International society of sports nutrition position stand: β-hydroxy-β-methylbutyrate (HMB)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Position Statement: The International Society of Sports Nutrition (ISSN) bases the following position stand on an analysis of the literature regarding the effects of β-Hydroxy-β-Methylbutyrate (HMB). The following 12 points have been approved by the Research Committee of the Society: 1. HMB is a metabolite of the amino acid leucine that is naturally produced in both humans and other animals. Two forms of HMB have been studied: Calcium HMB (HMB-Ca) and a free acid form of HMB (HMB-FA). HMB-FA appears to lead to increased appearance of HMB in the bloodstream when compared to HMB-Ca, though recent results are mixed. 2. The available safety/toxicity data suggest that chronic HMB-Ca and HMB-FA consumption are safe for oral HMB supplementation in humans up to at least one year. 3. There are no negative effects of HMB-Ca and HMB-FA on glucose tolerance and insulin sensitivity in humans. There may be improvements in glucose metabolism in younger adults. 4. The primary mode of action of HMB appears to be through its dual mechanism to enhance muscle protein synthesis and suppress muscle protein breakdown. HMB's activation of mTORC1 is independent of the leucine-sensing pathway (Sestrin2-GATOR2 complex). 5. HMB may help reduce muscle damage and promote muscle recovery, which can promote muscle growth/repair. HMB may also have anti-inflammatory effects, which could contribute to reducing muscle damage and soreness. 6. HMB consumption in close proximity to an exercise bout may be beneficial to increase muscle protein synthesis and attenuate the inflammatory response. HMB can provide a beneficial physiological effect when consumed both acutely and chronically in humans. 7. Daily HMB supplementation (38 mg/kg body weight) in combination with exercise training may improve body composition through increasing lean mass and/or decreasing fat mass with benefits in participants across age, sex, and training status. The most pronounced of these improvements in body composition with HMB have been observed in studies with robust resistance training programs and dietary control. 8. HMB may improve strength and power in untrained individuals, but its performance benefits in trained athletes are mixed and increase with an increase in study duration (>6 weeks). HMB's beneficial effects on athletic performance are thought to be driven by improved recovery. 9. HMB supplementation appears to potentially have a positive impact on aerobic performance, especially in trained athletes. The mechanisms of the effects are unknown. 10. HMB supplementation may be important in a non-exercising sedentary and aging population to improve muscle strength, functionality, and muscle quality. The effects of HMB supplementation with exercise are varied, but the combination may have a beneficial effect on the treatment of age-associated sarcopenia under select conditions. 11. HMB may be effective in countering muscle disuse atrophy during periods of inactivity due to illness or injury. The modulation of mitochondrial dynamics and lipid metabolism by HMB may be a potential mechanism for preventing disuse atrophy and aiding rehabilitation beyond HMB's effects on rates of muscle protein synthesis and degradation. 12. The efficacy of HMB in combination with certain nutrients may be enhanced under select conditions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.082 | 0.086 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".