Energy Gel - Maltodextrin vs. Brown Rice Syrup

Regarding energy gel packets such as Clif and others. Are their any
health and energy delivery benefits of brown rice syrup in Clif vs.
maltodextrin or real honey in others?
Please share your experiences and opinions. Thanks

On Dec 12, 12:06 pm, SLAVE of THE STATE <gwh...@ti.com> wrote:
> On Dec 12, 9:41 am, piclist...m wrote:
>
> > Regarding energy gel packets such as Clif and others. Are their any
> > health and energy delivery benefits of brown rice syrup in Clif vs.
> > maltodextrin or real honey in others?
> > Please share your experiences and opinions. Thanks
>
> I don't know what the sugars are in brown rice syrup or honey.
> Maltodextrin is established as easily digestible by most people. It
> works for me. You'll have to test it for yourself. I think I
> remember that all carbs are basically 4 Cal/gram, so on that primitive
> basis they are all equal.
>
> Digestibility is a different matter. A lot of people have stomach
> upset with when there is too high a concentration of fructose. Good
> drinks for me always had less than 2% for a 7% solution, but they did
> have some fructose. One doc -- M Colgan, IIRC -- wrote that fructose
> preferentially restored liver glycogen, and that is why it was
> included. I don't know about that for racers, as you ought to be
> burning more than you can restore anyway. (Post-race/train recovery
> is another matter.)
>
> For 7% solutions, I suppose basic glucose is good, although gatorade
> which is sucrose seems fine. For concentrated drinks, bars, or gels,
> I would look for maltodextrin as the primary energy content.
>
> Make sure your frame is not a compact. You want a frame pump and
> large 30oz Zefal bottles.

Brown rice syrup is composed of about 50% complex carbohydrates that
don't digest especially rapidly but 45% of what's left is maltose
which is two glucose molecules strung together and then the remainder
is glucose. This is NOT a particularly good energy supply on the bike
because it causes a jump and subsequent drop in your blood sugar from
insulin.

Real(tm) honey is a third fructose and another third glucose. Another
10% is various other sugars none of which you want in your system if
you're making a sustained physical effort.

Maltodextrin is a polysaccharide that doesn't cause that insulin
problem.

On Dec 12, 3:05 pm, SLAVE of THE STATE <gwh...@ti.com> wrote:
> On Dec 12, 12:50 pm, cyclin...@ wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 12, 12:06 pm, SLAVE of THE STATE <gwh...@ti.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 12, 9:41 am, piclist...m wrote:
>
> > > > Regarding energy gel packets such as Clif and others. Are their any
> > > > health and energy delivery benefits of brown rice syrup in Clif vs.
> > > > maltodextrin or real honey in others?
> > > > Please share your experiences and opinions. Thanks
>
> > > I don't know what the sugars are in brown rice syrup or honey.
> > > Maltodextrin is established as easily digestible by most people. It
> > > works for me. You'll have to test it for yourself. I think I
> > > remember that all carbs are basically 4 Cal/gram, so on that primitive
> > > basis they are all equal.
>
> > > Digestibility is a different matter. A lot of people have stomach
> > > upset with when there is too high a concentration of fructose. Good
> > > drinks for me always had less than 2% for a 7% solution, but they did
> > > have some fructose. One doc -- M Colgan, IIRC -- wrote that fructose
> > > preferentially restored liver glycogen, and that is why it was
> > > included. I don't know about that for racers, as you ought to be
> > > burning more than you can restore anyway. (Post-race/train recovery
> > > is another matter.)
>
> > > For 7% solutions, I suppose basic glucose is good, although gatorade
> > > which is sucrose seems fine. For concentrated drinks, bars, or gels,
> > > I would look for maltodextrin as the primary energy content.
>
> > > Make sure your frame is not a compact. You want a frame pump and
> > > large 30oz Zefal bottles.
>
> > Brown rice syrup is composed of about 50% complex carbohydrates that
> > don't digest especially rapidly but 45% of what's left is maltose
> > which is two glucose molecules strung together and then the remainder
> > is glucose. This is NOT a particularly good energy supply on the bike
> > because it causes a jump and subsequent drop in your blood sugar from
> > insulin.
>
> > Real(tm) honey is a third fructose and another third glucose. Another
> > 10% is various other sugars none of which you want in your system if
> > you're making a sustained physical effort.
>
> What is the other 24%? I can't use honey on a bike.

Water

> > Maltodextrin is a polysaccharide that doesn't cause that insulin
> > problem.
>
> Okay. In layman's terms (my terms), I call polysaccharides "complex
> carbs." They have the advantage of not tasting sweet. UltraFuel, for
> example, is mostly maltodextrin with a dash of simple sugars and fruit
> flavoring added for taste. Otherwise it would be unbearably sweet.
> (Even for me.)

Maltodextrin is a rapidly absorbed carb. It is absorbed as rapidly as
glucose without the insulin high-low. Hammer Gel for instance works
really well. One of the things about it is that you remain neutral so
it is difficult to understand that the stuff is actually working
unless you have experimented a lot to see how well it does work. Most
of the other gels have some glucose, caffeine, etc in there so that
you feel a shot after ingesting it and think that it is really hot
stuff. Problem is that it often has that run down shortly after the
high due to the insulin overload. Maltodextrin works without feeling
like it's working - you just seem to keep functioning at the same
level without the usual drop in energy.

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

On Dec 12, 7:15 pm, alans...@ wrote:
>
> 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.

On Dec 13, 6:06 am, cyclin...@ wrote:
> On Dec 12, 7:15 pm, alans...@ wrote:
>
> >
> > 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.

My comment wasn't meant as an aspersion on anyone's
character, just a seemingly cavalier statement.
Obviously...um...I was wrong.
ABS

On Dec 13, 11:42 am, John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetrem...@jt10000.com>
wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 08:49:52 -0800 (PST), Scott
>
> <hendricks_sc...@m> 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.

S.

On Dec 13, 3:45 pm, John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetrem...@jt10000.com>
wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 13:02:24 -0800 (PST), Scott
>
> <hendricks_sc...@m> wrote:
> >On Dec 13, 11:42 am, John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetrem...@jt10000.com>
> >wrote:
> >> On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 08:49:52 -0800 (PST), Scott
>
> >> <hendricks_sc...@m> 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.

Scott wrote:

> On Dec 13, 11:42 am, John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetrem...@jt10000.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 08:49:52 -0800 (PST), Scott
>>
>><hendricks_sc...@m> 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.
>
> S.

Not so fast. Tell us why your mother named you after a roll of toilet
paper.

Magilla

Scott wrote:

> On Dec 13, 3:45 pm, John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetrem...@jt10000.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 13:02:24 -0800 (PST), Scott
>>
>><hendricks_sc...@m> wrote:
>>
>>>On Dec 13, 11:42 am, John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetrem...@jt10000.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 08:49:52 -0800 (PST), Scott
>>
>>>><hendricks_sc...@m> 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.

Get a room, Team Bareback. Call the front desk and have them send up a
jar of Vaseline.

Magilla