Head-to-head

Creatine vs HMB

The best-evidenced supplement on this entire site against a purpose-built anti-catabolic — one for building strength and lean mass, the other specifically for not losing it.

Creatine

Creatine monohydrate

Clinical data

The best-evidenced supplement here: strong human data for strength and lean mass with training, a real cognitive signal under stress, and a clean safety record — 'anti-aging' claims still outrun the data.

Full Creatine evidence review

HMB

β-hydroxy β-methylbutyrate

Clinical data

Anti-catabolic leucine metabolite with real RCT support for preserving lean mass in bed rest, disuse and sarcopenia — but trivial effects in trained athletes and no trials at all in GLP-1 users.

Full HMB evidence review

Side by side

	Creatine	HMB
Marketed for	Strength, muscle, cognition	Muscle preservation, sarcopenia, lean mass on GLP-1s
Evidence grade	Clinical data	Clinical data
Family	NAD⁺ & mitochondrial	mTOR & other
Key human source	ISSN Position Stand, JISSN 2017	Sarcopenia meta-analysis, Maturitas 2025

marks a row where the two differ. Evidence grades come from our evidence matrix, which grades each molecule on the human data for the use it is marketed for.

Our verdict

Creatine has the strongest human evidence of any compound covered here: real strength and lean-mass gains with training, a genuine cognitive signal under stress, and a clean decades-long safety record. HMB works differently and for a different problem — it's anti-catabolic, with real trial support for preserving lean mass during bed rest, disuse, and sarcopenia, but trivial effects in already-training athletes and zero trials specifically in GLP-1 users despite heavy marketing toward that group.

Creatine fits if

You're actively training and want to build strength and lean mass, not just preserve what you have.

HMB fits if

You're in a catabolic situation (illness, injury, bed rest, or possibly GLP-1-driven muscle loss, though untested there specifically) and preservation is the goal, not growth.