New ISSN nutrition review

[Heisman2]

Published online 1 month ago but I haven't seen it discussed. As it's not primary literature I'm not putting it in the actual study thread. I'm 1/4 of the way through thus far and it's good overall from what I've seen. The initial part goes into the supplement industry and how it is and isn't regulated which is a very nice summary.

https://jissn.biomedcentral.com/arti...970-018-0242-y

[Mrpb]

This paper has received a lot of criticism for the claim that supplementing HMB is effective. This is mainly based on a probably frauded Wilson study.

Other studies consistently show supplementing HMB serves no purpose if you're consuming enough protein.

[Heisman2]

This paper has received a lot of criticism for the claim that supplementing HMB is effective. This is mainly based on a probably frauded Wilson study.

Other studies consistently show supplementing HMB serves no purpose if you're consuming enough protein.

Thanks for the tip. I'll post other thoughts when I'm done with it. I know very little about supplements so I would not have caught that.

[dest0]

Published online 1 month ago but I haven't seen it discussed. As it's not primary literature I'm not putting it in the actual study thread. I'm 1/4 of the way through thus far and it's good overall from what I've seen. The initial part goes into the supplement industry and how it is and isn't regulated which is a very nice summary.

https://jissn.biomedcentral.com/arti...970-018-0242-y

Thanks for sharing, on spread as usual.

Thanks for sharing

I found it interesting especially the part with immunity and exercising. I find I get an increase in infections/URI when I ramp up my intensity and do not rest properly; it subsides with taking more days off

That does explain a lot, thanks for quoting.

[Heisman2]

This paper has received a lot of criticism for the claim that supplementing HMB is effective. This is mainly based on a probably frauded Wilson study.

Other studies consistently show supplementing HMB serves no purpose if you're consuming enough protein.

I finished reading it. They mention HMB in two places, page 20 (where they state there is strong evidence supporting benefit in muscle building at least for untrained individuals while mentioning it is less clear for trained individuals) and page 35 (where they state there is mixed evidence supporting a performance benefit). On page 35 they do state near the end of the section "Studies by Wilson and colleagues using the free acid form have indicated robust changes in strength, verticla jump power, and skeletal muscle hypertrophy while heavy resistance training alone [578] and in combination with supplemental ATP [579], but others have critically questioned these outcomes [580]. 580 seems to be this: https://alanaragon.com/wp-content/up...-draft-13-.pdf So they do at least acknowledge controversy. I haven't gone through any of the individual studies (and I don't plan to honestly) so I can't say if they are doing justice to it or not with their statements for the muscle building aspects; they do not state anything about it being less useful in people eating enough protein so they may be missing something there.

Otherwise I think it's a nice overview overall regarding diet/supplements for athletics. Definitely helps to read it with some background to place things in context. I'm also assuming their treatment of other supplements is decently accurate.

[Mrpb]

@ Heisman2, in table 3 they list HMB in the highest evidence category, together with protein and creatine. That's a gross misrepresentation IMO. Wilson got fired from Miami university after publishing his HMB-FA study and the keto study, both showing spectacular, anabolic steroid like results. Rumor is that data was frauded.

This year Stu Phillips' lab replicated his HMB study and found no benefit.

[Heisman2]

Fabricated data? That sucks. I wonder why the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research has not redacted the study.

[ironwill2008]

Re: HMB; it was touted back in the '90s as a "muscle builder." It fell out of favor fairly quickly because it didn't do anything. Not too surprising that it's making a re-appearance; that's the M.O. of the supp industry---bring back something formerly proven useless so as to scam an entirely new group of buyers.

[Heisman2]

Yeah, examine.com does not view it favorably either. Sigh. I thought ISSN could be trusted to put out good work but perhaps not.

[Mrpb]

Heisman2, here's a good read imo. Stu Phillips who believes HMB-FA is useless vs. Rick Kreider who still has hope that it may do something in future studies. https://www.********.com/stu.phillip...YBaQ&__tn__=-R

[Heisman2]

Heisman2, here's a good read imo. Stu Phillips who believes HMB-FA is useless vs. Rick Kreider who still has hope that it may do something in future studies. https://www.********.com/stu.phillip...YBaQ&__tn__=-R

That is a good read and goes along more with what examine.com states. Reading through the two sections on HMB in the ISSN review they do acknowledge the controversy and the difference in length of studies to see effect in untrained vs trained populations. They don't mention there is less usefulness if protein intake is adequate otherwise; presumably legit studies that have found benefit have not had this be the case. I'm just more irritated that ISSN is portraying things in a better light than is necessary. Reading through the full text and pulling peaces together I can see through it but if someone were to just look at the tables or jump to the conclusions things would easily be taken out of context. They do the same thing in this review of supplements: https://jissn.biomedcentral.com/arti...970-018-0247-6 . This happens all the time in exercise/nutrition research but I was hoping ISSN would be better than this.

[Mrpb]

That is a good read and goes along more with what examine.com states. Reading through the two sections on HMB in the ISSN review they do acknowledge the controversy and the difference in length of studies to see effect in untrained vs trained populations. They don't mention there is less usefulness if protein intake is adequate otherwise; presumably legit studies that have found benefit have not had this be the case. I'm just more irritated that ISSN is portraying things in a better light than is necessary. Reading through the full text and pulling peaces together I can see through it but if someone were to just look at the tables or jump to the conclusions things would easily be taken out of context. They do the same thing in this review of supplements: https://jissn.biomedcentral.com/arti...970-018-0247-6 . This happens all the time in exercise/nutrition research but I was hoping ISSN would be better than this.

Well here's my limited understanding/speculation: HMB being a metabolite of leucine, they seem to have very similar effects. In energy deficit when MPS is decreased adding leucine or HMB could increase MPS, thus helping muscle retention. A lot of people will say leucine is useless too but maybe there are circumstances, such as energy deficit, where it can help.