Creatine + HMB vs. Creatine?
- Thread starter UCSMiami
- Start date
sns8778
Board Sponsor
HMB has been around for a long time and goes in spells. It would get popular, then fade away, then get popular again. I think one main reason was that in the past when all the patents were still active, it was very expensive.
Now that it is less expensive, I think that's a big reason you see the resurgence in it that you do.
I think it was a great ingredient for its time and is still a good ingredient in the commodity sense now. I don't think of it as something super cutting edge, but as something like a basic staple if that makes sense.
Now that it is less expensive, I think that's a big reason you see the resurgence in it that you do.
I think it was a great ingredient for its time and is still a good ingredient in the commodity sense now. I don't think of it as something super cutting edge, but as something like a basic staple if that makes sense.
jfigliuolo
Member
I thought hmb fealt like Decca? 
( yeah... I'm old)
( yeah... I'm old)
sns8778
Board Sponsor
I thought hmb fealt like Decca?
I remember when EAS first came out, GNC had to stop putting displays toward the front because people were stealing the display and running. Then they moved them beside the counter and at least one store was robbed at gunpoint for the HMB display. It was crazy.
lanky
Active member
my first experience with HMB was with EAS betagen back in 1997 ish which was a creatine & HMB powder maybe with another few different aminos and vitamins in there. EAS was heavily marketed back around that time in muscle media 2000 and other magazines, even some pro athletes had full 2 page advertisements, i remember shannon sharpe being one of them. i thought it was a solid product that kind of got overlooked with the sea of supplements out there, i have had the experience of taking hmb solo and also enjoyed that as well and feels similar to a b-androstenetriol at high doses in keeping me full and lean when cutting. i think when betagen came out it was around 60-70bucks for a very small tub similar to the size of most pre workout containers. at the time that was insanely high for a product of that type and in late 90's pricing
GothamsReckoning
New member
Ya I remember in 2002 one of my teachers told me creatine was going to be classified as a steroid
Halfnattyman44
Member
I’m in my early 30s so don’t have the experience of it back then. I’ve used it as a standalone when I can find it on sale. I always take creatine anyways. I’ve tried fairly high doses in a cut for 6-8 weeks and I’d say it probably helps me hold onto muscle a little more. Nothing magic, but better than a lot of other more expensive natural supplements. From what I understand it’s best used in a cut or for elderly people as it’s good for holding onto muscle.
Resolve10
Member
Not sure I'd say there is any direct enhanced benefit between the two, but they shouldn't counteract eachother and depending on goals could work well.
No, it is a leucine metabolite there really shouldn't be causing any meaningful effects you would "feel".
A few things to keep in mind.
For those wondering why it seems to suddenly be appearing again and why with creatine (other than the fact popular supplements, like most things, come back in waves or cycles) is likely due to a 2025 study in older adults combining the two then combined with MyHMB having a bigger push to market it (likely due to what Steve mentioned as well, like being cheaper than in the past).
My only concern would be that I am just not positive that combination in a singular product is the ideal way to take.
1) Timing likely isn't massively important for either, consistent use is the biggest thing to keep in mine. HMB appears most effective after a brief (potentially 2 week) period and creatine needs time to build as well.
2) Taking HMB prior to training may maximize the muscle breakdown prevention (alleviating soreness and enhancing recovery), but calcium versions take longer to be absorbed and peak plasma concentrations (which may effect dosage timing vs free acid). Still best taken daily due to point 1 as well.
3) The linked study above used 3g creatine + 3g HMB free acid and took at night, so it likely isn't the same as most of the combined products I've seen, but also didn't seem to be effected by timing (there are some other creatine + HMB studies though).
4) HMB likely isn't for everyone or every situation. You won't "feel" much. It likely is best during initial changes to training programs (likely after "loading" too) to offset large amounts of muscle breakdown or during intense bouts of physical activity. This may mean certain training styles or plans will benefit more than others.
On a purely anectdotal level, I like HMB. I've enjoyed both the calcium and free acid versions in the past, but I've found they likely weren't worth the cost (expensive) versus other ingredients. If it was cheap and I had an applicable goal I wouldn't hesitate to use again though. Seeing this is making me think maybe I may recommend to some of my clients in specific use case scenarios if the cost isn't too bad (compared to just creatine).
Smont
Legend
That's wild
ironviking
The Axe Man Cometh!!
According to Bill P it will replace steroids... still waiting for that day to comeI thought hmb fealt like Decca?
ironviking
The Axe Man Cometh!!
I wished it would have stayed there. It's great stuff if you are a burn patient or have some muscle wasting disease but if you are eating enough protein with luecine it's pretty much useless
sns8778
Board Sponsor
Back then the only HMB available was the patented version. As some of the patents expired, generic HMB became more readily available at better pricing, so you see it a little more common now days.
We may wind up offering one in the near future for people looking for it.
Resolve10
Member
You are thinking of Glutamine if you are referencing burn patient studies.
That said the sentiment is likely somewhat true, but HMB isn't really a leucine replacement or similar. It does more for muscle breakdown than protein synthesis, so use case is dependent on specific needs and that is why it does tend to not be super effective for lots of people and their training plans.
Smont
Legend
There's a lot of stuff about HMB and Glutamine together for burn patients, HMB shows a lot of positives on recovery in burn patients but they were all long term HMB use and most of them were combined with glutamine
lanky
Active member
I used a HMB/arginine/collagen and glutamine supplement called Juven which is a powder mix from abott labs and the makers of juven. I used it to recover from my multiple maxillofacial reconstruction surgeries where is was on liquids only even took it after recovering and it is definitely anticatabolic. And even added a Some fullness when I was taking it well after I recovered
Smont
Legend
No it does not make a peptide. To be a peptide you have to combine amino acids with a peptide bond. They don't have the ability to make a peptide bond.
Out of curiosity, what were you worried about with it becoming a peptide if it did become a peptide. The all capital letters made it seem kind of alarming and important. What was your main concern
sns8778
Board Sponsor
Every post he's made has been in all caps. In addition to saying they form a peptide, he said stacking them made them a myostatin inhibitor.
Smont
Legend
Oh Okay, that makes perfect sense. He must be a archaeologist
sns8778
Board Sponsor
I remember those and remember that it was funny bc some overhyped the Dibencozide to the point where some people were scared of it, and its just a form of vitamin B12.
I don't remember Ferulic Acid being mentioned that long ago, but its a good ingredient - I mean from an effectiveness standpoint, but have no idea how overhyped it may have been back then.
Personal pet peeve about Ferulic Acid in supplements - is that some companies used to include a form derived from wheat and not declare it as an allergen on the label, which ticks me off to no end bc I'm allergic to gluten myself, so I know the dangers of not declaring allergens properly. I know that with some brands, it was likely not intentional and they just didn't know - but its their job to do their due diligence and declare allergens.
We use Ferulic Acid as one of the ingredients in Recovery Fix, and its very popular and effective product.
(We only use wheat free, gluten free ingredients).
jfigliuolo
Member
5000 cal. Heavy barbell. Got it! Awesome advice
N2ofusion
Active member
ironviking
The Axe Man Cometh!!
Give me some of that sarsasparilla sublingual!!!
sns8778
Board Sponsor
BUT DO YOU DROP DOWN AND DO PUSHUPS WITH HER ON YOUR BACK WHILE CARRYING HER?
IF NOT, YOU REALLY SHOULD. THEN PROGRESS TO CARRYING HER ON YOUR SHOULDERS AND STOPPING AND DOING SETS OF SQUATS WITH HER ON YOUR SHOULDERS.
Smont
Legend
ONLY ONCE SIR, SHE IS PRETTY BIG! NOT ENOUGH STEROIDS AND MCDONALD'S TO SQUAT THAT DESK WALRUS FOR REPS.BUT DO YOU DROP DOWN AND DO PUSHUPS WITH HER ON YOUR BACK WHILE CARRYING HER?
IF NOT, YOU REALLY SHOULD. THEN PROGRESS TO CARRYING HER ON YOUR SHOULDERS AND STOPPING AND DOING SETS OF SQUATS WITH HER ON YOUR SHOULDERS.
HTGduck
Active member
I think I watched a video that started off like that on the orange and yellow YouTube once
Smont
Legend
ironviking
The Axe Man Cometh!!
The studies EAS quoted for marketing were of HMB use in burn patients. These studies were from the 70s or something and I'm too lazy to look them up now.
HMB is a metabolite of leucine but leucine is a lot cheaper and easier to get in food. As you stated HMB has very specific applications but for a healthy individual consuming adequate amounts of protein it's pretty much nil. there are studies supporting both sides but I couldn't find one that had a comparison group consuming a high protein diet or straight leucine supplementation against HMB alone.
I tend to compare supplements against food and convenience as food is the greatest anabolic and my take on HMB is money is better spent on food and a multivitamin.
sns8778
Board Sponsor
I don't think that he is talking about the same thing that you are.
There are a lot of studies on Glutamine in burn patients and it is used by most burn centers as part of treatment. It's also used in patients that have severe tissue loss from necrotizing fasciitis.
I'm not aware of any studies on HMB for on burn patients. There may be some, but I'm not aware of them. But the studies on Glutamine for burn victims is absolutely legit and has been replicated over and over.
I think that HMB is a good ingredient and that it is a victim of being overhyped so much that nothing was going to meet the hyped up claims that were originally made about it, and that made some people have a negative opinion towards it. But if someone views it as a foundational supplement, like creatine, betaine, etc. then I think it is good when viewed with realistic expectations.
We plan to have it in the Daily Gains formula and are also considering doing just a Creatine + HMB at a great price because we've had so many people that ask.
Resolve10
Member
Yup.
Glutamine was routinely criticized on the forums for being only useful in burn victims, this is all I was referencing. That was never a critique on HMB (back when it was popular or even with the re-emergence after the free acid versions were popular).
Last edited:
Smont
Legend
I'd rather eat McDonald's, tren hard and sleep when I'm dead! Gotta weigh out the risk to reward ratio brother. Lifting hard is stressful on the body. The tren and McDonald's is a good trade off
ironviking
The Axe Man Cometh!!
Not really following here. I think I agreed with a good part of your post, my statement on the old studies was just to point out that there have been some out there - do those apply to the current applicability discussed here....again I agree with you that's one reason why I didn't bother chasing them down. And Bill P's EAS making stuff up...nah man I can't believe that, next thing you'll be saying is Dorian was on steroids...all lies. Truth is I could be mistaken and the studies they quoted were on patients with wasting or atrophying conditions. My apologies if that is the case and I caused any confusion including my own.
For the record I like Glutamine and supplement with it. Lots of good stuff it does for diabetics.
Either way I think we can have disagreement and keep things civil for the sake of good discussion.
Resolve10
Member
Ya I can agree with that and maybe I should have left my post, since I had pulled up some studies that were in agreement with you were saying (the couple of studies I had on hand of HMB use in those with protein intakes greater than 1.6g/kg).
There have been no studies with HMB on burn patients though anytime before pretty recently.
ironviking
The Axe Man Cometh!!
If you still have links to those studies can you post them, I'd like to check em out just for curiosity's sake. This convo did spark my interest in going down the rabbit hole with studies again; reading through studies was so much more fun a long time ago. Most I found that were on trained athletes for any real length of time just didn't support HMB being of that great of a benefit. On very beginner trainees it did seem to help but it was hard to tell how much because most of those studies were no more than 6wks. One study stuck out for me though a good comparison study using trained athletes and comparing whey+HMB vs whey+Leucine. The researchers found absolutely no difference, what really stuck out for me though was the wording of the abstract, it was like they were settling some long held argument https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30113522/
I understand the point of view from supplement companies though. Adding β-hydroxy, β-methylbutyrate (HMB) to something sounds exotic as where "we through some leucine in here" just doesn't have the same appeal.
Admittedly I'm biased against supplements for the sole reason that I've seen so many people sacrifice nutrition for supplementation - sometimes that is the fault of the person looking for shortcuts but sometimes folks get fooled by the marketing thinking that is a viable option.
I understand the point of view from supplement companies though. Adding β-hydroxy, β-methylbutyrate (HMB) to something sounds exotic as where "we through some leucine in here" just doesn't have the same appeal.
Admittedly I'm biased against supplements for the sole reason that I've seen so many people sacrifice nutrition for supplementation - sometimes that is the fault of the person looking for shortcuts but sometimes folks get fooled by the marketing thinking that is a viable option.
Resolve10
Member
Glutamine, Arginine and HMB in Burns
I think they've always been fun, I'm unsure if interpretation has gotten better or worse though. Now we have influencers who just cherry pick or take any new study as if it is a paradigm shift, with few having backgrounds in scientific research or statistics. We used to have "Pubmed Ninjas" though or those who just read the abstract so idk if it has changed a ton (likely there is just more "noise").
There is definitely a ton more research now though and less of "guessing" or trying to fit things together from mechanistic research as actual more concrete stuff is available (in some areas).
The wording is probably a bit snarky since tons of people have questioned Wilson and his lab since those studies have come out. He regularly seemed to get extraordinary results and its been so long I forget specifics of efforts to dig into it, but at the very least they weren't reproducible (with this study being an example, they used the same training program in the Wilson studies on HMB free acid) and had some others specifically questioning the validity of the claims (it has been too long to remember the specific statistical objections).
Here is an actual link to the workout Muscletech started to include as part of the marketing for it: Clear Muscle Challenge), since they regularly claimed people needed just weren't training with the right plan if they didn't get results with it.
I think the study you specifically linked is great in the sense it directly challenges and tries to replicate a certain study. I had some particular opinions on it, but I wrote a ton below this and not sure my thoughts on some of the studies ideas are relevant to the HMB discussion though.
A couple relevant metas:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31868817/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32456217/
From the first I think this is the most relevant bit (for me) when contextualizing some of this data:
I think the studies are enough to broadly give us the idea that there won't be large benefits, but they all vary quite a bit so even if it trends positive there isn't enough there to show significant effect (and they don't even touch too much on potential different dosage schemes depending on need). I think this touches a bit on statistical stuff people generally don't understand when they are looking at studies and why things are done or worded certain ways and/or how certain we can be about things.
Fully agreed, but I'd also say I feel that way with a lot of the "we added Leucine" or any addition to protein powders for the most part. I'd rather use the protein powder as interchangeable with another protein source and supplement anything additional I want how I want and keep the extra price out of my protein powder.
I again want to repeat that me putting in all this effort isn't me saying tons of people should use this ingredient, but that it is an interesting case where it can help us learn how to possible look at and apply our understandings of ingredients (and I don't even want to get into marketing issues as I just generally think it is a mess and my opinions likely won't be well received).
With a lot of these things we have plenty of ingredients/products/(whatever you want to call it) that people recommend regularly that we understand way less than this. HMB probably isn't very useful for most "regular" lifters (that includes most AMers regardless of how they feel about that label), but it does have room depending.
I'll repeat:
-It won't likely independently build muscle, it isn't super effective as being "anabolic" and is less effective at that even than Leucine, so in context of eating plenty of protein (that most people on here should be doing) it won't boost gains that way.
-It is anti-catabolic and does seem to do a decent job decreasing muscle breakdown (and potentially soreness). With the idea that initial muscle damage is dealt with before building new muscle (and that that can lead to uncomfrotable levels of DOMS with those style training plans and situations) potentially using it for newer lifters, after long layoffs, and during any training that is particularly high in muscle damage (or particularly during competive seasons) could have potential (which again is probably not many people asking about its use though).
Sorry for such a long post for anyone who braved through all that.
Resolve10
Member
Not worthless.
The first meta I posted was for athletes. Part of the struggle (that I highlighted) is that using athletes makes it so repeatability of the studies is limited (there are positives and negatives to proposing a study like you are suggesting too).
This study included in that meta was canoeists that performed 6 hours of resistance training and 10 hours of sport work for 11 sessions per week.
This one was 18-22 hours of work per week in volleyball players.