USAWA

You crack me up about the steroids comment. LOL Spot on! But I’d actually take that one a step farther…If any of us start taking a supplement (sans steroids, of course), and we think we’re getting stronger from it, how do we know that to be true?

Consider that the reason you train is to make gains. And as anyone who’s spent any time under a barbell knows, the body goes through cycles that are hard to predict. So once you start taking whatever supplement, how do you know that you’re not just experiencing a training gain and the supplement has nothing at all to do with it?

And let me pose this rhetorical question as well. How much of a gain beyond the training gain you’d expect anyway is necessary for you to consider the supplement to be worth the cost?

Take creatine as an example. It’s clear that this supplement will make you stronger (IF you’re a responder; about 1/3 of people out there are considered non-responders; interesting stuff on that in JOPP). There’s some variability in the research, but you could expect about a 3 rep or so gain, and maybe in the neighborhood of 10-15 pounds on 1-RM. Is that worth 50 bucks? Not to me. But it’s a personal decision.

But this is less personal a decision. A few years back we reviewed a study in JOPP that found some manufacturers’ creatine to contain anabolic androgenic steroids. I’d posit, not a worthwhile chance to take if you compete in a drug tested organization. But hey, that’s just me.

And that brings me to the final point on supplements…the label. Independent labs have found over and over again that supplements do not contain what the label claims. From my experience, it seems to be around 30% to 35% of supplements on the shelves that don’t contain what’s claimed. Yeah, I’m gonna spend money on something that holds a 30% chance of not being what I think it is. How many of you would go to a restaurant where there’s but a 20% chance that when you order a steak, potatoes, and beer, that instead you’ll get a salad and water? Tssss…

A final point on the placebo. We also reviewed work on the placebo effect in JOPP. It’s a true and measurable phenomenon. In fact, this study found the placebo effect to be much greater than the effect that most people get out of creatine.

Hey, how ’bout one of you guys giving me a beer at the Dino Challenge and telling me that the hops was grown in a lab where the light emits anabolic properties, thus the beer will make me stronger? YEAH!

Theres more useful information about supplements in those last two posts than the ENTIRE last issue of Mens Health!!

Magazines that are sponsored by supplement companies (by paying advertisements) NEVER tell the whole truth! Dinoman

Oh, one more point about supplements not containing what’s on the label…or in this case more than what’s on the label.

The IOC commissioned a study a few years back, that we of course reviewed in JOPP. They wanted to know how many supplements out there might contain trace elements of anabolic androgenic steroids that would pop an athlete positive. The university that conducted the study randomly chose supplements from all sorts of countries around the world.

Of course the American supplements were the most contaminated at 18% of the samples taken.

I believe that HMB does help me with reducing soreness.

Dan – What did Metabolic Industries’ research on HMB show?

Lance, as a seasoned lifter, I wonder why you’re still getting sore. Perhaps you’re training too hard, something that doesn’t provide any gains anyway and should be avoided. So you might want to look at that. Also, DOMS (Delayed Onset Muscle Soreness) isn’t necessarily a bad thing or anything to be concerned about, other than it reducing your muscles’ force producing capacities. So again, training to failure not a good thing, but just being sore…who cares?

As to HMB and soreness, a study published in the International Journal of Sports Nutrition and Exercise Metabolism in 2001 found HMB not to reduce muscle damage indicators (e.g., muscle soreness). Another study published in 2005, in the same journal, looked at DOMS and found positive results. However, the subjects only did one bout of eccentric contractions, such as the lowering phase in a curl, which is known to induce a great deal of muscle damage. They trained these poor subjects into the ground, especially considering that they had no weight training experience. Problem 1: You don’t train that way (or at least you absolutely shouldn’t if you want to make gains). Problem 2: The scientists experimented with a concoction of HMB and KIC (alpha-ketoisocaproic acid). So we don’t know which one of the two contributed to the findings, or one over the other, or if they’re both needed to be effective, etc.

Regarding that company, I have no idea what research they may or may not have conducted. I tend to focus on peer-reviewed research published by independent scientists who have nothing to lose or gain from whether their findings are positive or negative. Sorry.

Here is a link to a recent study on HMB:

http://www.mti-hmb.com/uploads/documents/blog_articles/WIlsonHMBFree_Acid_acute_4B98F17514092.pdf

Lance, thanks for forwarding this to us. I don’t have the time right now for a detailed analysis of this research, so I went directly to the Method section to see what “high-volume resistance training”means. After all, it would be important to know how similar/dissimilar the training was compared to what a strength athlete such as us would do in order to get a sense of what we might be able to expect from this supplement.

Bottom line, they trained with very light weight for high repetitions and it appears that they trained by taking each set to failure. A serious problem, however, is that although the subjects used a weight identified as 12-RM, we don’t know how many reps they actually did per set. The assumption is that they went to failure on each set, but we don’t know that. Assuming that they did, this is a highly ineffective approach when maximal gains in strength and power is sought; training to failure produces less gains that not training to failure.

Another problem is that the scientists determined 1-RM, but did not determine 12-RM. So how did they know what amount of weight to have each subject lift? Also, there was only 1 minute of rest given between sets. Research is clear that this is ineffective in terms of maximal training gains. Still, it might be interesting to see how HMB might impact that sort of training approach.

At any rate, I see little resemblance here to how any of us would train, nor any serious athlete in any of the strength/power sports. Therefore I wouldn’t give too much to these findings.

The only thing in this research that’s notable is the change in creatine kinase (CK). Exercise scientists look at CK levels as a way to see how much muscle damage might have occurred, due to, as an example, a particular training approach. Basically, as part of muscle metabolism, when you train, CK can end up leaking out of muscle and into the blood stream. Depending on how much CK there is, you can draw certain conclusions as to how damaging the training session was.

The problem with this is that recently, and, of course reported in JOPP, scientists have discovered that you and I could be equally strong, train the exact same way in terms of volume and intensity, do the same exercises, etc., yet end up with markedly different levels of CK. Therefore, it’s not any more a perfect way to look at how damaging a training session might be, how effective a supplement might be, etc.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, is that most supplement companies would take the result of lower CK in the HMB group to mean “greater long-term gains,” “stronger muscles,” “better recovery,” etc. However, the researchers point out two major limitations of their work, which I’m sure you’ll never see a supplement company presenting:

1. They didn’t measure performance changes. So there’s no way to know whether whatever they found with HMB actually would mean increased performance, long-term or short-term.

2. The approach they used to determine changes in c-reactive protein (linked to hormone changes) were meant for long-term changes, not short-term, as was the design for this study. So they correctly see that to mean by using a more appropriate test for this study, the results might have been different. This really surprises me because in light of HMB showing no changes on any hormones, you’d think they’d employ a more appropriate measurement device. This, particularly in light of 3 of the researchers being employed by the supplement manufacturer, and the study being funded by that company. Hmmmm…

Bottom line, I see nothing here that would make me spend money on HMB with the expectation to perform better at my next USAWA meet.