307.196240777059968

Gold Pin earners Mike & Mary Heiberger clearly state that AdvoCare endorsers are not paid: http://www.championsusespark.com/endorsers.html

Emerald distributor Brandon LaRue makes the claim of unpaid endorsers, “AdvoCare has more “unpaid” professional athletic endorsers than any nutritional company worldwide.

“AdvoCare has an unpaid endorser in every NFL locker room and was taken in 2008 to the Beijing Olympics by hundreds of athletes including Gold medalists on the USA men’s basketball team and USA women’s soccer team.”

http://advocaresportsnutrition.weebly.com/

Jason Horsley (a Diamond Distributor) clearly states that AdvoCare’s endorsers are not paid: “AdvoCare has over 200 UNPAID professional and Olympic athletes and entertainers who use and endorse our products.”

http://www.wechangelivesdaily.com/recommended/business-members/handling-advocare-questions-objections-2/

Even some your featured distributors like Brandon & Sarah Endicott, who appear in AdvoCare videos, make the “unpaid” claim: http://www.advocarehope.com/About1/AboutUs.aspx

If you want to argue that a product allowance is not a form of payment, I believe that the IRS might have something to say about that. A quote from IRS.gov, “The fair market value of goods and services exchanged is fully taxable and must be included on Form 1040 in the income of both parties.”

Alison Levy (AdvoCare’s General Counsel) confirms that AdvoCare’s endorsers are paid, “Our endorsers are compensated with products,” http://directsellingnews.com/index.php/view/advocare_a_two_decade_marathon#.UzK2QHZX-uY

Based on the above, the comment you cited from the blog is indeed truthful, and factual.

Regarding the Addendum:

The 2007 study titled, “Effects of a multi-nutrient supplement on exercise performance and hormonal responses to resistance exercise.” is far from scientific proof validating product claims. Here are a few points why:

• study was comprised of a very small group of test subjects (9),

• test subjects were all male,

• test subjects comprised a very small age range (22 +/- 3 years).

• the “Muscle Fuel” formulation supplied to the test subjects is different than what is currently marketed and sold by Advocare; calories, carbohydrates, caffeine… these ingredients all vary from one “MF” to the other.

As cited in the study, the researchers were unable to determine the ingredient/s directly responsible for test results; quote, “Because MF contains numerous ingredients, it is impossible to determine which ingredient(s) provided the primary ergogenic response.”

While this report might demonstrate some correlation to the efficacy of “Muscle Fuel” as tested, there is no way to form a reasonable conclusion that the off-the-shelf product will benefit those using the product as described by AdvoCare literature.

“Comparative effects of selected non-caffeinated rehydration sports drinks on short-term performance following moderate dehydration.” 2010

Like the previous study, this one also suffers from a few very relevant points; a very small group of test subjects (8), males only, an average age of 28, and all of them participated regularly in competitive sports. Also, the test protocol cannot be easily carried over to real world scenarios like the ones AdvoCare Rehydrate customers might encounter; ie. very few people exercise for an hour, rest for an hour, exercise for an hour…

Advocare’s web page for the product, “Rehydrate” cite the following benefits:

• Helps the body stay hydrated during physical activity

• Provides a full spectrum of crucial electrolytes for improved electrolyte balance

• Contains antioxidants to fight free radicals commonly produced during exercise

• Helps prevent cramping during and after exercise

The page also suggests that Rehydrate:

• Will sustain hydration and energy during physical activity

• Is a superior sports drink

• Will enhance one’s exercise regimen

• Is a healthy drink for everyday use

The study doesn’t support any of these points nor does it provide an ingredient list for comparison. Since both of the above studies have close ties both financial and personal to AdvoCare, bias cannot be eliminated.

The study titled, “A novel dietary supplement containing multiple phytochemicals and vitamins elevates hepatorenal and cardiac antioxidant enzymes in the absence of significant serum chemistry and genomic changes.” appears to be testing the mixture of ingredients found within Advocare’s “ThermoPlus” on rats. Nowhere in the study does it show that the benefits listed on the ThermoPlus website can be had with human consumption. These benefits being:

• Innovative weight-loss enhancer*

• Supports the body’s ability to convert fat into energy*

• Promotes a healthy metabolism*

• Helps suppress appetite*

• Can be used in conjunction with the AdvoCare Metabolic Nutrition Systems

The study titled, “Inhibition by Natural Dietary Substances of Gastrointestinal Absorption of Starch and Sucrose in Rats and Pigs: 1. Acute Studies” is an animal study as well. While the FDA accepts animals as human analogs for product safety, efficacy results do not simply “jump the gap” from rats/pigs over to humans. While AdvoCare did provide the formula used in the testing, the ingredient combination listed cannot be found in any current AdvoCare product.

The problems with these studies (as well as the study titled, “Impact of a Multi-Nutrient Supplement on Performance and Quality of Life”) fits well with the points laid out at:

http://www.usada.org/supplement411/challenge-the-reasons/do-supplements-work

“Do Supplements Work ?

Athletes and consumers sometimes want to use a supplement because they believe the performance-enhancing benefits have been categorically proven. It is however important to keep some things in mind:

• The majority of supplements have not been proven to improve performance at all.

• Supplements do not claim to have any medical benefit; in fact, supplement companies are not legally allowed to advertise such claims.

• Where “studies show” a supplement works, the performance advantage is marginal and very specific to a certain exercise or muscle group.

• It’s important to evaluate who wrote any study claiming performance enhancement. Does the author of the study have financial ties to the company? Was the study designed properly?

• Supplements have shown the greatest benefits in cases where nutrient deficiencies exist. If there is no deficiency, then there may be no benefit.

• It’s possible that some supplements do in fact have performance-enhancing benefits because they illegally contain dangerous steroids (known as “spiking”) in order to back up the too-good-to-be-true results advertised on the packaging.”

At best, studies like the ones listed in the addendum demonstrate an incomplete picture and point to the need for more research to be done. These are very small pilot studies and can only produce preliminary data suggesting a route for future studies. Studies need to be long term, be performed on large groups of human beings, and most important, repeated with corroborating results in order to prove efficacy.

I believe it important that any list of studies performed on AdvoCare product should also include the one performed on “Spark”: Acute effects of a caffeine-taurine energy drink on repeated sprint performance of American college football players. The conclusion of the study showed that Spark provided no advantage over the placebo in the test subjects.

With AdvoCare spending millions of dollars on marketing gimmicks such as celebrity endorsements, NASCAR sponsorship, Bowl games, etc, it’s extremely difficult to believe that establishing product efficacy is more important than marketing.

It is my goal to provide accurate information supported by reputable and verifiable sources. I am more than willing to work with AdvoCare in achieving this goal. Any mistakes I may have made will be promptly corrected and a sincere apology provided.

Thank you,

XXXXXXXXXXXX”

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* While personal information has been removed, the rest of the text was – to the best of our ability – accurately, and completely, copied from the original correspondence.

Text color/format has been altered for the purposes of clarity.

Copies of the original letters were included in this article for reference.

#Advocare #Catalyst #Spark