HMB and creatine

[strongkid963]

how does creatine and hmb work synergasically?

and

how massive amount of sugar help this process
-i THINK that it cause a increase insulin so better uptake but no sure?

[mikey4402]

80+ grams of Dextrose is good enough.

I cant complement on HMB. Although Im not convinced its worth the price.

[chris mason]

how does creatine and hmb work synergasically?

and

how massive amount of sugar help this process
-i THINK that it cause a increase insulin so better uptake but no sure?

The results showed by one study indicated greater gains in strength and lean muscle tissue when HMB and creatine were combined than was provided by either individually. The exact mechanism of why this occurs is not known. The theory is that both creatine and HMB stimulated increased size and strength, but via different pathways thus resulting in additive effects.

Chris

[chris mason]

Oh, and give RESULTS a try and see for yourself. :thumbup:

You won't need to study to document your PRs in the gym!

[Paul Stagg]

The results showed by one study indicated greater gains in strength and lean muscle tissue when HMB and creatine were combined than was provided by either individually. The exact mechanism of why this occurs is not known. The theory is that both creatine and HMB stimulated increased size and strength, but via different pathways thus resulting in additive effects.

Chris

Can you post the details of that study?

[Slim Schaedle]

Can you post the details of that study?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11448573?ordinalpos=15&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

Unless I am mistaken, this is it.

1: Nutrition. 2001 Jul-Aug;17(7-8):558-66. Links

Creatine and beta-hydroxy-beta-methylbutyrate (HMB) additively increase lean body mass and muscle strength during a weight-training program.

Jówko E, Ostaszewski P, Jank M, Sacharuk J, Zieniewicz A, Wilczak J, Nissen S.

Institute of Sport and Physical Education, Biala Podlaska, Academy of Physical Education, Warsaw, Poland.

We investigated whether creatine (CR) and beta-hydroxy-beta-methylbutyrate (HMB) act by similar or different mechanisms to increase lean body mass (LBM) and strength in humans undergoing progressive resistance-exercise training. In this double-blind, 3-wk study, subjects (n = 40) were randomized to placebo (PL; n = 10), CR (20.0 g of CR/d for 7 d followed by 10.0 g of CR/d for 14 d; n = 11), HMB (3.0 g of HMB/d; n = 9), or CR-and-HMB (CR/HMB; n = 10) treatment groups. Over 3 wk, all subjects gained LBM, which was assessed by bioelectrical impedance analysis. The CR, HMB and CR/HMB groups gained 0.92, 0.39, and 1.54 kg of LBM, respectively, over the placebo group, with a significant effect with CR supplementation (main effect P = 0.05) and a trend with HMB supplementation (main effect P = 0.08). These effects were additive because there was no interaction between CR and HMB (CR x HMB main effect P = 0.73). Across all exercises, HMB, CR, and CR/HMB supplementation caused accumulative strength increases of 37.5, 39.1, and 51.9 kg, respectively, above the placebo group. The exercise-induced rise in serum creatine phosphokinase was markedly suppressed with HMB supplementation (main effect P = 0.01). However, CR supplementation antagonized the HMB effects on serum creatine phosphokinase (CR x HMB interactive effect P = 0.04). Urine urea nitrogen and plasma urea were not affected by CR supplementation, but both decreased with HMB supplementation (HMB effect P < 0.05), suggesting a nitrogen-sparing effect. In summary, CR and HMB can increase LBM and strength, and the effects are additive. Although not definitive, these results suggest that CR and HMB act by different mechanisms.

PMID: 11448573 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]


To my knowledge it is unknown if these were trained or untrained study subjects.

[Paul Stagg]

I don't think that's it. That study says they are additive, which means creatine causes x increase by itself, HMB causes Y increase by itself, and creatine + HMB causes X+Y increase.

Which would be true of any two supplements that don't interact.

There are other significant weaknesses in the study, the question on trained vs untrained is just one, but that's the case with almost all research these days. As I recall, trained vs untrained was always an issue with HMB studies, but I'm not as up to date on this stuff as I used to be.

[Slim Schaedle]

There are other significant weaknesses in the study.

I very much agree.

Most of my questions pertaining to studies are in this thread.
http://www.wannabebigforums.com/showthread.php?t=106090&page=4

[strongkid963]

thanks guys, might want to give reults a try. Currently I like glutamine,creatin,taurine,cissus.

[Travis Bell]

good choice, you won't regret it

[chris mason]

Can you post the details of that study?

No, we had to purchase the full study.

Chris

[Slim Schaedle]

No, we had to purchase the full study.

Chris

Is it the one I posted the abstract to?


(just curious)

[Slim Schaedle]

Can you post the details of that study?

http://journals.ohiolink.edu/ejc/pdf.cgi/Jwko_Ewa.pdf?issn=08999007&issue=v17i7-8&article=558_caailbmsdawp

That should take you to the full PDF version.


We investigated whether creatine (CR) and b-hydroxy-b-methylbutyrate (HMB) act by similar or
different mechanisms to increase lean body mass (LBM) and strength in humans undergoing progressive
resistance-exercise training. In this double-blind, 3-wk study, subjects (n 5 40) were randomized to
placebo (PL; n 5 10), CR (20.0 g of CR/d for 7 d followed by 10.0 g of CR/d for 14 d; n 5 11), HMB
(3.0 g of HMB/d; n 5 9), or CR-and-HMB (CR/HMB; n 5 10) treatment groups. Over 3 wk, all subjects
gained LBM, which was assessed by bioelectrical impedance analysis. The CR, HMB and CR/HMB
groups gained 0.92, 0.39, and 1.54 kg of LBM, respectively, over the placebo group, with a significant
effect with CR supplementation (main effect P 5 0.05) and a trend with HMB supplementation (main
effect P 5 0.08). These effects were additive because there was no interaction between CR and HMB
(CR 3 HMB main effect P 5 0.73). Across all exercises, HMB, CR, and CR/HMB supplementation
caused accumulative strength increases of 37.5, 39.1, and 51.9 kg, respectively, above the placebo group.
The exercise-induced rise in serum creatine phosphokinase was markedly suppressed with HMB supplementation
(main effect P 5 0.01). However, CR supplementation antagonized the HMB effects on serum
creatine phosphokinase (CR 3 HMB interactive effect P 5 0.04). Urine urea nitrogen and plasma urea
were not affected by CR supplementation, but both decreased with HMB supplementation (HMB effect
P , 0.05), suggesting a nitrogen-sparing effect. In summary, CR and HMB can increase LBM and
strength, and the effects are additive. Although not definitive, these results suggest that CR and HMB act
by different mechanisms. Nutrition 2001;17:558 –566. ©Elsevier Science Inc. 2001
KEY WORDS: body composition, bioelectrical impedance, creatine, creatine phosphokinase, b-hydroxyb-
methylbutyrate, leucine, muscle


INTRODUCTION
Creatine (CR) and b-hydroxy-b-methylbutyrate (HMB) are supplements
used to enhance the effects of weight training on muscle
mass. Although several mechanistic explanations have been offered
to show how these compounds enhance exercise-responsive
muscle growth, to date there has been no experimental evidence
showing whether any of these hypotheses are valid. One approach
to this problem is to determine whether the effects of HMB and CR
are independent. Additivity of those effects would support distinct
mechanisms of action, and lack of additivity would support a
common mechanism. Thus, we investigated whether HMB and CR
were additive in relation to lean body mass (LBM) and strength
gains and whether these indicated independent mechanisms.
CR supplementation has been shown to raise muscle CR concentrations
by approximately 15%,1–9 and that rise has been associated
with increased LBM and strength.1,5,10,11 It has been postulated
that the increase in muscle CR increases LBM by
osmotically drawing more water into the muscle cell.1,4,10,11 This
cellular swelling would then stimulate protein synthesis in the
muscle cells.1 As yet there have been no studies directly measuring
muscle-cell water changes in humans. In addition, in vitro studies
have suggested that CR can increase myosin synthesis but does not
affect total protein synthesis.12–14

The leucine metabolite, HMB, also has been shown to increase
LBM and strength in exercising humans.10,15–17 Two mechanisms
for HMB action have been proposed. The first is based on the
observation that HMB can slow or suppress muscle proteolysis
that is elevated during exercise.15,17 The second possible mechanism
concerns HMB being a precursor of muscle-cell cholesterol.
The increase in muscle hypertrophy during weight training might
result in a local deficiency in cholesterol in the muscle cell, which
might result in inadequate cholesterol for membrane synthesis and
thus slower cell growth or suboptimally functioning cell membranes
due to a shortage of membrane cholesterol. Suppling critical
amounts of cholesterol precursor in muscle would allow the
muscle to maintain and synthesize new muscle plasma membranes.
This idea is supported by observations showing that muscle-membrane damage (leakage) was markedly decreased when HMB
was supplemented in the diet.15–18

Proposed mechanisms for CR and HMB action are clearly
speculative at this time. However, if it can be shown that the effects
of HMB and CR are additive relative to LBM increase, this would
provide preliminary evidence consistant with the proposed mechanisms
of action. Conversely, if the effects of HMB and CR are not
additive, then one of the two proposed mechanisms would be
wrong. We also examined several metabolic markers of cell metabolism,
nitrogen metabolism, and strength to support the LBM
gain data. Together these data should establish similarities or
differences between CR and HMB mechanisms of action.


MATERIALS AND METHODS

Subjects

Forty healthy male subjects 19 to 23 y old were enrolled into the
study. All had been involved in prior exercise but none were highly
trained. Potential subjects were excluded from the study if they had
evidence or history of any disease, recent joint or bone injury, or
obesity. Subjects also were excluded if they had participated in
resistance-exercise programs in the previous 6 mo or had consumed
HMB or CR in the previous 3 mo before the study.

All subjects were screened by blood analysis, urinalysis, physical
examination, and body composition. The study was approved by
the Ethical Committee of the Academy of Physical Education in
Warsaw, and informed written consent was obtained from all
subjects before the beginning of the study.

Dietary Control

All subjects were asked to consume three meals per day in the
students’ cafeteria. Each week the subjects completed a questionnaire
detailing all food consumed during three non-consecutive
24-h periods (one fell on a weekend day).3 The data were used to
calculate dietary intakes for each participant by using the Dietus
computer program based on European dietary norms.


Experimental Groups

Table I summarizes the experimental periods, measurements, and
collections made during the study. All subjects were randomized to
treatment groups in a double-blind fashion, and LBM was measured.
In the placebo group, one subject dropped out during the
first week, leaving 10 subjects.

CR was given as creatine-monohydrate in powder form (99%
creatine-monohydrate; Sigma Aldrich, Milwaukee, WI). Each subject
was instructed to mix the powder in 250 mL of orange juice.
HMB was supplied in capsules containing 0.25 g of CaHMB
(Metabolic Technologies, Ames, IA, USA). Each four-capsule
serving supplied 1.0 g of CaHMB, and each subject took the
placebo or HMB capsules three times per day. Placebo (rice flour)
capsules were identical in look and taste to the HMB capsules and
were taken as the HMB capsules. Glucose (Sigma Aldrich) was
used as the powder placebo and was mixed in orange juice, as was
the CR.

The placebo group consumed 20 g of glucose and 3 g of
placebo capsules for the first 7 d and 10 g of glucose plus the
placebo capsules for the remainder of the study. The CR group
took 20 g of CR/d (loading dose) for the first 7 d and 10 g/d
thereafter (maintenance dose) plus placebo capsules. The HMB
group took 20 g of glucose and 3 g of HMB per day for the first
7 d and 10 g of glucose plus 3 g of HMB for the remainder of the
study. The CR/HMB group took 20 g of CR and 3 g of HMB daily
for the first 7 d and then 10 g of CR and 3 g of HMB daily for the
remainder of the study.

Progressive Weight-Training Regimen

Each subject was tested for a one-repetition maximum (1-RM)
before the study in all of the exercises except the sit-up crunch.
The number of lifts was minimized during testing so as not to
constitute a training effect. Weight training continued three times
per week throughout the study with at least 1 d of rest between
sessions. The strength-training program consisted of concentric
and eccentric isotonic lifting exercises that worked each muscle
group with free weights. The selection of exercises was based on
the training program for beginners; the seven exercises were
chosen to involve the main large muscle groups as follows: chest,
upper back, shoulders, arms, abdominal, and legs. The training
program used is shown in Table II.

The initial weight lifted was calculated by using 1-RM as
100%. The training weight was then estimated at the level at which
the subject could make 5 to 15 repetitions before failure. The
weight lifted was increased slowly to keep the number of repetitions
and sets the same. For example, if the subject easily completed
or exceeded the planned number of repetitions in the last set,
then the following calculation was used to estimate an increase in
weight to be lifted during the next session. The number of planned
repetitions was subtracted from the number of completed repetitions
and divided by two. The value obtained was the number of
kilograms, which were then added to the existing weight to have
the target weight to be lifted at the next session. Each session was
monitored by trained supervisors who recorded the weights lifted
and repetitions performed.

(bench press, behind-the-neck press, bicep curl), 50% to 60%
(back squat), or 40% to 50% (tricep extension) of the subjects’
1-RM, followed by the main exercise at 70% to 75% (bench press,
behind-the-neck press, bicep curl), 70% (back squat), or 60% to
65% (tricep extension) of the 1-RM for each muscle group (Table
II). The subjects took a break of approximately 3 to 4 min between
sets. To prevent any risk of contusion of the upper back muscles,
the exercise for that group of muscles was conducted at only 45%
to 50% of 1-RM. To evaluate the strength gains obtained during
the exercise program, the 1-RMs were compared at the beginning
and end of the study.

Blood and Urine Samples

Blood samples were collected during the screening period, during
week 2, and at the end of the treatment period. Blood was taken
from a superficial forearm vein after an overnight fast. Serum was
collected from the blood sample and then stored at 226°C until
analyzed for creatinine, creatine phosphokinase (CPK), and urea
nitrogen (Alpha Diagnostics/Trace, San Antonio, TX, USA).
Twenty-four– hour total urine collections were made during the
screening period, during week 2, and at the end of the treatment
period to measure urinary creatinine and urea nitrogen (Alpha
Diagnostics/Trace).

Body Composition

Body cell mass (BCM), LBM, fat mass, total body water (TBW),
and intracellular water (ICW) were assessed from reactance and
resistance measurements with bioelectrical impedance analysis
(single frequency of 50 kHz, hand held, four electrodes; RJL BIA
101/S Body Impedance Analyzer, Akern, Clinton Township,
MI).18–20 Measurements were collected in the morning after an
overnight fast at the beginning and end of the treatment period.
Subjects were to refrain from any physical activity for 12 h,
withhold all liquids for 4 h, and urinate 30 min before the measurements.
Electrodes were placed on the right hand and right foot
according to the manufacturer’s guidelines.

Subjects were supine, with their arms 30 degrees away from their bodies, and they were
instructed to keep their legs apart. Subjects were supine for approximately
5 min, with the test performed during minute 5. The
body weight, age, sex, and height for each subject were recorded.
Reactance and resistance measurements were then processed with
the Akern Body Impedance Analyzer.6

Statistical Analysis

The data were evaluated by two-way factorial analysis of variance
by using the general linear model procedure of the Statistical
Analysis System.21 In Tables III, IV, V, and VI, the data are
presented as the mean 6 standard error of the mean for each
parameter, and the significance for the main effects of CR, HMB,
and CR 3 HMB are given. When a significant CR 3 HMB
interaction occurred, individual means were tested with t tests.
Statistical significance was set at P , 0.05. A trend was set at P ,
0.10.

RESULTS

Dietary Intake

The calculated intakes of protein, fat, and calories are presented in
Table III. Overall protein intake was approximately 180% of the
recommended daily allowance in all groups.22 Less protein tended
to be consumed by those supplemented with CR in week 2 (CR
main effect P , 0.08) and was significantly decreased in week 3
of the study (CR main effect P , 0.04). In addition, the caloric
intake of the CR-supplemented subjects was significantly lower
than that of subjects not supplemented with CR in week 2 (CR
main effect P 5 0.001) and tended to be lower in week 3 (CR main
effect P 5 0.07).

Body Composition

Body weight and composition changes are presented in Table IV.
Body weight increased in all groups over the 3-wk period. CR and
HMB supplements significantly increased body weight (treatment
main effects P 5 0.0001 and 0.007, respectively), with the combination
of CR/HMB producing the greatest response.

Increases in
LBM were seen in all groups over the 3-wk period (Table IV). The
placebo group had a gain of 0.85 kg (1.35%) compared with 1.77
kg (2.8%) in the CR group, 1.24 kg (2.0%) in the HMB group, and
2.39 kg (3.8%) in the CR/HMB group. Supplementing with CR
significantly increased LBM (CR main effect P 5 0.0005), and
HMB supplementation tended to increase LBM gain in 3 wk
(HMB main effect P 5 0.08).

The effects of CR and HMB tended
to be additive in that there was no interaction (CR 3 HMB main
effect P 5 0.73) and the effect of the combination was different
from the sum of their seperate effects (Fig. 1a).
CR/HMB supplementation resulted in a synergistic increase in
body fat.

There tended to be an interaction between CR and HMB
(CR 3 HMB main effect P 5 0.06) as shown by the significant
gain in body fat in the CR/HMB-supplemented group compared
with the other groups(P , 0.05).


BCM, TBW, and ICW increased in all groups: 1.7%, 2.0%, and
1.7%, respectively, in the placebo group compared with 3.9% (P ,
0.01), 3.7% (P , 0.001), and 3.9% (P , 0.01) in the CR group,
2.4%, 2.5%, and 2.4% in the HMB group, and 3.8%, 4.6%, and
5.6% in the CR/HMB group. Increases in BCM, TBW, and ICW
in the CR/HMB-supplemented group were additive (CR 3 HMB
main effects P 5 0.65, 0.91, and 0.64, respectively).

Muscle Strength

Maximum muscle strength (1-RM) before and after 3 wk of
exercise is shown in Table V. The accumulative 1-RM strength
increases in the CR-, HMB- and CR/HMB-supplemented groups
were 37.5, 39.1, and 51.9 kg, respectively, above those of the
placebo group after 3 wk (CR and HMB main effect P 5 0.001).
The strength increase in the CR/HMB group showed an additive
effect over CR or HMB supplementation alone (Fig. 1b; CR 3
HMB effect P 5 0.10).

At the beginning of the study, subjects in
the placebo group were stronger than those in the other groups
according to the bench-press and triceps-extension exercises.
HMB supplementation resulted in significant (P , 0.05) increases
in strength in all the exercises measured except the power clean,
which showed a trend for an increase in strength compared with
placebo supplementation. CR supplementation significantly (P ,
0.05) increased strength gains for all exercises except the bench
press and behind-the-neck press compared with placebo
supplementation.

Serum CPK, Creatinine, and Blood Urea Nitrogen

Changes in serum CPK, creatinine, and blood urea nitrogen are
shown in Table VI. Serum CPK levels increased after 2 wk of
exercise in the placebo, CR-, and CR/HMB-supplemented groups
but not in the HMB-supplemented group (Fig. 2). These changes
resulted in a significant HMB effect (P 5 0.01) and a trend for an
interaction when CR also was supplemented (P 5 0.08). By week
3, CPK levels returned to baseline values in the CR-supplemented
group, remained elevated in the placebo and CR/HMBsupplemented
groups, and decreased below screening values in the
HMB-supplemented group, resulting in an interaction (CR 3
HMB effect P 5 0.004).

These data suggest that CR antagonized
the CPK-lowering effect of HMB. Supplementation with CR resulted
in a significant increase in serum creatinine levels at weeks
2 (CR effect P 5 0.002) and 3 (CR effect P 5 0.0001) compared
with subjects not supplemented with CR. There were no effects of
HMB supplementation at 2 and 3 wk. Blood urea nitrogen decreased
by 26% in the HMB-supplemented groups at wk 3 (HMB
main effect P 5 0.02); CR alone had no significant effect on blood
urea nitrogen.

Urinary Creatinine and Urinary Urea Nitrogen

The levels of urinary creatinine and urea nitrogen for all subjects
are shown in Table VI and Fig. 3. Urinary creatinine was significantly
increased in the subjects supplemented with CR compared
with subjects not supplemented with CR (CR main effects P 5
0.04 and 0.0009 for weeks 2 and 3, respectively). Excretion of
urinary urea nitrogen was decreased synergistically by week 2 and
supported by a significant CR 3 HMB interaction (P 5 0.05).
However, by week 3, the synergistic effect was not significant.
HMB supplementation continued to cause a significant decrease in
excretion of urinary urea nitrogen through week 3 (HMB main
effect P 5 0.0001).



DISCUSSION
The major finding of this research was that supplementation with
CR and HMB was additive with regard to increasing LBM and
strength. These observations are consistent with, but do not prove,
the hypothesis that CR and HMB act through distinct mechanisms.
HMB had an acute effect on LBM that was about half the
magnitude of CR. The increase in LBM in the CR/HMB group was
higher than that in the CR and HMB groups (2.39 kg versus 1.77
kg and 1.24 kg, respectively). The increases due to CR and HMB
supplementation were additive because there was no significant
interaction (Fig. 1a).

The strength increase in the CR/HMB group also was shown to
be additive (CR 3 HMB effect P 5 0.10), thus supporting the
concept that CR and HMB have different mechanisms of increasing
strength (Fig. 1b). Greater strength according to the benchpress
and triceps-extension exercises was observed in the placebo
group at screening and appeared to be a random-chance occurrence
because the other strength measurements were not significantly
higher in the placebo group than in the other groups.

The mechanism whereby HMB increases LBM and strength is
proposed to be through a net increase in muscle-protein synthesis
brought about by a decrease in protein degradation. Although not
directly related to muscle-protein turnover, previous studies have
shown that reduced protein degradation is accompanied by a lower
serum-CPK level, CPK being an indicator of muscle-cell membrane
damage.15–17 In this study, there was a significantly lower
increase in serum CPK in week 2 with HMB supplementation
(HMB effect P 5 0.01) and a numerically lower week-3 serum-
CPK concentration (HMB effect P 5 0.21) in comparison with the
non–HMB-supplemented groups. In addition, the 42% decrease in
urinary urea nitrogen and 26% decrease in serum urea nitrogen
with HMB supplementation (Fig. 3) supports the idea of increased
net-protein deposition.

CR supplementation has been proposed to increase LBM by
increasing osmotic pressure in muscle, which increases the water
content of the muscle.1,4,10,11 In this study, a significant increase in
BCM, TBW, and ICW was shown in all groups supplemented with
CR. There also were similarities in all groups between the percentage
of LBM gain and percentage of BCM, TBW, and ICW
increases. In vitro studies have shown that the rate of [3H]leucine
incorporation into heavy-chain myosin increases in skeletal and
cardiac muscles with exposure to CR but that total protein synthesis
does not change.12–14 The increase in muscle strength and LBM
that occurred with CR supplementation in this study may have
been due to this specific increase in muscle-protein synthesis. The
urine-urea data (Table VI) suggest that CR supplementation did
not affect nitrogen retention. However, urine urea nitrogen alone
can be difficult to interpret because of relative nitrogen shifts when
separating urea from ammonia, which can result in changes in
urine urea without changes in total nitrogen output. However, CR
metabolism is not known to affect the shift between urea and
ammonia, so it is unlikely that CR caused a net increase of nitrogen
and most unlikely that it affected net-protein synthesis.

Serum creatinine concentration increased by about 17% in
week 2 in the CR-supplemented groups and remained elevated for
the length of the study. Creatinine has been established as the sole
end product of CR degradation because it is formed nonenzymatically
in an irreversible chemical reaction.2,23 The raised
serum creatinine results from increased muscular CR. Urinary
creatinine increased in the CR-supplemented groups in week 2 as
a result of increased serum creatinine.

CR alone had no effect on CPK levels and seemed to reverse
the protective effect of HMB to about one-half of HMB alone (Fig.
2). This loss of HMB’s ability to protect against the exerciseinduced
rise in CPK when combined with CR could be the result
of mechanisms different from those hypothesized for CR and
HMB.

Dietary analysis of the different groups indicated that the CR
groups had lower caloric intakes of 13% to 20% in week 2 and 7%
to 10% in week 3 in comparison with the placebo and HMB
groups. Although a lower caloric intake should result in a negative
energy balance, fat mass was actually increased in the CRsupplemented
groups compared with the placebo and HMBsupplemented
groups.

Protein intake was also 6% to 14% lower in
the CR groups than the placebo and HMB groups in week 3.
However, total protein intake in all groups was approximately
180% of the recommended daily allowance, suggesting that the
slightly lower protein intake was still well above that required.

In conclusion, we found that HMB and CR increase LBM and
strength in an additive manner during a progressive resistance training
regimen. Although the present data did not determine the
exact mechanisms of CR and HMB action, they are consistant with
previously theoreticized mechanisms, i.e., that HMB increases
LBM by slowing muscle-protein breakdown, whereas CR increases
LBM by increasing cellular water content.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We thank S. M. Baier, J. C. Fuller Jr. and R. H. Minnion for their
collaboration in this investigation.
REFERENCES
1. Balsom PD, Soderlund K, Ekblom B. Creatine in humans with special reference
to creatine supplementation. Sports Med 1994;18:268
2. Bloch K, Schoenheimer R. The metabolic relation of creatine and creatinine
studied with isotopic nitrogen. J Biol Chem 1939;131:111
3. Callmer E, Hagman U, Haraldsdottir J. Proposal for the standardization of
24-hour recall and similar interview methods. Var Foda 1986;4(suppl):259
4. Clarkson PM, Rawson ES. Nutritional supplements to increase muscle mass. Crit
Rev Food Sci Nutr 1999;39:317
5. Earnest CP, Snell PG, Rodriguez R, Almada AL, Mitchell TL. The effect of
creatine monohydrate ingestion on anaerobic power indices, muscular strength
and body composition. Acta Physiol Scand 1995;153:207
6. Florenz AE. Body composition, body composition analyzer, version 2.1. 1998:1
7. Greenhaff PL, Bodin K, Soderlund K, Hultman E. Effect of oral creatine
supplementation on skeletal muscle phosphocreatine resynthesis. Am J Physiol
1994;266:E725
8. Harris RC, Soderlund K, Hultman E. Elevation of creatine in resting and exercised
muscle of normal subjects by creatine supplementation. Clin Sci (Colch)
1992;83:367
9. Hultman E, Soderlund K, Timmons JA, Cederblad G, Greenhaff PL. Muscle
creatine loading in men. J Appl Physiol 1996;81:232
10. Kreider RB. Dietary supplements and the promotion of muscle growth with
resistance exercise. Sports Med 1999;27:97
11. Stone MH, Sanborn K, Smith LL, et al. Effects of in-season (5 weeks) creatine
and pyruvate supplementation on anaerobic performance and body composition
in American football players. Int J Sport Nutr 1999;9:146
12. Ingwall JS, Morales MF, Stockdale FE. Creatine and the control of myosin
synthesis in differentiating skeletal muscle. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1972;69:
2250
13. Ingwall JS, Wildenthal K. Creatine stimulation of myofibrillarprotein synthesis.
J Cell Biol 1974;63:151A
14. Ingwall JS, Wildenthal K. Role of creatine in the regulation of cardiac protein
synthesis. J Cell Biol 1976;68:159
15. Nissen S, Sharp R, Ray M, et al. The effect of the leucine metabolite b-hydroxy
b-methylbutyrate on muscle metabolism during resistance-exercise training.
J Appl Physiol 1996;81:2095
16. Nissen SL, Abumrad NN. Nutritional role of the leucine metabolite b-hydroxyb-
methylbutyrate (HMB). J Nutr Biochem 1997;8:300
17. Panton LB, Rathmacher JA, Baier S, Nissen S. Nutritional supplementation of the
leucine metabolite B-hydroxy B-methylbutyrate (HMB) during resistance training.
Nutrition 2000;16:734
18. Baumgartner RN, Chumlea WC, Roche AF. Bioelectric impedance for body
composition. Exerc Sport Sci Rev 1990;18:193
19. Shizgal HM. Validation of the measurement of body composition from whole
body bioelectric impedance. Infusionstherapie 1990;17(suppl):67
20. Bioelectrical impedance analysis in body composition measurement: National
Institutes of Health Technology Assessment Conference Statement. Am J Clin
Nutr 1996;64(suppl):524S–532S.
21. SAS Institute. SAS user’s guide on statistics. Cary, NC: SAS Institute, 1985
22. Subcommittee on the Tenth Edition of the RDAs. Recommended dietary allowances.
Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1989
23. Hunter A. The physiology of creatine and creatinine. Physiol Rev 1922;2:586

[Paul Stagg]

No, we had to purchase the full study.

Chris

Can you post any information on the study so we can look at it? The author, date, and where it was published? Where we might find an abstract?

Is it the study Slim is posting, or another one? I'm assuming it's another one.

[chris mason]

Can you post any information on the study so we can look at it? The author, date, and where it was published? Where we might find an abstract?

Is it the study Slim is posting, or another one? I'm assuming it's another one.

It is the same study. Lol, I wish we had seen that link we could have saved $25. There are several other studies which can be accessed via the web. I am sorry, but I don't have time to find all of the links and post them here.

Chris

[Slim Schaedle]

It is the same study. Lol, I wish we had seen that link we could have saved $25. There are several other studies which can be accessed via the web. I am sorry, but I don't have time to find all of the links and post them here.

Chris

The only way I got that link is by logging into the university's database.


I guess as an inclusion in tuition, you could say I paid alot more than $25 for it.

lol

[BG5150]

http://journals.ohiolink.edu/ejc/pdf.cgi/Jwko_Ewa.pdf?issn=08999007&issue=v17i7-8&article=558_caailbmsdawp

That should take you to the full PDF version.
Looks like it's only available to students and staff of the colleges.

[Slim Schaedle]

Looks like it's only available to students and staff of the colleges.

I copied and pasted the entire study above, minus any graphs or tables, etc.

[Paul Stagg]

Ignoring the flaws in the study (which are pretty bad, but again, almost all studies like this are):

Unless I'm reading it wrong, and I might be, the effects of Creatine and HMB weren't related except with respect to fat gain. Which tells me the two are not necessarily synergistic, but mearly have effects via different pathways. Later they say there might be some effect of creatine on the CPK limiting effect of HMB, but they seem to waffle on that.

If I don't ignore the flaws in the study, I pretty much stop reading when the diet control consists of telling the participants to eat in the cafeteria, and where they suggest that 1RM testing wouldn't create a training effect in untrained individuals. :)

So based on this info, my answer to the OP would be: We don't know if or how they work synergisticly.

[Slim Schaedle]

If I don't ignore the flaws in the study, I pretty much stop reading when the diet control consists of telling the participants to eat in the cafeteria, and where they suggest that 1RM testing wouldn't create a training effect in untrained individuals. :)

....

Subjects also were excluded if they had participated in
resistance-exercise programs in the previous 6 mo

[Paul Stagg]

Right. So everyone is untrained for at least 6 months. They tested 1RM, and assumed that test wouldn't cause a training effect.

Picking up a pencil after not training for 6 months will create a training effect.

But that's not really the point, because virtually all supplement studies are horribly flawed in a similar manner. What I gather from this one is that Creatine and HMB might work to some degree in untrained individuals, and that they don't appear make the other work better, and they don't appear to interfere with each other. But in order to actually show this in a meaningful way, you would have to perform a much more extensive study.

So it doesn't answer the OPs question.

[Slim Schaedle]

Right. So everyone is untrained for at least 6 months. They tested 1RM, and assumed that test wouldn't cause a training effect.

My bad, I didn't really post that in response to what you said.

Sorry it wasn't clear.

I was just adding to your thoughts about the study design, etc., since any sort of progress or weight gain could be expected from relatively untrained subjects.

But, I edited it out due to caution.

[Paul Stagg]

Caution?

There isn't a rule here about posting something that may agree or disagree with a moderator or anything. Got facts? Post 'em.

[HahnB]

http://www.ironmagazine.com/viewarticle-939.html

"In his book, Phillips quotes a study that was published in the reputable Journal of Applied Physiology (November 1996, Volume 81 (#5): 2095-2104). The study concluded, "Supplementation with either 1.5 or 3.0 grams of HMB per day can partly prevent exercise-induced proteolysis and/or muscle damage and result in larger gains in muscle function associated with resistance training."

Before accepting the conclusion of this single (and oft-quoted) study as proof of HMB's effectiveness, I would suggest that you go look up this study for yourself - but don't go to Pub Med and look at the abstract, go the library or the Journal of Applied physiology webpage where the full text article is published. Here is the link: (just type in the volume and page #'s where it says "By Citation:")
www.jap.org/search.dtl

You don't need to read the whole study - it's pretty boring scientific stuff. What you might want to look at are the sponsors of the study. If you look carefully, you will notice that one of the sponsors of the study is a major supplement company that nearly everyone has heard of (this company happens to sell HMB products).

If you care to do some even more exhaustive investigation, you will find that the researcher who conducted the study happens to own the patent on HMB and his company is also mentioned in the sponsor list.

If you haven't seen the writing on the wall yet, let me spell it out for you: This is what you call bias.

It's not out of the question that those with a vested interest in a product could (1) hire a "rent-a-scientist", (2) influence or manipulate the design or outcome of a study, or (3) be sure that if a study didn't confirm the efficacy of a particular product, that the findings never see the light of day.

Since this 1996 study that created all the hype about HMB, there have been other studies done on HMB. Some showed positive results for HMB. Some showed zero results. One recent study by Kreider, et al (1999) showed that 6 grams of HMB per day for 28 days did nothing to reduce the catabolic effect of weight training in experienced male subjects. (By the way, most of the newer studies that are quoted in recent HMB ads were not published in peer reviewed scientific journals, they were only abstracts.)

There have been some newer studies in the past several years, but none of them were conducted over a significant length of time with well-trained human subjects. Also, many of the more recent studies examined the effect of HMB when combined with other supplements such as creatine, glutamine and or other amino acids. The results of these studies still doesn't show whether HMB is effective by itself.

One last thing: You asked about dosages. In most of the studies that showed positive results, the benefits were dose-dependent. The 1996 Journal of Applied Physiology study looked at doses of 1.5 grams to 3.0 grams and showed better results with 3.0 grams. Later studies showed better results with 6 grams per day than 3 grams per day. HMB is not cheap, so even if you believe you might benefit from HMB supplementation, you have to ask yourself if the product is cost-effective. To confound things even more, the optimal dose simply isn't known. Some studies showed that 6 grams was less effective than 3 grams, but I've heard other people claim that HMB isn't effective until you take 12 grams a day. At that point, the cost would be enough to make the payment for a pretty nice new car!

Basically, the jury is still out on the effectiveness of HMB. There's still no conclusive, scientific proof that HMB works in humans. Most people I've talked to who have tried HMB seem to have been disappointed with the results. Personally, I am still doubtful that HMB is worth the investment. "


He points out some really good flaws with a lot of studies (bolded), and basically sums up my position on HMB. If it was as cheap as creatine, it would be different, but that's far from the case. Actually, I don't use either creatine or HMB because neither is worth the money in my opinion, regardless of price. Apparently once people convince themselves of something in their own head, they'll believe anything.

[Fixxit]

Given the bias in the study and the obvious flaws in reasoning, I am still curious as to why they reduced the protein intake for the CR group.

"Protein intake was also 6% to 14% lower in
the CR groups than the placebo and HMB groups in week 3.
However, total protein intake in all groups was approximately
180% of the recommended daily allowance, suggesting that the
slightly lower protein intake was still well above that required."

What is the purpose for this in only one group? Serious question.

EDIT: The cafeteria food was too funny.

[chris mason]

Given the bias in the study and the obvious flaws in reasoning, I am still curious as to why they reduced the protein intake for the CR group.

"Protein intake was also 6% to 14% lower in
the CR groups than the placebo and HMB groups in week 3.
However, total protein intake in all groups was approximately
180% of the recommended daily allowance, suggesting that the
slightly lower protein intake was still well above that required."

What is the purpose for this in only one group? Serious question.

They didn't reduce it, they were merely noting what was consumed.

The study is not so flawed as is being purported here.

[Fixxit]

As a point of argument, it is flawed. If it were a true scientific study, all of the participants would have consumed the same food, in the same proportions (to body weight/fat), and not some generic term such as "cafeteria food".

The study also seems biased in the direction of taking some couch potato and feeding him a suppliment or two to see if they gained faster than someone that did not take suppliments.

Also, unless I missed it they did not show the percentage of body fat losed/gained int he study.

The phrase "All had been involved in prior exercise but none were highly
trained" also excludes an entire group of people that are truley interested in this type of study. In other words, how about taking 40 weightlifters that have been training for at least 2 years and tossing them in the same study as a completely seperate 4 groups? Now this is a study I would be interested in reading. It would hold alot more credibility to me.

Not to mention protein consumption to body weight ratio. How about how many grams of carbs the consumed? We all know while cutting we tend to drop our intake of carbs and thus less energy. Wouldn't this affect out performance as well as our LBM? I know I drop mass when I cut up.

OK not trying to write a book, but there are many other scientific flaws in this study. I'll point more out if asked, or I'll shut up if proven wrong.

[chris mason]

As a point of argument, it is flawed. If it were a true scientific study, all of the participants would have consumed the same food, in the same proportions (to body weight/fat), and not some generic term such as "cafeteria food".

The study also seems biased in the direction of taking some couch potato and feeding him a suppliment or two to see if they gained faster than someone that did not take suppliments.

Also, unless I missed it they did not show the percentage of body fat losed/gained int he study.

The phrase "All had been involved in prior exercise but none were highly
trained" also excludes an entire group of people that are truley interested in this type of study. In other words, how about taking 40 weightlifters that have been training for at least 2 years and tossing them in the same study as a completely seperate 4 groups? Now this is a study I would be interested in reading. It would hold alot more credibility to me.

Not to mention protein consumption to body weight ratio. How about how many grams of carbs the consumed? We all know while cutting we tend to drop our intake of carbs and thus less energy. Wouldn't this affect out performance as well as our LBM? I know I drop mass when I cut up.

OK not trying to write a book, but there are many other scientific flaws in this study. I'll point more out if asked, or I'll shut up if proven wrong.

Lol, nothing can be perfect. What is the purpose of the study? What is relevant to the results?

They were looking at what results adding the supplements would have to a viable sample size of individuals. They looked at overall results. What you perceive as a flaw isn't necessarily so.

Think of it this way, if I gave supplement X to 30 individuals over a given period of time and they all increased their lifts to a significantly greater degree than a control group that did not get supplement X what would you think of supplement X?


Any, 'nuff said on this topic for me.

[Fixxit]

I get ya, and the geek in me sometimes takes things way too seriously. I guess I just get peeved sometimes when people take a so called, Scientific Experiment too seriously, when all they need do is look at how askew the data are. /rage

On another note. I am really glad I found y'all. This forum is way more than I expected. Happy to be aboard.

[chris mason]

I get ya, and the geek in me sometimes takes things way too seriously. I guess I just get peeved sometimes when people take a so called, Scientific Experiment too seriously, when all they need do is look at how askew the data are. /rage

On another note. I am really glad I found y'all. This forum is way more than I expected. Happy to be aboard.

Thank you for being here!

[Bupp]

The amount of weight they gained over a 3-week period is pretty impressive. Especially if it was LBM.

Does water weight get included in LBM though? I remember reading that alot of people put on water when they start creatine supplementation.

[HahnB]

"Supplementing with CR significantly increased LBM (CR main effect P 5 0.0005), and HMB supplementation tended to increase LBM gain in 3 wk"

lol, right. What more do you guys need!!! A study that says creatine significantly increased LMB in a 3 week period! I don't know about you, but I'm convinced.

[Paul Stagg]

Chris - if you used a sample size of 30 random people and had strict controls, the study would be statistically meaningful.

The one posted just isn't. There's a simple statistics test - if n is less than 30, the results can not be used to determine causality or correllation. (there are ways that it can be meaningful if it passes another test or two)

That doesn't mean one can't infer something from it (the p values, even with the small sample size, suggest a larger more controlled study would be in order), just that one can't say it proves anything one way or the other. I'd like to know what the standard deviations are, as well as some other significance tests (t and z, for example). But I don't, probably because they would show what we already know, that the number of test subjects was too small.

[chris mason]

Chris - if you used a sample size of 30 random people and had strict controls, the study would be statistically meaningful.

The one posted just isn't. There's a simple statistics test - if n is less than 30, the results can not be used to determine causality or correllation. (there are ways that it can be meaningful if it passes another test or two)

That doesn't mean one can't infer something from it (the p values, even with the small sample size, suggest a larger more controlled study would be in order), just that one can't say it proves anything one way or the other. I'd like to know what the standard deviations are, as well as some other significance tests (t and z, for example). But I don't, probably because they would show what we already know, that the number of test subjects was too small.

We can agree to disagree.

[Belial]

Chris - if you used a sample size of 30 random people and had strict controls, the study would be statistically meaningful.

The one posted just isn't. There's a simple statistics test - if n is less than 30, the results can not be used to determine causality or correllation. (there are ways that it can be meaningful if it passes another test or two)



Aw Paul, you sound like our senior statisticians when they blast all our proposed Phase Is.

[Paul Stagg]

Aw Paul, you sound like our senior statisticians when they blast all our proposed Phase Is.

Sorry. It is what it is.

[Belial]

I know. Just making reference to the fact that supp studies have such small dosing arms because they're done on a shoestring budget.

The idea is to do just what you said: justify further study with what seems to be a significant trend.

[Slim Schaedle]

Chris,

Can you shed any light on HMB's role in protein breakdown in relation to the ubiquitin proteasome proteolytic pathway, or protein synthesis in regards to the mTOR pathway?

[the doc]

I'll say this about >95% of the studies I have seen on supplement effects. Most of them are far to small and with numerous problem in design to take what they conclude as fact. There have been a few though, such as those on beta alanine and creatine, that are done well enough to suggest that a modest expenditure for a trial of the supp might be in order (depending on the value of such gains to the consumer). I would count these in that category.

[Slim Schaedle]

Chris,

Can you shed any light on HMB's role in protein breakdown in relation to the ubiquitin proteasome proteolytic pathway, or protein synthesis in regards to the mTOR pathway?

Bump

[Paul Stagg]

I'll say this about >95% of the studies I have seen on supplement effects. Most of them are far to small and with numerous problem in design to take what they conclude as fact. There have been a few though, such as those on beta alanine and creatine, that are done well enough to suggest that a modest expenditure for a trial of the supp might be in order (depending on the value of such gains to the consumer). I would count these in that category.

We also know why creatine works. Much like knowing why gasoline will burn.

[Belial]

why gasoline will burn.

It doesn't burn. Find me a study that says it does, I'll find one five years older that says it doesn't. Not only that, but I'll reinforce my study with a rudimentary knowledge of p values and a complete misapplication of tangentially related first year college chemistry.

[curiosity]

"Supplementing with CR significantly increased LBM (CR main effect P 5 0.0005), and HMB supplementation tended to increase LBM gain in 3 wk"

lol, right. What more do you guys need!!! A study that says creatine significantly increased LMB in a 3 week period! I don't know about you, but I'm convinced.
Theyre actually right about LBM gains, but be aware LBM isnt muscle mass. Water can constitute to LBM gains as any mass thats fat free can be called LBM or FFS

Especially if its creatine mono (yes i know some people get bloat and others dont)

This is why its generally misleading, until i see someone say Lean Muscle not Lean Bodymass then ill start jumping for joy :read:

[Paul Stagg]

It doesn't burn. Find me a study that says it does, I'll find one five years older that says it doesn't. Not only that, but I'll reinforce my study with a rudimentary knowledge of p values and a complete misapplication of tangentially related first year college chemistry.

I must defer to you, because you bench more than me.

[Belial]

I love the internet.

[chris mason]

It doesn't burn. Find me a study that says it does, I'll find one five years older that says it doesn't. Not only that, but I'll reinforce my study with a rudimentary knowledge of p values and a complete misapplication of tangentially related first year college chemistry.

:)

Sooooooo true. Never mind the fact you just threw a match on it and it burned. It must have been something on the ground which ignited it and not the gas...

[Travis Bell]

It doesn't burn. Find me a study that says it does, I'll find one five years older that says it doesn't. Not only that, but I'll reinforce my study with a rudimentary knowledge of p values and a complete misapplication of tangentially related first year college chemistry.

hahaha. nice

[chris mason]

We also know why creatine works. Much like knowing why gasoline will burn.


Actually, you don't know why it works in totality. Why exactly it induces hypertrophy is not known for sure.

That said, there are a million studies showing it increases size and strength. So, the fact the exact mechanism by which it induces hypertrophy is not definitively known in no way precludes the fact that it does. Remind you of any discussions?

[Slim Schaedle]

It doesn't burn. Find me a study that says it does, I'll find one five years older that says it doesn't. Not only that, but I'll reinforce my study with a rudimentary knowledge of p values and a complete misapplication of tangentially related first year college chemistry.


:)

Sooooooo true. Never mind the fact you just threw a match on it and it burned. It must have been something on the ground which ignited it and not the gas...

hahahahahaha

Chris...um....you might want to read Belial's post much more closely.

You might not be putting smilely faces in your posts and agreeing with him if you understood what he was saying.

lol

[Built]

Oh dear!

LOL!

That reminds me of the time Brigitte Bardot wore a button that said "Save our Swilers" - she was in Newfoundland defending baby seals from the hunt when one of the guys gave her that button to wear.

Turns out a swiler is someone who hunts baby seals... http://www.novanewsnow.com/article-179073-Warring-over-seals.html

[Davey]

so any more information on HMB since the last post?

I searched for that term on here and there doesn't seem to be much information about it.

So is HMB like glutamine, in that it is a ripoff?

[Pimpstick]

Dude, you picked the worst thread in the history of this site to bring back. Let it die PLEASE.