Waxy maize vs. Maltodextrin vs. plain ol' corn starch Waxy maize vs. Maltodextrin vs. plain ol' corn starch

starting strength gym
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 13

Thread: Waxy maize vs. Maltodextrin vs. plain ol' corn starch

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Croatia
    Posts
    495

    Default Waxy maize vs. Maltodextrin vs. plain ol' corn starch

    • wichita falls texas december seminar 2020
    • wichita falls texas february 2021 seminar
    Hi Jordan, I've been looking for a source of cheap calories and waxy maize popped in mind. My friend google tells me that Maltodextrin is acutally very similar to waxy maize (bodybuilding.com debate) and some even prefer malt. over waxy m. Browsing my local third world bodybuilding and strength training forums I find that maltodextrin is little more than plain ol' corn starch. And while the local cost of 1/2 kg of malto. is around $18, around 25kg of corn starch costs approximately $20.

    So you seem my dilemma here? Corn starch for me is quite the bargain and would love to here your pros and cons in consuming it in relation to waxy maize/maltodextrin.

    Thanks!

    Here's a bodybuilding.com post that I found through google that debates the issue:

    When it comes to bodybuilding supplements, many are overpriced, overrated, useless at best, detrimental to goals and totally front loaded with hype. Waxy Maize Starch (WMS) is most definitely one of them. I am going to try and make two points on the matter, that should hopefully have you thinking next time you go pay truckloads of money on carbs. Yes, this is yet another WMS Hype type thread. But I am trying take a practical and cost-benefit analysis approach to the topic rather than littering my post with science mumbo jumbo that most readers can at best, misinterpret what they are reading.

    **DISCLAIMER**
    I am not listing sources for all my mad science claims right now. I am mentioning so many things (some common knowledge) that the time to look up sources for something that I am not getting a grade on is not worth my effort. Besides, I need 30 posts before I can place links.

    As a chemistry major working on my bachelors, I have a very basic, yet thorough understanding of core scientific principles. BTW, organic chemistry has always been my forte. But as the angry posts start coming in (which they will), I will address each issue and give you a source. But I do highly encourage you to go do some research and find your own sources.
    **DISCLAIMER**

    Point #1:
    The rate at which WMS digests, that is, its Glycemic Index (GI) is not high enough to justify its price. In reality, the GI of WMS is almost irrelevant a s post-workout carbohydrate. This leads me to my second point:

    Point #2:
    If you really care about the GI of your post-workout carbs, then WMS is really no better than your other common (and cheaper) carbs such as glucose (dextrose), maltodextrin, and plain old fashion cornstarch.

    So let me begin, by saying that IF YOU ARE FOLLOWING A GOOD DIET, as in your typical "bro science" diet of 5-7 meals a day eating a few hundred calories above your maintenance level than the GI of your post-WO carbohydrate source is really not that important. As long as it has a relatively high GI value, and not full of fiber and fat the rate at which you absorb it will not vary much. This is because if you eat a proper meal 1-2 hours before working out, and only worked out 45-60 minutes then your stomach is NOT EMPTY and you are NOT STARVING.

    Sure, your glycogen levels are low and some of the food you ate has already been digested, but keep in mind GI tests are done one people who are on empty stomach AFTER they have fasted for a day. Combine the already existing food in your stomach with the protein powder you are mixing your WMS with, and you'll see that your whooping high GI value just crashed faster than the stock market in 1929. Not to mention, that when you workout, digestion slows down because blood starts flowing to your muscles being work out. So, as I said, if you ate your food like good little boy, you won't be on an empty stomach post-WO.

    Heresey! Alright, but for all those of you who I have offended by claims that GI is not that important, or you simply don't believe me, I will make an even more blasphemous claim. Plain ole' fashioned cornstarch is just as good as WMS. And glucose (dextrose) and maltodextrin are actually better.

    I am using the following source for my GI values. These tables use glucose (dextrose) as its standard, giving it a value of 115.

    GI VALUES:
    Glucose (Dextrose): 115
    Maltodextrin: 95
    Potatoes, oven cooked: 95
    Gluten-free white bread: 90
    Cornstarch: 85
    Sucrose (White Sugar): 70

    Source: montignac dot com

    Now from that table we can see that pure glucose is king in terms of raw GI values. Maltodextrin is a close second. Peeled oven-cooked potatoes actually have a higher GI than cornstarch. If you look at cornstarch, it "only"? has a GI of 85. Well 85 is really freak high actually. Considering plain sugar, powdered death for a diabetic, has a lower GI than cornstarch, we can safely conclude that 85 is up there.
    Waxy maize starch is a starch that is 100% amylopectin by composition. Regular corn starch is about 70% amylopectin, 30% amylose (Wikipedia: amylopectin). Now if you simply use some common sense here, cornstarch already is loaded with "WMS"?. Paying a premium of 130% for a bit more amylopectin is ridiculous!
    Let's compare the cost of some pure carbohydrate sources on the bodybuilding.com store (as of January 2010) so we can see how crazy the hype really is.

    ON Glycomaize (Waxy Maize Starch):
    3000g for $20.99 + $5.99 S&H
    ===========
    Cost: $0.0090/g

    NOW Foods CarboGain (Maltodextrin):
    12 lb. (5443g) for $24.99 + $5.99 S&H
    ===========
    Cost: $0.0056/g S&H

    Now Foods Dextrose Powder:
    10 lb. (5436g) $22.99 + $5.99 S&H
    ==========
    Cost: $0.0053/g

    Argo Cornstarch at my local wholesale club:
    4 lb. (1816g) for $6.00 + $1.00 in gas
    =========
    Cost: $0.0039/g

    I cannot find any source than gives me an actual GI value for WMS. But I will be generous and for the sake of argument give it a score of 100. (If you know of one let me know please.) So comparing the 4 carb sources, in terms of price per gram, cornstarch wins hands down. WMS being 130% more expensive than cornstarch.
    But now let's compare them in terms of how functional they are, that is, in their price per GI point:

    WMS:
    $0.0090/100 = $0.000090 per GI

    Dextrose:
    $0.0053/115 = $0.000046 per GI

    Maltodextrin:
    $0.0056/95 = $0.000059 per GI

    Cornstarch:
    $0.0039/85 = $0.000035 per GI.

    Now we see that WMS is 154% more expensive than cornstarch. Here glucose is the second cheapest in terms of GI value.
    So, if you really are concerned with GI then just buy dextrose, but if you are unconcerned about irrelevant differences in GI use cornstarch. Personally, I use whatever I have available at the moment. I generally use dextrose or maltodextrin when bulking, and cornstarch while cutting since it does digest ever so slightly slower. But WMS, I used it once and than repented on the amount of money I wasted.

    And I will stress this point again. Cornstarch is 70% amylopectin, WMS is 100%. That 30% difference in amylopectin is not with the 130% difference in cost. IT'S THE SAME $%^&!@ THING!!!
    P.S. How the hell do you pronounce your surname? Literally Faygenbam?

    Thanks!

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    10,199

    Default

    Waxy maize gets absorbed and transported to the muscle faster than dextrose. Does this matter in someone training 1x/day? Probably not. He's also confusing GI with something that's actually useful, which would be the kinetics of gastric emptying and absorption. GI is not important at all, as he freely admits, but then continues to talk about it ad nauseum. Then he throws this gem in there:

    The guy is a buffoon for not knowing his limitations of understanding the science and physiology at work here but instead goes under the guise of "I'm working on a BS in chemistry"....LOL. Ah, to be young again.

    Also, surname is F-I-E-gen-bomb.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Croatia
    Posts
    495

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jordan Feigenbaum View Post
    Waxy maize gets absorbed and transported to the muscle faster than dextrose. Does this matter in someone training 1x/day? Probably not.
    Thanks for a quick response. Fuck the guys post, it's not really the issue, I shoudln't have included it in the post, it just took up space (I should have known better than to post something from bb.com). So from the upper quote you're saying that for the majority including me, cornstarch would be just as valuable as waxy /malt., or am I misunderstanding something here? That's the main issue: will i get the same or similar benefit from consuming plain AND CHEAP cornstarch rather than maltodextrin or waxy?

    I'll just call you Jordan. Thanks Jordan!

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    84

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jordan Feigenbaum View Post
    Waxy maize gets absorbed and transported to the muscle faster than dextrose. Does this matter in someone training 1x/day? Probably not. He's also confusing GI with something that's actually useful, which would be the kinetics of gastric emptying and absorption. GI is not important at all, as he freely admits, but then continues to talk about it ad nauseum. Then he throws this gem in there:

    The guy is a buffoon for not knowing his limitations of understanding the science and physiology at work here but instead goes under the guise of "I'm working on a BS in chemistry"....LOL. Ah, to be young again.

    Also, surname is F-I-E-gen-bomb.
    Jordan, are you certain you're not conflating waxy maize with true high molecular weight starch products (e.g. Vitargo)? The recent Purdue University (2009) study comes to mind, and I believe a couple other recent papers have refuted both the absorption and insulin response claims of waxy maize.

    Here's a blog talking about the Purdue study.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs
    Posts
    10,822

    Default

    Did Jordan die under a massive avalanche of research papers?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    10,199

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 8odin8 View Post
    Thanks for a quick response. Fuck the guys post, it's not really the issue, I shoudln't have included it in the post, it just took up space (I should have known better than to post something from bb.com). So from the upper quote you're saying that for the majority including me, cornstarch would be just as valuable as waxy /malt., or am I misunderstanding something here? That's the main issue: will i get the same or similar benefit from consuming plain AND CHEAP cornstarch rather than maltodextrin or waxy?

    I'll just call you Jordan. Thanks Jordan!
    Yes, I'm saying it really doesn't matter but if you were going to be pedantic and argue about optimal increases in glycogen synthesis rates you'd want BCAAs + waxy maize (not corn starch) or other iso-osmotic carbohydrate. Like I said though, it really won't matter to 99% of people.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Jamsek View Post
    Jordan, are you certain you're not conflating waxy maize with true high molecular weight starch products (e.g. Vitargo)? The recent Purdue University (2009) study comes to mind, and I believe a couple other recent papers have refuted both the absorption and insulin response claims of waxy maize.
    I know a lot of the research on WMS is derived from Vitargo. To my knowledge though, the MW is not the really important factor for gastric emptying, but osmolarity is.Insulin response matters little, in my opinion. Glycogen resynthesis rates for multi event/day or endurance athletes and gastric emptying rates for those using it in between meals with BCAAs is what I care about. WMS seems to fit the bill just fine, as does Vitargo.


    Quote Originally Posted by ColoWayno View Post
    Did Jordan die under a massive avalanche of research papers?
    Totally. Research papers and Froyo.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    84

    Default

    Not sure if my post was submitted as the page just went blank.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jordan Feigenbaum View Post
    Yes, I'm saying it really doesn't matter but if you
    were going to be pedantic and argue about optimal increases in glycogen synthesis rates you'd want BCAAs + waxy maize (not corn starch) or other iso-osmotic carbohydrate. Like I said though, it really won't matter to 99% of people.
    Wouldn't you want a hypotonic CHO source PWO--not iso-osmotic?

    I know a lot of the research on WMS is derived from Vitargo. To my knowledge though, the MW is not the really important factor for gastric emptying, but osmolarity is.Insulin response matters little, in my opinion. Glycogen resynthesis rates for multi event/day or endurance athletes and gastric emptying rates for those using it in between meals with BCAAs is what I care about. WMS seems to fit the bill just fine, as does Vitargo.
    I think the papers conclude that WMS has less effective gastric emptying and intestinal absorption rates--not just insulin response, i.e. maltodextrin or dextrose exert more favourable osmotic pressure (lower osmolality), compared to WMS, enhancing passive transport (both facilitated diffusion and osmosis) in digestion. Hence the osmotic concentration (osmolarity) and molecular weight of WMS are no better for gastric emptying and intestinal absorption, muscle glycogen replenishment, or, as we both consider negligible anyway, insulin response.

    I think WMS is inappropriately used interchangeably with Vitargo, resulting in misinformation.

    That said, I personally don't think the consumption of either WMS, glucose, maltodextrin or Vitargo as your PWO (or interdigestive/post-to-preprandial phase) CHO source will make any noticeable difference for us.

    It's also worth noting what you alluded to regarding qualities of Vitargo being attributed to WMS, and therein lies the problem.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    10,199

    Default

    Wouldn't you want a hypotonic CHO source PWO--not iso-osmotic?
    No. Isoosmotic will empty faster than hypoosmotic or hyperosmotic. You'd want' iso for fastest gastric emptying.

    I think the papers conclude that WMS has less effective gastric emptying and intestinal absorption rates--not just insulin response, i.e. maltodextrin or dextrose exert more favourable osmotic pressure (lower osmolality), compared to WMS, enhancing passive transport (both facilitated diffusion and osmosis) in digestion. Hence the osmotic concentration (osmolarity) and molecular weight of WMS are no better for gastric emptying and intestinal absorption, muscle glycogen replenishment, or, as we both consider negligible anyway, insulin response.
    I know of other papers also concluding this, however in a few meta analyses of different PWO strategies it appears the BCAAs + WMS has the most favorable increase in glycogen resynthesis and MPS. The authors postulated that this was due to the most favorable gastric emptying rate. The part you put about digestion:

    i.e. maltodextrin or dextrose exert more favourable osmotic pressure (lower osmolality), compared to WMS, enhancing passive transport (both facilitated diffusion and osmosis) in digestion
    is wrong physiologically although I'm sure there are some studies showing that maltodextrin or dextrose given paraenterally or IV will be transported quicker than WMS.

    That said, I personally don't think the consumption of either WMS, glucose, maltodextrin or Vitargo as your PWO (or interdigestive/post-to-preprandial phase) CHO source will make any noticeable difference for us.

    It's also worth noting what you alluded to regarding qualities of Vitargo being attributed to WMS, and therein lies the problem.
    Agreed on both.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    84

    Default

    What is physiologically wrong about lower osmolality enhancing passive transport?

    Isotonic = same osmotic concentration.
    Hypotonic = solute <solution

    Lower osmolality = quicker absorption/nutrient uptake

    What's wrong?

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    10,199

    Default

    starting strength coach development program
    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Jamsek View Post
    What is physiologically wrong about lower osmolality enhancing passive transport?
    Lower osmolarity, i.e. hypoosmotic solutions have lower solute concentrations than the reference. Hypoosmolar solutions (very dilute) activate osmoreceptors in the duodenum and and slow gastric emptying, as it's a physiological mechanism that tries to achieve isotonic and isoosmotic chyme being released from the stomach into the duodenum.

    Digestion and subsequent absorption of nutrients, once present in the small intestine is rapid, i.e. most proteins/carbs/fats are absorbed within 30 minutes of entering the small bowel. None of these macronutrients are absorbed by osmosis, obviously, and with respect to a meal rich in carbohydrates the functional absorption occurs via active transport (SGLT1) and facilitated transport (GLUT2) from the lumen of the small bowel into the enterocyte. A hypoosmotic lumen relative to the enterocyte would just push water into the enterocyte, theoretically, but since this does not govern nutrient absorption it's physiologically wrong. What governs how fast a nutrient is absorbed is the osmolarity and tonicity of the chyme in the stomach, subsequent gastric emptying, and then the concentration gradient between the small intestine's lumen and the portal blood, i.e. if carbohydrate content in the lumen is high and low in the blood, carbohydrate absorption will be fast regardless of the osmotic/tonic qualities of the the luminal contents relative to the enterocyte provided other physiological parameters are normal (e.g. Na-K atpase pumps maintaining the Na+ electrochemical gradient)

    Again, you'd want isoosmotic conditions to increase gastric emptying and high glucose levels in the lumen with respect to portal blood glucose concentrations.

    Also, isotonic does not mean same osmotic concentration in a pure sense. Isotonic means same concentration of non-permeable solutes, i.e. isotonic is the effective osmotic pressure or the same effective osmole concentration, which is determined by much more than just solute concentration (e.g. the reflection coefficient in the van't Hoff equation).

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •