Seth Hosmer

So, based the clamoring about the studies and the data, I spent some more time reading the studies. Here are the conclusions I come up with:

1. Carbamyl is shown to be superior to Glucidex IT 38 in the first 2 hours after exercise for replacing muscle glycogen levels. After 4 hours, the differences were not significant. Performance itself - notably - was not measured, just muscle glycogen levels (biopsy). Notably also, Carbamyl is not compared to Maltodextrin, so direct studies would have to be done between the Carbamyl and Malto to draw conclusions. One would also have to study Carbamyl vs. Endurox R4, Recoverite and normal food AND study actual performance rather than just muscle biopsies in order to draw meaningful conclusions. Also, notably, in the same study the circulating plasma concentrations of Glucose and Insulin were not statistically different and all of this doesn't matter if you aren't racing again in 2h or less.

2. Carbamyl (C), in this study, appears to empty faster from the stomach than the Glucidex (G) solution in the first 10 minutes. However, notably, the ENTIRE bolus of either C or G was delivered to the stomach within 60 seconds which is definitely NOT how most people drink a sports drink. Most people sip a sports drink, maybe one 24 oz (~700 mL) per hour. Would this same increased rate of gastric emptying with C occur with "normal" drinking patterns? We don't know because the study didn't do this. Again, in this study, plasma concentrations of glucose and insulin were the same for C and G. Further, as above, you'd have to study C vs. Malto and other drinks as well to say one is superior.

3. The last study is promising, but falls victim to a classic problem whereby the study subjects are not the same as you. The subjects for this study were "recreationally active" young men with a VO2max of 47.8 on average. That does not describe most of the people that are concerned about their carb choices to the level that we are discussing. So, would this result also happen with people that are serious endurance athletes? We don't know, because the study didn't do that. Further, this study also compared C again to G, rather than other typical "recovery drinks" that most people use.

So, I still have to conclude that the studies on the Vitargo web site, while interesting, have enough flaws so that one cannot say with any degree of certainty that Carbolyn is better than maltodextrin, or any other product for that matter. People may try it and like it - cool. For now, I am going to stick to my home made maltodextrin drink because it works for me and it is inexpensive. When I want something ready made, I use HEED.

As David pointed out, I am sponsored by hammer nutrition and I do sell their products at my clinic. I think that they are good products for people that are looking for a ready made solution for their fueling and supplement needs.

However, for the topic at hand and the original point of the discussion (suggestions that malto is outdated and inferior to Carbolyn) I don't make any money. I am giving away my recipe and offering to get malto for people at the same price I get it for. So there is really no conflict of interest. In fact, one could argue that I am damaging my own potential business by steering people towards malto/homemade drink rather than products that I sell.

Everybody is free to read the studies themselves and draw their own conclusions and I would encourage anybody truly interested in this to go through the exercise and draw their own conclusions. Comments welcome.

Regards,
Seth Hosmer, DC CSCS
www.hpchiro.com