Gels vs Gatorade

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.
--
terry morse Palo Alto, CA http://bike.terrymorse.com

Terry Morse wrote:
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.

Do they give any justification for those statements? They are certainly
at odds with basic biochemistry since the body's energy system runs on
glucose which is absorbed very readily by the bloodstream directly
through the intestinal lining. More complex carbohydrates are first
converted to glucose before they used by the body cells for energy
production. Substituting complex carbohydrates for glucose would
therefore slow down the process and make it more difficult for an
athlete to digest a sufficient number of calories.
A simplified overview of the digestive process is given at:
http://home.howstuffworks.com/food2.htm
The main problem with consumption of mono- and disaccharides is that
they enter the bloodstream too quickly therefore leading to jumps in the
blood sugar levels and consequent variations in the insulin levels in
response. But an exercising athlete who is consuming an energy drink at
frequent intervals would be unlikely to experience this problem.

Terry Morse wrote:
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.

Do they give any justification for those statements? They are certainly
at odds with basic biochemistry since the body's energy system runs on
glucose which is absorbed very readily by the bloodstream directly
through the intestinal lining. More complex carbohydrates are first
converted to glucose before they used by the body cells for energy
production. Substituting complex carbohydrates for glucose would
therefore slow down the process and make it more difficult for an
athlete to digest a sufficient number of calories.
A simplified overview of the digestive process is given at:
http://home.howstuffworks.com/food2.htm
The main problem with consumption of mono- and disaccharides is that
they enter the bloodstream too quickly therefore leading to jumps in the
blood sugar levels and consequent variations in the insulin levels in
response. But an exercising athlete who is consuming an energy drink at
frequent intervals would be unlikely to experience this problem.

In article ,
Peter 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."
--
terry morse Palo Alto, CA http://bike.terrymorse.com/

In article ,
Peter 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."
--
terry morse Palo Alto, CA http://bike.terrymorse.com/

Terry Morse wrote:
In article ,
Peter 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 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 (simple single sugars like glucose and
fructose). From
http://arbl.cvmbs.colostate.edu/hboo...b_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. ... Polysaccharides and disaccharides
must be digested to monosaccharides prior to absorption"


"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. Instead, the sugar passes
quickly to the small intestine and is absorbed directly through the
intestinal wall into the bloodstream. If the sugar is sucrose (a
disaccharide) then it is first broken down by enzymes to its components:
glucose and fructose, but that's a very rapid process compared to the
necessary breakdown of starches and other complex carbohydrates.

...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."

So their claim is that given two possible processes:
1) monosaccharide - absorption by bloodstream - ATP production in body
cells; and
2) polysaccharide - breakdown by enzymes to monosaccharides -
absorption by bloodstream - ATP production in body cells;

that somehow 2) is faster and more efficient even though it's the same
as 1) but with the additional first step.
Looks like magic to me. The only explanation I can see is what you
mentioned previously: "this is coming from a company that's trying to
sell its own line of sports nutrition products."

Terry Morse wrote:
In article ,
Peter 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 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 (simple single sugars like glucose and
fructose). From
http://arbl.cvmbs.colostate.edu/hboo...b_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. ... Polysaccharides and disaccharides
must be digested to monosaccharides prior to absorption"


"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. Instead, the sugar passes
quickly to the small intestine and is absorbed directly through the
intestinal wall into the bloodstream. If the sugar is sucrose (a
disaccharide) then it is first broken down by enzymes to its components:
glucose and fructose, but that's a very rapid process compared to the
necessary breakdown of starches and other complex carbohydrates.

...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."

So their claim is that given two possible processes:
1) monosaccharide - absorption by bloodstream - ATP production in body
cells; and
2) polysaccharide - breakdown by enzymes to monosaccharides -
absorption by bloodstream - ATP production in body cells;

that somehow 2) is faster and more efficient even though it's the same
as 1) but with the additional first step.
Looks like magic to me. The only explanation I can see is what you
mentioned previously: "this is coming from a company that's trying to
sell its own line of sports nutrition products."

On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 19:06:51 -0700, 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.

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

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

JT

On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 19:06:51 -0700, 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.

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

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

JT

"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.