Study: HMB worthless.

[niklasericson]

Leucine metabolites, α-hydroxyisocaproic acid (α-HICA) and β-hydroxy-β-methylbutyrate (calcium, HMB-Ca and free acid, HMB-FA), have been proposed to augment resistance training-induced changes in body composition and performance.

PURPOSE

We aimed to conduct a double-blind randomized controlled pragmatic trial to evaluate the effects of off-the-shelf leucine metabolite supplements of α-HICA, HMB-FA and HMB-Ca, on resistance training-induced changes in muscle thickness, and performance.

METHODS

Forty men were randomly assigned to receive α-HICA (n=10, fat-free mass [FFM]=62.0 ± 7.1 kg), HMB-FA (n=11, FFM=62.7 ± 10.5 kg), HMB-Ca (n=9, FFM=65.6 ± 10.1 kg), or placebo (PLA; n=10, FFM=64.2 ± 5.7 kg). The training program consisted of whole body thrice weekly resistance training for 8wk (7 exercises/session, 3–4 sets per session, at 70-80% 1RM). Skeletal muscle thickness by ultrasound, performance measures, and blood measures (creatine kinase [CK], insulin-like growth factor 1 [IGF-1], growth hormone [GH], cortisol and total testosterone) were evaluated at baseline and at the end of weeks 4 and 8.

RESULTS

Time-dependent changes were observed for muscle thickness (p < 0.001), 1RM bench press and squat (p < 0.001), Wingate peak power (p = 0.02), countermovement jump height (p = 0.03), power (p = 0.006), CK, IGF-1, GH, and cortisol (all p <0.001). No significant between-group or time-by-group interactions were observed.

CONCLUSION

No leucine metabolite resulted in any ergogenic effects on any outcome variable. Supplementation with leucine metabolites – α-HICA, HMB-FA, or HMB-Ca – is not a supplementation strategy that improves muscle growth and strength development in young adult men.
Leucine Metabolites Do Not Enhance Training-induced Performance or Muscle Thickness.

Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise: August 10, 2018.

 

[dbuckley82]

All studies should be taken with a grain of salt. A lot of people swear by HICA, but I am not one of them. In comparison, a lot of studies deem CLA as worthless in terms of fat loss, and yet everytime I take it, I lose almost too much fat. Studies are not facts.

 

[thebigt]

All studies should be taken with a grain of salt. A lot of people swear by HICA, but I am not one of them. In comparison, a lot of studies deem CLA as worthless in terms of fat loss, and yet everytime I take it, I lose almost too much fat. Studies are not facts.

studies are very similar to 'expert witnesses', imo….for the right price.....

 

[cheftepesh1]

studies are very similar to 'expert witnesses', imo….for the right price.....

This is what I’ve seen. It depends on who pays and what they want to achieve. You can skew any results to make it sound like a product works.

 

[dbuckley82]

You sir, are right on the money.

 

[Jiigzz]

All studies should be taken with a grain of salt. A lot of people swear by HICA, but I am not one of them. In comparison, a lot of studies deem CLA as worthless in terms of fat loss, and yet everytime I take it, I lose almost too much fat. Studies are not facts.

So you're saying that you are infallible to the placebo? Tell me your secrets

 

[Ot2000]

Nothing will work when you’re working out only 3 times a week. What a joke of a protocol.

 

[muscleupcrohn]

Nothing will work when you’re working out only 3 times a week. What a joke of a protocol.

Especially anti-catabolic agents, which, by definition, will really only “work” when catabolism would normally be a problem, which is not relevant for most average gym bros and weekend warriors. They should have tried an overreaching protocol, or at least some high-volume and frequency “Old-school” workouts IMO.

 

[dbuckley82]

So you're saying that you are infallible to the placebo? Tell me your secrets

Lol. I'm telling you that CLA makes my fat reserves deplete at a much, much faster rate than without using it, based on my vast, exclusive experience as owner of this body, despite what abundance of studies would suggest. Now do you understand, doctor?

 

[Aleksandar37]

Leucine metabolites, α-hydroxyisocaproic acid (α-HICA) and β-hydroxy-β-methylbutyrate (calcium, HMB-Ca and free acid, HMB-FA), have been proposed to augment resistance training-induced changes in body composition and performance.

PURPOSE

We aimed to conduct a double-blind randomized controlled pragmatic trial to evaluate the effects of off-the-shelf leucine metabolite supplements of α-HICA, HMB-FA and HMB-Ca, on resistance training-induced changes in muscle thickness, and performance.

METHODS

Forty men were randomly assigned to receive α-HICA (n=10, fat-free mass [FFM]=62.0 ± 7.1 kg), HMB-FA (n=11, FFM=62.7 ± 10.5 kg), HMB-Ca (n=9, FFM=65.6 ± 10.1 kg), or placebo (PLA; n=10, FFM=64.2 ± 5.7 kg). The training program consisted of whole body thrice weekly resistance training for 8wk (7 exercises/session, 3–4 sets per session, at 70-80% 1RM). Skeletal muscle thickness by ultrasound, performance measures, and blood measures (creatine kinase [CK], insulin-like growth factor 1 [IGF-1], growth hormone [GH], cortisol and total testosterone) were evaluated at baseline and at the end of weeks 4 and 8.

RESULTS

Time-dependent changes were observed for muscle thickness (p < 0.001), 1RM bench press and squat (p < 0.001), Wingate peak power (p = 0.02), countermovement jump height (p = 0.03), power (p = 0.006), CK, IGF-1, GH, and cortisol (all p <0.001). No significant between-group or time-by-group interactions were observed.

CONCLUSION

No leucine metabolite resulted in any ergogenic effects on any outcome variable. Supplementation with leucine metabolites – α-HICA, HMB-FA, or HMB-Ca – is not a supplementation strategy that improves muscle growth and strength development in young adult men.
Leucine Metabolites Do Not Enhance Training-induced Performance or Muscle Thickness.

Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise: August 10, 2018.

Can you post the article title and authors so those of us who read articles and not just abstracts can get the paper? I'm not seeing that paper in the journal and date you listed.

 

[kelvarnsen]

I'd like to see the ages of the participants. I believe HMB was deemed to be valuable in the older crowd

 

[DaeshDontSurf]

Nothing will work when you’re working out only 3 times a week. What a joke of a protocol.

dr. schoenfeld would disagree.

google - brad schoenfeld training frequency

he's very fair and admits way more research needed, but 2x (each muscle group *and* volume equated) looks really good. can try 3 to be safe i guess. you grow at home.

 

[Power-Lift]

Nothing will work when you’re working out only 3 times a week. What a joke of a protocol.

Respectfully disagree. There are some great 3-day splits, just need to work hard, eat right. Ive done many 3-day splits w/ great results...

 

[DaeshDontSurf]

Can you post the article title and authors so those of us who read articles and not just abstracts can get the paper? I'm not seeing that paper in the journal and date you listed.

lol, its the phillips study ahead of print, blurb below

Leucine Metabolites Do Not Enhance Training-induced Performance or Muscle Thickness
Aug 2018
Filipe J. TeixeiraCatarina N. MatiasCristina Monteiro[...]Stuart M Phillips

Leucine metabolites, α-hydroxyisocaproic acid (α-HICA) and β-hydroxy-β-methylbutyrate (calcium, HMB-Ca and free acid, HMB-FA), have been proposed to augment resistance training-induced changes in body composition and performance. PURPOSE We aimed to conduct a double-blind randomized controlled pragmatic trial to evaluate the effects of off-the-shelf leucine metabolite supplements of α-HICA, HMB-FA and HMB-Ca, on resistance training-induced changes in muscle thickness, and performance. METHODS Forty men were randomly assigned to receive α-HICA (n=10, fat-free mass [FFM]=62.0 ± 7.1 kg), HMB-FA (n=11, FFM=62.7 ± 10.5 kg), HMB-Ca (n=9, FFM=65.6 ± 10.1 kg), or placebo (PLA; n=10, FFM=64.2 ± 5.7 kg). The training program consisted of whole body thrice weekly resistance training for 8wk (7 exercises/session, 3–4 sets per session, at 70-80% 1RM). Skeletal muscle thickness by ultrasound, performance measures, and blood measures (creatine kinase [CK], insulin-like growth factor 1 [IGF-1], growth hormone [GH], cortisol and total testosterone) were evaluated at baseline and at the end of weeks 4 and 8. RESULTS Time-dependent changes were observed for muscle thickness (p < 0.001), 1RM bench press and squat (p < 0.001), Wingate peak power (p = 0.02), countermovement jump height (p = 0.03), power (p = 0.006), CK, IGF-1, GH, and cortisol (all p <0.001). No significant between-group or time-by-group interactions were observed. CONCLUSION No leucine metabolite resulted in any ergogenic effects on any outcome variable. Supplementation with leucine metabolites – α-HICA, HMB-FA, or HMB-Ca – is not a supplementation strategy that improves muscle growth and strength development in young adult men.


Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise | RG Impact Rankings ( 2017 and 2018 ). Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/journal/0195-9131_Medicine_Science_in_Sports_Exercise [accessed Aug 14 2018].

 

[Aleksandar37]

I'd like to see the ages of the participants. I believe HMB was deemed to be valuable in the older crowd

"Participants were between the ages of 18 and 45 y and were recruited from social networks and local gyms."

 

[Aleksandar37]

This is what I’ve seen. It depends on who pays and what they want to achieve. You can skew any results to make it sound like a product works.

This is a disclosure from the first author of the paper, "FJT, withholds a position as technical manager for Body Temple, Lda a company that sells HMB-Ca and HMB-FA." He is a technical manager for the company that supplied the products that this paper just showed did nothing significantly more than placebo. How does that fit into your theory?

 

[Ot2000]

dr. schoenfeld would disagree.

google - brad schoenfeld training frequency

he's very fair and admits way more research needed, but 2x (each muscle group *and* volume equated) looks really good. can try 3 to be safe i guess. you grow at home.

Fully aware of his thoughts including his take on one, not enough research behind it (you noted this I know) and two, that higher frequency has been shown to be a larger maximum need for muscle growth ( which there still isn’t enough research on and let’s be real, very few achieve this or work hard enough). That doesn’t mean the protocol used is practical for seeing if a dietary supplement (for what it’s worth, HMBdid little for me) is worthwhile to use. It’s not

 

[dbuckley82]

A 3 day a week protocol can most DEFINATELY show dramatic results, that being completely dependent upon intensity and volume and calories.

 

[HIT4ME]

This is a disclosure from the first author of the paper, "FJT, withholds a position as technical manager for Body Temple, Lda a company that sells HMB-Ca and HMB-FA." He is a technical manager for the company that supplied the products that this paper just showed did nothing significantly more than placebo. How does that fit into your theory?

Why is it bad to only read the abstracts again?

It seems to me there are a lot of people trying to disprove HMB lately, and a lot of people strongly defending it. I think expectations and time and situations all play variables here.

Does it feel like deca? I can't be sure because I've never used deca but my money still says no.

CAN it help? Seems like it can if used right, with the proper expectations and enough time.

It reminds me of the popular Vitamin C study that shows Vitamin C DOESN'T reduce the frequency of colds - except in soldiers training hard in Alaskan environments/extreme weather. Which of course.. is an effect.

If you are getting enough protein, rest, etc. The effect of HMB may be small. If you are over reaching or training slightly beyond that, or not eating enough protein - it seems HMB may have an effect. How big an effect? Maybe still small...but small effects add up over time.

How big of an effect will eating a sugary cereal for breakfast this morning have on your body? Probably not much.

But how big will that effect be if you do it every morning for the next year?

We often want things to be too acute. Nutrition is a longer term paradigm than disease based pharmacology.

 

[Aleksandar37]

Why is it bad to only read the abstracts again?

It drives me crazy. Sci-hub exists; there is no reason to not read the full paper.

 

[HIT4ME]

As for the training frequency - I agree that training 3 days a week can be very effective, if not just because it allows for proper rest, recovery and growth.

But on the other hand, rest, recovery and growth aren't something that can be turned up forever. You can only recover and compensate 100%. At some point you need another/new stimulus to get more compensation. If you are already recovering and compensating at or near 100%...improving that part of the equation won't help unless you turn up the stimulus on the other side of the equation.

I don't see this as being too d#mning to HMB. I see it as pointing to the fact that HMB is a tool for improved recovery, if it works, and not a tool for enhancement to overcompensation. Recovery and growth are distinct from each other.

In other words, HMB will only help if your recovery is falling short...and this you never get into an optimal super compensation phase.

 

[HIT4ME]

It drives me crazy. Sci-hub exists; there is no reason to not read the full paper.

Sometimes I can't find all the papers in full...but most of the time. And sometimes...understanding them requires a ton of foundational learning; I have to learn a bunch of underlying knowledge to really interpret anything. This can be time consuming for someone who doesn't already grasp that knowledge and I can see why many people don't do it. It does, obviously, get easier as you expand your base...but it is still hard.

Still...like you have said...abstracts can appear to say the opposite of what the actual full article shows. Plus, sometimes, the authors themselves may have misinterpreted things...or shown bias.

 

[Aleksandar37]

Sometimes I can't find all the papers in full...but most of the time. And sometimes...understanding them requires a ton of foundational learning; I have to learn a bunch of underlying knowledge to really interpret anything. This can be time consuming for someone who doesn't already grasp that knowledge and I can see why many people don't do it. It does, obviously, get easier as you expand your base...but it is still hard.

Still...like you have said...abstracts can appear to say the opposite of what the actual full article shows. Plus, sometimes, the authors themselves may have misinterpreted things...or shown bias.

Because people are generally lazy and it's easier to say studies are biased or opinion, rather than putting in the work. OR if only there was an online forum where people could ask for help understanding concepts.

 

[muscleupcrohn]

As for the training frequency - I agree that training 3 days a week can be very effective, if not just because it allows for proper rest, recovery and growth.

But on the other hand, rest, recovery and growth aren't something that can be turned up forever. You can only recover and compensate 100%. At some point you need another/new stimulus to get more compensation. If you are already recovering and compensating at or near 100%...improving that part of the equation won't help unless you turn up the stimulus on the other side of the equation.

I don't see this as being too d#mning to HMB. I see it as pointing to the fact that HMB is a tool for improved recovery, if it works, and not a tool for enhancement to overcompensation. Recovery and growth are distinct from each other.

In other words, HMB will only help if your recovery is falling short...and this you never get into an optimal super compensation phase.

Yes, 3-days/week can work very well, but my point is that anti-catabolic agents will really only shine/work when catabolism would otherwise hinder progress. If your protocol isn't leading to catabolism to the point of hindrance, there's really no need for anti-catabolic agents, and they likely won't do much. As you said, anti-catabolics can allow you to ramp up your frequency and/or volume without catabolism hindering you as much, leading to more gains. Or if you're an athlete it can help you preserve muscle during the season or other times that muscle loss may otherwise be a concern. For your average gym-goer, I don't see it doing much/anything.

These things are, as I've been saying for years, CONDITIONALLY BENEFICIAL. They're not like creatine or betaine where most everyone can benefit from them.

 

[muscleupcrohn]

Sometimes I can't find all the papers in full...but most of the time. And sometimes...understanding them requires a ton of foundational learning; I have to learn a bunch of underlying knowledge to really interpret anything. This can be time consuming for someone who doesn't already grasp that knowledge and I can see why many people don't do it. It does, obviously, get easier as you expand your base...but it is still hard.

Still...like you have said...abstracts can appear to say the opposite of what the actual full article shows. Plus, sometimes, the authors themselves may have misinterpreted things...or shown bias.

The last part is a good point. I once read a paper (analysis of research on a topic) claim a study showed one thing, but when I read the actual study it showed the EXACT OPPOSITE. It's crazy sometimes!

 

[HIT4ME]

Because people are generally lazy and it's easier to say studies are biased or opinion, rather than putting in the work. OR if only there was an online forum where people could ask for help understanding concepts.

Yup. Laziness. Although, I do get that most people just are not into learning enough to want to put in that effort. On one hand it is a societal flaw - we all want to be smart but we don't want to put in the effort to actually learn something. I think this is highly effected by our ability to access "answers" to many questions in moments. This of course reduces the value of knowledge in a way. If the answers can be had by anyone, then who cares if you know it or not.

But this hinders a lot of higher learning. The skill of learning must be grown, and you can't go from google to 60 overnight.

If you have good forums that you might recommend where I can learn about chemical and biological processes more easily - like the Krebs cycle and enzymatic reactions - I am open to any sources to learn. I know a bit about the Krebs cycle, but it's an example of the type of thing I like to learn about. Or HDAC, Pyruvate Dehydrogenase Complex, etc.

Yes, 3-days/week can work very well, but my point is that anti-catabolic agents will really only shine/work when catabolism would otherwise hinder progress. If your protocol isn't leading to catabolism to the point of hindrance, there's really no need for anti-catabolic agents, and they likely won't do much. As you said, anti-catabolics can allow you to ramp up your frequency and/or volume without catabolism hindering you as much, leading to more gains. Or if you're an athlete it can help you preserve muscle during the season or other times that muscle loss may otherwise be a concern. For your average gym-goer, I don't see it doing much/anything.

These things are, as I've been saying for years, CONDITIONALLY BENEFICIAL. They're not like creatine or betaine where most everyone can benefit from them.

I think we are basically saying the same thing in different ways....only I would take it even further. Almost everything is conditionally beneficial. Even creatine will have less of an impact on some people who eat a lot of it already. And even steroids don't work optimally in someone who isn't training at all.

But yeah, HMB without some kind of over reach or recovery stress wouldn't be helpful in theory to begin with. No one is claiming it amplifies super compensation - it aids recovery. So if you are already recovering fully, what good does it do? 100% + an aid = 100%.

 

[muscleupcrohn]

Yup. Laziness. Although, I do get that most people just are not into learning enough to want to put in that effort. On one hand it is a societal flaw - we all want to be smart but we don't want to put in the effort to actually learn something. I think this is highly effected by our ability to access "answers" to many questions in moments. This of course reduces the value of knowledge in a way. If the answers can be had by anyone, then who cares if you know it or not.

But this hinders a lot of higher learning. The skill of learning must be grown, and you can't go from google to 60 overnight.

If you have good forums that you might recommend where I can learn about chemical and biological processes more easily - like the Krebs cycle and enzymatic reactions - I am open to any sources to learn. I know a bit about the Krebs cycle, but it's an example of the type of thing I like to learn about. Or HDAC, Pyruvate Dehydrogenase Complex, etc.



I think we are basically saying the same thing in different ways....only I would take it even further. Almost everything is conditionally beneficial. Even creatine will have less of an impact on some people who eat a lot of it already. And even steroids don't work optimally in someone who isn't training at all.

But yeah, HMB without some kind of over reach or recovery stress wouldn't be helpful in theory to begin with. No one is claiming it amplifies super compensation - it aids recovery. So if you are already recovering fully, what good does it do? 100% + an aid = 100%.

Yeah, I think so. But my point is that something like creatine will be useful for the vast majority of people, especially relative to something like HMB. I don't think we're in disagreement about it haha. I just mean even in the context of resistance trained individuals, creatine is likley ergogenic the vast majority of the time, while HMB only is under the right conditions. Sort of like beta alanine, where the type of training you do determines if you'll benefit from it. Powerlifters likely won't get much/anything from it, but endurance athletes (or athletes for many sports in general) may, as their training is in such a way that it would benefit them more.

 

[Aleksandar37]

Yup. Laziness. Although, I do get that most people just are not into learning enough to want to put in that effort. On one hand it is a societal flaw - we all want to be smart but we don't want to put in the effort to actually learn something. I think this is highly effected by our ability to access "answers" to many questions in moments. This of course reduces the value of knowledge in a way. If the answers can be had by anyone, then who cares if you know it or not.

But this hinders a lot of higher learning. The skill of learning must be grown, and you can't go from google to 60 overnight.

If you have good forums that you might recommend where I can learn about chemical and biological processes more easily - like the Krebs cycle and enzymatic reactions - I am open to any sources to learn. I know a bit about the Krebs cycle, but it's an example of the type of thing I like to learn about. Or HDAC, Pyruvate Dehydrogenase Complex, etc.

I don't agree that it devalues knowledge. People can access bull**** instantly and spread it as truth while attacking those that present facts. I was being sarcastic about there being a forum, because this is one, but again, a lot of people would rather attack research then even try to read and comprehend a journal article.

If you're truly interested in learning about those topics, I would recommend to stop looking online or for an easy way and buy Molecular Biology of the Cell by Alberts, et al. Even if you find an older version for cheap (try eBay and amazon), it'll still give you the basics.

 

[Jiigzz]

Lol. I'm telling you that CLA makes my fat reserves deplete at a much, much faster rate than without using it, based on my vast, exclusive experience as owner of this body, despite what abundance of studies would suggest. Now do you understand, doctor?

I once inhaled helium from a balloon and floated to the sun. Prove me wrong

 

[muscleupcrohn]

I once inhaked helium from a balloon and floated to the sun. Prove me wrong

Unless you’re also immune to insane temperatures and can survive in the vacuum of space, not to mention either travel ungodly fast and/or are exceptionally old, I can prove it.

 

[Jiigzz]

I don't agree that it devalues knowledge. People can access bull**** instantly and spread it as truth while attacking those that present facts. I was being sarcastic about there being a forum, because this is one, but again, a lot of people would rather attack research then even try to read and comprehend a journal article.

If you're truly interested in learning about those topics, I would recommend to stop looking online or for an easy way and buy Molecular Biology of the Cell by Alberts, et al. Even if you find an older version for cheap (try eBay and amazon), it'll still give you the basics.

Exactly this.

I have stopped trying to debate with people because they dont listen anyway. All it boils down to is, "it works for me so indont care what you say". Okie dokie its an impossibility that it does, but ok

 

[Jiigzz]

Unless you’re also immune to insane temperatures and can survive in the vacuum of space, not to mention either travel ungodly fast and/or be exceptionally old, I can prove it.

Yes to all of those

 

[muscleupcrohn]

Yes to all of those

Well damn, you win this round.

 

[Jiigzz]

Well damn, you win this round.

Haha

I think many people misunderstand the role of studies. They seem to assume each one is factual unto itself, but they are not. They're a single piece of a puzzle used to help guide future research and shape our understanding. The problem (if you want to call it that) is that many authors use 'click baity' titles and conclusions to draw us in to the research, and, to make matters worse, media outlets tend to make huge deals out of controversial research and draw conclusions that don't really exist.

That doesn't make the research wrong per se, but rather we shouldn't be looking at a single piece and acting like we know what the whole puzzle looks like

 

[muscleupcrohn]

Haha

I think many people misunderstand the role of studies. They seem to assume each one is factual unto itself, but they are not. They're a single piece of a puzzle used to help guide future research and shape our understanding. The problem (if you want to call it that) is that many authors use 'click baity' titles and conclusions to draw us in to the research, and, to make matters worse, media outlets tend to make huge deals out of controversial research and draw conclusions that don't really exist.

That doesn't make the research wrong per se, but rather we shouldn't be looking at a single piece and acting like we know what the whole puzzle looks like

For sure. Some studies have beyond sensational titles, and they’re usually taken even further into hyperbole by the media (or Dr. Oz) when they write about them. A single human study is a good start, but it’s not until you have multiple studies confirming the effects and a relative gauge of the magnitude of said effects that you can start drawing any truly meaningful conclusions if there is a general consensus in the research. Things like Creatine and ashwagandha are good examples of this, with many studies confirming their benefits consistently.

 

[HIT4ME]

I don't agree that it devalues knowledge. People can access bull**** instantly and spread it as truth while attacking those that present facts. I was being sarcastic about there being a forum, because this is one, but again, a lot of people would rather attack research then even try to read and comprehend a journal article.

If you're truly interested in learning about those topics, I would recommend to stop looking online or for an easy way and buy Molecular Biology of the Cell by Alberts, et al. Even if you find an older version for cheap (try eBay and amazon), it'll still give you the basics.

Except there are no "facts". I think we pretty much agree with just some small twists.

I got your sarcasm - but just wanted to ask for any other sources that are out there. I still think there is plenty of good info - and a lot of bad info - on the internet. I can watch MIT lectures for free, and read some text books, etc. There is also, as you said, a lot of access to all kinds of studies, etc.

Like all of life, it isn't that the knowledge on the internet is all bad - you just have to have an ability to utilize logic and figure out what is real or wrong. Which is even true in most universities.

But I understand your point, I am just pointing out the other side that science and knowledge are available to all - there is no hidden knowledge. Everything we know, had to be discovered by someone.

But on your side - a lot of stupid people believe a lot of stupid things and don't understand that they don't understand. I mean - look at the flat earthers. They prove us both right. To your point - why spread stupid falsehoods, and to my point all they need is a couple of sticks and sunlight to figure it out for themselves. Or grab a telescope and look at everything else on the solar system.

Thanks for the book suggestion. I have a couple text books on my list...they can be pricey

 

[Aleksandar37]

Except there are no "facts".

What?

 

[Nac]

What?

PoMo brah, post modernism. Yknow, death of the author, "truth" is relative, etc

 

[HIT4ME]

What?

PoMo brah, post modernism. Yknow, death of the author, "truth" is relative, etc

Actually, mostly Feynman and (indirectly) Witten. Science is not about "facts" it is about creating a workable model of reality. If you accept things as "facts" that means they are unquestionably true, but the most we can really do is assign a probability to the chance they are true. Having said that, in every day life, I will use the word "fact" as something that we've accepted as true because it's been tested and "proven" multiple times. But this doesn't make it a true "fact" in that it is unquestionable.

For instance, 150 years ago it was accepted as "fact" that there were 3 dimensions - some people thought Einstein was a crackpot when he started talking about an additional dimension. Now, we are considering the possibility of up to two dozen dimensions.

Someone in 1850 could have ran a thousand studies to prove their are 3 dimensions and based on their observations, probably all of them would have said they were right....it didn't make it "fact".

But it's not post-modern; because I only believe their is ONE true reality; and it leaves us clues. I've always taken post modern to place the perception over reality, while i feel reality is there - it's our perception that is flawed.

 

[Aleksandar37]

Actually, mostly Feynman and (indirectly) Witten. Science is not about "facts" it is about creating a workable model of reality. If you accept things as "facts" that means they are unquestionably true, but the most we can really do is assign a probability to the chance they are true. Having said that, in every day life, I will use the word "fact" as something that we've accepted as true because it's been tested and "proven" multiple times. But this doesn't make it a true "fact" in that it is unquestionable.

For instance, 150 years ago it was accepted as "fact" that there were 3 dimensions - some people thought Einstein was a crackpot when he started talking about an additional dimension. Now, we are considering the possibility of up to two dozen dimensions.

Someone in 1850 could have ran a thousand studies to prove their are 3 dimensions and based on their observations, probably all of them would have said they were right....it didn't make it "fact".

But it's not post-modern; because I only believe their is ONE true reality; and it leaves us clues. I've always taken post modern to place the perception over reality, while i feel reality is there - it's our perception that is flawed.

You can get as philosophical as you want, but scientific facts exist. Yet again, stop saying you are interested in learning when you're clearly more concerned with being a troll.

 

[HIT4ME]

You can get as philosophical as you want, but scientific facts exist. Yet again, stop saying you are interested in learning when you're clearly more concerned with being a troll.

Where do you even get that from?

You asked me a question, I explained. NAC had a follow up comment and I discussed it and how I wasn't saying truth is relative.

 

[banjobounce]

Nothing will work when you’re working out only 3 times a week. What a joke of a protocol.

Some of my best gains were from 3x per week training.

 

[Cgkone]

I can grow like a weed driving iron 3xs a week

 

[DaeshDontSurf]

re: "it only works if catabolisim is in play". I like this approach much better, so thanks for bringing that up - but - I'm always amazed at how "general health" type supplements like garlic, fish oil, olive leaf, grapeseed, et. al, *not to mention* just sitting on a couch eating 5,000 calories a day - will "work" without doing anything at all (not to mention just injecting 300mg a week of testosterone and doing nothing adding 7 kilos). but the "natty muscle builders" always require some sort of tipping point to work? doesn't muscle breakdown/build up occur daily, with a net gain being what is desired? wouldn't hmb, even if not in an over-reach scenario, prevent that much *less* breakdown daily if it does anything?

since it's a metabolite of leucine, how much is produced from each 5 gram dose of leucine? if you look at the typical 5-7 meals a day approach, and assume the desired 5 grams of leucine is achieved each time, thats 25-35 grams of leucine, so how much hmb? but just adding 3 grams of hmb will magically equal gains (via more retention)?

3dmj coaches natty's only (helms, nunez et. al.). they have a recommended supplement list too. since hmb-ca is literally dirt cheap in bulk these days (meaning they wouldn't have to "shill" for a company), you would think it would be on helms' list for contest prep bb'ers?

just some observations - i don't have the answers. like i said elsewhere, i don't really believe it helps, but i still buy a years worth when i have an extra $52 "just in case".