Is HMB Really a Superior Muscle-Building Supplement to Creatine? The HMB Hype vs. Research

What research says

• Sanchez-Martinez et al.
• (2018) meta-analysis found that HMB supplementation in trained and competitive athletes did not produce statistically significant hypertrophy or strength gains in most studies.
• Where effects appeared, effect sizes were small (roughly d ≈ 0.1–0.2 vs. placebo).
• A meta-analysis by Wilson JM et al.
• (2014) similarly reported significant effects in beginners but non-significant effects in advanced trainees.
• Some evidence supports HMB for lean mass preservation in untrained individuals and older adults, but evidence for regular intermediate-to-advanced trainees is weak.
• Industry-funded studies show a pattern of inflated effect sizes.

What research says

• Creatine monohydrate has the most consistent and well-replicated evidence for strength and lean mass gains of any sports supplement — endorsed as effective by the International Society of Sports Nutrition.
• A month's supply of creatine (~5 g/day) costs a fraction of HMB.
• When comparing evidence quality and cost-effectiveness, HMB does not surpass creatine.
• Experienced trainees should prioritize creatine.

What research says

• That HMB-FA raises blood levels faster than HMB-Ca has been reported by the manufacturer and affiliated research groups, but whether this translates into superior training outcomes has not been consistently confirmed in independent studies.
• The early HMB-FA research (the Wilson JM et al.
• 2014 series) has been scrutinized for conflicts of interest with the manufacturer, and independent replications tend to show smaller effect sizes.
• Because creatine and HMB act through different mechanisms, faster absorption does not by itself imply any advantage over creatine.