Gels vs Gatorade

[Terry Morse]

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:

> Terry Morse wrote:
>
> > - S. Born, "The Endurance Athlete's Guide to
> >Suceess", an E-Caps/Hammer Nutrition publication
> >
> >Granted, this is coming from a company that's trying to sell its own
> >line of sports nutrition products.
>
> You were arguning with me based on an advertisement? That's funny.

Arguments produce understanding. Actually, the referenced article
was written by Steve Born, who is a technical advisor to E-CAPS. He
references the work of Bill Misner, PhD (nutrition). Maybe you would
like to refute some of the claims?

> It's even funnier to argue with Coggan based on that.

I'm drawing him out, hoping to get a second opinion.

> Prediction: he's going to tell you to look it up in pubmed or another
> online database of real science.

There's nothing I've found in Pubmed that compares maltodextrin with
glucose or fructose, although there are a few studies that compare
maltodextrin with plain water. Not surprisingly, maltodextrin wins.
--
terry morse Palo Alto, CA http://bike.terrymorse.com/

 

[Terry Morse]

Peter Cole wrote:

> "Terry Morse" wrote
> >
> > Granted, this is coming from a company that's trying to sell its own
> > line of sports nutrition products. Please explain why you think their
> > reasoning is all wrong.
>
> I think you answered your own question.

Not good enough. Arguments still must be refuted or validated,
regardless of who makes them. Too many arguments these days are
shrugged off with the "bias" label, "you're biased so any claims you
make are nonsense". Nonsense.
--
terry morse Palo Alto, CA http://bike.terrymorse.com/

 

[Peter]

Terry Morse wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> Peter <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Terry Morse wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Just as important, though, is the fact that simple sugars, unlike
>>>complex carbohydrates, take longer and require more fluid to empty
>>>from the stomach and GI tract."
>>
>>This statement totally ignores the fact that complex carbohydrates can't
>>be absorbed from the stomach and GI tract at all - they first have to be
>>broken down into monosaccharides...
>
>
> I don't think this invalidates their comment, but it certainly casts
> a shadow over the fuild transport situation. They claim that complex
> carbs will be absorbed at the same 6-8% concentration as simple
> sugars, but since the carbs have more energy content, they carry
> with them more fuel. What they don't mention is that the carbs are
> broken down into simple sugars in the intestine, raising the
> concentration, which reportedly shuts down the stomach emptying.

Of course they don't mention that since it destroys their whole
argument. Complex carbohydrates aren't absorbed at any concentration so
the way you get the fastest absorption is to start with monosaccharides
that don't have to be broken down first. Adding additional steps won't
speed up the process.
>
>
>>>"This is due to a physiological
>>>feature known as osmolality...If the osmolality of your sports drink
>>>deviates from body fluid levels, it will not absorb. A simple sugar
>>>drink will only match regular body fluid osmolality at a very weak
>>>6-8% concentration; otherwise, it will remain in the stomach until
>>>sufficiently diluted.
>>
>>Anyone who has mildly 'bonked' and then been rather quickly revitalized
>>by drinking a coke or other sugar-rich drink will recognize that the
>>sugar didn't just sit in the stomach waiting for them to drink lots of
>>additional water to achieve this dilution.
>
>
> Well, that concentrated sugar solution had to get through the
> intestinal wall some how, and it can't climb an osmolality gradient
> to do it. I don't think there are any pumps in the intenstines for
> moving fluids.

As quoted before:
http://arbl.cvmbs.colostate.edu/hbooks/pathphys/digestion/smallgut/absorb_sugars.html:
"Particularly important dietary carbohydrates include starch and
disaccharides such as lactose and sucrose. None of these molecules can
be absorbed for the simple reason that they cannot cross cell membranes
unaided and, unlike the situation for monosaccharides, there are no
transporters to carry them across."
Those transporters do act as a form of pump for getting the
monosaccharides (molecules - not fluids) into the bloodstream. But in
any event, the gradient in this case is in the right direction - you
have a higher sugar concentration in the intestines so there will be a
natural tendency to get it into the bloodstream where the concentration
is lower.

From what I understand, when you have a concentrated
> solution, fluid will flow from the bloodstream into the intestines
> until the solution is isotonic (same concentration as the body's).
> When hydration is at a premium, that's probably not a great idea.

That's the standard osmotic pressure with a semipermeable membrance that
permits water to pass but blocks the dissolved substance. But in this
case the monosaccharides are able to pass through the intestinal wall
membrance. So the concentration can equalize just by moving the sugar
molecules into the bloodstream.

 

[David Damerell]

Terry Morse <[email protected]> wrote:
>Peter Cole wrote:
>>"Terry Morse" wrote
>>> Granted, this is coming from a company that's trying to sell its own
>>>line of sports nutrition products. Please explain why you think their
>>>reasoning is all wrong.
>>I think you answered your own question.
>Not good enough. Arguments still must be refuted or validated,
>regardless of who makes them.

Indeed, but there isn't an argument in what you posted, merely an
assertion.
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> Kill the tomato!

 

[Peter Cole]

"Terry Morse" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Peter Cole wrote:
>
> > "Terry Morse" wrote
> > >
> > > Granted, this is coming from a company that's trying to sell its own
> > > line of sports nutrition products. Please explain why you think their
> > > reasoning is all wrong.
> >
> > I think you answered your own question.
>
> Not good enough. Arguments still must be refuted or validated,
> regardless of who makes them. Too many arguments these days are
> shrugged off with the "bias" label, "you're biased so any claims you
> make are nonsense". Nonsense.

From the Gatorade online literature, describing a 1993:
"Following the ACSM roundtable the scientists in attendance issued a consensus
statement which is reprinted below.


Prolonged exercise performance can be impaired by depletion of the body's
energy stores and by disturbances of water and electrolyte balance. The aim of
an oral rehydration solution for use in exercise and sports should be to
optimize the provision of carbohydrate, water, and electrolytes. Water uptake
in the intestine is maximized by hypotonic solutions containing glucose and
sodium, but such solutions may not provide sufficient carbohydrate to optimize
prolonged and intense exercise performance. Alternatively, relatively high
concentrations of carbohydrate will reduce the rate of water absorption and
maximize the supply of carbohydrate.

The addition of different energy sources, including various forms of
carbohydrate and perhaps other substrates, may offer some advantage to human
performance by further stimulating water uptake. Sodium plays an important
role in the stimulation of carbohydrate and water absorption in the intestine,
but less is known about the optimal amount needed for oral-rehydration
solutions.

The absorptive capacity of the intestine is generally adequate to cope with
even the most extreme demands. Intestinal blood flow is reduced in strenuous
exercise, and sustained reductions in blood flow are known to impair
absorptive capacity. At the intensities of exercise that can be sustained for
more than 30 minutes, there appears to be little effect of exercise on
intestinal function. "

******************************************



Pretty much says that if you're dehydrated, you want to stick to hypotonic
solutions at the expense of getting behind on carbs. If not, you can have more
carbs. Doesn't sound very difficult. If you're dehydrated, drinking a Coke
will still give you a boost from carbs, but may make you thirstier, an
indication that you'll have a short-term net plasma drop, but you'll
eventually absorb the water in it. It's common to lose your appetite when
dehydrated, and to lose your thirst with salt depletion, it's just your body's
way of communicating priorities. If you're dehydrated, you'll have a more
difficult time with digestion, if not, you really don't have to eat any
special carbs. Drinking plain water may not re-hydrate quite as quickly
(although the drink manufacturers don't like to be pinned down with numbers),
but it still works fine, if you're drinking it steadily, you won't dehydrate
in the first place. IOW, you don't need sports drinks or gels at all. It's
much easier to keep your fluids (water) and carbs separate -- less messy, too.

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

[email protected] (andres muro) wrote in message
> again, I agree with you. however, I am a proponent of granola bars at
> $2.00 a box of 10, little debbie oatmeal creams at less than $2.00 a
> box, or fig newtons.

Most of those have trans fats, which are probably really bad for you.
(Some fig bars that don't are those sold by Newman's Own.)

JT

 

[Andy Coggan]

"Terry Morse" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Andy Coggan wrote:
>
> > Seriously, sucrose (common table sugar) is as good, if not better
> > than, any other source of carbohydrate when used in a sports
> > drink. The only possible advantage to maltodextrin is that, for a
> > given concentration, it isn't as sweet, which some people may
> > find more palatable.
> >
> > Andy Coggan (who cut his eye-teeth studying this stuff)
>
> Andy,
>
> Thanks for chiming in, your expert opinion is always refreshing.
> I'm sure it would come as no surprise to you that some disagree
> with your statement about the benefits of sugar in sports drinks. A
> sample:
>
> "Fructose, sucrose, glucose and other simple sugars...absorb
> poorly, cause wild energy fluctuations, and require excess water
> consumption...Complex carbohydrates...are the wisest choice for
> endurance athletes, as they allow your digestive system to rapidly
> and efficienlty process a greater volume of calories, providing
> steady energy." - S. Born, "The Endurance Athlete's Guide to
> Suceess", an E-Caps/Hammer Nutrition publication
>
> Granted, this is coming from a company that's trying to sell its own
> line of sports nutrition products. Please explain why you think their
> reasoning is all wrong.

It's simple: their statement is unsupported by the scientific literature.
For example, see:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=6390613

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=1936083

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=1406206

Andy Coggan

 

[Andy Coggan]

"Terry Morse" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Peter <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Terry Morse wrote:
> >
> > > "Fructose, sucrose, glucose and other simple sugars...absorb
> > > poorly, cause wild energy fluctuations, and require excess water
> > > consumption...Complex carbohydrates...are the wisest choice for
> > > endurance athletes, as they allow your digestive system to rapidly
> > > and efficienlty process a greater volume of calories, providing
> > > steady energy." - S. Born, "The Endurance Athlete's Guide to
> > > Suceess", an E-Caps/Hammer Nutrition publication
> > >
> > > Granted, this is coming from a company that's trying to sell its own
> > > line of sports nutrition products.
> >
> > Do they give any justification for those statements?
>
> Yes. From the same document:
>
> "Just as important, though, is the fact that simple sugars, unlike
> complex carbohydrates, take longer and require more fluid to empty
> from the stomach and GI tract. This is due to a physiological
> feature known as osmolality...If the osmolality of your sports drink
> deviates from body fluid levels, it will not absorb. A simple sugar
> drink will only match regular body fluid osmolality at a very weak
> 6-8% concentration; otherwise, it will remain in the stomach until
> sufficiently diluted...With a simple sugar drink, you're left with
> three bad choices. You can drink a 6-8% solution, but you'll get too
> few calories. You can drink a lot of a 6-8% solution to get adequate
> calories, but you'll overfill on fluid, or you can make a
> concentrated drink to get enough calories, but then you'll get poor
> absorption. In any case, you're done in. Simple sugar drinks just
> don't cut it for the endurance athlete."

Half-truths and innuendos...

While it is true that limiting the concentration of a carbohydrate beverage
to 6-8% requires that you ingest more of it than, say, a 15% solution, this
is generally not a problem, and in fact is often advantageous. This is
because 1) you can meet the ~1 g/min need for exogenous carbohydrate even
when ingesting a 6-8% solution, and 2) limiting the concentration to this
moderate level means that you maximize fluid (water) delivery, which is just
as, if not more, important.

The other lie in the above statement is the implication that maltodextrins
empty more rapidly than simple sugars, due to their lower osmolality. This
was originally (circa 1975) thought to be the case, but has not been borne
out in subsequent research. The explanation is probably that factors other
than osmolality - such as gastric volume, caloric density, temperature - as
more important in determining the rate of gastric emptying (which in turn
determines the rate of carbohydrate absorption).

Andy Coggan

 

[Paul Kopit]

On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 08:28:23 -0700, Terry Morse <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Arguments produce understanding. Actually, the referenced article
>was written by Steve Born, who is a technical advisor to E-CAPS. He
>references the work of Bill Misner, PhD (nutrition). Maybe you would
>like to refute some of the claims?

And if you research Bill Misner, you'll find his connection to Hammer
Nutrition.

Steve, as advisor, can say whatever he likes and it bears no legal
recourse to the firm.

 

[Terry Morse]

Peter Cole wrote:

> From the Gatorade online literature, describing a 1993:
> "Following the ACSM roundtable the scientists in attendance issued a consensus
> statement which is reprinted below.
>
>
> Prolonged exercise performance can be impaired by depletion of the body's
> energy stores and by disturbances of water and electrolyte balance. The aim of
> an oral rehydration solution for use in exercise and sports should be to
> optimize the provision of carbohydrate, water, and electrolytes. Water uptake
> in the intestine is maximized by hypotonic solutions containing glucose and
> sodium, but such solutions may not provide sufficient carbohydrate to optimize
> prolonged and intense exercise performance. Alternatively, relatively high
> concentrations of carbohydrate will reduce the rate of water absorption and
> maximize the supply of carbohydrate.
>
> The addition of different energy sources, including various forms of
> carbohydrate and perhaps other substrates, may offer some advantage to human
> performance by further stimulating water uptake. Sodium plays an important
> role in the stimulation of carbohydrate and water absorption in the intestine,
> but less is known about the optimal amount needed for oral-rehydration
> solutions.
>
> The absorptive capacity of the intestine is generally adequate to cope with
> even the most extreme demands. Intestinal blood flow is reduced in strenuous
> exercise, and sustained reductions in blood flow are known to impair
> absorptive capacity. At the intensities of exercise that can be sustained for
> more than 30 minutes, there appears to be little effect of exercise on
> intestinal function. "
>
> ******************************************

That seems to be a reasonable synopsis, although I don't think it
contradicts the statements about the use of sugars in "The Endurance
Athlete's Guide to Success". If anything, it seems to agree with it
(low concentration solution promotes absorbtion, high concentration
reduces absorbtion).
--
terry morse Palo Alto, CA http://bike.terrymorse.com/

 

[Terry Morse]

Andy Coggan wrote:

> Terry Morse wrote:
> >
> > "Fructose, sucrose, glucose and other simple sugars...absorb
> > poorly, cause wild energy fluctuations, and require excess water
> > consumption...Complex carbohydrates...are the wisest choice for
> > endurance athletes, as they allow your digestive system to rapidly
> > and efficienlty process a greater volume of calories, providing
> > steady energy." - S. Born, "The Endurance Athlete's Guide to
> > Suceess", an E-Caps/Hammer Nutrition publication
> >
> > Granted, this is coming from a company that's trying to sell its own
> > line of sports nutrition products. Please explain why you think their
> > reasoning is all wrong.
>
> It's simple: their statement is unsupported by the scientific literature.
> For example, see:
>
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abst
> ract&list_uids=6390613
>
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abst
> ract&list_uids=1936083
>
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abst
> ract&list_uids=1406206

Okay, one section of the last abstract jumps out:

"No apparent differences exist between glucose, sucrose, or
maltodextrins in their ability to improve performance. Ingesting
fructose during exercise, however, does not improve performance and
may cause gastrointestinal distress."

So you're saying that the choice of carbohydrate doesn't affect
performace, unless it's fructose, which should be avoided. Okay.
What about Born's implied claim that maltodextrin has a higher
calorie content at a given concentration, and thus provides more
fuel at the same water absorption?
--
terry morse Palo Alto, CA http://bike.terrymorse.com/

 

[Terry Morse]

Terry Morse wrote:

> What about Born's implied claim that maltodextrin has a higher
> calorie content at a given concentration, and thus provides more
> fuel at the same water absorption?

Never mind, I see that you answered this further down the thread.
Thanks.

Are there any benefits to maltodextrin over sucrose/glucose, such as
maintaining blood glucose levels for a longer time? This might make
it preferable as a pre-race fuel.
--
terry morse Palo Alto, CA http://bike.terrymorse.com/

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 08:34:17 -0700, Terry Morse <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Peter Cole wrote:
>
>> "Terry Morse" wrote
>> >
>> > Granted, this is coming from a company that's trying to sell its own
>> > line of sports nutrition products. Please explain why you think their
>> > reasoning is all wrong.
>>
>> I think you answered your own question.
>
>Not good enough. Arguments still must be refuted or validated,

I made an argument based on succesful practice and you denounced it by
claiming the people with that experience don't know about nutrition.
It seems you have two different standards depending on which side of
the discussion the evidence is on.

JT

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 18:10:32 GMT, "Peter Cole"
<[email protected]> wrote:


>Pretty much says that if you're dehydrated, you want to stick to hypotonic
>solutions at the expense of getting behind on carbs. If not, you can have more
>carbs. Doesn't sound very difficult. If you're dehydrated, drinking a Coke
>will still give you a boost from carbs, but may make you thirstier, an
>indication that you'll have a short-term net plasma drop, but you'll
>eventually absorb the water in it. It's common to lose your appetite when
>dehydrated, and to lose your thirst with salt depletion, it's just your body's
>way of communicating priorities.

Thank you. This is very helpful and, I think, supports my assertion
that strong sugar solutions like Extran can be useful if the rider is
drinking a lot. Something Morse denouncd.

JT

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

I know it makes me look like a petty asshole, but I've got to repost
this, which was written earlier this this thread by someone else:

"Everything I've described is the state of the art when it comes to
nutrition for the endurance athlete. Dozens of studies have looked
at these issues, in the lab and out. What you have described is
nonsense."

JT

 

[Terry Morse]

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:

> I made an argument based on succesful practice and you denounced it by
> claiming the people with that experience don't know about nutrition.
> It seems you have two different standards depending on which side of
> the discussion the evidence is on.

Welcome to the subtle art of argument. I have no skin in this game,
and I'm ready to be convinced by evidence--one way or the other. The
"that's what successful athletes use"(*) argument was pretty weak,
for obvious reasons. So I shot it down.

(*) same argument used in years past to justify tied-and-soldered
spokes, ankling, etc.
--
terry morse Palo Alto, CA http://bike.terrymorse.com/

 

[Terry Morse]

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:

> Thank you. This is very helpful and, I think, supports my assertion
> that strong sugar solutions like Extran can be useful if the rider is
> drinking a lot. Something Morse denouncd.

A point I will concede: concentrated sugar solutions will be
digested, but at the expense of reduced water absorbtion.
--
terry morse Palo Alto, CA http://bike.terrymorse.com/

 

[Terry Morse]

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:

> I know it makes me look like a petty asshole, but I've got to repost
> this, which was written earlier this this thread by someone else:
>
> "Everything I've described is the state of the art when it comes to
> nutrition for the endurance athlete. Dozens of studies have looked
> at these issues, in the lab and out. What you have described is
> nonsense."

That someone else was yours truly, thank you. Got the discussion
going, didn't it? Now we all know more than we did before. What John
described wasn't in the end nonsense, he just couldn't defend it
very well.
--
terry morse Palo Alto, CA http://bike.terrymorse.com/

 

[Peter]

Terry Morse wrote:

> John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>
>
>>I made an argument based on succesful practice and you denounced it by
>>claiming the people with that experience don't know about nutrition.
>>It seems you have two different standards depending on which side of
>>the discussion the evidence is on.
>
>
> Welcome to the subtle art of argument. I have no skin in this game,
> and I'm ready to be convinced by evidence--one way or the other. The
> "that's what successful athletes use"(*) argument was pretty weak,
> for obvious reasons. So I shot it down.
>
> (*) same argument used in years past to justify tied-and-soldered
> spokes, ankling, etc.

A major difference is that your claim was that use of an energy drink
with glucose would be detrimental to the performance of endurance
athletes. Extensive use of such drinks by successful endurance athletes
is valid evidence against such a claim, albeit not a proof.
OTOH, in the case of tied-and-soldered spokes, I don't remember anyone
claiming that it would hurt performance (other than the trivial weight
gain) - just that it was unnecessary and inconvenient.

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 16:09:09 -0700, Terry Morse <[email protected]>
wrote:

>John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>
>> I know it makes me look like a petty asshole, but I've got to repost
>> this, which was written earlier this this thread by someone else:
>>
>> "Everything I've described is the state of the art when it comes to
>> nutrition for the endurance athlete. Dozens of studies have looked
>> at these issues, in the lab and out. What you have described is
>> nonsense."
>
>That someone else was yours truly, thank you. Got the discussion
>going, didn't it? Now we all know more than we did before. What John
>described wasn't in the end nonsense, he just couldn't defend it
>very well.

Yes, I am unfortunately not so good at persuading people who are
sometimes too thick.

JT