Derek Beast Charlebois - HMB: Overrated, Overpriced, Or Overlooked: Part 2.

[webmaster]

In this article, we will closely examine three studies done on different populations with HMB. Specifically, we will look at the lean mass and strength changes experienced by the subjects.

http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/beast9.htm

HOW TO REVIEW: Post Your Review Of This Article - CLICK ON POST REPLY BELOW! You do NOT need to be a registered member to post a reply in this section!

[EricS2]

Well the research on HMB is there, that doesn't mean that it is good. The '96 study is the proverbial holy grail for HMB sellers. But the there is an underlying problem. It was designed by Scott A Connelly and Funded by Met-rx. The way it was set up..the way the results were compiled and the diets used were all an effort to spawn a new "Breed" of met=rx supplement. And quite ironiccaly soon after this was published they launched their high performance line which was the same formula as the origonal met-rx with HMB added. This study should relly be burned.

The studies with Creatien and HMB are very suspect. its hard to understand the workings of a proposed muscle building supplement when it is paired with another muscle building supplement. The increases in strength aren't even close to being significant. The only real changes were seen with the power clean, which is really an assesment of power, not absolute strength - which is why the creatine groups did better. And rather strengely, the creatine _ HMB groups weren't significantly better than the creatine only group. But the HMB was significantly better than the placebo. Which is suspect to lead you beleive that it was the creatine doign the dirty work and the guys taking two "Super Supplements" felt a little strong on testign day the the guys taking one supper supplement.

I gotta hand it to yo derik your work has come a long way. But With research, sometiems you have to read between the lines a little bit. The '96 study is a perfect example. You have to wonder why the study was set up the way it was. Tell me you didn't have to read the methods a couple times before you actually understood what was really going on?

[Beast]

I assume you are the old EricS and if so, where have you been man!?

HMB really isn't a strength and muscle "building" supplement, but it does decrease protein degradation by attenuating PIF-induced activation and increased gene expression of the ubiquitin-proteasome proteolytic pathway. I would like to see HMB tested on exercising subjects who are hypocaloric and measure its effect on the amount of lean mass loss/gained.

I find the biggest roadblock when it comes to interpreting study results is the methodology or rather subject variability. Be it strength differences, body weight (lean mass) differences, or calorie intake differences, it seems some researchers have trouble removing outside variables that will throw off their results.

[EricS2]

I'm doing well. Been playing some semi-Pro football and working on opening up a gym around here.

There is a lot of give and take with research. It would be nice if we could eliminate all of the variablity, it makes the tests more valid & reliable. However, it removes all transferablity. The world is a very variable place. The supplement may work well when all things are taken into account and corected, but the average person is going to pop the pill and cross their fingers.

Things like creatine don't require a lot of digging. The results are just there time and time again. I think that if you have to dig, search and interperate from too many angles, then the theory will fall apart when you have to put into practice.

Originally Posted by Beast

I assume you are the old EricS and if so, where have you been man!?

HMB really isn't a strength and muscle "building" supplement, but it does decrease protein degradation by attenuating PIF-induced activation and increased gene expression of the ubiquitin-proteasome proteolytic pathway. I would like to see HMB tested on exercising subjects who are hypocaloric and measure its effect on the amount of lean mass loss/gained.

I find the biggest roadblock when it comes to interpreting study results is the methodology or rather subject variability. Be it strength differences, body weight (lean mass) differences, or calorie intake differences, it seems some researchers have trouble removing outside variables that will throw off their results.

[Muscle4Hire]

Originally Posted by Beast

HMB really isn't a strength and muscle "building" supplement, but it does decrease protein degradation by attenuating PIF-induced activation and increased gene expression of the ubiquitin-proteasome proteolytic pathway. I would like to see HMB tested on exercising subjects who are hypocaloric and measure its effect on the amount of lean mass loss/gained.

I haven't delved into that somewhat comprehensive article yet, but I have read the FAQ and Charle's conlcusion. Perhaps what we have here is really a good cutting supplement for natural bodybuilders. My biggest concern when cutting is losing my hard earned muscle, so I do everything and anything to cater to that.

Beast, if you could lay that down in plain english, that would help more. However, I will google that later and post what I find. Reps

[Beast]

Originally Posted by Muscle4Hire

Perhaps what we have here is really a good cutting supplement for natural bodybuilders.

That sums HMB up very well. HMB is anti-catabolic in that it decreases protein breakdown. This is really only a factor when one is eating less calories than they burn and trying to lose fat. HMB is not at the top of my list of supps I would buy. For example, I think BCAA are more beneficial than HMB while cutting.

[kas]

Sorry Derek, but I have not read your second part yet. But I still wanted to say a couple of things. Just like you guys have said, research is always going to have confounding variables. Whether it be researcher bias or subject bias, these things happen and hopefully it is lessened by a thorough experimental design. Sometimes you do have to watch for hidden agendas and sometimes it is tough to decipher through the literature to find it, but other times it stares at you in the face. Derek, I have said this before, but I will say it again, your writing has tremendously improved. Now don't get the wrong idea, it was not bad before. I believe being exposed to this stuff in a more academic setting has definitely helped. Anyway, I will let you know what I think when I read it. One thing that is probably a no brainer, but should be repeated, is when looking at research: really look at the experimental design, power of the study, and generalizability.

Ken

[Beast]

Originally Posted by kas

Sorry Derek, but I have not read your second part yet. But I still wanted to say a couple of things. Just like you guys have said, research is always going to have confounding variables. Whether it be researcher bias or subject bias, these things happen and hopefully it is lessened by a thorough experimental design. Sometimes you do have to watch for hidden agendas and sometimes it is tough to decipher through the literature to find it, but other times it stares at you in the face. Derek, I have said this before, but I will say it again, your writing has tremendously improved. Now don't get the wrong idea, it was not bad before. I believe being exposed to this stuff in a more academic setting has definitely helped. Anyway, I will let you know what I think when I read it. One thing that is probably a no brainer, but should be repeated, is when looking at research: really look at the experimental design, power of the study, and generalizability.

Thanks Kas

When I was researching this article, I must have read 20+ full studies on HMB before writing these articles and forming my opinion on HMB. I think there is enough supportive evidence to validate using HMB, though like I mentioned above, it wouldn't be my first on a list of must haves.