Nina In New York: Official Report: Caffeinated Underwear Doesn't Work As Well As You'd Obviously Imagine

A lighthearted look at news, events, culture and everyday life in New York. The opinions expressed are solely those of the writer.
______________

By Nina Pajak

There are few things I love more than a story about a wacky weight loss fad. And it's even better when it's a story about a bizarre and unlikely contraption having been proven to be the crock of you-know-what that everyone should have assumed it is.

Enter the "iPants," one confusingly-named piece of analog shapewear in a couple of lines of "caffeine-infused" undergarments which claim to aid in weight loss and cellulite-smoothing through osmosis or something. You know, because sure.

The science behind this mumbo jumbo is actually pretty sound: many people drink caffeine to suppress appetites and boost metabolism, and also to perk up. Many of these same people also regularly wear underwear. Plenty of those people would like to lose some weight, and going to the gym is so hard and bo-ring, and hey wouldn't it be great if shaping your body was as easy as the quick fix a good pair of control tops bring? Oh hey, I'd buy that! Bam. Boom. Science. There's a Venn diagram and everything.

Last year, a couple of New York gals sued Maidenform for false advertising associated with their caffeinated undies, which (gasp, choke) did not, in fact, succeed in eliminating body fat. Now, the Federal Trade Commission has ruled that these companies do not have the scientific evidence to back their claims of magic microcapsule-vitamin-Retinol-spandex blabbedy blahs, and so they must alter their promises and pay customers back for the money they wasted on garments which turned out to be underwear which simply functioned as underwear. And who needs that? That's dumb.

This is a victory not only for consumers everywhere, but also for everyone who saw this garbage advertised or displayed and said, "oh, come on."

When will we learn? If it sounds too good to be true, IT IS. The next person to buy a product which makes absurd, miraculous claims and then sue because it didn't work should be asked to sit in the corner of the courtroom wearing a "Sucker" cap. Or, they should be investigated in the same way an insurance adjuster might turn an upraised eyebrow to a slip-and-fall case.

Apropos of nothing, this is my second favorite type of story: Here's an 8,000-Calorie Breakfast That Requires a Signed Waiver to Eat. Pass the Spanx.

Nina Pajak is a writer living with her husband, daughter and dog in Queens. Connect with Nina on Twitter!