Made an impulse buy, did I goof? -- HMB --

[Em3]

Late last night I somehow started reading and ran into a supplement I never really heard/researched

Did I goof up or is HMB actually decent? Research I find keeps seeming to go back and forth. Though for the cost it to run it year round doesn't seem like a bad addition.

Whats everyone's opinion/research on HMB? Is it a good year round staple or best when cutting or bulking?

Just started a 10 week cut so was looking for anything that could assist in fat loss/muscle preservation.

 

[bwdill]

Late last night I somehow started reading and ran into a supplement I never really heard/researched before HMB. After 20 minutes of light reading I ended up buying 500g off amazon with one day shipping for like $35.

Did I goof up or is HMB actually decent? Research I find keeps seeming to go back and forth. Though for the cost it to run it year round doesn't seem like a bad addition.

Whats everyone's opinion/research on HMB? Is it a good year round staple or best when cutting or bulking?

Just started a 10 week cut so was looking for anything that could assist in fat loss/muscle preservation.

I would say that caloric deficit is the single scenario where HMB may be most beneficial.

Otherwise it probably is a waste of money.

 

[bwdill]

The biggest problem is that the majority of studies conducted were all done so by companies that are trying to market the ingredient as an "anabolic" ingredient. Meaning that there is not enough 3rd party research conducted to prove that it is beneficial for resistance training.

 

[cheftepesh1]

If you got cheap then no. It’s can have some benefits, but not many as far as people with normal diets. Calories deficits it has some benefits.

 

[jameschoi]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5537867/

 

[DaeshDontSurf]

HMB-CA has some non-shill research in Rowers and Lifters showing benefit. BUT, Stu Phillips recently posted on IG that in their latest study, neither FA or CA did anything. If it's as cheap as Creatine, it at least won't hurt.

 

[bwdill]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5537867/

Not a bad study, but it was also not focused on body composition changes as a direct result of the benefit from HMB in relation to strength/resistance training.

So it just depends on what benefits OP is looking for.

 

[jameschoi]

Univ of Iowa study said that rats had better memory/brain functions with HMB. If that helps. I'm trying to find that link.

 

[thebigt]

Late last night I somehow started reading and ran into a supplement I never really heard/researched

Did I goof up or is HMB actually decent? Research I find keeps seeming to go back and forth. Though for the cost it to run it year round doesn't seem like a bad addition.

Whats everyone's opinion/research on HMB? Is it a good year round staple or best when cutting or bulking?

Just started a 10 week cut so was looking for anything that could assist in fat loss/muscle preservation.

Danes

 

[Aleksandar37]

Mix that with some Myoplex and you're good to go Seriously though, how much did you buy? It's not useless, but it's also not life-changing. Even if it does nothing for you, it's worth trying to see. As long as you didn't but like 10 grand worth you're good.

 

[Danes]

Mix that with some Myoplex and you're good to go Seriously though, how much did you buy? It's not useless, but it's also not life-changing. Even if it does nothing for you, it's worth trying to see. As long as you didn't but like 10 grand worth you're good.

This!

I personaly like HMB/HMB FA but at higher doses AND it really boost recovery when overreaching etc.

Main problem with CaHMB is the quality. Plenty of crap out there and plenty of people who tried HMB Free Acid expected too much of it. It is helpful tool when on strict diet, overreaching etc but i wouldnt bother if your training sucks

 

[HIT4ME]

Mix that with some Myoplex and you're good to go Seriously though, how much did you buy? It's not useless, but it's also not life-changing. Even if it does nothing for you, it's worth trying to see. As long as you didn't but like 10 grand worth you're good.

I agree with this - even the EAS humor! But run it and find out - a year's supply can be pretty cheap and you could always high dose it like Danes suggested and really see if it's worth anything.

You have everybody's hypothesis - now go run a test and find out!

 

[Chamaan]

I think HMB is one of the most underestimated, reliable and safest supplement. It's also pretty convenient since it doesn't cause insulin spikes (to be verified) so you can use it for fasted training.

I have always noticed improved recovery and body composition when using it, dosing 2 grams pre-workout and 2 grams before bed (HMB-CA version).

So i definitely don't think you wasted money as long as your supplier provides decent quality.

 

[DaeshDontSurf]

Since I can't post links:

mackinprof: Hey boyz & galz no, I mean NOOO effect of a-HICA, HMB-FA and HMB-Ca on muscle strength or muscle mass

mackinprof is

Stuart Phillips
Professor, Dept. of Kinesiology
Canada Research Chair - Skeletal Muscle
McMaster University

instagramDOTcom/mackinprof

Same name on Twitter where he's 10,000 times more active.

 

[LeanEngineer]

If you got it for a good price and you have never tried HMB then i think you're fine. Give it shot and see how it works for you.

 

[Sam stack]

It should help. I think hmb-fa, the stuff that’s in clear muscle is better

 

[Em3]

Does anyone else happen to have any theory/research/ideas about HMB and whether it causes an insulin spike?

Also like leucine/BCAA's, does it have calories aka about 4 calories per gram? (I think I did read reseach saying BCAA's were closing 6 to per gram, regardless though)

 

[DaeshDontSurf]

Does anyone else happen to have any theory/research/ideas about HMB and whether it causes an insulin spike?

Also like leucine/BCAA's, does it have calories aka about 4 calories per gram? (I think I did read reseach saying BCAA's were closing 6 to per gram, regardless though)

Even if it had 100% Insulin/Calories - how much could 3g/12 calories matter Don't worry about it would be my advice - your food labels can have a 20% error - by law

 

[Em3]

Even if it had 100% Insulin/Calories - how much could 3g/12 calories matter Don't worry about it would be my advice - your food labels can have a 20% error - by law

I had figured the same thing, I'm just always curious about how some of the supplements work and the science behind them even if I typically don't understand the science half the time lol.

 

[DaeshDontSurf]

I had figured the same thing, I'm just always curious about how some of the supplements work and the science behind them even if I typically don't understand the science half the time lol.

That guy I quoted above, Stu Phillips, is one of, if not "the" pre-eminant researchers on protein and muscle (he does a lot of work in the sarcopenia/muscle wasting space too). The latest science says it doesn't do anything. I say "latest" because his study was just done. There are 2 or 3 previous studies done by other researchers that also aren't tied to supplement companies - that *did* find benefit in college rowers and strength trainers - so as usual, we wait for more evidence. That's why most are saying if you can get it cheap (like, creatine mono cheap) it can't hurt. I'm talking the Ca version - I fully believe the FA version is fake azz hype.

 

[Humble]

I would say that caloric deficit is the single scenario where HMB may be most beneficial.

Otherwise it probably is a waste of money.

This.

Examine . com

“HMB (short for β-Hydroxy β-Methylbutyrate) is a metabolite of the amino acid leucine that, along with KIC (α keto-isocaproate) and isovaleryl-CoA, mediate the effects of leucine. Approximately 5% of dietary leucine is oxidized into HMB, and HMB appears to be the main metabolite of leucine that more effectively prevents the breakdown of muscle protein.”

When doing severe calorie restriction dieting (800-1200), I use HMB to protect my lean muscle mass from gluconeogenesis. If calories are at maintenance or surplus, it is a waste of money to use this IMHO.

Good luck on the cut!

 

[Danes]

That guy I quoted above, Stu Phillips, is one of, if not "the" pre-eminant researchers on protein and muscle (he does a lot of work in the sarcopenia/muscle wasting space too). The latest science says it doesn't do anything. I say "latest" because his study was just done. There are 2 or 3 previous studies done by other researchers that also aren't tied to supplement companies - that *did* find benefit in college rowers and strength trainers - so as usual, we wait for more evidence. That's why most are saying if you can get it cheap (like, creatine mono cheap) it can't hurt. I'm talking the Ca version - I fully believe the FA version is fake azz hype.

I actually dont agree there.
caHMB just like HMB Fa has its effect on muscles etc but we are talking about "starvation", overreaching etc.

Heard of Philip Atherton ?( Professor of Clinical, metabolic & Molecular Physiology, Faculty of Medicine & Health Sciences).

One of his studies he was involved:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/29097038/

 

[DaeshDontSurf]

Heard of Philip Atherton ?( Professor of Clinical, metabolic & Molecular Physiology, Faculty of Medicine & Health Sciences).

One of his studies he was involved:

I always go to these first, before reading any study:

Author information

3
Metabolic Technologies, Inc, Iowa State University Research Park, 2711 S. Loop Drive, Ste 4400, Ames, IA 50010, USA.

Conflict of interest

JAR is an employee of Metabolic Technologies Inc. All other authors state no conflict of interest.

Funding sources

This work was supported by an unconditional grant from Metabolic Technologies Inc. Metabolic Technologies Inc. supplied the Ca-HMB on a collaborative basis and undertook the HMB plasma analyses...

wwwDOTmettechincDOTcom/

Color me skeptical, but thanks for the links!

 

[Danes]

I always go to these first, before reading any study:







wwwDOTmettechincDOTcom/

Color me skeptical, but thanks for the links!

Yes but if you read this study properly and according to Philip (been talking to him personaly), HMB FA is not any better than HMB ca.
If you think this study is supported by MTI then something is pretty much wrong here.

MTI released HMB ca in 1995.
They also introduced HMB FA claiming to be better (not many years ago).
So why should MTI pay for a study showing HMB ca to be almost better than HMB fa ?

Philip said HMB works but no reason to buy HMB fa. Just stick with the HMB ca. Same person said BCAA is waste of money.
Philip is an experienced researcher done plenty of studies about Muscle protein synthesis in response to nutrition and exercise.

 

[Danes]

I always go to these first, before reading any study:







wwwDOTmettechincDOTcom/

Color me skeptical, but thanks for the links!

Then you have a study from 2018:
"The Effects of Beta-Hydroxy-Beta-Methylbutyrate-Free Acid Supplementation and Resistance Training on Oxidative Stress Markers: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29891761
Conclusions
"the HMB-FA group exhibited greater training effects than the placebo group"

Conflicts of Interest
"The authors declare no conflict of interest"

Been talking to Katsu Suzuki and he said he find HMB fa very interesting

 

[DaeshDontSurf]

Then you have a study from 2018:
"The Effects of Beta-Hydroxy-Beta-Methylbutyrate-Free Acid Supplementation and Resistance Training on Oxidative Stress Markers: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study."

Conclusions
"the HMB-FA group exhibited greater training effects than the placebo group"

Conflicts of Interest
"The authors declare no conflict of interest"

Been talking to Katsu Suzuki and he said he find HMB fa very interesting

I think the full conclusion would be better, as they didn't measure anything to do with body-comp using DXA/4CC, or strength on lifts. This was strictly a metabolic markers in blood study.

Conclusions
In conclusion, the results of this study demonstrated that 6 weeks of resistance training could decrease oxidative stress markers in men. Separately, HMB-FA supplementation has a similar effect on the inhibition of oxidative stress markers and biochemical variables; however, regarding ES (Effect Size), the HMB-FA group exhibited greater training effects than the placebo group. Resistance training can be considered an effective therapeutic intervention to reduce oxidative stress, and HMB-FA supplementation during resistance training does not add further adaptive changes related to oxidative stress markers.

And the last part of your studies 'Discussion Section'"

These findings reveal that supplementation with HMB does not induce enough protective effects for biochemical variables and further studies are needed to determine the long-term effects of HMB-FA supplementation on inflammation after resistance training.

Unless my three readings of the full text are completely whackadoodle, the result was very little/just lift weights. And they have the Wilson study mentioned in the citations.... we all know about that one

Brad Schoenfeld wwwDOTlookgreatnakedDOTcom/blog/truth-in-science/

Recently, I collaborated with some of the world’s top sports scientists on a letter to the editor about a study published in the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, that showed an extremely large anabolic effect to consuming a supplement containing HMB+ATP. We wrote an extensive letter that covered our issues with the paper in hopes of seeking truth in science. However, we had to substantially cut down our response to conform to the journal’s policy of allowed only 400 words in such letters. This watered down our points so that the true impact was markedly diminished.

Thus, I wanted to present the unedited version of our letter here so that further discussion can be had on the topic. Only through discourse can we maintain confidence in the research process and facilitate true evidence-based practice.

Extraordinary changes in body composition and performance with supplemental HMB-FA+ATP

Stuart M. Phillips, Ph.D., McMaster University
Alan Aragon, M.S., California State University, Northridge
Shawn M. Arent, Ph.D., Rutgers University
Graeme L. Close, Ph.D., Liverpool John Moores University
D. Lee Hamilton, Ph.D., University of Stirling
Eric R. Helms, M.S., M.Phil, Sports Performance Research Institute New Zealand
Jeremy P. Loenneke, Ph.D., The University of Mississippi
Layne Norton, Ph.D., Owner BioLayne LLC
Michael J. Ormsbee, Ph.D., Florida State University
Craig Sale, Ph.D., Nottingham-Trent University
Brad J. Schoenfeld, Ph.D., Lehman College
Abbie Smith-Ryan Ph.D., University of North Carolina
Kevin D. Tipton, Ph.D., University of Stirling
Matthew D. Vukovich, Ph.D., South Dakota State University
Colin Wilborn, Ph.D., University of Mary Hardin-Baylor
Darryn Willoughby, Ph.D. Baylor University

The authors of this letter read with skepticism the recent report from Lowery et al. (10), employing a supplement that provided 3g of beta-hydroxy-beta-methyl butyrate as a free acid (HMB-FA; three doses of 1g each) plus 400mg of oral adenosine triphosphate (ATP) in young men who resistance-trained for 12wk...

 

[Aleksandar37]

I always go to these first, before reading any study:







wwwDOTmettechincDOTcom/

Color me skeptical, but thanks for the links!

So you bias yourself before reading the methods and results?

 

[Danes]

I think the full conclusion would be better, as they didn't measure anything to do with body-comp using DXA/4CC, or strength on lifts. This was strictly a metabolic markers in blood study.



And the last part of your studies 'Discussion Section'"



Unless my three readings of the full text are completely whackadoodle, the result was very little/just lift weights. And they have the Wilson study mentioned in the citations.... we all know about that one

Brad Schoenfeld wwwDOTlookgreatnakedDOTcom/blog/truth-in-science/

Have you tried HMB/HMB FA at higher dose while overreaching ?
With 17 years of training experience, there are not many compounds/supplements I can brag about.
But HMB/HMB FA at higher dose really increased recovery. We can discuss back and forth with different studies all day , I will still say HMB/HMB FA is worth it if training volume is big.

Ofcouse I dont buy Wilson studies and Muscletech claims but saying HMB is totaly useless is totaly wrong.

There are plenty of people saying creatine is totaly waste of money but even there are some non responders, it is not useless

 

[DaeshDontSurf]

Have you tried HMB/HMB FA at higher dose while overreaching ?
With 17 years of training experience, there are not many compounds/supplements I can brag about.
But HMB/HMB FA at higher dose really increased recovery. We can discuss back and forth with different studies all day , I will still say HMB/HMB FA is worth it if training volume is big.

Ofcouse I dont buy Wilson studies and Muscletech claims but saying HMB is totaly useless is totaly wrong.

There are plenty of people saying creatine is totaly waste of money but even there are some non responders, it is not useless

Creatine has 700+ studies (probably more now, due to findings it also improves brain health) with close to 90% scientific consensus - but yes, like even some rx drugs (especially in the ssri category) there are people who don't respond. I do still hear some big names (well known physique coaches) who say Creatine is a waste though

HMB-FA has too much legit criticism from researchers in the community for me to take it seriously, especially when there is research showing Ca is just as good. And the free acid COST! You Double dose the stuff?

But - I actually still buy kilos of HMB-Ca because it is literally about $1 a week at 3g. So I'm actually still going by the 3 or so studies in athletes, and not going by Stu Phillips' latest one. Coincidently however, I've been out for about a month and haven't reordered - I'm still progressing nicely on current programming, so...

Agree on "Battle of the Studies", but it's hard to avoid when passionate about a subject I'll try to do better!

 

[Danes]

Creatine has 700+ studies (probably more now, due to findings it also improves brain health) with close to 90% scientific consensus - but yes, like even some rx drugs (especially in the ssri category) there are people who don't respond. I do still hear some big names (well known physique coaches) who say Creatine is a waste though

HMB-FA has too much legit criticism from researchers in the community for me to take it seriously, especially when there is research showing Ca is just as good. And the free acid COST! You Double dose the stuff?

But - I actually still buy kilos of HMB-Ca because it is literally about $1 a week at 3g. So I'm actually still going by the 3 or so studies in athletes, and not going by Stu Phillips' latest one. Coincidently however, I've been out for about a month and haven't reordered - I'm still progressing nicely on current programming, so...

Agree on "Battle of the Studies", but it's hard to avoid when passionate about a subject I'll try to do better!

I totaly agree about Ca vs FA. The study where Philip was involved, he actually said FA is not any better. Yes it kick in faster but the mTOR signaling activation was not higher with FA.
The main reason I buy FA is :
1. The price is not bad compared to MTI Ca version. Actually same price.
2. I am not sure how good quality/purity it is when buying Ca in bulk. With FA, I know what I am getting

Yea I tried to doubledose it. (,6g daily) and recovery is really different while on vs off .

 

[DaeshDontSurf]

So you bias yourself before reading the methods and results?

Fine line between Cynicism/Skepticism and Bias;

https://www.forbes.com/sites/marshallshepherd/2016/11/01/when-does-skepticism-become-bias-in-science/#640444f134ef

We all have inherent bias'

I do my best. It's well earned though - for profit companies have been caught too many times, with their hand in the cookie jar - RJ Reynolds, Phillip-Morris, et. al. and "Smoking is Healthy!"... VW and emissions... Prime Nutrition and HBCD dosing. CLA (unless you're a Mouse), "Feels like DECA!" etc... Who's still buying Bio-Gro? (For fun, go look up the 'Superior Performance Research Center' in Miami for current status). There's no downside to blowing off company funded studies - if they're actually legit, the academic community will catch up. But we need to quit hanging our hat on "The lifting community was right about Creatine when the eggheads poo-poo'd it, bro" - that was almost 30 years ago. "What have you done for me lately" springs to mind.

 

[Danes]

Fine line between Cynicism/Skepticism and Bias;

https://www.forbes.com/sites/marshallshepherd/2016/11/01/when-does-skepticism-become-bias-in-science/#640444f134ef

We all have inherent bias'

I do my best. It's well earned though - for profit companies have been caught too many times, with their hand in the cookie jar - RJ Reynolds, Phillip-Morris, et. al. and "Smoking is Healthy!"... VW and emissions... Prime Nutrition and HBCD dosing. CLA (unless you're a Mouse), "Feels like DECA!" etc... Who's still buying Bio-Gro? (For fun, go look up the 'Superior Performance Research Center' in Miami for current status). There's no downside to blowing off company funded studies - if they're actually legit, the academic community will catch up. But we need to quit hanging our hat on "The lifting community was right about Creatine when the eggheads poo-poo'd it, bro" - that was almost 30 years ago. "What have you done for me lately" springs to mind.

Good point but we shall not forget, not all company funded studies are bad. Some companies want to really prove its working and they give $ and supplements to a research team.
Then we have other companies who pay research team to make a nice study. Like writing fairy tale.

Sopharma (Bulgarian pharma company) who made Tribestan (Tribulus product containing 40+%) and discovered Protodioscin found in Tribulus made studies where they show it increase LH,DHEA , Testosterone etc.
People tried cheap / low quality tribulus without containing Protodioscin and ofcourse it did nothing. Some of them tried 40+% protodioscin and their T increased from 9/10 to 14-16. Sex drive increased pretty much ++.

Conclusion here is, many ingredients have bad rep but its thanks to supplement companies selling awful quality ++..

 

[Aleksandar37]

Fine line between Cynicism/Skepticism and Bias;

https://www.forbes.com/sites/marshallshepherd/2016/11/01/when-does-skepticism-become-bias-in-science/#640444f134ef

We all have inherent bias'

I do my best. It's well earned though - for profit companies have been caught too many times, with their hand in the cookie jar - RJ Reynolds, Phillip-Morris, et. al. and "Smoking is Healthy!"... VW and emissions... Prime Nutrition and HBCD dosing. CLA (unless you're a Mouse), "Feels like DECA!" etc... Who's still buying Bio-Gro? (For fun, go look up the 'Superior Performance Research Center' in Miami for current status). There's no downside to blowing off company funded studies - if they're actually legit, the academic community will catch up. But we need to quit hanging our hat on "The lifting community was right about Creatine when the eggheads poo-poo'd it, bro" - that was almost 30 years ago. "What have you done for me lately" springs to mind.

You're comparing marketing statements to peer reviewed journal articles?! Yes, companies have been caught faslifying results and so have people in academia, but neither is the norm. A lot of these supplement ingredients don't matter to anybody else except the company selling them, so it should come as no surprise that they end up being the ones to pay for a study because nobody else is going to.

 

[HIT4ME]

Creatine has 700+ studies (probably more now, due to findings it also improves brain health) with close to 90% scientific consensus - but yes, like even some rx drugs (especially in the ssri category) there are people who don't respond. I do still hear some big names (well known physique coaches) who say Creatine is a waste though

HMB-FA has too much legit criticism from researchers in the community for me to take it seriously, especially when there is research showing Ca is just as good. And the free acid COST! You Double dose the stuff?

But - I actually still buy kilos of HMB-Ca because it is literally about $1 a week at 3g. So I'm actually still going by the 3 or so studies in athletes, and not going by Stu Phillips' latest one. Coincidently however, I've been out for about a month and haven't reordered - I'm still progressing nicely on current programming, so...

Agree on "Battle of the Studies", but it's hard to avoid when passionate about a subject I'll try to do better!

You're comparing marketing statements to peer reviewed journal articles?! Yes, companies have been caught faslifying results and so have people in academia, but neither is the norm. A lot of these supplement ingredients don't matter to anybody else except the company selling them, so it should come as no surprise that they end up being the ones to pay for a study because nobody else is going to.

It's ironic how Aleksandar and I can be different here but alike. I was going to say - if you are going to discount a study solely on its funding bias - you may as well discount almost everything. There are all kinds of ways studies can be skewed - both intentionally and less intentionally. Funding, the reputation and career of the researchers...so much comes into play.

But isn't that part of science? Ideas are free to all and there is no "secret knowledge". Everything humans know can be discovered by anyone. Sure some things will be harder to learn without resources and prior understanding - but nothing is secret. You can test any theory on your own.

It reminds me of the flat earth people. They have a "theory" but fail to realize that ANYONE can test that the earth is round and not flat by themselves and in numerous ways. You can calculate the circumference and curvature of the earth with rudimentary tools like two sticks. You don't have to believe ANYONE. You can go test it for yourself.

In other words, your criticism of an idea should NOT be based on who had that idea - but on the validity of the idea itself. To be aware of the possibility of falsified data is one thing, to write off data solely because it COULD be falsified will leave you writing off everything.

How far is the logic that "you should discount all commercially funded studies because of the possibility of bad data" from saying "You should ignore ALL studies because some/many/most of them turn out to be incorrect."

 

[DaeshDontSurf]

Good post, thanks.

So you regularly buy clear muscle and bio-gro each month? You have to, right? Cuz only a moron wouldn't want to put all that mass on naturally - the company research proves they work. You must also be using growth hormone secretagogues right? And oral igf-1 (which i guess is bio-gro too, lol)? Where is the gamma oryzonol and dibencozide these days? How about the $300 brief cases of blueberry extract (from the former "Just like Deca!" crew). I would feel a whole lot better about company funded studies, if someone could point me to all the publicly published studies showing a substance they sell FAILED to do anything significant (Like Mr. Danes' japanese study - but they were just researchers).

But like I said, I TAKE HMB-Ca, but not because of the MTI data, but because the 3(?) 'other' disinterested studies, and despite stu phillips' latest.

So maybe I was incorrect previously in what I wrote vs what i really meant? Maybe WHO is doing the study is what I really meant? I'm probably just BIAS -)) against jacob wilson and patrick jacobs. At least i'm in good company with almost the entire evidence based research community who doesn't sell supplements (other than Norton, lol). I'm a fallible human being.

 

[DaeshDontSurf]

You're comparing marketing statements to peer reviewed journal articles?! A lot of these supplement ingredients don't matter to anybody else except the company selling them, so it should come as no surprise that they end up being the ones to pay for a study because nobody else is going to.

There are a whole lot of "peers" that have a big problem with FA, and a bunch more that aren't on the letter to JSCR (Greg Nuchols for one). Too much smoke on that one. But yes, I appear to be mixing marketing with research, mea culpa. Was bio-gro peer reviewed too?, i don't remember. I'm actually not even talking about outright falsification - more design to achieve a particular outcome. No way you can tell me you actually think peter jacobs' stuff is replicateable in the real world (and due to igf-1)? Do you personally buy each one every month - cuz those are some "close to drug like" results.

 

[HIT4ME]

So you regularly buy clear muscle and bio-gro each month? You have to, right? Cuz only a moron wouldn't want to put all that mass on naturally - the company research proves they work. You must also be using growth hormone secretagogues right? And oral igf-1 (which i guess is bio-gro too, lol)? Where is the gamma oryzonol and dibencozide these days? How about the $300 brief cases of blueberry extract (from the former "Just like Deca!" crew). I would feel a whole lot better about company funded studies, if someone could point me to all the publicly published studies showing a substance they sell FAILED to do anything significant (Like Mr. Danes' japanese study - but they were just researchers).

But like I said, I TAKE HMB-Ca, but not because of the MTI data, but because the 3(?) 'other' disinterested studies, and despite stu phillips' latest.

So maybe I was incorrect previously in what I wrote vs what i really meant? Maybe WHO is doing the study is what I really meant? I'm probably just BIAS -)) against jacob wilson and patrick jacobs. At least i'm in good company with almost the entire evidence based research community who doesn't sell supplements (other than Norton, lol). I'm a fallible human being.

Ummm....can you point me to a falsified or funding biased study of any if the ingredients/products you listed? I know there are plenty if overblown marketing claims...I am talking about an actual study.

As Aleksandar37 pointed out, just because somebody says something in marketing does NOT mean there is a study to support it.

And it is false logic to say that since somebody lies in marketing, or uses a study to lie in marketing, that all studies are fake if they are funded by someone with a marketing interest.

Pretty much every example you have given actually has some research that you may be surprised with - the ingredients just do not do what the marketing claimed or are overblown.

And even things like creatine has poorly designed studies that say it works, studies that say it does not work, etc. That's why basing your beliefs off one outcome is tenuous.

No one is saying people should not have realistic expectations and a healthy skepticism - but a heuristic that discounts any study with potential funding bias (or other bias) is incredibly limiting. It is good to be aware of, but that in itself does NOT determine the validity if the study.

You should be skeptical of most studies, and of all marketing. As Aleksandar pointed out in another thread - it is common for marketers to site studies that do not even say what the marketers claim.

But no one here is saying HMB feels like deca. There are conflicting studies...some are funded by companies with marketing interests, some are not. But it is cheap enough to test yourself and see. It won't feel like deca, I promise that. But it may be a small aid.

 

[Aleksandar37]

There are a whole lot of "peers" that have a big problem with FA, and a bunch more that aren't on the letter to JSCR (Greg Nuchols for one). Too much smoke on that one. But yes, I appear to be mixing marketing with research, mea culpa. Was bio-gro peer reviewed too?, i don't remember. I'm actually not even talking about outright falsification - more design to achieve a particular outcome. No way you can tell me you actually think peter jacobs' stuff is replicateable in the real world (and due to igf-1)? Do you personally buy each one every month - cuz those are some "close to drug like" results.

Do I buy each of what every month?

 

[DaeshDontSurf]

Ummm....can you point me to a falsified or funding biased study of any if the ingredients/products you listed?

The only people who know about IF either of those occurred - outright falsification (which I actually don't think is common) or a design to achieve a certain outcome, are the people involved with the study. I mean, you have a veritable 'who's who' in the evidence based community calling bs on wilson's FA study - but not even they can say it was outright influenced, because (i assume - i'm not a forensic accountant for research) it's impossible to know from the outside.

Like i said, i use hmb-ca because it's $1 a week. I've been out almost a month. I've noticed no regression, stagnation, and still improve at the same rate. So i'm probably done with it. BUT - to your point - IF i was a *very new* trainee, and not 5 years into training, i would probably use it for the first 6 months or so, because in newbs, it actually does something because the musculature is in such shock, it just repairs but doesn't grow right away.

That newb effect is discussed here, in yet another critique of wilson -

https://www.strongerbyscience.com/hmb/

Like every other "natty" (before hrt) I tried them ALL, for at least 2 months - some a lot longer -

bio-gro (jacobs)
epicatechin
phosphatidic acid (via soy lecithin) (wilson)
Rhaponticum
ara (wilson)

Saw nothing that made me go "holy crap, i'm buying this foreverrrrr!" just the same good progression that programming/periodization, sleep and food get you - just like all those jacked buff dudes in all sports of the 50's 60's etc... before even whey protein (other than milk) existed. (I doubt high school and college athletes at that time were fake natty's).

Look at it this way: if ma-huang were still legal as a dietary supplement - almost EVERYONE would be using it to lose body fat. Based on the bio-gro and hmb-fa company funded research (especially the hmb-fa second study!) you have THE TWO GREATEST NATTY ANABOLICS IN HISTORY:

bio-gro - 6.3lbs of muscle in 8 weeks.
hmb-fa - 16.3 to 18.7lbs of muscle in 12 weeks.

Those two are greater than ara and phophatidic acid by magnitudes.

So, are you guys taking them? If you are a believer in company funded research, then it should be a no brainer - 18.7lbs! And the cost is actually in line with other "natty anabolics" -

bio-gro - 30 days 29.99
clear muscle - 28 days $49.98
(based on bbcom pricing - cheaper elsewhere?)

Seems you'd have to be nuts not too - natty bb'ers buy everything! But not the two greatest muscle builders of all time?

I don't know if i have anything else, we could probably go back and forth forever - be very skeptical of company funded research when it comes to muscle building or fat loss - wait for, and then compare to other profit disinterested research (like with baking soda - who's trying to make a buck off that?) - you won't be missing much, if anything, is my opinion. Final word from me, but i'll read your stuff and thanks for the thought provoking dialogue!

 

[Aleksandar37]

So, are you guys taking them? If you are a believer in company funded research, then it should be a no brainer - 18.7lbs! And the cost is actually in line with other "natty anabolics" -

You're claiming studies are fake, but keep ignoring requests for proof. You also keep falling back on this "are you guys taking them?" argument as if that is relevant or proves anything. I know that crack works, but I'm not buying any,

 

[djbombsquad]

Univ of Iowa study said that rats had better memory/brain functions with HMB. If that helps. I'm trying to find that link.

I’m a rat!

 

[Mike NCR]

I've run HMB many times, and it feels like deca!!

Ok real talk here, I do HIT and I've found it really helps with recovery and gains with that style of training - but at the 4-5g range and no less. It's cheap enough that 50 bucks covers me for that intake for about 6 months. Even if it's only in my head (and I really don't think it is), that's a cost I can live with.

 

[2Burnt]

That guy I quoted above, Stu Phillips, is one of, if not "the" pre-eminant researchers on protein and muscle (he does a lot of work in the sarcopenia/muscle wasting space too). The latest science says it doesn't do anything. I say "latest" because his study was just done. There are 2 or 3 previous studies done by other researchers that also aren't tied to supplement companies - that *did* find benefit in college rowers and strength trainers - so as usual, we wait for more evidence. That's why most are saying if you can get it cheap (like, creatine mono cheap) it can't hurt. I'm talking the Ca version - I fully believe the FA version is fake azz hype.

Whats he name on IG? Couldnt find it.

 

[DaeshDontSurf]

Whats he name on IG? Couldnt find it.

In my first post:

mackinprof is

Stuart Phillips
Professor, Dept. of Kinesiology
Canada Research Chair - Skeletal Muscle
McMaster University

instagramDOTcom/mackinprof

Same name on Twitter where he's 10,000 times more active.