HMB is often thought of as a recovery-focused ingredient. It’s a tool to use during high-volume training blocks or brutal training camps. However, a new meta-analysis suggests the picture may be broader than that. 

Here’s what the findings mean and how to apply them. 

What the Researchers Did 

Researchers pooled data from 30 randomized controlled trials involving nearly 700 athletes to compare six supplements (protein, creatine, β-alanine, HMB, vitamin D, and nitrates) across four outcomes: peak power, mean power, VO₂max, and endurance performance. All included studies combined at least two weeks of structured training with supplementation. 

How Network Meta-Analysis Works 

The researchers used a network meta-analysis. A standard meta-analysis is simpler: it combines results from multiple studies that all test the same comparison, like creatine vs. placebo for strength. By pooling those studies together, you get one clearer overall answer to a single question: does creatine outperform placebo for that specific outcome? 

Network meta-analysis does it a little differently. It aims to connect multiple comparisons through shared reference points, allowing researchers to estimate how interventions compare even when no single study tested them head-to-head. 

Network meta-analysis combines two types of evidence: 

  • Direct comparisons come from studies that actually tested two interventions against each other within the same trial. For HMB, this means trials where athletes were randomized to either HMB or placebo, trained under the same protocol, and had their outcomes compared. These are pooled using traditional meta-analytic methods. 
  • Indirect comparisons estimate how interventions compare when no study tested them head-to-head. If Study A compared creatine to a placebo, and Study B compared HMB to a placebo, the method uses the placebo as a common reference point to estimate how creatine and HMB might compare to each other. 

For HMB in this analysis, the comparisons to placebo are direct evidence, which is where we can draw the most confident conclusions. The comparisons to other supplements, like creatine or protein, are indirect and depend on additional assumptions. 

 

A Note on the Rankings 

The paper also generates supplement rankings using a method called SUCRA. These rankings rely on indirect comparisons, which require that the studies being connected are reasonably similar in populations, protocols, and contexts, an assumption the authors acknowledge is strained given the diversity of included trials. The statistical tests for consistency didn’t flag problems, but the direct comparisons (each supplement vs. placebo) remain more reliable than the cross-supplement rankings. For HMB, we’ll focus on what it did compared to placebo rather than where it placed relative to other supplements. 

 

The HMB Findings 

So how did HMB fare when put through this analytical framework? The short answer: better than expected for power outcomes, inconclusive for aerobic measures. 

  • Peak power: Athletes taking HMB showed better explosive power than those on placebo, and this was the most confident finding in the analysis. The magnitude of benefit was moderate, which in practical terms might translate to a few percentage points of improvement in explosive efforts like sprints, jumps, or power movements. More importantly, even the most conservative interpretation of the data showed benefit: the entire range of plausible effects was positive. This wasn’t a borderline result. 
  • Mean power: HMB also improved sustained power output over a 30-second effort, though the effect was smaller and less certain. The estimated magnitude of benefit was in the small-to-moderate range. The data just barely ruled out “no effect.” It’s a positive signal, but not one to hang your hat on. A few additional studies could shift this conclusion. 
  • VO₂max and endurance: This analysis couldn’t determine whether HMB improves aerobic performance; the data were too sparse and variable to draw conclusions. But that doesn’t mean the effect is unknown or that it has no effect. Deng’s estimates align closely with findings from Fernández-Landa’s 2024 meta-analysis focused specifically on HMB and endurance. Both Deng and Fernández-Landa’s 2024 meta-analysis found similar small positive effects for aerobic outcomes. The difference is statistical confidence. Fernández-Landa’s analysis focused specifically on HMB and endurance and had enough studies to confirm that the effect was real. Deng’s broader network analysis, with fewer HMB-specific endurance studies, couldn’t reach that threshold. The fact that two independent analyses converged on similar estimates suggests the benefit is probably real. 

Also of note, the 2025 International Society of Sports Nutrition’s position stand on HMB reached a similar conclusion, stating that HMB “appears to potentially have a positive impact on aerobic performance, especially in trained athletes.” For well-trained athletes in serious conditioning blocks, expect any aerobic benefit to be small and context-dependent, but the evidence points to something rather than nothing. 

 

Putting the Findings in Context 

These results are more favorable than HMB typically receives, and the authors are upfront about that. They note the peak power finding “contrasts with the traditional view that HMB offers limited benefit for well-trained athletes.” 

So what explains the stronger showing? 

One possibility is the outcome measured. This analysis focused on anaerobic power, explosive and sustained high-intensity output, rather than strength or muscle mass. HMB might affect these outcomes differently. 

Another factor is how HMB actually works. Its primary mechanism is anticatabolic: it reduces muscle protein breakdown, particularly during periods of high training stress. That’s an indirect pathway to power improvement. Better recovery enables higher training quality, which drives better adaptations over time. 

In multi-week training studies, those small recovery advantages can compound. An athlete who recovers slightly better and trains slightly harder across dozens of sessions may show meaningful performance differences at the end of the study period, even though no single session felt dramatically different. 

This doesn’t make any benefit automatically plausible, but it does mean we shouldn’t dismiss the findings just because HMB doesn’t directly affect the energy systems being tested. A real pathway exists. It’s just not as direct as something like creatine. 

The Bottom Line 

The peak power finding adds a meaningful data point to its evidence base that warrants further exploration. HMB may contribute to improvements in explosive and sustained power when paired with appropriate training. Athletes focused on power development (sprinters, jumpers, combat sports athletes, team sport players) could reasonably add HMB to their protocols, especially during periods of intense training. 

Ultimately, HMB’s best-supported applications remain high-stress contexts where its anticatabolic mechanism is most relevant: caloric deficits, intense training phases, novel stimuli, recovery from injury, and aging athletes. 

 

References 

  1. Deng, B., Li, H., Chen, C., He, J., Zhang, W., & Lin, H. (2025). Dietary supplement strategies during conditioning training in athletes: A network meta-analysis of peak and mean anaerobic power, VO₂max, and endurance performance. Food Science & Nutrition, 13, e71243. https://doi.org/10.1002/fsn3.71243 
  2. Fernández-Landa, J., Todorovic, N., Santibañez-Gutierrez, A., Ostojic, S. M., Calleja-González, J., Sekulic, D., & Mielgo-Ayuso, J. (2024). Effects of HMB on endurance performance in a healthy population: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 38(4), e202–e210. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000004690 
  3. Rathmacher, J. A., Pitchford, L. M., Stout, J. R., Townsend, J. R., Jäger, R., Kreider, R. B., Campbell, B. I., Kerksick, C. M., Harty, P. S., Candow, D. G., Roberts, B. M., Arent, S. M., Kalman, D. S., & Antonio, J. (2025). International Society of Sports Nutrition position stand: β-hydroxy-β-methylbutyrate (HMB). Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition, 22(1), 2434734. https://doi.org/10.1080/15502783.2024.2434734
Back To News