Litigation (Details Narrative)	6 Months Ended
	Jun. 30, 2012
Protica, Inc.
Litigation description	Protica, Inc., a former manufacturer of products for the Company, sued the Predecessor Company for an alleged debt in the approximate amount of $384,000 and also unspecified damages for an alleged breach of an exclusive manufacturing agreement. The Predecessor Company has filed counterclaims alleging that the manufacturer breached the parties' agreement and the warranties implied therein and fraudulently concealed damage to the product manufactured for it resulting in an FDA recall of its product and loss of a significant portion of its commercial market. The case is referred to as Protica, Inc v. iSatori Technologies, LLC, Civil Action No. 11-1105, filed February 15, 2011 in United States District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The Predecessor Company seeks an unspecified amount of direct damages, punitive damages, and attorneys' fees. The Company and Protica, Inc. have engaged in preliminary settlement negotiations. The Company has an accrued liability of approximately $59,000 related to products purchased by Protica. The Company is unable to estimate the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome, and therefore has not accrued any additional loss. The range of loss that is reasonably possible is $0 to $325,000. The Company has filed discovery documents and has asked to enter into mediation before trial.
Berlin Packaging, LLC
Litigation description	Berlin Packaging, LLC, a former packaging firm retained by the Predecessor Company, sued it for failure to pay an approximate amount of $75,000. The Predecessor Company counterclaimed on the basis of negligent packaging performed by Berlin Packaging which ultimately led to damages including, but not limited to, the denial of inclusion of its products by 7-Eleven Corporation of Dallas, Texas. The case is referred to as Berlin Packaging, LLC v. iSatori Technologies, LLC, Case No. 2010L013570, filed in Cook County, Illinois State Court. The Company and Berlin Packaging, LLC agreed to settle the dispute pursuant to a settlement agreement (the Settlement Agreement) dated January 26, 2012 for approximately $36,000 which has been recorded in accrued expenses as of December 31, 2011. Final payment of the settlement was made April 27, 2012.
Jeffrey Grube, Class Action Lawsuit
Litigation description	Jeffrey Grube brought a class action lawsuit against three companies, including the Company, based on the defendants' alleged marketing, distribution, or sales of products purporting to contain human chorionic gonadotropin ("hCG") or a natural hCG alternative. The case is referred to as Colonel Paul Jeffrey Grube v. GNC, iSatori Technologies llc and HCG Platinum, LLC, Case No. 11-1005, filed August 4, 2011 in United States District Court, for the Western District of Pennsylvania. Grube claims that the defendants engaged in deceptive trade practices in violation of numerous state consumer protection laws, breached express warranties, and were unjustly enriched. The Company has also recently received a letter from GNC Corp., demanding the Company indemnify GNC Corp. pursuant to a distribution agreement between the Company and GNC Corp. The Company is contractually obligated to indemnify GNC Corp and will fulfill that responsibility. The action has been legally stayed indefinitely pending the outcome of a settlement of a nationwide class action suit involving GNC and HCG Platinum. Because it is not probable or remote, the Company believes that there is a reasonable possibility, as defined by FASB ASC 450-20, of an unfavorable outcome. The range of any possible loss cannot be reasonably estimated as of the date of the financial statements.
Jerry Aviles, Class Action Complaint
Litigation description	Jerry Aviles brought a class action complaint against the Company relating to its product, ISA- TEST. The case is referred to as Jerry Aviles vs iSatori Technologies, LLC, Case No. CIV DS1111487, filed October 4, 2011 in United Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Bernardino. Aviles alleges the Company violated the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act and engaged in unfair or deceptive business practice and false advertising in violation of the California Business and Professions Code. Preliminary evidentiary discovery and a change of venue has been initiated in this action. Because it is not probable or remote, the Company believes that there is a reasonable possibility, as defined by FASB ASC 450-20, of an unfavorable outcome. The range of any possible loss cannot be reasonably estimated as of the date of the financial statements.
Milstein, Adelman LLP
Litigation description	The Company received a demand letter (the "Letter"), dated November 14, 2011, from the law firm of Milstein, Adelman LLP, claiming the Company's sale of its hCG Activator Natural hCG Alternative (the "Product") violated the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act and certain other provisions of California State Law. The Letter demanded the Company: (i) substantiate its advertising claims with respect to the Product; (ii) change its advertising with respect to the Product; (iii) recall the Product; (iv) identify all purchasers of the product; and (v) establish a fund for the providing for a full refund for all purchasers of the Product. The Company responded to the Letter on December 23, 2011 declining its request to engage in settlement negotiations or otherwise institute a recall of the Product. The Company received a response letter from Milstein Adelman LLP dated February 10, 2012. No formal litigation has been initiated against the Company as of this date. Because it is not probable or remote, the Company believes that there is a reasonable possibility, as defined by FASB ASC 450-20, of an unfavorable outcome. The range of any possible loss cannot be reasonably estimated as of the date of the financial statements.
Breeden Law Firm
Litigation description	The Company received a demand letter (the "Second Letter"), dated February 17, 2012, from the Breeden Law firm, claiming the Company's sale of its African Mango Super Fruit diet product, (the "Mango Product") violated the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act and certain other provisions of California State law. The Second Letter demanded the Company: (i) substantiate its advertising claims with respect to the Mango Product; (ii) change its advertising with respect to the Mango Product; (iii) recall the Mango Product; (iv) identify all purchasers of the Mango Product; and (v) establish a fund for the providing for a full refund for all purchasers of the Mango Product. No formal litigation has been initiated against the Company as of this date. On March 23, 2012, the Company received a letter from Vitamin World, Inc. ("Vitamin World") requesting the Company indemnify Vitamin World for similar claims brought against it by the Breeden Law Firm concerning the Mango Product sold by Vitamin World. The Company's indemnification obligations to Vitamin World arise from the standard terms and conditions contained in Vitamin World's distribution agreements. The company has agreed to indemnify Vitamin World in this matter. Because it is not probable or remote, the Company believes that there is a reasonable possibility, as defined by FASB ASC 450-20, of an unfavorable outcome. The range of any possible loss cannot be reasonably estimated as of the date of the financial statements. The Company's counsel is in communication with the complainant with regard to the requested label changes and settlement issues.
Class Action Complaint
Litigation description	The Company was served a class action complaint on May 21, 2012 which was filed April 30, 2012 in the Southern District of California alleging Violation of False Advertising Act, Violation of Consumer Legal Remedies Act resulting from the issuance of the FDA warning letter regarding the PWR product and the DMAA contained in its formula. The Company's attorneys requested and were granted an extension of time to respond to the allegations until August 10, 2012. Because of the Company's action to reformulate this product before the suit was filed and agreeing to some replacement requirements, the company has filed to block any claims for monetary damages under the Consumer Legal Remedies Act. These actions will be part of the actions filed on August 10, 2012.