HMB added to whey did not result in greater increases in any measure of muscle mass, strength, or hormonal concentration compared to leucine added to whey. Our results show that HMB is no more effective in stimulating RT-induced hypertrophy and strength gains than leucine.

β-hydroxy-β-methylbutyrate (HMB) is a leucine metabolite that is purported to increase fat-free mass (FFM) gain and performance in response to resistance exercise training (RET). The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine the efficacy of HMB supplementation in augmenting FFM and strength gains during RET in young adults. Outcomes investigated were: total body mass (TBM), FFM, fat mass (FM), total single repetition maximum (1RM), bench press (BP) 1RM, and lower body (LwB) 1RM. Databases consulted were: Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (Medline), Excerpta Medica database (Embase), The Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and SportDiscus. Fourteen studies fit the inclusion criteria; however, 11 were analyzed after data extraction and funnel plot analysis exclusion. A total of 302 participants (18–45 y) were included in body mass and composition analysis, and 248 were included in the strength analysis. A significant effect was found on TBM. However, there were no significant effects for FFM, FM, or strength outcomes. We conclude that HMB produces a small effect on TBM gain, but this effect does not translate into significantly greater increases in FFM, strength or decreases in FM during periods of RET. Our findings do not support the use of HMB aiming at improvement of body composition or strength with RET.

Background: Given the growing number of women in plastic and reconstructive surgery (PRS), it is imperative to evaluate the extent of gender diversity and equity policies among Canadian PRS programs to support female trainees and staff surgeons. Methods: A modified version of the United Nations Women’s Empowerment Principles (WEPs) Gender Gap Analysis tool was delivered to Canadian PRS Division Chairs (n = 11) and Residency Program Directors (n = 11). The survey assessed gender discrimination and equity policies, paid parental leave policies, and support for work/life balance. Results: Six Program Directors (55% response rate) and ten Division Chairs (91% response rate) completed the survey. Fifty percent of respondents reported having a formal gender non-discrimination and equal opportunity policy in their program or division. Eighty-three percent of PRS residency programs offered paid maternity/paternity/caregiver leave; however, only 29% offered financial or non-financial support to its staff surgeons. Only 33% of programs had approaches to support residents as parents and/or caregivers upon return to work. Work/life balance was supported for most trainees (67%) but only few faculty members (14%). Conclusions: The majority of Canadian PRS programs have approaches rather than formal policies to ensure gender non-discrimination and equal opportunity among residents and faculty. Although residency programs support wellness, few have approaches for trainees as parents and/or caregivers upon return to work. At the faculty level, approaches and policies lack support for maternity/paternity/caregiver leave or work/life balance. This information can be used to develop policy for support of plastic surgery trainees and faculty.

Background: The number of surgical residents experiencing childbearing during residency training is increasing, and there is an absence of clarity with respect to parental-leave, lactation and return-to-work policies in support of residents. The aim of this review was to examine parental-leave policies during residency training in surgery and the perceptions of these policies by residents, program directors and coresidents, as described in the literature. Methods: We performed a scoping review of the literature based on the following themes: maternity or parental-leave policies; antepartum work-restriction policies and obstetric complications; accommodations for training absences; support for, and perceptions of, maternity or parental leave during residency training; and challenges upon return to work, namely resident performance and breastfeeding. Results: Parental-leave policies during surgical residency training have historically lacked clarity and enforcement. Although recommendations for parental leave are now in place, this may have historically contributed to a lack of perceived support for surgical residents and may result in variable leave permitted to residents. Unclear policies may also contribute to career dissatisfaction among resident parents, which may deter qualified individuals from selecting surgical subspecialties. Conclusion: A call for a cultural shift is required to inform policies that would better support residents across all surgical specialties to pursue success in their dual roles as parents and surgeons. With increased awareness, progress in policy and guideline development is under way.