USPlabsRep
Board Sponsor
Explain this with "data"....
Invalid Link Removed
Aegeline, well, it screwed us, almost put us out of business and put stop to innovation, so we are left with HMB-FA being something truly special.
Did you read the ergo-log?
newest muscletech breakthrough
- Thread starter Markos4
- Start date
- Status
Explain this with "data"....
Invalid Link Removed
Aegeline, well, it screwed us, almost put us out of business and put stop to innovation, so we are left with HMB-FA being something truly special.
Did you read the ergo-log?
kissdadookie
Well-known member
1) I did read the Ergo Log. They basically insinuated that the data for the most recent study was somehow fabricated to some extent.
2) That PubMed study you just linked to is comparing anabolic effects of HMB vs. Leucine in which HMB loses to Leucine, but that's not really why one would want to supplement with HMB to begin with. One would want to supplement with HMB for the anti-catabolic effects that is working on a different pathway that isn't mTOR. Note that HMB caused a depression of MPB by around 57% in that study you have linked.
3) The latest study demonstrates what could be gained if training is in line with the strong points of HMB (being highly anti-catabolic, as also noted in the study you have linked). Remember, the placebo group in the latest study also made some impressive gains but we also saw what the highly anti-catabolic actions of HMB did using the same diet and training protocol.
4) The latest study actually gave the subjects (both placebo and HMB-FA groups) the same amount of Iso-100 protein post training for the purpose of cancelling out the notion of "well, you could have gotten these results with Leucine, so this doesn't make HMB-Fa special."
5) Let's not forget what the HMB-Ca study on the elderly that was done in the past showed us. Basically the HMB group had muscle growth and muscle quality improvements over the placebo group (which showed no improvements). This demonstrates what HMB has the ability to do under catabolic conditions.
6) There's also the study where they induced muscle atrophy in mice. The HMB group recovered significantly better than the placebo group.
Like I mentioned earlier, there's a lot of data on HMB. Even though HMB has been on the market for a long time, many people have tried using it looking for anabolic properties, in which HMB really is the wrong tool for the job. Training and supplementation IMO should match if one wants optimal results from both.
De__eB
Well-known member
Keep in mind, there are also numerous studies showing no effect of HMB. One can not simply discount any studies that don't support their opinion.
De__eB
Well-known member
An unfortunate side effect of branding strength, had the 'OxyElitePro' label not been so valuable, you might have come out with the aegeline product under a different name and this whole thing blown over.
Were there any Versa-1 hepatitis claims at all?
kissdadookie
Well-known member
Of course, but many of them if not practically all of them were not well controlled and mostly tested for HMB excretion rather than look at serum concentration. Or they looked at it for anabolic effects. There's 80+ studies out there on HMB. There's a lot of data is what I was of course pointing out and when I mentioned one should go look through them and apply analytic skills, that of course meant to look at these studies, see what they were trying to demonstrate, look through the methods, and then decide if the results actually demonstrated or at least explains the ingredient properly.
If one was to look at HMB and do a study on it's anabolic effects, yeah, you're going to end up with the outcome of HMB doesn't do anything... but in actuality it's just demonstrating that HMB is not a very good anabolic especially compared to Leucine. Now if you looked at HMB and studied it's anti-catabolic effects, all of a sudden the ingredient looks like it works very well. With the most recent study and the study prior to that one done on strength athletes, they of course demonstrated in what situation HMB is most likely going to be good for. Supplementation really should match with training and goals IMO, as opposed to the usual expectation that the supplement can somehow allow for you to make more gains with less work (most of the times a supplement really just allows for you to do more work and thus optimize gains).
kissdadookie
Well-known member
What are you dosing the HMB-Ca at? I'm guessing 6 grams a day?
cbsharpe
Well-known member
Actually I'm taking 4 grams a day.
kissdadookie
Well-known member
I really feel like people undervalue the importance of improved recovery. It's as if a supplement is not a strong anabolic or stimulant, many people just write off the supplement as bunk or ineffective. The age of instant gratification, pretty sad.
cbsharpe
Well-known member
Great point!
cbsharpe
Well-known member
Yep, so I'm not the only one then.
jamesm11
Well-known member
At least it won't harm our liver
ODoyle99
Member
3 grams of HMB-Ca? Making me wonder what the price of HMB-fa is going to have to be set as in order to make it more cost effective than 3-4g of HMB-Ca....Feel like it's going to kinda be like creatine HCl vs. creatine monohydrate. You need less of one but...
kissdadookie
Well-known member
It's not that you just need less of one and more of the other. The two forms have demonstrated as providing different peak concentration of HMB serum. The studies suggest that the higher peak concentration of HMB-FA produces a far more pronounced effect vs. HMB-Ca. I recall old threads about HMB-Ca being dosed by many people at 6 grams per day and whilst cutting or contest prep. From those anecdotes, my guess is that people used such high doses and saw better results at such high doses due to these doses most likely providing a higher peak concentration of HMB. So with HMB-FA, you're getting, IIRC, around 125% increase in peak concentration.
Using high doses of HMB-Ca at the 6 grams a day dose, cost vs. HMB-FA most likely are going to be in around the same ballpark.
USPlabsRep
Board Sponsor
The question is when will the evidence be presented that it did....
USPlabsRep
Board Sponsor
None and it wasn't subject to the recall...
USPlabsRep
Board Sponsor
How is 16lbs in 12 weeks not considered anabolic? How is 16lbs not instant gratification?
kissdadookie
Well-known member
It wasn't because it was an anabolic effect, it was due to a better protein breakdown to protein synthesis balance. Even the study you posted, as I pointed out, it demonstrated a depression of protein breakdown by around 57% and this was not due to it signalling mTOR or anabolic pathways.
Good thing you've posted what you posted just now, because this clearly demonstrates how you are basically jumping to conclusions without giving much thought about the actual actions of the ingredient.
Again, what did aegeline do again? Nobody really knew what that ingredient did and what it was shown to do was in the mice model which it mainly effected BAT, which humans don't have much of to begin with. Anecdotal feedback from actual consumers whom bought Versa-1 has also demonstrated that aegeline didn't do much of anything and let's face it, the focus/cognition aspect of the product was most likely due to the choline, not the aegeline.
Jiigzz
Legend
But the net result seems to favour an anabolic environment, no?
I mean 16lbs of LBM means that even though HMB is not itself anabolic, it helps create an anabolic environment by limiting breakdown.
I wonder what the results would be like if we also added a carbohydrate and then leucine and a protein shake post workout (bare in mind that both groups received supplemental whey as well).
Could be awesome
kissdadookie
Well-known member
The net result is that you have a better protein breakdown to protein synthesis balance thus creating an environment favouring growth. However, the actual actions here is not actually anabolic as HMB will stimulate anabolism (via mTOR I believe) but it falls well short of leucine's effects on mTOR, stacking the two together also does not increase mTOR anymore than an optimal dose of leucine would on it's own.
So think about, if combining HMB and leucine together gives you no more increased activation of mTOR than an optimal dose of leucine would, yet the two diet controlled groups and training controlled groups (both having been administered the same amount of Iso-100 post workout) shows the HMB group with a significantly better end result, this would point to the HMB having some sort of significant impact here. With what is known about HMB, it would appear that the key differentiation here is that depression of protein breakdown by the HMB which leads to the better breakdown to synthesis balance (to grow you of course need synthesis to be more than breakdown).
Your suggestion of adding carbs and leucine post workout really would not effect the outcome TBH because if you recall, both groups received 25 grams of Iso-100 protein. That already has an optimal dose of leucine in a form that is very quickly absorbed. Remember that increase in mTOR activation is not linear with leucine dosage, under a certain threshold the activation isn't very pronounced but when you reach the threshold (about 3 grams) you get an optimal activation of mTOR which does not appear to increase appreciably if you were to add in even more leucine. There's also the available human data showing that taking an optimal dose of protein and adding BCAAs or carbs to it actually does not increase the effectiveness compared to having administered just the optimal dose of protein.
Jiigzz
Legend
Man you play strawman a lot.
I wasnt sure what protein supplement was used,otherwise I would have stated the name. If this has enough leucine to stimulate Mtor then forgive me, i dont care enough to google for myself.
You're explaining **** to me I already understand, so the need to 'educate' me is not needed. Had you left it at "isopure contains enough leucine" i would have got it.
I'm also aware that protein is insulinogenic and that insulin attenuates breakdown, however, my recovery is impoved when adding in carbs vs. leaving them out. So what are you basing effectiveness on? Because to me, a carb + protein is far superior to protein alone in terms of recovery not growth. I'm hoping that my current routine, coupled with Hmb-fa would improve this. Nothing more
Touey
Well-known member
kd is a wall street trader and extrapolates here to relieve stress so you should not be ill tempered on him Jiigzz
Jiigzz
Legend
USPlabsRep
Board Sponsor
Its difficult to enter into a discussion with half truths posted as facts.
Hope it all works out for you....
USPlabsRep
Board Sponsor
He also doesn't understand that leucine stimulates insulin therefore the "anti-catabolic" nature of Leucine can't be measured.
Really difficult for his understanding is Casien is a superior anti-catabolic over HMB....
kissdadookie
Well-known member
The study you linked to in an attempt to disprove my posts even stated that the effects were independent of insulin. You are also completely ignoring the fact that the participants of both groups in the recent study were given 25 grams of iso-100 post.
I apologize how how damning you are of the ingredient with excellent human data just because it's not some questionable ingredient that has been shown to be effective in the BAT of mice.
Keep rp trying to muddy up the fact that you are attempting to oy not pick pieces here and there for HMB in order to try to prove some bizarre point of HMB being bunk even though the vast amount of data on it suggests that it is effective for what it is being used for.
You out brought out aegeline, what did that do exactly? Do you not remember the promises of it being gods gift to man in your write ups?
USPlabsRep
Board Sponsor
How many calories did the groups consume?
Jiigzz
Legend
This is one study lol. Yes, it is favourable and well conductedOther HMB studies are not as favourable and you are only hypothesizing results if more HMB-ca were taken. Yes, the evidence is limited and has the potential to be favourable, but can we say so definitively? I'm not so sure. At least not yet. Before I draw my conclusions I would like to use the product myself and see how it works following a far more typical (kind-of but not really) training regime.
Is it really necessary to bring up Aegeline in a HMB debate? Why are you so protective of HMB to the point where you are insulting another companies use of a novel ingredient? Can USPlabs not state a fact/ opinion in a debate without being subject to an attack on an ingredient entirely unrelated to this thread?
Methinks you have spent a little to much time in this thread, and others on other boards, to the point where it seems you have convinced yourself you have a financial stake in the future of this compound. If you do have such a stake, then declare it as such, if you don't, then randomly throwing comments on something unrelated has no use ITT.
If you have an issue with Aegeline, create another thread.
kissdadookie
Well-known member
Completely controlled diets for both groups. Macro breakdown was: 25% p, 25% f, 50% c iirc, or something close to that. You can ping Dr. Wilson, I'm sure he will give you more details as the research was done in his lab and he is quite open and forthright.
kissdadookie
Well-known member
Look at the HMB-Ca study that the recent study basically was trying to replicate with HMB-Fa. Then also look at the HMB-Ca study done with the elderly. There's also the HMB-Ca study done on atrophied mice. Then look at the "unfavorable" study that USPRep linked in this thread, it was "unfavorable" because it was comparing anabolic effects of HMB vs Leucine but even in that study, they've noted the anti-carabolic effects of HMB as well as how it depressed protein breakdown by approximately 57%.
Bottom line which you and others would have realized but obviously haven't because you guys have refused to look into the topic to begin with and instead are just assuming Ergo Log has the best info on the subject, THERE IS A LOT OF DATA ON HMB. The actions of HMB are pretty well understood as far as it's main effect is. That effect really isn't contested. What the recent study has shown is how we can apply HMB in a training situation and how best to optimize it.
Here's the thing, instead of basing your doubts on the actual data, the doubts are essentially based on "I don't believe it because this goes against my personal expectations."
USPlabsRep
Board Sponsor
How do you reach a solid conclusion without knowing that critical data?
USPlabsRep
Board Sponsor
How does the elderly apply to healthy training men?
Jiigzz
Legend
The actions of HMB ARE well understood, I completely agree. I'm not debating the MOA of HMB, i'm simply wondering to the EXTENT at which it promotes muscle growth by attenuating breakdown; especially in the average training population. The thing is, my initial post was simply wondering how much of a difference to recovery I could expect if I utilize my current peri-workout nutrition; which is what I pointed out in my post.
The study on Hmb-fa shows its importance on those training to the extremes; something which many people will never actually do (despite thinking they are continually overtraining). My query is on whether hmb-fa will be AS useful to us human folk. Something which you cannot prove and I cannot disprove (although i'm really not trying to- I just get the impression you think I am) at this stage.
Is it interesting? Sure is. Is it worth how much effort you are putting into telling everyone they are wrong; I personally don't think so. If people don't want to believe the data or are skeptical about the results, then no amount of you posting will rectify that and in all actuality, the more you push, the more people will push back.
Time itself will serve to either prove or disprove your point; whether that is through real-world results or via further studies on the average training population or other parameters or both.
I'm neither for nor against it but I certainly will be trying it. I just realistic expectations of what I may observe when I apply it to my own training routine.
kissdadookie
Well-known member
My only point to begin with was pointing out how idiotic and ridiculous it is to insinuate that the results of the study is some sort of fibbed data. That is and was my only point. That is exactly what Ergo Log was trying to imply, that Metabolic somehow fibbed the results.
When have I ever claimed or implied that HMB will get you the same results of the study doing whatever protocol you decide to go with? The results of the study is from the protocol they used, nothing more and nothing less. The whole point of the study was very obviously to demonstrate WHAT can be done with HMB-Fa supplementation, it was NOT some sort of marketing ploy to claim that everybody will get these results. If you look at the vast number of studies on HMB, strength athlete use is not exactly their priority to begin with. A lot of the studies were aiming to perhaps use HMB in a clinical situation for patients prone to or suffering muscle wasting. HMB application to the strength athlete is only a small slice of the pie.
The attitude thus far from many of the naysayers have been essentially treating this as some sort of MT ploy to pull a fast one over consumers and completely ignoring the actual data available. Even USPRep attempted to insinuate that HMB isn't what it's all cracked up to be by linking to a study comparing the ANABOLIC effects of HMB to Leucine with HMB loosing out and from the back and forth with him on this thread, it would appear that he did not even bother to investigate the study he linked to objectively or at all TBH. That study is the equivalent of looking at a compound for it's glue properties when a compound actually has very good solvent properties and then going "See, this compound doesn't work! It doesn't glue things together!" But even in that study, they made it very clear as to the effectiveness of HMB being an anti-catabolic. The Wilson study and the one prior done on strength athletes really just aimed to see how and in what type of conditions HMB can be used in the field of strength training. Training and supplementation matched which helped provide an optimal outcome.
Simple layman's terms, if your goal is to gain as much strength as possible, will you then go with a training protocol aimed specifically at stimulating as much hypertrophy as possible? If training needs to match your goals, what makes it different for matching supplementation and training?
At the end, what point have I been trying to make apart from it being ludicrous to imply that this study and the data was somehow fabricated? Keep in mind, Wilson and his lab are the ones responsible for the ArA study done for Metabolic Nutrition. So let's insinuate that the data for ArA must be fibbed because Metabolic Nutrition was behind it?
It's been demonstrated a few times in a few HMB studies that HMB has an effect at lowering body fat.
kissdadookie
Well-known member
The macro breakdown was actually revealed by Dr. Wilson. So I did not reach any conclusion, I am only giving you the known information that came from the source. How do you reach such conclusions that I am basically pulling out that macro breakdown out of my arse? Also please explain how you have so doubt for HMB when clearly you do not seem to have done much research on the topic? I mean, even the link to the study posted on this thread in an attempt to somehow prove me wrong or something, it's clear at this point that you didn't even bother analyzing that study.Then again, you guys did bring out aegeline to affect ADRB3 for fat loss in which the last time I checked, ADRB3 is located in BAT which humans have very little of to begin with. Right, the company that patents XYZ from questionable mice studies has great insight into what are good ingredients and what are not.
That is what the Wilson study and the study prior to Wilson's went out to demonstrate. How a strong anti-catabolic compound can be applied in a strength training scenario. Are you just going to take things out of context and insinuate more nonsense? Did you even bother to look into any of the HMB studies? Did you just wholly ignore the HMB data, which there is much of, just because it's not some questionable mice study which you guys seemingly love to use and then patent randomly?
USPlabsRep
Board Sponsor
Not Macro breakdown, total calories, huge difference.
You are ignoring all the other HMB data, not us.
If you believe that overtraining and HMB is the answer, power to you.
kissdadookie
Well-known member
Again, 1) just go ask Dr. Wilson, why are you just ignoring the fact that you can most likely get the info directly from the source? 2) it would appear that they were at least on maintenance calories if not surplus, otherwise how would one explain the PLACEBO group gaining the LBM gains they gained 3) why are you STILL ignoring the results of the placebo group? 4) why did you link to a study in an effort to "disprove" me only to make it very evident that you didn't even bother to objectively go through the study that you linked to? 5) why are you just out of the gate implying that HMB is going to be bunk yet when I've asked about aegeline how many times now, you basically just act as if I didn't inquire about that.
Let's see, comprehensive human data on an ingredient vs. you guys patenting an ingredient shown to be effective in BAT which mice has a good amount of but humans actually have very little of... hmmmmmmmm. I wonder which one has more innovation and promise...
USPlabsRep
Board Sponsor
how do you label data as solid without knowing the most important factor, calories and it doesn't matter both groups used ISO-100. How is ISO-100 a more important fact than knowing total caloric intake?
The Placebo group lost muscle in the second training phase. What does that tell you about diet?
kissdadookie
Well-known member
1) I pointed out Iso-100 for the sole purpose of pointing out that the study was designed to rule out the possibility that the results could be due to mTOR signalling that could be achieved via optimal dosing of leucine. It is there to rule out a variable. If you recall, both Jigzz and UPSRep were both suggesting that results could have been achieved via optimal protein or carbs intake post workout. The use of Iso-100 was very obviously to rule out that theory.
2) This is a 12-week study. The diet and macros were controlled. Why would it take the second training phase to begin seeing loss in muscle? If you look at the data in the study, the variable here was rate of recovery in which the HMB-Fa group was able to recover at a far greater rate than the placebo group. On top of this, the end result had BOTH groups gaining a significant amount of LBM.
3) Phase 2 only lasted weeks 9 and 10 and it was the over reaching phase. Did you honestly expect the placebo group to not start losing strength and even some LBM due to insufficient recovery?
4) You're basically suggesting that both groups may have been on a caloric deficit, how does that explain weeks 1-8 then?
jimbuick
Legend
When did that happen?
Jiigzz
Legend
Yeah, that was NOT what I was saying. I was simply hypothesizing as to what might happen if you add these things in to your own routine. Not that the same results could be achieved through leucine, carbs and protein.
kissdadookie
Well-known member
Up a few posts. I was also not implying that Jigzz was making any sort of damning remarks on the study, it just didn't appear to me that he actually looked into the study
Basically he was wondering if things would have been different with post workout leucine and/or carbs, which the study basically answered because they gave all participants 25 grams of Iso-100 whey isolate (for the purpose of cancelling out the question of "well, maybe if we just gave post workout nutrition, it would yield the same result as HMB alone").
If you looked into the study, this hypothesis was basically addressed as there was, if you recall, a placebo group as well. All participants received 25 grams of Iso-100 whey isolate post training.
USPlabsRep
Board Sponsor
The proof will come with time.
The Solution
Legend
and your expectations?
how can you make such bold statements when you never ran it
i can guarantee you never made godlike and steroid like gains using HMB have you?
I highly doubt it.
Only one way to figure out and that is trying it, and because its not released yet all the drama stirred means nothing.
But the claims are bold, and pretty much stating you can add 150 pounds to your big 3 in a 8-12 weeks run is a power lifters dream even those who have tons of years of experience under their belt.
Jiigzz
Legend
Up a few posts. I was also not implying that Jigzz was making any sort of damning remarks on the study, it just didn't appear to me that he actually looked into the study
You're way off base here. My note was an aside; a planning for what I might do when I get Hmb-fa if you will.
I was making a remark like "I wonder how itl stack with xgels or abe or forskolin" or whatever. I wasnt stating anything else, despite what you think. Take a step back for a second and breathe. Im not attacking you, MT or your friends who published the study , I was just making a remark as to how I could utilise this with my own routine.
Literally nothing of what you said WRT my statement is how I intended that to be read. I was NOT implying AT ALL that the same results would be met with leucine, protein and carbs. I was wondering what might happen if you used ALL together. All i knew was that there was an undisclosed protein used that i didnt know what it was, so i was wondering what might occur if you combine that, leucine and carbs to yield a even better post workout.concotion.
As you pointed out, the protein had sufficient leucine so that element was measured; how was I to know this if this isnt in the FT?
- Status