Just looking for some feedback on Waxy Maize Starch any if anyone has used it? I’ve heard it’s not sugary tasting, so I’m wonderin how it tastes when combined with certain proteins.
[quote]tw0scoops2 wrote:
Just looking for some feedback on Waxy Maize Starch any if anyone has used it? I’ve heard it’s not sugary tasting, so I’m wonderin how it tastes when combined with certain proteins.[/quote]
when it’s combined with other stuff isn’t it slowed down?
[quote]tw0scoops2 wrote:
Just looking for some feedback on Waxy Maize Starch any if anyone has used it? I’ve heard it’s not sugary tasting, so I’m wonderin how it tastes when combined with certain proteins.[/quote]
You do not combine it with protein…
[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
tw0scoops2 wrote:
Just looking for some feedback on Waxy Maize Starch any if anyone has used it? I’ve heard it’s not sugary tasting, so I’m wonderin how it tastes when combined with certain proteins.
when it’s combined with other stuff isn’t it slowed down?[/quote]
Yeah, but the thing is that waxy maize is a “slow” carb to begin with if you look at the actual research on it.
Unfortunately, people have been lied to by many of the supplement companies who claim it is a “fast” carb.
IMO. this is the biggest scam since NO2, maybe bigger based on the outright lies propagated by the guilty supplement companies.
[quote]zraw wrote:
tw0scoops2 wrote:
Just looking for some feedback on Waxy Maize Starch any if anyone has used it? I’ve heard it’s not sugary tasting, so I’m wonderin how it tastes when combined with certain proteins.
You do not combine it with protein…
[/quote]
It does not matter if you look at the actual research.
"Waxy maize…you read that and thats all you picked up? You didnt read this by Justin Harris?
It has been standard practice for many years for serious athletes to consume a high carbohydrate meal following intense exercise. As time has gone on, this post exercise meal has been scrutinized, and analyzed make sure that the correct type of carbohydrates are eaten to maximize the replacement of glycogen lost during exercise.
After exercise that depletes the body of itâ??s glycogen stores, an enzyme called glycogen synthetase is produced in elevated quantities by the body to help restore glycogen levels that have been depleted from the exercise. Typical rates of glycogen resynthesis after short term, high intensity exercise are much higher than glycogen resynthesis rates following prolonged, lower intensity exercise. This is largely due to the fact that fast twitch muscle fibers are used more heavily in short term, high intensity exercise, and fast twitch fibers have a higher level of glycogen synthetase activity than slow-twitch fibers. (4)
This means that the body has a greater need, and a greater ability to restore glycogen levels after short term, high intensity training, which is exactly what weight training for bodybuilding purposes is.
It is widely known that it is important to get carbohydrates into your system soon after weight training. One reason is, studies show that delaying the ingestion of a carbohydrate supplement post exercise will result in a reduced rate of muscle glycogen storage. (3) Largely because of this fact, it has become standard practice to ingest a sugary carbohydrate source following exercise. A “sugar” is defined as any of a class of water-soluble crystalline carbohydrates, including sucrose and lactose, having a characteristically sweet taste and classified as monosaccharides, disaccharides, and trisaccharides. (9) It was quickly noted by those in the know that not all sugars are created equal. For example, one monosaccharide called fructose has often been given, an arguably undeserving, bad rap for itâ??s propensity to restore liver glycogen levels when muscle glycogen restoration is the goal.
The Glycemic Index (GI index) was developed to give a number to carbohydrate rich foods based on how quickly they enter the blood stream. The higher the GI, the more quickly it will enter the bloodstream and raise insulin levels. Insulin is the “bus” that helps shuttle all the nutrients to your muscle and other cells of the body. The highest GI food is glucose, with a GI of 100. With this information, D-glucose (Dextrose), quickly became the carbohydrate of choice for use post workout.
What all this is saying is what everyone already knows. After a workout, it is important to take in fast acting protein and carbs to begin repairing and rebuilding your hard earned muscle. But, what if there was a way to improve this practice?
Recently, a new player has emerged in the post workout carbohydrate war, high molecular weight carbohydrates. High molecular weight carbohydrates (HMW) have shown great promise in recent studies in a wide range of post workout benefits.
The words most often thrown out when talking about HMW carbohydrates are “gastric emptying” and “osmolality.” These terms essentially go hand in hand with each other. Osmolality, often confused with osmolarity, affects the transport of water and other solutes over the cell membranes. (10) Osmolality is essentially based around the specific osmolality of the blood, which is 280-303 mOsm/kg in humans. A solute that has the same osmolality of blood is said to be isotonic. A solute that has a lower osmolality than blood is hypotonic. The more hypotonic a solution is, the quicker it passes through the stomach into the small intestine where the bulk of energy uptake occurs. (11) Basically, a very low osmolality means it will get to your precious muscle as fast as possible.
The higher the molecular weight of a carbohydrate, the lower itâ??s osmolality. The lower the molecular weight of a carbohydrate, the higher itâ??s osmolality. So, a carbohydrateâ??s molecular weight varies inversely to its osmolality. Knowing this, you can begin to more closely appreciate the difference between HMW carbohydrates and Dextrose. The molecular weight of the typical HMW carbohydrate that is marketed today has a molecular weight of 500,000-700,000. The molecular weight of Dextrose is approximately 180. (11) This stat helps quantify the difference between the two carb sources.
The Osmolality of said HMW carbohydrate is 11 mOsm/kg in a 5% solution., which is considerably lower than the osmolality of blood at 300 mOsm/kg. With an osmolality that low, the HMW carbohydrate is extremely hypotonic, and we know that the more hypotonic a solution is, the quicker it passes through the stomach into the small intestine.(11) This means that the world of carbohydrates, the HMW carbohydrate is a Ferrari Enzo, and Dextrose is your motherâ??s Buick Skylark.
In fact, one popular HMW carbohydrate drink has been shown to pass through the stomach 80% faster than dextrose, allowing restoration of glycogen 70% faster than any other carbohydrate.(13) How would you like to like to start rebuilding muscle 70% sooner than you already are after a workout? One study on the subject showed that the mean glycogen synthesis rate was significantly higher for a HMW carbohydrate drink compared to a glucose drink for 2 hours after ingestion, with the scientists coming to the conclusion that “the osmolality of the carbohydrate drink may influence the rate of resynthesis of glycogen in muscle after its depletion by exercise.”(6) What the scientists are saying can be paraphrased as “a HMW carbohydrate will get to your muscles faster than the carbohydrate youâ??re using now.” These studies showed that blood sugar levels and insulin levels were not statistically significantly different the HMW carbohydrate and the glucose. So, despite being a complex carbohydrate, compared to the sugary Dextrose, the HMW carbohydrate was still raising insulin at about the same level as Dextrose. So, at this point, what weâ??re dealing with is something that powers through the stomach, leaving you with no bloated feeling, reaching the point of digestion at mach speeds, reaches the blood stream as fast as Dextrose, but restores glycogen 70% faster. Sounds too good to be true? It gets better.
What this all leads towards is that the Osmolality of HMW carbohydrates can potentially speed up the rate of glycogen synthesis post workout, as well as increase the uptake of vital nutrients added to the HMW carbohydrate drink. Thatâ??s right, all the stuff youâ??ve been taking after your workout, in the hopes of getting it to the muscle, can be sucked up right along with the HMW carbohydrate, faster than ever before. The only problem is, any amino based nutrient (protein, amino acids, creatine, etc.) has a much lower molecular weight than the HMW carbohydrate, so when adding other nutrients you must consider the effect those nutrients will have on the total molecular weight of the mix. So, at least in theory, too much protein, creatine, and other nutrients can take away some of its benefits.
For this reason, it is my belief that added amino based nutrients should be kept to a minimum during ingestion of a HMW carbohydrate drink. My current recommendations for a 200lb bodybuilder are 75g of a HMW carbohydrate mixed with 5g creatine, 8g L-leucine, and 5-10g of BCAAâ??s. Since weâ??re trying to keep extra nutrients to a minimum, we are focusing on select nutrients that give us the most “bang for our buck.” L-leucine has been shown in studies to be the specific amino acid to “switch on” protein synthesis. And all of the Branched Chain Amino Acids (BCAAâ??s) have been shown to be preferentially taken up by skeletal muscle. Creatine has been shown in many studies to provide many benefits to bodybuilders. This means that the “best” amino acids will be available as quickly as possible to trigger muscle growth, and decrease catabolism.
This meal should be followed approximately 15-30min later with a meal containing protein and complex carbohydrates, preferably a fast digesting liquid protein such as a whey isolate, and some complex carbohydrates.
If you understand the make up of your muscle mass, you will learn that there is much more to the muscle than just contractile tissue. A large portion of your muscle mass area is made up of things besides muscle. There is water, glycogen, minerals, blood vessels, capillaries, etc., etc. By using these HMW carbohydrate powders, you can quickly draw the carbohydrate up into your muscles, along with water, and the cell volumizing nutrients you take along with it. With the faster glycogen restoration, you can decrease catabolism after a workout, and speed up the potential for synthesizing protein as new muscle. In plain English, the result is more muscle.
IN ADDITION YOU DIDNT SEE THIS:
Eur J Appl Physiol. 2000 Mar;81(4):346-51. Links
“Muscle glycogen resynthesis rate in humans after supplementation of drinks containing carbohydrates with low and high molecular masses.”
- Piehl Aulin K,
- Soderlund K,
- Hultman E.
Department of Medical Sciences, University of Uppsala/LIVI, S-791 88 Falun, Sweden.
The rate of muscle glycogen synthesis during 2 and 4 h of recovery after depletion by exercise was studied using two energy equivalent carbohydrate drinks, one containing a polyglucoside with a mean molecular mass of 500 000-700 000 (C drink), and one containing monomers and oligomers of glucose with a mean molecular mass of approximately 500 (G drink). The osmolality was 84 and 350 mosmol. l(-1), respectively. A group of 13 healthy well-trained men ingested the drinks after glycogen depleting exercise, one drink at each test occasion. The total amount of carbohydrates consumed was 300 g (4.2 g. kg(-1)) body mass given as 75 g in 500 ml water immediately after exercise and again 30, 60 ad 90-min post exercise. Blood glucose and insulin concentrations were recorded at rest and every 30 min throughout the 4-h recovery period. Muscle biopsies were obtained at the end of exercise and after 2 and 4 h of recovery. Mean muscle glycogen contents after exercise were 52.9 (SD 27.4) mmol glycosyl units. kg(-1) (dry mass) in the C group and 58.3 (SD 35.4) mmol glycosyl units. kg(-1) (dry mass) in the G group. Mean glycogen synthesis rate was significantly higher during the initial 2 h for the C drink compared to the G drink: 50.2 (SD 13.7) mmol. kg(-1) (dry mass). h(-1) in the C group and 29.9 (SD 12.5) mmol. kg(-1) (dry mass). h(-1) in the G group. During the last 2 h the mean synthesis rate was 18.8 (SD 33.3) and 23.3 (SD 22.4) mmol. kg(-1) (dry mass). h(-1) in the C and G group, respectively (n.s.). Mean blood glucose and insulin concentrations did not differ between the two drinks. Our data indicted that the osmolality of the carbohydrate drink may influence the rate of resynthesis of glycogen in muscle after its depletion by exercise."
Here’s a good unbiased article on this topic.
When you see someone promoting WM as a fast carb, look and see whether they are making the mistake of basing their conclusions on the research done on Vitargo. These substances are very different.
Holy F…now I’m really confused. 
[quote]zraw wrote:
Eur J Appl Physiol. 2000 Mar;81(4):346-51. Links
“Muscle glycogen resynthesis rate in humans after supplementation of drinks containing carbohydrates with low and high molecular masses.”
- Piehl Aulin K,
- Soderlund K,
- Hultman E.
Department of Medical Sciences, University of Uppsala/LIVI, S-791 88 Falun, Sweden.
The rate of muscle glycogen synthesis during 2 and 4 h of recovery after depletion by exercise was studied using two energy equivalent carbohydrate drinks, one containing a polyglucoside with a mean molecular mass of 500 000-700 000 (C drink), and one containing monomers and oligomers of glucose with a mean molecular mass of approximately 500 (G drink). The osmolality was 84 and 350 mosmol. l(-1), respectively. A group of 13 healthy well-trained men ingested the drinks after glycogen depleting exercise, one drink at each test occasion. The total amount of carbohydrates consumed was 300 g (4.2 g. kg(-1)) body mass given as 75 g in 500 ml water immediately after exercise and again 30, 60 ad 90-min post exercise. Blood glucose and insulin concentrations were recorded at rest and every 30 min throughout the 4-h recovery period. Muscle biopsies were obtained at the end of exercise and after 2 and 4 h of recovery. Mean muscle glycogen contents after exercise were 52.9 (SD 27.4) mmol glycosyl units. kg(-1) (dry mass) in the C group and 58.3 (SD 35.4) mmol glycosyl units. kg(-1) (dry mass) in the G group. Mean glycogen synthesis rate was significantly higher during the initial 2 h for the C drink compared to the G drink: 50.2 (SD 13.7) mmol. kg(-1) (dry mass). h(-1) in the C group and 29.9 (SD 12.5) mmol. kg(-1) (dry mass). h(-1) in the G group. During the last 2 h the mean synthesis rate was 18.8 (SD 33.3) and 23.3 (SD 22.4) mmol. kg(-1) (dry mass). h(-1) in the C and G group, respectively (n.s.). Mean blood glucose and insulin concentrations did not differ between the two drinks. Our data indicted that the osmolality of the carbohydrate drink may influence the rate of resynthesis of glycogen in muscle after its depletion by exercise."
[/quote]
This is exactly what I just mentioned.
This study has nothing to do with waxy maize, it was done on Vitargo.
Either the author of this article is very naive and didn’t bother to look into this or he’s propagating the a lie.
[quote]HK24719 wrote:
Here’s a good unbiased article on this topic.
When you see someone promoting WM as a fast carb, look and see whether they are making the mistake of basing their conclusions on the research done on Vitargo. These substances are very different.[/quote]
x2
The debunking, was debunked by Justin Harris. Not sure why I have to keep saying this. Its as if people have a personal vendetta against WMS. Have any of the nay sayers actually tried it? I can attest that it actually does leave my stomach MUCH quicker than glucose does (I feel within 10-15 mins that I didn’t even drink a shake of 500kcals).
[quote]tw0scoops2 wrote:
Holy F…now I’m really confused. :)[/quote]
Same !
Who to believe… !!
Ahhhhhhhhhhh
[quote]elusive wrote:
The debunking, was debunked by Justin Harris. Not sure why I have to keep saying this. Its as if people have a personal vendetta against WMS. Have any of the nay sayers actually tried it? I can attest that it actually does leave my stomach MUCH quicker than glucose does (I feel within 10-15 mins that I didn’t even drink a shake of 500kcals).[/quote]
I’ve experimented with Vitargo, waxy maize, maltodextrin, D-glucose, as well as a host of other more exotic carbs on myself and in my lab.
I am aware that some of the people who’ve been promoting this stuff (WM) have been backpedaling on it since the truth came out.
I take waxy maize with whey protein post workout whenever I run out of Surge. My brother have been using waxy maize for a while and is still getting leaner without counting any calories and minimal cardio. Doesn’t matter that much - it is not AAS.
Vitargo does not equal WMS. Thats what the debunkers base their arguement on. That fact does not matter though. Its not where the starch is derived or the name of it, what matters is its molecular weight. High Molecular weight starches have low osmolality. Vitargo and WMS have the same molecular weight, therefore they act the same in the stomach. They don’t pull in the stomach like glucose would, yet get driven through it by osmosis into the small intestine. Obviously, the digestion of WMS will take some time once in the S.I and glucose does not need to be digested (is readily absorbed). However, WMS makes it to the S.I much quicker than glucose would (because of its osmolality) and has time to spare to be digested.
Thats all nice and spiffy, but I feel the real benefit here is its ability to move through the stomach has quickly as it can. Doesn’t leave a bloated feeling.
[quote]elusive wrote:
Vitargo does not equal WMS. Thats what the debunkers base their arguement on. That fact does not matter though. Its not where the starch is derived or the name of it, what matters is its molecular weight. High Molecular weight starches have low osmolality. Vitargo and WMS have the same molecular weight, therefore they act the same in the stomach. They don’t pull in the stomach like glucose would, yet get driven through it by osmosis into the small intestine. Obviously, the digestion of WMS will take some time once in the S.I and glucose does not need to be digested (is readily absorbed). However, WMS makes it to the S.I much quicker than glucose would (because of its osmolality) and has time to spare to be digested.
Thats all nice and spiffy, but I feel the real benefit here is its ability to move through the stomach has quickly as it can. Doesn’t leave a bloated feeling.[/quote]
Unfortunately, there is published research out there showing that Vitargo and WM are treated very differently by the body.
I don’t have time to dig it up, but I believe Will Brink referenced at least one of these studies in his article.
Vitargo is the real powerhouse here. And mind you I don’t each CHO often. But THAT is one sweet carb for sure. WMS is overhyped. Its the processing that made Vitargo (originally used WM not its barley)special NOT the source as they’ve used 3 different CHO sources thus far.
DH
I’m being lazy right now. What’s the difference between vitagro and wm?
“For those focused exclusively on gaining lean body mass (LBM) and strength, doing traditional programs where a single exercise session is done in day lasting an hour or less, itâ??s unclear at this time if Vitargo is going to have additional benefits on body composition above and beyond what malto or dextrose can achieve as this has not been studied.” (from the Will Brink article linked above)
[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
I’m being lazy right now. What’s the difference between vitagro and wm? [/quote]
“Itâ??s easy to see why people are often confused regarding WMS vs. Vitargo, and why sellers of WMS have taken advantage of that fact. Vitargo can be derived from WMS, so they are essentially the same thing right? Wrong. Vitargo can be derived from WMS, potatoes, rice, wheat, and other sources, so even if WMS is used as the starting source, itâ??s a very different starch as the finished product. If one reads the patent on Vitargo***** there is a very interesting statement made which is on testing, â??it will be found there have occurred novel types of bonds which do not occur traditionally in native starch.â?? What that means is, itâ??s a starch not normally found in nature and is structurally and functionally different than the starch source it was derived from. A true â??designer starchâ?? if you will, which appears to be optimally designed to favor the rapid formation of glycogen.”