APPLIED NUTRITIONAL INVESTIGATION

Nutritional Supplementation of the Leucine

Metabolite ␤-Hydroxy-␤-Methylbutyrate (HMB)
During Resistance Training
Lynn B. Panton, PhD, John A. Rathmacher, PhD, Shawn Baier, MS, and
Steven Nissen, DVM, PhD
From the Department of Education, East Tennessee State University, Johnson City,
Tennessee, USA
The effects of supplementation of the leucine metabolite ␤-hydroxy-␤-methylbutyrate (HMB) were
examined in a resistance training study. Thirty-nine men and 36 women between the ages of 20 – 40 y
were randomized to either a placebo (P) supplemented or HMB supplemented (3.0 g HMB/d) group in
two gender cohorts. All subjects trained three times per week for 4 wk. In the HMB group, plasma creatine
phosphokinase levels tended to be suppressed compared to the placebo group following the 4 wk of
resistance training (HMB:174.4 ⫾ 26.8 to 173.5 ⫾ 17.0 U/L; P:155.0 ⫾ 20.8 to 195.2 ⫾ 23.5 U/L). There
were no significant differences in strength gains based on prior training status or gender with HMB
supplementation. The HMB group had a greater increase in upper body strength than the placebo group
(HMB:7.5 ⫾ 0.6 kg; P:5.2 ⫾ 0.6 kg; P ⫽ 0.008). The HMB groups increased fat-free weight by 1.4 ⫾
0.2 kg and decreased percent fat by 1.1% ⫾ 0.2% while the placebo groups increased fat-free weight by
0.9 ⫾ 0.2 kg and decreased percent fat by 0.5% ⫾ 0.2% (fat-free weight P ⫽ 0.08, percent fat P ⫽ 0.08,
HMB compared to placebo). In summary, this is the first short-term study to investigate the roles of gender
and training status on the effects of HMB supplementation on strength and body composition. This study
showed, regardless of gender or training status, HMB may increase upper body strength and minimize
muscle damage when combined with an exercise program. Nutrition 2000;16:734 –739. ©Elsevier
Science Inc. 2000

Key words: leucine metabolite ␤-hydroxy-␤-methylbutyrate, resistance training, supplement

INTRODUCTION and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH)11 and a decrease in

Leucine and certain metabolites of leucine decrease stress-related
nitrogen and protein losses by inhibiting protein breakdown, which
is elevated in disease and trauma.1– 4 It has been hypothesized that
the leucine metabolite, ␤-hydroxy-␤-methylbutyrate (HMB), may
be responsible for this inhibitory effect on protein breakdown.5
HMB is produced by the liver enzyme, ␣-ketoisocaproate (KIC)
oxygenase.6 –9 This enzyme normally accounts for about 5% of
leucine oxidation.10 Data in humans, sheep, and pigs indicate that
the majority of HMB is metabolized in the body while the rest is
excreted in the urine.5
A recently published paper examined the effects of HMB
supplementation on body composition changes.11 In young men
undergoing an intense 3-wk resistance training program, HMB
increased strength and fat-free weight compared with subjects
supplemented with a placebo.11 In addition, results from a second
study with young men also found that HMB supplementation
increased fat-free weight gains associated with a 7-wk resistance
training program.11 The mechanism of the effect appears to be
related to less muscle membrane damage. In human and animal
trials that were supplemented with HMB during intense exercise
there were lower levels of creatine phosphokinase (CK)11–13
Study funded by Metabolic Technologies, Inc.
Correspondence to: Lynn B. Panton, PhD, East Tennessee State Univeristy,
P.O. Box 70654, Johnson City, TN 37614. E-mail: panton@etsu-tn.edu
Date accepted: May 22, 2000.
3-methylhistidine (3-MH) excretion.11 Together these changes
suggest that HMB may prevent or slow muscle membrane damage
as well as partially prevent the increase in proteolysis that is
associated with intense muscular work.
Although the effects of HMB in trained young men have been
previously investigated11,14 the roles of gender and training status
have not been examined. It is hypothesized that HMB will be
effective for both men and women in increasing strength while
increasing fat-free weight and decreasing fat weight when com-
bined with an exercise program. Therefore, the objectives of the
present study was to further examine the effects of HMB supple-
mentation on strength and body composition changes in both men
and women following a supervised resistance training program.
METHODS
Subjects
Forty-three men and 41 women between the ages of 20 and 40 y
were recruited to participate in a 4-wk resistance training program.
Men and women were studied in two separate gender cohorts.
Based on sample sizes from previous experience,11 subject size
was limited to approximately 20 subjects per treatment group.
Subjects were originally recruited to either a trained or untrained
arm of the study. Although subjects were placed in a trained or
untrained group, all subjects were familiar with a program of
resistance training. Those individuals placed in the untrained group
were individuals that had not participated in a resistance training
program in the last 6 mo. Subjects were excluded if they had

Nutrition 16:734 –739, 2000 0899-9007/00/$20.00

©Elsevier Science Inc., 2000. Printed in the United States. All rights reserved. PII S0899-9007(00)00376-2
Nutrition Volume 16, Number 9, 2000
evidence or history of diabetes mellitus; cardiac, liver, pulmonary,
or renal disease; recent joint or bone injury; or obesity. If the
women were pregnant or lactating, they were also excluded from
the study. In addition, only women with normal menstrual cycle
phases were included in the study. Subjects were screened by
blood and urine analyses before participation in the study. The
objectives and risks of the study were explained to all subjects and
written consents were obtained. The study was approved by the
Iowa State Committee for the Protection of Human Subjects. All
subjects were asked to maintain their current exercise programs in
conjunction with the resistance training program required for the
study.
Supplementation
The subjects were randomly assigned in a double blind fashion to
either the HMB-supplemented group or placebo-supplemented
group within each gender cohort. HMB and placebo were provided
in capsule form by Metabolic Technologies (Ames, IA, USA). The
HMB supplement was provided in capsules containing 250 mg of
Ca-HMB and 50 mg of potassium phosphate per capsule (to partly
balance extra calcium intake). The placebo was also placed in
identical capsules but contained rice flour. Prior to the study, tests
confirmed the placebo and HMB capsules could not be distin-
guished. Subjects were instructed to take four capsules with a
meal, three times a day. Subjects were given weekly log sheets so
they could record the times that the supplement was taken. The
logs were collected each week to help ensure that supplements
were being taken as directed.
Blood Collection/Analysis
Blood samples were collected from a superficial vein into Vacu-
tainer blood tubes (Vacutainer Systems, Becton-Dickson, Ruther-
ford, NJ, USA) after an overnight fast by the subjects at the
beginning and after 4 wk of training. Subjects were also asked to
refrain from exercise 48 h before the blood draw. Blood samples
were processed on the day of collection and analyzed by Labora-
tory Corporation (Des Moines, IA, USA) for plasma CK. Plasma
was also analyzed for human chorionic gonadotropin to be sure
none of the women participating in the study were pregnant.
Body Composition
Body composition was measured before and after the 4 wk of
training using underwater weighing procedures.15 Subjects were
instructed to report for their scheduled underwater weighing test
following an overnight fast and after voiding. During the under-
water weighing, subjects were instructed to forcefully exhale to
residual volume while underwater. Residual volumes were pre-
dicted from gender specific equations.15 Once a subject was ac-
customed to the underwater weighing procedures, the subject
would perform multiple trials until the highest underwater weight
was performed in duplicate. Percent body fat was estimated from
the Siri equation.16 Skinfolds were also measured before the un-
derwater weighing procedures to evaluate any regional changes
that may have occurred. Body composition was also assessed using
the sum of seven skinfold procedure outlined by Pollock and
Wilmore.15 Each of the seven skinfold sites was measured twice.
If the skinfold measurements differed by more than 1 mm, a third
measurement was taken.
Strength Testing
Strength testing was conducted 1 wk before the beginning of the
training program and after 2 d of orientation to the weights and
exercises. The one repetition maximum test (1-RM) was used to
evaluate strength.15 The 1-RM test was defined as the maximal
Effects of HMB Supplementation 735
amount of weight that could be moved one time through the full
range of motion for the particular exercise. For the men, upper
body strength was evaluated on the bench press and lower body
strength on the Wynmor free-weight-loaded leg press. The women
were also evaluated for upper body strength using the bench press,
however, lower body strength was evaluated using the Cybex leg
extension. After a warm-up, subjects chose a weight that was close
to what they considered to be their 1-RM. After each successful lift
and a rest period of 3 min, the weight was increased until the
subjects achieved their 1-RM. Subjects then came back 3 d later to
have their 1-RM repeated. This was done in an effort to control for
any learning effect or for any fatigue that may have influenced
their initial measurements. 1-RM measurements were repeated 3 d
after the completion of the 4-wk training period.
Strength Training
All subjects trained three times per week on Monday, Wednesday,
and Friday using free weights, Cybex resistance machines, and the
Wynmor free weight loaded leg press. Eleven exercises were
chosen to isolate the major muscle groups of the body which
consisted of the bench press, latissmus pulldown, preacher curls,
triceps pushdown, seated rows, leg extension, leg curls, standing
calf raise, leg press, incline sit-ups, and back hyperextension.
Subjects performed three sets of each exercise at 90% of their
1-RM. Subjects performed three to six repetitions until failure on
each set. Once six repetitions were achieved on each set, the
weight was increased by 5%. If subjects could not lift at least three
repetitions during each set, the weight was decreased. All training
sessions and lifts were supervised by trained staff; who would also
make the appropriate weight changes. In addition, staff members
helped with spotting of weights and ensured adherence to the
protocol. All workouts were recorded on data sheets that were
reviewed after each session. Every subject completed 12 workouts
during the 4-wk training period.
The training protocol for the women was adjusted slightly from
that of the men due to the fatigue and soreness reported by the
men. Women subjects also trained on Monday, Wednesday, and
Friday, at the same intensity and on the same equipment, however,
upper and lower body groups were exercised on alternating work-
outs. For example the upper body was trained on Monday and
Friday and the lower body was trained on Wednesday during the
first week. The following week this was reversed with the lower
body being trained Monday and Friday and the upper body on
Wednesday. All other procedures were similar between the men
and women.
Statistical Analyses
Originally each gender cohort was analyzed using a 2 ⫻ 2 Anal-
ysis of Variance (ANOVA) with main effects of training status
(currently trained/untrained) and supplementation (placebo/HMB).
Since there was no significant effect of training status (trained/
untrained) for either the men or the women cohorts, the data were
pooled and the main effect of supplementation was analyzed with
an One-Way ANOVA. The data from the men and women cohorts
were also combined and analyzed using a 2 ⫻ 2 ⫻ 2 ANOVA for
the dependent measures of strength, body composition, and plasma
CK levels using the main effects of training status, gender, and
supplementation. In addition, data were also reported by supple-
mentation since there was no significant effect of gender. Statis-
tical analysis was performed using the general-linear models of
SAS (SAS Institute Inc., 1988). Results were considered signifi-
cant if P ⬍ 0.05 was obtained.
RESULTS
Of the 43 men initially recruited, 39 completed the 4 wk of
training. One subject was removed initially due to an abnormal
736 Panton et al. Nutrition Volume 16, Number 9, 2000

TABLE I.

EFFECT OF 4 WK OF HMB SUPPLEMENTATION COMBINED WITH RESISTANCE TRAINING IN MEN*

Placebo (n ⫽ 18) HMB (n ⫽ 21)

Before After ⌬ Before After ⌬

Age (y) 25 ⫾ 1.2 NA NA 23 ⫾ 0.6 NA NA

Height (cm) 179 ⫾ 1.5 NA NA 177 ⫾ 1.1 NA NA
Strength
Bench press (kg) 70.8 ⫾ 6.6 78.0 ⫾ 6.5† 7.0 ⫾ 1.0 70.9 ⫾ 4.1 80.8 ⫾ 4.4† 9.9 ⫾ 0.9‡
Leg press (kg) 248.4 ⫾ 18.6 358.1 ⫾ 21.1† 131.9 ⫾ 12.6 222.4 ⫾ 12.2 368.9 ⫾ 13.6† 141.7 ⫾ 10.5
Body composition
Body weight (kg) 85.8 ⫾ 2.9 85.1 ⫾ 2.6 0.8 ⫾ 0.3 81.2 ⫾ 2.5 82.8 ⫾ 2.6 1.1 ⫾ 0.3
%Body fat
SF 17.3 ⫾ 1.8 15.4 ⫾ 1.5 ⫺1.0 ⫾ 0.4 13.0 ⫾ 1.2 11.9 ⫾ 1.1 ⫺1.1 ⫾ 0.3
UWW 18.9 ⫾ 1.7 18.1 ⫾ 1.6 ⫺0.9 ⫾ 0.3 18.0 ⫾ 1.3 16.5 ⫾ 1.3 ⫺1.5 ⫾ 0.3
Fat-free weight
SF (kg) 70.0 ⫾ 1.9 71.2 ⫾ 1.9 1.1 ⫾ 0.4 68.8 ⫾ 1.3 70.0 ⫾ 1.3 1.2 ⫾ 0.3
UWW 68.9 ⫾ 1.7 70.3 ⫾ 1.7 1.4 ⫾ 0.3 66.3 ⫾ 1.6 68.3 ⫾ 1.6 2.0 ⫾ 0.3
Blood parameters
Creatine phosphokinase (U/L) 205.3 ⫾ 36.2 236.7 ⫾ 31.5 34.1 ⫾ 36.1 222.5 ⫾ 42.5 230.7 ⫾ 23.2 5.2 ⫾ 32.6

* Values are means ⫾ SE.

† P ⱕ 0.05, significantly different from before values.
‡ P ⱕ 0.05, significantly different from placebo group.
HMB, ␤-hydroxy-␤-methylbutyrate; NA, not applicable; SF, calculated from the sum of seven skinfolds; UWW, calculated from underwater weighing.

blood-screening test, and 3 other subjects had to drop due to
injuries during the training program. Of the 41 women initially
recruited for the study, 36 completed the 4 wk of training. One had
to drop for unrelated medical reasons, 1 due to an injury that
occurred outside the study, and 3 due to time constraints. Table I
and Table II show subject characteristics and screening values for
the men and women cohorts. There were no significant differences
in muscle strength or body composition between the HMB-
supplemented and placebo-supplemented groups at the start of
training for either the men or the women cohorts. The men,
however, were heavier, taller, leaner, and stronger than the women.
In men, plasma CK levels in the HMB-supplemented group

TABLE II.

EFFECT OF 4 WK OF HMB SUPPLEMENTATION COMBINED WITH RESISTANCE TRAINING IN WOMEN*

Placebo (n ⫽ 18) HMB (n ⫽ 18)

Before After ⌬ Before After ⌬

Age (y) 27 ⫾ 2.0 NA NA 27 ⫾ 2.1 NA NA

Height (cm) 168 ⫾ 1.4 NA NA 166 ⫾ 1.1 NA NA
Strength
Bench press (kg) 18.6 ⫾ 2.4 21.8 ⫾ 2.5† 3.2 ⫾ 0.7 14.0 ⫾ 2.0 19.1 ⫾ 1.9† 5.1 ⫾ 0.7‡
Leg extension (kg) 50.6 ⫾ 1.8 65.1 ⫾ 2.4† 14.5 ⫾ 1.8 48.5 ⫾ 2.8 64.6 ⫾ 14.5† 16.0 ⫾ 1.8
Body composition
Body weight (kg) 62.8 ⫾ 2.1 63.2 ⫾ 8.9 0.4 ⫾ 0.2 62.3 ⫾ 2.2 62.8 ⫾ 2.3 0.5 ⫾ 0.2
%Body fat
SF 19.4 ⫾ 1.9 18.9 ⫾ 1.9 ⫺0.5 ⫾ 0.3 20.1 ⫾ 2.0 18.9 ⫾ 1.8 ⫺1.2 ⫾ 0.3
UWW 21.9 ⫾ 1.5 21.7 ⫾ 1.4 ⫺0.3 ⫾ 0.3 23.7 ⫾ 1.1 23.0 ⫾ 1.2 ⫺0.7 ⫾ 0.3
Fat-free weight
SF (kg) 50.1 ⫾ 1.1 50.7 ⫾ 4.6 0.6 ⫾ 0.2 50.0 ⫾ 1.4 51.1 ⫾ 1.4 1.1 ⫾ 0.2
UWW (kg) 48.7 ⫾ 1.2 49.2 ⫾ 1.3 0.5 ⫾ 0.2 47.3 ⫾ 1.3 48.0 ⫾ 1.3 0.7 ⫾ 0.2
Blood parameters
Creatine phosphokinase (U/L) 104.6 ⫾ 13.4 153.7 ⫾ 32.9 49.9 ⫾ 27.5 118 ⫾ 25.8 102.9 ⫾ 9.8 18.0 ⫾ 28.2§

* Values are means ⫾ SE.

† P ⱕ 0.05, significantly different from before values.
‡ P ⫽ 0.065, different from placebo group.
§ P ⫽ 0.095, different from placebo group.
HMB, ␤-hydroxy-␤-methylbutyrate; NA, not applicable; SF, calculated from the sum of seven skinfolds; UWW, calculated from underwater weighing.
Nutrition Volume 16, Number 9, 2000 Effects of HMB Supplementation 737

FIG. 1. Change in creatine phosphokinase (CK) activity following 4 wk of HMB supplementation combined with resistance training in men and women
cohorts.

increased only ⫹3.7% from baseline while the placebo group
showed a ⫹15.2% plasma CK increase from baseline measures
(P ⫽ 0.06). For women, the difference in plasma CK responses
was even greater between the HMB-supplemented and placebo
groups (HMB ⫽ ⫺12.8%; Placebo ⫽ ⫹46.9%; P ⫽ 0.06) (Table
I, II, and Fig. 1).
There was no significant main effect of training status (trained
versus untrained) nor was there an interaction between training
status and treatment (supplementation) in either the men or the
women cohorts after the 4 wk of training. Therefore, Table I (men
- cohort) and Table II (women - cohort) present the pooled data for
each gender cohort on upper and lower body strength, body com-
position, and plasma CK.
In the men cohort (Table II), after the 4-wk strength training
program, the HMB-supplemented group had a greater increase in
upper body strength compared to the placebo-supplemented group
(placebo 7.0 kg and HMB 9.9 kg; P ⱕ 0.05). Following the 4 wk
of training, the HMB-supplemented group had a 2.0 kg non-
significant increase in fat-free weight (underwater weighing),
while the placebo-supplemented group also had a non-significant
1.4 kg increase in fat-free weight. In addition, the HMB-
supplemented group had a 1.5% non-significant decrease in body
fat percentage (underwater weighing), while the placebo-
supplemented group had a 0.9% decrease in body fat percentage.
In the women cohort (Table II), after the 4-wk strength training
program, the HMB-supplemented group had a trend toward a
greater increase in upper body strength compared to the placebo-
supplemented group (placebo 3.2 kg and HMB 5.1 kg; P ⫽ 0.065).
There were no differences in body composition measurements
between the two groups after training.
Combined Analysis
With no significant effect of training status nor gender on the effect
of supplementation for relative changes in bench press, body
composition, and plasma CK the results from the men and women
cohorts were combined and an analysis of the pooled data are

TABLE III.

EFFECT OF 4 WK OF HMB SUPPLEMENTATION COMBINED WITH RESISTANCE TRAINING IN MEN AND WOMEN COMBINED*

Placebo (n ⫽ 36) HMB (n ⫽ 39)

Before After ⌬ Before After ⌬

Strength
Bench press (kg) 44.7 ⫾ 5.6 49.9 ⫾ 5.9† 5.2 ⫾ 0.6 44.7 ⫾ 5.2 52.3 ⫾ 5.6† 7.5 ⫾ 0.6‡
Body composition
Body weight (kg) 74.3 ⫾ 2.6 73.8 ⫾ 2.5 0.6 ⫾ 0.2 72.5 ⫾ 2.2 73.3 ⫾ 2.4 0.8 ⫾ 0.2
%Body fat
SF 18.3 ⫾ 1.3 17.2 ⫾ 1.2 ⫺0.8 ⫾ 0.2 16.2 ⫾ 1.2 15.1 ⫾ 1.2 ⫺1.2 ⫾ 0.2
UWW 20.4 ⫾ 1.1 19.9 ⫾ 1.1 ⫺0.5 ⫾ 0.2 20.6 ⫾ 1.0 19.5 ⫾ 1.0 ⫺1.1 ⫾ 0.2§
Fat-free weight
SF (kg) 60.1 ⫾ 2.0 60.7 ⫾ 2.1 0.9 ⫾ 0.2 59.9 ⫾ 1.8 61.1 ⫾ 1.8 1.2 ⫾ 0.2
UWW (kg) 58.8 ⫾ 2.0 59.7 ⫾ 2.1 0.9 ⫾ 0.2 57.5 ⫾ 1.8 58.9 ⫾ 1.9 1.4 ⫾ 0.2§
Blood parameters
Creatine phosphokinase (U/L) 155.0 ⫾ 20.8 195.2 ⫾ 23.5 40.2 ⫾ 22.2 174.4 ⫾ 26.8 173.5 ⫾ 17.0 3.3 ⫾ 22.2

* Values are means ⫾ SE.

† P ⱕ 0.05, significantly different from before values.
‡ P ⱕ 0.05, significantly different from placebo group.
§ P ⫽ 0.08, different from placebo group.
HMB, ␤-hydroxy-␤-methylbutyrate; SF, calculated from the sum of seven skinfolds; UWW, calculated from underwater weighing.
738 Panton et al.
shown in Table III. When the data from both studies were pooled,
there were significant increases in upper body strength for the
HMB-supplemented group (P ⱕ 0.05) when compared with the
placebo-supplemented group. Upper body strength increases over
the 4 wk were 7.5 ⫾ 0.6 kg for the combined HMB-supplemented
group and 5.2 ⫾ 0.6 kg for the combined placebo-supplemented
group. Lower body strength measurements were not combined for
analysis because different tests were used to assess lower body
strength in the men and women. No changes in overall body
weight were observed in the pooled data; however, there were
trends for increases in fat-free weight (P ⫽ 0.08) and decreases in
percent body fat (P ⫽ 0.08) in the HMB-supplemented group
compared with the placebo-supplemented group. The placebo-
supplemented group increased fat-free weight by 0.9 ⫾ 0.2 kg and
decreased percent body fat by 0.5% ⫾ 0.2% while the HMB-
supplemented group increased fat-free weight by 1.4 ⫾ 0.2 kg and
decreased percent body fat by 1.1% ⫾ 0.2%.
DISCUSSION
This is the first study to evaluate the effects of short-term (4 wk)
supplementation of HMB in resistance training women and the
effects of training status (trained or untrained) in both men and
women on muscle strength and body composition. The major
findings of this 4-wk study were that 1) the response from HMB
does not appear to be dependent on previous training levels; and 2)
both, women and men appear to respond to HMB supplementation.
Our results agree well with a previous study by Nissen et al.11 in
which dietary supplementation with HMB showed an increase in
muscular strength and fat-free weight in college-aged men under-
going a resistance training program. However, our results disagree
with a more recent study involving experienced resistance trained
athletes in which no improvements in muscular strength or fat-free
weight occurred following 28 d of HMB supplementation.14 How-
ever, it is important to note that in the study by Kreider et al.14 that
resistance training was not monitored on a day by day training
basis as in the current study and the study by Nissen et al.11
Subjects trained on their own and simply kept training logs during
the supplemental period. It is possible that either the training loads
were inadequate for physiologic adaptations to occur or the train-
ing logs did not truly represent each subject’s actual training
volume/intensity. It is generally accepted that in most survey based
studies, recorded data often appear in a way that the subject
believes represents what the data collection team anticipates
should be occurring (i.e., recording low-fat eating on diet related
surveys or training intensely during a supplemental period). Thus,
in the study by Kreider et al.,14 it is possible that an inadequate
training stimulus occurred in some subjects while others trained
intensely enough to elicit adaptations. As a result, it cannot be
excluded that the lack of changes in strength and fat-free weight in
this study may have been due to an inadequate statistical power.
This could be due to the small number of subjects per treatment
group that could not over come the threat to external validity. For
example, in the Kreider et al.14 study neither the HMB-
supplemented or placebo-supplemented group showed any signif-
icant improvements in strength over the 4 wk of training. Perhaps
if the training stimulus was greater there may have been differ-
ences in strength gains and fat-free weight between the HMB-
supplemented and placebo-supplemented groups. This is further
verified by the fact that there were no changes in plasma CK levels
for any of the groups in the study by Kreider et al.14 This is in
sharp contrast to the current study in which the placebo treatment
for all subjects, men and women, showed increases in plasma CK
levels. These results indicate that a new level of training stimulus
occurred as a result of our training protocols. Therefore, one would
anticipate that physiologic adaptations to resistance training with
or without HMB supplementation would have occurred as we
observed.
Nutrition Volume 16, Number 9, 2000
The exact mechanism of the effect of HMB on muscle metab-
olism is not currently known. However, it has been suggested that
there is a decrease in muscle membrane damage that is evident by
decreases in urine 3-MH, CK, and LDH in humans11,13 and ani-
mals12 consuming HMB. Lower levels of CK and LDH suggest
that less inflammation and/or damage to the muscle membrane
may have occurred as a result of an intense exercise program. Men
and women in the present study tended to have lower CK levels
than the placebo group indicating that, similar to the original
study,11 less cell membrane damage may have occurred. It has also
been postulated that supplementation with HMB can provide a
source of HMG-CoA for cholesterol synthesis. Cholesterol is an
important constituent of cell membranes and thus supplementation
of HMB may lead to increased membrane integrity by supplying a
source for increased synthesis of intracellular cholesterol during a
time of need.5
There were no significant differences in strength gains nor body
composition changes when the effects of HMB supplementation
were compared in currently resistance training men and women
and those that were not currently training (untrained for at least 6
mo). For example, HMB-supplemented trained men had a 10.4 kg
increase in bench press strength while HMB-supplemented un-
trained men had a 9.2 kg increase (P ⫽ 0.25). These data suggest
that training status did not have an effect on the response of HMB
supplementation during the first month of a resistance training
program. With no differential effects between trained and un-
trained subjects, the data from the two groups were pooled for
analysis.
The strength gains for both the HMB-supplemented and
placebo-supplemented groups are fairly large for a 4-wk period.
These strength gains are likely due to the high-intensity resistance
training program (90% of 1-RM) that the subjects underwent.
There may have been some increases in strength due to the
learning effect, however, most of the subjects had participated in
some form of strength training in the past few years. These
increases in strength were similar to the increases in strength seen
with football players after 3 wk of training.11
In conclusion, data from these studies suggest that HMB sup-
plementation may be effective in maximizing the beneficial
changes associated with exercise during the early adaptation pe-
riod of resistance training, in some muscle groups, in both men and
women, regardless of training status. Further research will need to
be conducted to determine if increases in strength can be made in
different muscle groups throughout the body and whether strength
and improvements in body composition will be continued through-
out a training program greater than 4 wk. Further studies may also
be conducted to determine if increases in strength produce in-
creases in performance such as swimming, cycling, and running.
SUMMARY
These cohort studies showed that regardless of gender or training
status, HMB may increase upper body strength and minimize
muscle damage when combined with a 4-wk resistance training
program.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to thank Leigh Ann Cannon (ISU) and Janet
Gammon (ISU) for their contribution. Results of the present study
do not constitute endorsement of the product by the authors.
REFERENCES
1. Bruzzone P, Siegel JH, Chiarla C, Wiles CE, Placko R, et al. Leucine dose
response in the reduction of urea production from septic proteolysis and in the
stimulation of acute-phase proteins. Surgery 1991;109:768
Nutrition Volume 16, Number 9, 2000
2. Frexes-Steed M, Lacy DB, Collins J, Abumrad NN. Role of leucine and other
amino acids in regulating protein metabolism in vivo. Am J Physiol (Endocri-
nology Metabolism) 1992;262:E925
3. Sapir DG, Walser M, Moyer ED, Rosenhein NB, Stewart PM, et al. Effects of
alpha-ketoisocaproate and of leucine on nitrogen metabolism in postoperative
patients. Lancet 1983;1:1010
4. Sax HC, Talamini MA, Fischer JE. Clinical use of branched-chain amino acids in
liver disease, sepsis, trauma, and burns. Arch Surg 1986;121:358
5. Nissen SL, Abumrad NN. Nutritional role of the leucine metabolite ␤-hydroxy-
␤-methylbutyrate (HMB). J Nutr Biochem 1997;8:300
6. Sabourin PJ, Bieber LL. Formation of ␤-hydroxy-isovalerate from alpha-
ketoisocaproate by a soluble preparation from rat liver. Devel Biochem 1981;18:
149
7. Sabourin PJ, Bieber LL. Subcellular distribution and partial characterization of an
alpa-ketoisocaproate oxidase of rat liver: formation of ␤-hydroxyisovaleric acid.
Arch Biochem Biophys 1981;206:132
8. Sabourin PJ, Bieber LL. Purification and characterization of an alpha-
ketoisocaproate oxygenase of rat liver. J Biol Chem 1982;257:7460
9. Sabourin PJ, Bieber LL. The mechanism of alpha-ketoisocaproate oxygenase.
Formation of ␤-hydroxyisovalerate from alpha-ketoisocaproate. J Biol Chem
1982;257:7468
Effects of HMB Supplementation 739
10. Van Kovering M, Nissen SL. Oxidation of leucine and alpha-ketoisocaproate to
␤-hydroxy-␤-methylbutyrate in vivo. Am J Physiol (Endocrinology Metabolism)
1992;262:27
11. Nissen S, Sharp R, Ray M, Rathmacher JA, Rice D, et al. Effect of leucineme-
tabolite ␤-hydroxy-␤-methylbutyrate on muscle metabolism during resistance-
exercise training. J Appl Physiol 1996;81(5)2095
12. Miller P, Sandberg L, Fuller J. The effect of intensive training on ␤-hydroxy-␤-
methylbutyrate (HMB) on the physiological response to exercise in horses.
FASEB 1997;11(3):A290
13. Knitter A, Panton L, Peterson A, Rathmacher JA, Sharp R. The effects of
␤-hydroxy-␤-methylbutyrate on muscle damage following a 20 kilometer run.
FASEB 1998;12(5):A854
14. Kreider RB, Ferreira M, Wilson M, Almada AL. Effects of calcium ␤-hydroxy-
␤-methylbutyrate (HMB) supplementation during resistance-training on markers
of catabolism, body composition and strength. Int J Sports Med 1999;20:503
15. Pollock ML, Wilmore JH. Exercise in Health and Disease: Evaluation and
Prescription for Prevention and Rehabilitation. Philadelphia: W B Saunders Co.
1990:319
16. Siri WE. Body composition from fluid spaced and density. In Brozek J, Henschel
A, eds. Technique for Measuring Body Composition. Washington, D.C., National
Academy of Science, 1961:223