In this article:
- Inspired by the Adipeau user community
- A clear scientific rationale
- Launching a community-based study
- Testing in all grades of cellulite severity
- A fair test: Six tubes over 3 months
- A truly scientific clinical study
- Evaluators were independent and unpaid
- Clear and relevant pre-specified endpoints
- The study data set
- Raters picked out the “before” image correctly
- Even better for “good” images
- Still better for moderate/severe cellulite
- Judge for yourself
- Summary
The AC-POC Study
(Adipeau for Cellulite Proof of Concept Study).
The first real-world clinical study to demonstrate that tones and supports regeneration, regardless of starting cellulite severity.
Inspired by the Adipeau user community.
Users started reporting the efficacy of the strong body gel for cellulite, shortly after it’s launch in May, 2024. View here. We did nothing to promote the use of the gel for cellulite.
A clear scientific rationale.
- Bloated fat cells turn on inflammation
- Bad fibroblasts appear
- Good fibroblasts diminish
- Nodules reflect weak skin
- Pits reflect fibrotic septa
Bloated fat cells are pro-inflammatory. The inflammation changes the fibroblast profile in the skin. Pro-fibrotic myofibroblasts appear while good collagen producing fibroblasts disappear. The result is weak skin and fibrotic septa which cause the classic pitting and banding characteristic of cellulite skin.
Launching a community-based study.
We wanted the study to be open and transparent. We made a public call for volunteers and got a tremendous response. By announcing the study publicly, we sent a clear signal. We were going to find out whether this approach worked or did not work. Everyone would know.
Testing in all grades of cellulite severity.
As a scientific inquiry, we wanted to know whether our approach would work in various grades of cellulite severity. With a full set of results, we could better guide people on the use of the product.
A fair test: Six tubes over 3 months
Volunteers were sent 2 tubes of body gel each month. They were instructed to apply the gel 2x per day.
A truly scientific clinical study.
Unlike marketing studies whose main goal is to generate content that can be used to sell products, our approach was truly scientific. We took every step to minimize bias and prevent “cherry picking” of good data while leaving out bad data. We set a clear – and tough – primary endpoint in advance and two pre-specified secondary endpoints. We made sure the evaluation was properly blinded to eliminate the potential for bias.
Evaluators were independent and unpaid
We got an all-star cast of health and wellness leaders to serve as the blinded evaluators of the study. Robin Foroutan, MS, RDN, HHC; Stuart Diamond, MD, FACS, Cathy Estrella, DNP, Jennifer Jablow, DDS.
Clear and relevant pre-specified endpoints
A study is only truly scientific if it sets a clear hypothesis in advance of collecting the data. In our case, we set a tough primary endpoint that would resonate with the public, essentially, “Can you tell the difference?” The secondary endpoints were also pre-specified to take into account the varied image quality.
The study data set.
From 17 subjects, we netted 32 sets of “before/after” images. Each image was assessed for quality independently by 4 different evaluators based on two questions: Were the images comparable (e.g., same body part at the same angle with the same lighting) and were the images clear enough to allow comparison. Images that were rated positively on both parameters were considered “good”; images that were rated positively on one parameter were considered “decent” and images that were rated negatively on both parameter wer considered “poor.”
Raters picked out the “before” image correctly.
Even better for “good” images.
Still better for moderate/severe cellulite.
Judge for yourself
Judge for yourself
Judge for yourself
Summary
