posted June 16, 2000 05:14 PM            

by David Greenwalt B.Sc.

In the January 1996 No. 47 issue of Muscle Media 2000 Bill Phillips unleased a new supplement which he believes will be one of the best supplements for bodybuilders on the market today. What is it? Beta-hydroxy beta-methylbutyrate, (HMB). HMB is a leucine (one of the branched chain amino acids) metabolite. Bill makes reference to a study conducted at Iowa State University and the positive effects observed by the persons conducting the study on healthy weight lifters. The abstract of the study was presented at the June 2, 1995 conference for the American College of Sports Medicine in Minneapolis, Minnesota. HMB is not new, however, the findings reported in the abstract are. Let's take a look at it and decide for ourselves.

41 healthy males were randomly assigned to receive either 0, 1.5 or 3 grams of HMB per day in orange juice. Diets were meat-free for 3 days each week during which blood and urine were collected. The abstract states that body composition was measured, however, it doesn't state what the body comps were for each individual. The subjects were weight-trained 3 times per week for three weeks. The final numbers and conclusions of the abstract were that the group who consumed 3 grams per day of HMB showed a 55% increase (over the control) in lean tissue over the 3 week study. They conclude that HMB appears to partially protect muscle damage and proteolysis (break down of protein into amino acids) associated with strenuous muscle exercise and in turn may lead to more rapid lean tissue gain.

The changes in lean mass were as follows for each group respectively: The control ( 0 grams of HMB per day) group showed a.4kg increase in lean mass, the 1.5g HMB group showed a .8kg increase in lean mass and the 3g HMB group showed a 1.2kg increase on average. There was also a measured strength increase which appeared to be dose dependent, however, how they arrived at the increase is still unknown to me so I won't print it here.

Sounds pretty impressive so far doesn't it? Finally, we have a study with a control group using healthy weight lifters to determine, not how much hair we can grow on the left index finger or whether our skin will be silky smooth after use but to determine whether a positive nitrogen balance could be obtained and to determine whether body composition and strength changed in the healthy male weight-lifter supplemented with HMB. It hits pretty close to home.

Some questions which come to mind don't dampen my spirits, but I do feel they are legitimate. The abstract states the group started with 41 males. It doesn't say how many they finished with. It also doesn't state whether the test subjects were screened for drug use prior to the study and during the study. It's not necessarily normal for healthy weight lifters to consume meat-free diets for three days a week unless of course you're a vegetarian. These are potentially small questions which may be explained by a more detailed description of the study and how it was conducted but for now this is what we have.

Bill Phillips also states in MM2K that a patent is owned by the Iowa State University Research Foundation and has been licensed to Metabolic Technologies Inc. regarding the nutritional use of HMB for promoting nitrogen retention. This is true, however, he states that if a product doesn't have the patent #5,348,979 on the bottle it's a fake and don't buy it. What this infers to most readers is that this patent protects the manufacture of HMB. It doesn't. What it does protect is the nutritional uses of HMB for promoting nitrogen retention and the explanation of those methods. You will see other companies coming out with HMB. I'm not an attorney but a "Use" patent is not the same as a "Manufacturing" patent. Other companies will be coming out with HMB and it will be legitimate. One company, MET-Rx, already has legitimate HMB in their High Performance Series MET-Rx with HMB and others will follow in the months to come.

The abstract pertaining to the patent described above is rather interesting and describes a positive nitrogen balance and the benefits obtained therefrom. It states that "This invention relates to the promotion of nitrogen retention in humans, and more particularly to the administration of therapeutic agents for this purpose." So what? Well read on...

Tissue proteins form the basis for organ structure and function. Excessive losses of tissue protein can compromise organ function and eventually will result in death. Any stressful situation such as trauma and chronic debilitating diseases results in tissue losses that if sustained can compromise organ function. In most cases nutrition alone cannot prevent this tissue loss because of excessive breakdown of tissue proteins. Thus, alternatives to nutrition must be used to abate or slow the protein wasting or excessive loss of body nitrogen.

Nitrogen balance is the difference between the nitrogen intake (as protein or amino acids) in an individual and the total nitrogen excretion. When the nitrogen intake equals the nitrogen excretion, the subject is in nitrogen equilibrium. If the nitrogen intake exceeds the nitrogen excretion, the nitrogen balance is positive, but if the nitrogen excretion is greater than the nitrogen intake, the nitrogen balance is negative. Nitrogen balance can be estimated by monitoring urinary nitrogen.

Promoting nitrogen retention has therapeutic importance where the patient has been subjected to trauma or stress conditions which can be expected to induce potential loss. Injury (surgical, traumatic, and burn) result in accelerated protein breakdown, which is manifested by increased nitrogen loss. Catabolic conditions are also frequently associated with severe bodily diseases such as cancer, AIDS, etc. Loss of muscle protein may occur due to normal aging, and consequently, protein sparing therapy may be indicated for elderly patients who are otherwise normal.

Further descriptions of the tested and proven benefits of HMB administration for improved nitrogen retention and reduction of muscle loss and wasting during stress and non stress situations are also given. HMB appears, from the data we have at hand, to be orally effective for promoting nitrogen retention. It is not known to be toxic in doses up to 10 grams per 24 hour period or to have any undesirable side effects. The preferable dosage is 2-6 grams per day in divided amounts. It can be safely administered to persons afflicted with trauma, stress or other catabolic conditions, including people undergoing semi-starvation. HMB can also be used in conjunction with weight loss programs where it is desired to minimize loss of tissue protein. In general, the method of this invention can be used to improve nitrogen balance for human subjects whenever it is medically desirable to counter urinary nitrogen loss which cannot be overcome nutritionally.

Wow! Was that a mouth-full or what? Isn't improved nitrogen retention one of the reasons or the main reason we consume larger quantities of protein powders and foods containing quality proteins? Yes it is. Does HMB sound promising? Yes it does. Has anyone tried it yet? Yes, I have. I've only been using it for 11 days as I write this, however, and I feel it's too early to comment one way or another at this time. I will keep you updated though. I expect I will know whether it's going to work for me in another 2 weeks or so. It doesn't mean that if it doesn't work for me that it won't work for someone else. I've been burned in that arena too many times before. We're all different and certain chemicals affect us all differently. Until then, please let me know by writing, faxing or however you can if HMB is working for you or what you've noticed anecdotally. It's expensive right now. Hopefully the costs will come down in the near future.

DID IT WORK OR DIDN'T IT?

Well, as you know from the last newsletter I tried HMB, the next proposed miracle supplement from Bill Phillips of Muscle Media 2000. As I stated in last months issue I wanted to give HMB a fair shake before telling you all what I thought of it. After just under four weeks of use I have to say that I wasn't impressed. On paper HMB sounded great and we even have two studies now which allegedly show the positive effects in body weight and strength for the study participants. I, however, did not experience the same positive results as those in the study. I can't say I experienced any results. Bill Phillips states in his 1996 Supplement Review, a new book just released by his organization, that he put on four pounds of lean mass the first month and four pounds the second month. He rates HMB a solid "A" for grade. It's possible it got rated a solid "A" because he has an exclusive to sell HMB right now. Maybe it really did work for him. Time will tell with HMB.

I know one thing for certain. After a few hundred of you try HMB, whether it's from Phillips or from us after we get it in stock you'll definitely let me know what you think of it and for that I am grateful. Your empirical evidence is one of the truest measures of a product's efficacy I know of. Studies can mount but if the masses don't agree or feel the difference the studies don't mean squat. Studies can also be manipulated. None of this is to say that the studies associated with HMB thus far were poorly administered. It just means that two positive studies don't balance my poor response. Bioindividuality may be the limiting factor here and if that's the case it will work for a good portion of you. There are those of you who tell me creatine doesn't work for you. This is almost mind boggling to me because it works so well for me and others but I believe that it may not for a few. Vanadyl is another product that works great for me but some of you stated you feel nothing. We're all the same and at the same time we're all a different animal.

Since December 1995, when these articles were originally written, a lot has happened with HMB and thousands of people have had the chance to use HMB in capsule form. Basically, in a nutshell, HMB capsules work for a placebo amount of about 30% of the people using it. Placebo can account, easily, for up to 30% of any product's success. HMB capsules fall into this category. HMB has been hyped, torn apart, put back together and torn apart again in the bodybuilding periodicals and it hasn't changed the fact that most users simply don't notice the gains that Bill Phillips professed to us in the latter part of 1995.

UPDATE JULY 1997

HMB: The Final Word

Twinlab finally paid enough money to uncle Bill to get their hands on some HMB and so have released several new HMB-containing products. HMB, short for beta-hydroxy-beta-methylbutyrate, was proclaimed to be the next creatine monohydrate by Bill Phillips of Muscle Media back in 1995. In the present article writer Dennis Sparkman tells the story of the infamous study that gave HMB all the unwarranted attention its gotten for the past two years.

Big Bill proclaimed on the cover of his January 1996 issue of Muscle Media 2000, "HMB: New Drug-Free Mass Builder! This Stuff Works BIG TIME!". He also wrote on page 46 of the same issue "So you wanna build more muscle size and strength... But you don't want to use anabolic steroids (or you can't get em)...Whatta ya do? Don't give up! Scientists have just discovered that a new, breakthrough supplement called "HMB" may help make your "Bodybuilding Dreams" come true!"

Prior to the January 1996 issue, however, many of you may not remember that Bill wrote in the September 1995 issue this wonderful quote, "Now, I'm about to tell you the most confidential information I know, but mark my words.. by the year 2005 you'll be able to look back at the late 1990s and see the incredible impact made on drug-free muscle building by two agents knows as IPF and HMB. Remember you heard it here first!!" IPF of course the compound never released called Insulin Potentiating Factor. Then, in the February 1996 issue of Muscle Media 2000 came the line that killed Phillips' as even a remotely unbiased source of information. In the middle of Dan Duchaine's Alternatives column, on page 41, Dan wrote "A few months later, I received a query from Bill Phillips asking if I would be interested in doing an article on HMB. Scrawled across the page, handwritten, was the terse message: "Been using it for three weeks, feels like Deca [Durabolin]." The "feels like Deca" marketing bomb launched sales of HMB into the stratosphere but the fallout has hurt Phillips seriously. Bill is rich, famous in the small bodybuilding community and successful, but what he lost, publishing the "Feels like Deca" comment was the trust and respect of thousands of bodybuilders who bought the HMB and didn't think it felt like Deca. As sneaky as it was, "Feels like Deca" has stayed with the Muscle Media group like "I'll be back" has stayed with Arnold from the successful Terminator movie.

As one of the first people to try HMB I started taking it in the latter part of 1995. I took it as directed, 1 gram taken 3 times per day. I initially reported about HMB in the December 1995 issue of "Dave's Power Store News" and subsequently reported my results and the results of some close and trusted friends in the January 1996 issue. So about the time Bill was launching HMB sales skyward through marketing hype, I alread knew the truth and reported it then.

Thousands have now had the opportunity to try HMB over the past two years and we've listened to the comments of these buyers. Without a doubt, HMB, in capsule form, is overwhelmingly a farce, ineffective, and as close to placebo as I've seen I started The Power Store in 1992. I received zero benefits in muscularity, strength or fat loss while taking HMB and over 70% of users, since I first took HMB, have agreed wholeheartedly with my findings. While some 30% may report favorably, placebo affects can easily account for the entire 30% of the positive affects. In other words, the 30% could just as well be taking a sugar pill and get the same "effects" they report from taking HMB in capsule form. These poor souls are, in all likelihood, probably one step away from becoming the next "Heaven's Gate" disciples of recent illfated fame. Castrate yourself! O.K.. Take poison, kill yourself, leave your friends and family behind, and let's go for a ride on a spaceship! O.K.. Take HMB and you will grow big time! O.K..

Now let's go back to where we started and talk about Twinlab's release of their HMB versions. It's been almost two years since Bill first uttered the HMB word and books and magazines have dissected HMB to the best of their biased, flacid and impotent ability. Hell, Bill even tricked the Associated Press into running a national press release regarding HMB's purported effects at raising fat-free mass in humans. Anyway, the study Twinlab is reporting on was published in a 1996 issue of the Journal of Applied Physiology.

The study enrolled 6 groups of young men, who obviously were very untrained individuals with little experience in weight lifting, regardless of what the study may report. Here's why. They exercised 10 times in three weeks. They would warm up and then do 3-5 sets of 90% of 1 rep max work. All groups, placebo and HMB supplemented, lost weight. Huh? Why would intermediate or advanced lifters lose weight from exercising 3 times per week? All groups got stronger during the three week study. Huh? How much stronger can someone get in three weeks when they're an intermediate or advanced lifter? In the end the HMB supplemented group was reported to have gained more fat-free mass and to be stronger than the placebo group. The researchers believe it's related to a decrease in muscle tissue breakdown in the HMB-supplemented group.

Now let's clear it up and finish this nightmare. Regardless of what Dr. Nissen, the preeminent researcher for HMB says and regardless of what protocol the study reports it's obvious that the individuals enrolled in this study were newbies. Hell, they were greenhorns in the first degree! If they weren't greenhorns they were typical gym pussies who wouldn't know intensity if it bit them on the ear and tore a chunk out like Tyson did to Holyfield recently. The test subjects either fell into one of two categories: brand new lifter; jaw-flapping wuss. Period. Why? Because intermediate and advanced lifters don't lose weight working out 3 days per week unless calories are cut and intermediate and advanced lifters don't get between 8% and 18.4% stronger in 3 weeks unless they just started a steroid cycle or they recently started creatine monohydrate supplementation. That's it! Period. The only people who will lose weight by working out hard or gain fat-free mass this quickly, by doing the same, are newbies!

Newbies, or a brand new lifter, will get stronger, possibly lose weight and put on fat-free mass if they eat Ho Hos three times per day. Newbies can do almost everything wrong and still blow away the gains of an intermediate or advanced lifter. While the intermediate or advanced lifter struggles to add 1 pound of lean mass per year, a newbie can add 1 pound per month! Now, to keep things in perspective, I need to add that an intermediate or advanced lifter may have added between 25% and 40% to his original lean mass and may be a very large or extremely muscular person by the time these gains come screeching to a hault. So to clarify, I'm not saying a newbie looks better or is stronger than an intermediate or advanced lifter, I'm simply saying the initial newbie gains are biggest and they slow dramatically after year number 2. In the beginning the muscle adapts and part of the adaptation is growth of bigger and stronger muscle tissue. At some point, after years of punishment, the muscle quits hypertrophying (growing larger). The rate limiting factor (RLF) for why this occurs is unknown, however there are few things we can do to overcome it.

Bill Phillips, Twinlab or any other company manufacturing HMB for the lifter can stand on a stack of HMB studies for all I care. The studies are flawed for the purposes of the lifter who needs it most- the intermediate and advanced lifter. Telling us a newbie will gain fat-free mass by taking a supplement is absolutely worthless. And I mean worthless. It means nothing! They would gain regardless. HMB can be shown to inhibit the release of 1000 different chemicals from the muscle purported to indicate muscle protein breakdown and I could care less. The muscle is supposed to release chemicals when we damage it. It's supposed to get damaged so it can be repaired stronger. Our body does a wonderful job of doing this until we reach our genetic limit. When we reach this advanced level we can damage the hell out of it but we don't appear to repair it stronger and bigger any more. Sometimes, at this level, we damage it so much it gets severly injured and tears from its insertion or origin. We really don't want to reduce the damage, we just want the compensation of growing it bigger and stronger to continue. Currently, at this advanced stage, the only way to push your body to grow bigger muscle is by sticking a 22 guage needle in your ass or you fine tune your diet and supplements as best you can and hope for the best, slow but progressive gains. That's it!

HMB doesn't work any better in 1997 than it did in 1995. Twinlab can come out with it and a thousand others can too. HMB, in supplemental form, will not assist the intermediate or advanced lifter gain lean mass or lose body fat.

What EAS has resorted to is mixing the HMB with creatine monohydrate. Since creatine works so well and HMB sucks they figure they can fool the buyer into thinking it must be the combination of HMB and creatine that's giving them the results. Wrong! It's just the creatine.

The only product I've seen, which contains HMB and has gotten positive but still mixed reviews from users is MET-Rx with HMB. Last year we took a survey which indicated that some 70% of users were very happy with MET-Rx with HMB. I've used it and like it as well. Is there truly a difference between the combination MET-Rx with HMB has come up with and HMB in capsule form? I don't know. I responded better to MET-Rx with HMB and others reported the same. This, in no way, indicates it to be fact, however. I'm not sure if I've made my self clear here so let me say something one more time."HMB IN CAPSULE FORM SUCKS!"(Sparkman, D., "HMB: Anticatabolic Supplement Increases Strength and Muscle Mass", ANMD, August 1997:164)

posted June 18, 2000 03:06 PM            

All I can say is that if you're a bodybuilder deficient in leucine, (or any other amino acid) you need to have your head and diet examined!! No serious bodybuilder is going to skimp on their protein. So even on theoretical grounds HMB sucks for BB. It may still have some effectiveness in true wasting diseases, or where malnutrition is a real problem, but not healthy weight-trainers. Save your money to spend on protein.

------------------
The Mad Scientist

posted June 21, 2000 07:41 PM            

------------------
{{-}}

posted June 21, 2000 08:46 PM            

Effects of calcium beta-hydroxy-beta-methylbutyrate (HMB) supplementation
during resistance-training on markers of catabolism, body composition and
strength.
AUTHORS:
Kreider RB; Ferreira M; Wilson M; Almada AL
AUTHOR AFFILIATION:
Department of Human Movement Sciences & Education, The University of
Memphis, TN 38152, USA. [email protected]
SOURCE:
Int J Sports Med 1999 Nov;20(8):503-9
CITATION IDS:
PMID: 10606212 UI: 20072228
ABSTRACT:
Calcium beta-hydroxy-beta-methylbutyrate (HMB) supplementation has been
reported to reduce muscle catabolism and promote gains in fat-free mass and
strength in subjects initiating training. However, whether HMB
supplementation promotes these adaptations in trained athletes is less clear.
This study examined the effects of HMB (as the calcium salt) supplementation
during resistance training (6.9+/-0.7 hr x wk(-1)) on markers of catabolism,
body composition and strength in experienced resistance-trained males. In a
double-blind and randomized manner, 40 experienced resistance-trained
athletes were matched and assigned to supplement their diet for 28 d with a
fortified carbohydrate/protein powder containing either 0, 3 or 6 g x d(-1) of
calcium HMB. Fasting venous blood and urine samples, dual energy X-ray
absorptiometer-determined body composition, and isotonic bench press and leg
press one repetition maximums (1 RM) were determined prior to and following
28 d of supplementation. HMB supplementation resulted in significant
increases in serum and urinary HMB concentrations. However, no statistically
significant differences were observed in general markers of whole body
anabolic/catabolic status, muscle and liver enzyme efflux, fat/bone-free mass,
fat mass, percent body fat, or 1 RM strength. Results indicate that 28 d of
HMB supplementation (3 to 6 g x d(-1)) during resistance-training does not
reduce catabolism or affect training-induced changes in body composition and
strength in experienced resistance-trained males.