A) Nothing about the mechanisms sounds incompatible with HOT-ROX.
B) If the science discussed in the article is good science, then this would seem to have a lot of potential.
C) The main claimed study, the one with the amazing fat loss results and cited as being (5), leaves room for doubt.
First, not only isn't it published in a peer-reviewed journal, it's not even published at all. It is mentioned only as being "submitted."
ANYONE can submit ANYTHING.
Second, the study was done in Cameroon. Now there may be fine science coming out of Cameroon, but one thing that one discovers with time is that science coming out of different countries averages quite different in quality. I don't have any information on the quality of science coming out of Cameroon.
Beyond this, the diet, lifestyle, etc of the subjects may be quite different than for the great majority of T-mag readers.
Third, the study is in reference to those with metabolic syndrome, and therefore may not apply to average people in general.
Fourth, the claimed results are in themselves sufficient cause for suspicion. If there truly were no differences between the placebo group and the treatment group, with the placebo experiencing no change: 28 lb in 10 weeks for the treatment group?
The article is not kidding that that is the most extreme result in history.
The more likely explanation may be a defective study, rather than results being the greatest -- from simply introducing a supplement and with no other change -- ever seen by mankind.
Could be. Not saying it didn't happen and the study might not have been perfectly done and truly indicative of what happens with Cameroonians with metabolic syndrome, but also that we should be open to the possibility that the claim may be whacked.
That is working on the theory that the assumptions are correct. But when an assumption isn't correct, then the logical conclusion from those assumptions may not be.
Essentially if I understand your reasoning and expand on it a little, you are saying:
1) Macronutrients consumed must go somewhere. They are not excreted unchanged in the urine, they are not eliminated in the feces, they aren't lost in sweat (except in quite small amounts), very little is lost to shed skin, etc. So they must have some fate other than that.
2) Macronutrients can be metabolically consumed (burned) in which case their mass ie eliminated from the body as CO2, water, and urea. If this does not happen, then because of point 1, they must be stored in the body. The ordinary methods are as increased fat stores or increased glycogen stores.
3) The amount that glycogen stores can be increased is relatively small and cannot account for an ongoing caloric surplus.
4) This product prevents storage as fat.
5) So because of all the above points, therefore we have to think of SOME way for the macronutrients to be stored. The only one remaining would appear to be rapid muscle growth, such that for example a 500 calorie energy surplus per day, since it can't go to fat, must go to create an amount of muscle requiring this amount of materials.
Quite logical if the assumption is correct.
However I do believe if you try this product you will not experience this amazing apparently logical outcome.