Gels vs Gatorade

Terry Morse 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 Kill the tomato!

"Terry Morse" wrote in message
...
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.

"Terry Morse" wrote in message
...
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.

"Terry Morse" wrote in message
...
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/q...t_uids=6390613

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...t_uids=1936083

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...t_uids=1406206

Andy Coggan

"Terry Morse" wrote in message
...
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/q...t_uids=6390613

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...t_uids=1936083

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...t_uids=1406206

Andy Coggan

"Terry Morse" wrote in message
...
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."

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

"Terry Morse" wrote in message
...
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."

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

On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 08:28:23 -0700, Terry Morse
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.

On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 08:28:23 -0700, Terry Morse
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.

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/