[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
The HMB-FA appears faster absorbed, but from these results it doesn’t clearly, if at all, appear that a greater proportion of the HMB itself is absorbed:
The doses were 1 g of Ca-HMB vs 1 g of HMB. At first glance that might sound equal, but actually one gram of Ca-HMB contains only 756 mg of HMB. So the amounts of HMB provided per dose were not equal.
If we wanted to compare how much HMB is delivered into the body, or how efficiently it is delivered, the most-nearly-equal comparison would be 1 g of Ca-HMB vs 756 mg of HMB, or if desired, 1.32 g of Ca-HMB vs 1 g of HMB.
Basically, by providing HMB as the free acid, per gram of material there is 32% more HMB.
The way that they did it, more actual HMB was being supplied in one way versus the other. So it takes no greater efficiency for the area under the curve to be greater with the dosage that contained more HMB: that would be expected.
By eyeball, it doesn’t appear that the the area under the curve, which represents the total amount delivered, is necessarily to statistical significance any more for the HMB-FA compared to the the Ca-HMB than is accounted for by there being 32% more HMB in the dose.
Btw, as you know, there was a big backlash against HMB back in the late 90s as a result of it being massively hyped and clearly not delivering much for trained lifters and definitely not being worth the money. I never assumed it didn’t work at all, though, and thought it likely it probably did have some modest or at least slight value, though personally like you I couldn’t tell the difference. What has happened now is that the raw materials cost of HMB is now far lower than in the past, even being included in products for geriatrics, so it’s drawn new interest. It’s possible that it’s worth the now-much-lower cost; it certainly wasn’t worth what it used to cost, but that’s no longer an issue.
The study ( http://www.jissn.com/content/10/1/6 ) states: "However, research with HMB-FA is in its infancy, and there is not enough research to support whether one form is superior. " I would add to that sentence, “particularly if equal amounts of HMB are supplied, which was not the case in the present study.”
EDIT: The absorption data above is, rather than measured by these authors themselves which they absolutely don’t state that they did, cited from a publication authored by this group ( http://mettechinc.com/ ) which clearly has financial interest. That is not to say that the data is wrong, but only that it should be noted, as at first glance I had mistakenly thought that this was independent data.[/quote]
You can read before that graphic(http://www.jissn.com/content/10/1/6): “there would be no difference in digestion kinetics between HMB-Ca and HMB-FA . However, this is not the case as comparison of 0.8 g of HMB-FA to 1.0 g HMB-Ca (equivalent amounts of HMB) resulted in a doubling of peak plasma levels in one-fourth the time (30 vs. 120 minutes) in the HMB-FA compared with the HMB-Ca  (Figure 2)” Maybe there is a mistake with that 1gr of HMB-FA on the graphic.