Advantage to using low glycemic energy gels?

[chocoholic]

There is a certified low glycemic index energy gel new to the market this year, Chocolate #9

The theory behind Chocolate #9, is that by avoiding the repetitive yo-yoing spike-crash effect of high glycemic sweeteners, (not to mention toxic preservatives), the body is simply in better condition to finish strong.

What do you think?

Chocolate #9 was used by Team Type 1 this year, and fueled the guys in their record setting finish in the 8 man division of Race Across America. Team Type 1 and Chocolate #9 were quick to partner back up for the 2010 season, so to me it looks like there must be something to it.

The Nitty-Gritty:
Chocolate #9 contains two simple ingredients: Organic Agave, & Cocoa - no nasty preservatives no mystery ingredients or added caffein. The product is vegan, absolutely delicious (if you enjoy dark chocolate), and will never cause associated blood sugar crashes (certified low G.I.). The company's website can be found @ www.chocolateenergygel.com

Has anyone out there tried this product and would care to give some feedback?

[Tapeworm]

AFAIK, and from studies I have seen, when exercising hard you want high GI. The muscles need energy, and they need it now, low GI seems to fly in the face of those requirements. Great if you are sitting on the couch, not so good when you are most likely burning way more than you can ingest.

Powerbar took a different route to proving as much energy as quickly as possible by using fructose and glucose in their products to speed up delivery.

As always, happy to be proven wrong on that mark.

[Zippywhoosh]

Let me start by saying I am a chemist and not a research physiologist (sp?).

The idea of lower (not low) glycemic index calories is interesting. My understanding is that lower GI foods such as complex carbohydrates that are big (maltodextrin) but not huge (starch) are readily absorbed into the body quickly. And as they are bigger molecules than glucose or fructose the body can tolerate more concentrated forms for ingestion due to lower osmotic pressure per sugar molecule.

The net result is the body can absorb more calories in the form of smaller complex carbhydrates than a simple sugar solution. It has the added benefit of slower more regulated metbolism leading to less peaks and valleys in blood sugar.

I don't know anything about chocolate#9, but as a strategy for maximum caloric uptake it probably surpasses simple sugars which are best adsorbed at only a ~6% solution.

Just my 2 cents worth.

zippy whoooooooosh

[brianf7]

Whatever you eat while racing has to tast good or you wont eat it. Same applyes to drinks.

This one sounds good enough to give it a go if it tasts as good then whats wrong with that.

Everyone is different a lot different some things work well for some and not others.

I want some for racing and for watching TV.

[Tapeworm]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...m&ordinalpos=7

This one says no difference for GI index BEFORE the exercise.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9...&ordinalpos=28

This one says pre-exercise meal makes no difference if you consume CHO during exercise (doesn't specify high or low though).


http://cyclingnutrition.blogspot.com...ning-says.html

Garmin's food view.

[Zippywhoosh]

I agree with the links you posted Tapeworm. But as I read the original post I didn't think chocolate#9 was intended as a pre race energy source, so though your links do make sense, they don't really address the utility of low glycemic foods as a energy source during exercise.

I think the most valuable insight that the two papers you linked to suggets that pre race meals don't have an appreciable effect on performance, as there seems to be little relationship to blood glucose/insulin levels/performance 2 hours after a meal. I don't know if they intended to demonstrate much else. Performance on glycogen stores alone is typically good for 90 to 120 minutes of hard exercise. I think they would have gone longer if they wanted to see how CHO uptake and metabolism during exercise was affected by pre-race meals. But as the CHO intake was constant at ~6% solution was kept constant, they were looking at the variable of pre-exercise meals and not maximizing CHO uptake during exercise.

As for Garmin's approach, I am always impressed by their approach to just about everything. A mix of high and low glycemic index foods; monitoring of body weight before and after races (a fluid replacement measure) and the acknowledgement of the value of whole foods. Jonathan Vaughters runs a pretty good ship

[Tapeworm]

Yes I know, the pre-race food studies weren't exactly what I was after, but I couldn't find the study I was after regarding the difference of using high or low GI foods during exercise.

IIRC at threshold efforts (FTP) high GI was best. Given my predilection for TTs this is probably why it stuck in my head. But Garmin really does seem to take the holistic approach to it all.