Energy Gel - Maltodextrin vs. Brown Rice Syrup

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 14:24:33 -0800 (PST), webhead <[email protected]>
wrote:

>The Glycemic Index is measured in rest and consumed pure.
>
>This being said, the insulin response to carbohydrate intake during
>exercise is a lot complexer.
>It's not only digestibility and rate of digestion and uptake but also
>the rate of stomach clearance. Sure enough if you eat some glucose and
>your blood sugar will rise sharp but add some fat to that and it won't
>rise as fast simply because fat makes stomach clearance slow down. (by
>inducing a higher tonus in the pyloric sphincter if you must know)
>An added problem would be that your digestive system doesn't respond
>anything like it during exercise then when at rest, mainly because of
>reduced bloodflow in the entire gastrointestinal system.
>
>In short, modest glucose intake during exercise doesn't cause a high
>insulin peak and blood sugar drop as a result. There's no reason not
>to use glucose as an energy source.
>Whether the slow digestable carbohydrates offer an advantage in
>performance or not is heavily debated. In all likelihood it will
>provide you with the exact same energy and results. It is however very
>much recommended to keep your simple carb intake prior to a race or
>training as low as possible. Prior means at rest and that WILL yield
>an insuline peak and blood sugar rebound drop.
>
>Honey is a great low GI product and mixes rather well with things like
>a twist of lemon juice. Try and see if you can hold it down on the
>road, there's no rule of what can an cannot be tolerated, it basically
>depends on your own body. The rule of thumb about the 7% solution is
>somewhat arbitrary, I once read an article about how that exact number
>came into play.
>
>More information about sugars and exercise here :
>http://www.runnersweb.com/running/news/rw_news_20060620_ERB_Carbohydrates.html

When I was cash poor in college there were "free" honey packets in my
school's cafeteria and I used to take some to mix with water for use
out riding.

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 13:02:24 -0800 (PST), Scott
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Dec 13, 11:42 am, John Forrest Tomlinson <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>> On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 08:49:52 -0800 (PST), Scott
>>
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >Regardless, even with all the benefits to be derived from other
>> >sources, gels are still an acceptable source of energy for 'other than
>> >racing' situations. Maybe not the best choice, but certainly not such
>> >a poor choice as to declare them fit for 'race use only'.
>>
>> Right. I'm only commenting on what is wise, not what is possible.
>
>I understand. It has been nice to trade comments with someone that
>didn't result in name calling, sort of caught me off guard.

Who did I call a name?

 

[Paul Myron Hobson]

> On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 13:02:24 -0800 (PST), Scott
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I understand. It has been nice to trade comments with someone that
>> didn't result in name calling, sort of caught me off guard.
^^^^^^^^^^^

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> Who did I call a name?

No one. That's the point.

 

[MagillaGorilla]

webhead wrote:
> The Glycemic Index is measured in rest and consumed pure.
>
> This being said, the insulin response to carbohydrate intake during
> exercise is a lot complexer.
> It's not only digestibility and rate of digestion and uptake but also
> the rate of stomach clearance. Sure enough if you eat some glucose and
> your blood sugar will rise sharp but add some fat to that and it won't
> rise as fast simply because fat makes stomach clearance slow down. (by
> inducing a higher tonus in the pyloric sphincter if you must know)
> An added problem would be that your digestive system doesn't respond
> anything like it during exercise then when at rest, mainly because of
> reduced bloodflow in the entire gastrointestinal system.
>
> In short, modest glucose intake during exercise doesn't cause a high
> insulin peak and blood sugar drop as a result. There's no reason not
> to use glucose as an energy source.
> Whether the slow digestable carbohydrates offer an advantage in
> performance or not is heavily debated. In all likelihood it will
> provide you with the exact same energy and results. It is however very
> much recommended to keep your simple carb intake prior to a race or
> training as low as possible. Prior means at rest and that WILL yield
> an insuline peak and blood sugar rebound drop.
>
> Honey is a great low GI product and mixes rather well with things like
> a twist of lemon juice. Try and see if you can hold it down on the
> road, there's no rule of what can an cannot be tolerated, it basically
> depends on your own body. The rule of thumb about the 7% solution is
> somewhat arbitrary, I once read an article about how that exact number
> came into play.
>
> More information about sugars and exercise here :
> http://www.runnersweb.com/running/news/rw_news_20060620_ERB_Carbohydrates.html



Why write all this when you can just call him a **********?

Magilla

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 18:13:09 -0500, Paul Myron Hobson
<[email protected]> wrote:

>> On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 13:02:24 -0800 (PST), Scott
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> I understand. It has been nice to trade comments with someone that
>>> didn't result in name calling, sort of caught me off guard.
>^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>> Who did I call a name?
>
>No one. That's the point.

Thanks, I see now.

 

[[email protected]]

John Forrest Tomlinson writes:

>>>> Regardless, even with all the benefits to be derived from other
>>>> sources, gels are still an acceptable source of energy for 'other
>>>> than racing' situations. Maybe not the best choice, but
>>>> certainly not such a poor choice as to declare them fit for 'race
>>>> use only'.

>>> Right. I'm only commenting on what is wise, not what is possible.

>> I understand. It has been nice to trade comments with someone that
>> didn't result in name calling, sort of caught me off guard.

> Who did I call a name?

Although these days of GWB, pretending not to know the English
language is fashionable. However, you say you went to college, so you
might write:

Whom did I call a name?

unless you believe Ernest Hemingway got it wrong with "For whom the
bell tolls".

Jobst Brandt

 

[MagillaGorilla]

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:

> On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 16:35:11 -0500, MagillaGorilla
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>[email protected] wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Dec 12, 7:15 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>><snip>
>>>>On Dec 12, 6:39 pm, John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Gels are racing fuel - only use them in training enough to get used to
>>>>>them to see what you like. Don't think about health effects of racing
>>>>>fuel.
>>>>
>>>>That's a good one...just like the guys who use testosterone, steroids,
>>>>blood (their own or someone else's), amphetemines, etc etc etc.
>>>>Just take it, don't think about it.
>>>>ABS
>>>
>>>
>>>Obviously you haven't spent much time around here. John is the real
>>>thing - a good racer who is completely on the up and up.
>>
>>
>>How good can he be, Jackass, if he's never dabbled in the hot sauce?
>
>
> I worse than a has been, worse than a never was...I'm a never coulda..
>
> JT


Come to the Magilla training camp in the Canary Islands this January and
I'll make you a star, JT. After you book your flight, tell USADA
you'll be in Hawaii for those 2 weeks so they know where to send the mules.

Magilla

 

[[email protected]]

John Forrest Tomlinson writes:

>>>> Regardless, even with all the benefits to be derived from other
>>>> sources, gels are still an acceptable source of energy for 'other
>>>> than racing' situations. Maybe not the best choice, but
>>>> certainly not such a poor choice as to declare them fit for 'race
>>>> use only'.

>>> Right. I'm only commenting on what is wise, not what is possible.

>> I understand. It has been nice to trade comments with someone that
>> didn't result in name calling, sort of caught me off guard.

> Who did I call a name?

These days of GWB, pretending not to know the English language is
fashionable, However, you say you went to college, so you might write:

Whom did I call a name?

unless you believe Ernest Hemingway got it wrong with "For whom the
bell tolls".

Jobst Brandt

 

[Scott]

On Dec 13, 3:45 pm, John Forrest Tomlinson <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 13:02:24 -0800 (PST), Scott
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >On Dec 13, 11:42 am, John Forrest Tomlinson <[email protected]>
> >wrote:
> >> On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 08:49:52 -0800 (PST), Scott
>
> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >Regardless, even with all the benefits to be derived from other
> >> >sources, gels are still an acceptable source of energy for 'other than
> >> >racing' situations. Maybe not the best choice, but certainly not such
> >> >a poor choice as to declare them fit for 'race use only'.
>
> >> Right. I'm only commenting on what is wise, not what is possible.
>
> >I understand. It has been nice to trade comments with someone that
> >didn't result in name calling, sort of caught me off guard.
>
> Who did I call a name?

You didn't. That was the point.

 

[TM]

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> John Forrest Tomlinson writes:
>
>>>>> Regardless, even with all the benefits to be derived from other
>>>>> sources, gels are still an acceptable source of energy for 'other
>>>>> than racing' situations. Maybe not the best choice, but
>>>>> certainly not such a poor choice as to declare them fit for 'race
>>>>> use only'.
>
>>>> Right. I'm only commenting on what is wise, not what is possible.
>
>>> I understand. It has been nice to trade comments with someone that
>>> didn't result in name calling, sort of caught me off guard.
>
>> Who did I call a name?
>
> Although these days of GWB, pretending not to know the English
> language is fashionable. However, you say you went to college, so you
> might write:
>
> Whom did I call a name?
>
> unless you believe Ernest Hemingway got it wrong with "For whom the
> bell tolls".
>
> Jobst Brandt
>

What's the proper English term for someone who tries to troll on usenet, but
comes across as an old lady who edits a fashion magazine instead?

 

[[email protected]]

On Dec 13, 5:45 pm, John Forrest Tomlinson <[email protected]>
wrote:

> When I was cash poor in college there were "free" honey packets in my
> school's cafeteria and I used to take some to mix with water for use
> out riding.

dumbass,

if you go to taco bell they'll give you free packets of hot sauce.

 

[Dave]

TM wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> John Forrest Tomlinson writes:
>>
>>>>>> Regardless, even with all the benefits to be derived from other
>>>>>> sources, gels are still an acceptable source of energy for 'other
>>>>>> than racing' situations. Maybe not the best choice, but
>>>>>> certainly not such a poor choice as to declare them fit for 'race
>>>>>> use only'.
>>>>> Right. I'm only commenting on what is wise, not what is possible.
>>>> I understand. It has been nice to trade comments with someone that
>>>> didn't result in name calling, sort of caught me off guard.
>>> Who did I call a name?
>> Although these days of GWB, pretending not to know the English
>> language is fashionable. However, you say you went to college, so you
>> might write:
>>
>> Whom did I call a name?
>>
>> unless you believe Ernest Hemingway got it wrong with "For whom the
>> bell tolls".
>>
>> Jobst Brandt
>>
>
> What's the proper English term for someone who tries to troll on usenet, but
> comes across as an old lady who edits a fashion magazine instead?
>
>
>

pedantic

 

[[email protected]]

A shy person snipes anonymously:

>>>>>> Regardless, even with all the benefits to be derived from other
>>>>>> sources, gels are still an acceptable source of energy for
>>>>>> 'other than racing' situations. Maybe not the best choice, but
>>>>>> certainly not such a poor choice as to declare them fit for
>>>>>> 'race use only'.

>>>>> Right. I'm only commenting on what is wise, not what is possible.

>>>> I understand. It has been nice to trade comments with someone
>>>> that didn't result in name calling, sort of caught me off guard.

>>> Who did I call a name?

>> Although these days of GWB, pretending not to know the English
>> language is fashionable. However, you say you went to college, so
>> you might write:

>> Whom did I call a name?

>> unless you believe Ernest Hemingway got it wrong with "For whom the
>> bell tolls".

> What's the proper English term for someone who tries to troll on
> usenet, but comes across as an old lady who edits a fashion magazine
> instead?

As I said, poor english is fashionable these days and not in fashion
magazines. So who are you to complain... anonymously at that?

Jobst Brandt

 

[SLAVE of THE STATE]

On Dec 13, 3:34 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> John Forrest Tomlinson writes:
> >>>> Regardless, even with all the benefits to be derived from other
> >>>> sources, gels are still an acceptable source of energy for 'other
> >>>> than racing' situations. Maybe not the best choice, but
> >>>> certainly not such a poor choice as to declare them fit for 'race
> >>>> use only'.
> >>> Right. I'm only commenting on what is wise, not what is possible.
> >> I understand. It has been nice to trade comments with someone that
> >> didn't result in name calling, sort of caught me off guard.
> > Who did I call a name?
>
> These days of GWB, pretending not to know the English language is
> fashionable, However, you say you went to college, so you might write:
>
> Whom did I call a name?
>
> unless you believe Ernest Hemingway got it wrong with "For whom the
> bell tolls".

jaggar,

Who knows, who cares? That's no pretence, and George is not
pretending.

If you want to get it right, it is John Donne in 1623, not Ernie in
1940.
http://incompetech.com/authors/donne/bell.html

Anywho, or maybe you would say anywhom, or maybe you wouldn't say it
that way at all, if you want to get all modern on GWB and the rest of
us, you could step right on up to Metallica. Neither Metallica nor
Ernie sprinkle sugar on their rides with whoever, whomever. But the
snacks are nonetheless healthy.

----------------------------
Metallica -- For Whom The Bell Tolls (5:23)
Make his fight on the hill in the early day
Constant chill deep inside
Shouting gun, on they run through the endless grey
On the fight, for they are right, yes, by whos to say?
For a hill men would kill, why? they do not know
Suffered wounds test there their pride
Men of five, still alive through the raging glow
Gone insane from the pain that they surely know
[chorus:]
For whom the bell tolls
Time marches on
For whom the bell tolls

Take a look to the sky just before you die
It is the last time you will
Blackened roar massive roar fills the crumbling sky
Shattered goal fills his soul with a ruthless cry
Stranger now, are his eyes, to this mystery
He hears the silence so loud
Crack of dawn, all is gone except the will to be
Now they will see what will be, blinded eyes to see
[chorus]

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On 14 Dec 2007 01:18:52 GMT, [email protected] wrote:

>A shy person snipes anonymously:
>
>>>>>>> Regardless, even with all the benefits to be derived from other
>>>>>>> sources, gels are still an acceptable source of energy for
>>>>>>> 'other than racing' situations. Maybe not the best choice, but
>>>>>>> certainly not such a poor choice as to declare them fit for
>>>>>>> 'race use only'.
>
>>>>>> Right. I'm only commenting on what is wise, not what is possible.
>
>>>>> I understand. It has been nice to trade comments with someone
>>>>> that didn't result in name calling, sort of caught me off guard.
>
>>>> Who did I call a name?
>
>>> Although these days of GWB, pretending not to know the English
>>> language is fashionable. However, you say you went to college, so
>>> you might write:
>
>>> Whom did I call a name?
>
>>> unless you believe Ernest Hemingway got it wrong with "For whom the
>>> bell tolls".
>
>> What's the proper English term for someone who tries to troll on
>> usenet, but comes across as an old lady who edits a fashion magazine
>> instead?
>
>As I said, poor english is fashionable these days and not in fashion
>magazines. So who are you to complain... anonymously at that?

Speaking of language, do you know the difference between pseudonymous
and anonymous? I don't think you do.

 

[Ozark Bicycle]

On Dec 13, 6:50 pm, "TM" <[email protected]> wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
> > John Forrest Tomlinson writes:
>
> >>>>> Regardless, even with all the benefits to be derived from other
> >>>>> sources, gels are still an acceptable source of energy for 'other
> >>>>> than racing' situations. Maybe not the best choice, but
> >>>>> certainly not such a poor choice as to declare them fit for 'race
> >>>>> use only'.
>
> >>>> Right. I'm only commenting on what is wise, not what is possible.
>
> >>> I understand. It has been nice to trade comments with someone that
> >>> didn't result in name calling, sort of caught me off guard.
>
> >> Who did I call a name?
>
> > Although these days of GWB, pretending not to know the English
> > language is fashionable. However, you say you went to college, so you
> > might write:
>
> > Whom did I call a name?
>
> > unless you believe Ernest Hemingway got it wrong with "For whom the
> > bell tolls".
>
> > Jobst Brandt
>
> What's the proper English term for someone who tries to troll on usenet, but
> comes across as an old lady who edits a fashion magazine instead?

"Jobst Brandt"!

 

[Sandy]

Dans le message de news:[email protected],
[email protected] <[email protected]> a
réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> A shy person snipes anonymously:
>
>>>>>>> Regardless, even with all the benefits to be derived from other
>>>>>>> sources, gels are still an acceptable source of energy for
>>>>>>> 'other than racing' situations. Maybe not the best choice, but
>>>>>>> certainly not such a poor choice as to declare them fit for
>>>>>>> 'race use only'.
>
>>>>>> Right. I'm only commenting on what is wise, not what is possible.
>
>>>>> I understand. It has been nice to trade comments with someone
>>>>> that didn't result in name calling, sort of caught me off guard.
>
>>>> Who did I call a name?
>
>>> Although these days of GWB, pretending not to know the English
>>> language is fashionable. However, you say you went to college, so
>>> you might write:
>
>>> Whom did I call a name?
>
>>> unless you believe Ernest Hemingway got it wrong with "For whom the
>>> bell tolls".
>
>> What's the proper English term for someone who tries to troll on
>> usenet, but comes across as an old lady who edits a fashion magazine
>> instead?
>
> As I said, poor english is fashionable these days and not in fashion
> magazines. So who are you to complain... anonymously at that?
>
> Jobst Brandt

Have you thought, perhaps, of using the appropriate punctuation? A comma
would have been appropriate, not little dots running in a row. Perhaps you
need to send your stuff to a copyeditor, before pretending you are more than
marginally fluent in this language.

 

[Tom Sherman]

John Forrest Tomlinson, using his real name, wrote:
> ...
> Speaking of language, do you know the difference between pseudonymous
> and anonymous? I don't think you do.

What difference does it make? Both pseudonymous and anonymous are
cowardly ways to avoid accountability for what the person posts.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"Localized intense suction such as tornadoes is created when temperature
differences are high enough between meeting air masses, and can impart
excessive energy onto a cyclist." - Randy Schlitter

 

[[email protected]]

John Forrest Tomlinson writes:

>> A shy person snipes anonymously:

>>>>>>>> Regardless, even with all the benefits to be derived from other
>>>>>>>> sources, gels are still an acceptable source of energy for
>>>>>>>> 'other than racing' situations. Maybe not the best choice, but
>>>>>>>> certainly not such a poor choice as to declare them fit for
>>>>>>>> 'race use only'.

>>>>>>> Right. I'm only commenting on what is wise, not what is possible.

>>>>>> I understand. It has been nice to trade comments with someone
>>>>>> that didn't result in name calling, sort of caught me off guard.

>>>>> Who did I call a name?

>>>> Although these days of GWB, pretending not to know the English
>>>> language is fashionable. However, you say you went to college, so
>>>> you might write:

>>>> Whom did I call a name?

>>>> unless you believe Ernest Hemingway got it wrong with "For whom the
>>>> bell tolls".

>>> What's the proper English term for someone who tries to troll on
>>> usenet, but comes across as an old lady who edits a fashion magazine
>>> instead?

>> As I said, poor english is fashionable these days and not in fashion
>> magazines. So who are you to complain... anonymously at that?

> Speaking of language, do you know the difference between pseudonymous
> and anonymous? I don't think you do.

Illiterate people sign with an "X" which is not a pseudonym, nor are
the symbols writers use to remain anonymous, and who give no return
address.

Jobst Brandt

 

[Howard Kveck]

In article <[email protected]>,
Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote:

> John Forrest Tomlinson, using his real name, wrote:
> > ...
> > Speaking of language, do you know the difference between pseudonymous
> > and anonymous? I don't think you do.
>
> What difference does it make? Both pseudonymous and anonymous are
> cowardly ways to avoid accountability for what the person posts.

Well, I'm not sure what "accountability" you're referring to. What's the
difference between a person who posts consistently with the same pseudonym and
someone who posts with his or her "real" name? Use of a "real" name doesn't make the
post any more or less valid. Unless by "accountability" you mean that knowing a
"real" name would let you find out where the poster lives and you could go kick their
ass or some other such nonsense.

Get over it.

--
tanx,
Howard

Safe when used as directed...

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?