Search

The dietary supplement beta-hydroxy-beta-methylbutyrate (HMB) is claimed to increase strength, lean body mass, and decrease fat mass when used in conjunction with resistance training. Although there is some support for these claims, the evidence is not conclusive, and it is even less so for resistance trained individuals. Therefore, we aimed to further elucidate the effects of HMB supplementation in trained men. A randomized, double-blind, controlled study design was used to investigate the effects of supplementing 22 resistance trained men with 3 g.d of HMB or corn starch placebo for 9 weeks with resistance training. The effect of HMB on strength was determined using the 1-repetition maximum (1RM) method for the lower body (leg extension) and upper body (bench press, bicep preacher curl) at baseline and after the supplementation period. Body composition was assessed by skinfolds and bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA). Overall, 9 weeks' HMB supplementation resulted in a clear-cut, trivial increase in combined averaged strength measures of 1.6% (90% confidence limits: +/-4.3%). When considered in isolation, however, leg extension 1RM increased by a substantial 9.1% (90% confidence limits: +/-7.5%), but the effect on upper-body strength was inconclusive (bench press: -1.9 +/- 9.3%; bicep curl: -1.7 +/- 4.7%). Based on BIA estimates, HMB had a decreasing (although inconclusive) influence on fat mass of -9 +/- 14%, but it had a clear, trivial effect on fat-free mass of 0.2 +/- 2.2%. The magnitude of change in body mass was trivial, but the probability of substantial reductions in skinfold thicknesses ranged from negligible to likely. In previously trained men, supplementation of HMB in conjunction with resistance training provides a substantial benefit to lower-body strength, but it has negligible effects on body composition.

Beta-hydroxy-beta-methylbutyrate (HMB) is a popular supplement in the resistance training community, with its use supported by claims of increased strength, muscle growth, and improved recovery; however, research outcomes are variable. Therefore, we meta-analyzed the effectiveness of HMB on strength, body composition, and muscle damage. Nine qualifying studies yielded 14 comparisons subcategorized by training experience (trained, untrained) to provide 12-13 estimates of strength (upper body, lower body, overall average), 13 estimates of fat and fat-free mass, and 7 estimates of the muscle-damage marker creatine kinase. The meta-analysis comprised 394 subjects (age 23 +/- 2 years, mean +/- between-study SD) with 5 +/- 2 weeks' intervention and 5 +/- 6 h.wk of training. The estimates were analyzed using a meta-analytic mixed model with study sample size as the weighting factor that included the main-effect covariates to control for between-study differences in HMB dose, intervention duration, training load, and dietary cointervention. To interpret magnitudes, meta-analyzed effects were standardized using the composite baseline between-subject SD and were qualified using modified Cohen effect size thresholds. There were small benefits to lower-body (mean +/- 90% confidence limit: 9.9% +/- 5.9%) and average strength (6.6 +/- 5.7%), but only negligible gains for upper-body strength (2.1 +/- 5.5%) were observed in untrained lifters. In trained lifters, all strength outcomes were trivial. Combined (all studies), the overall average strength increase was trivial (3.7 +/- 2.4%), although uncertainty allows for a small benefit. Effects on fat and fat-free mass were trivial, and results regarding creatine kinase were unclear. Supplementation with HMB during resistance training incurs small but clear overall and leg strength gains in previously untrained men, but effects in trained lifters are trivial. The HMB effect on body composition is inconsequential. An explanation for strength gains in previously untrained lifters requires further research.