Better transport for Creatine: WMS vs. Dextros
- 08-07-2008, 09:18 AM
- 08-07-2008, 09:23 AM
WMS gets my vote but I use both WMS and Dex post workout.
- 08-07-2008, 11:18 AM
WMS by far- Join Me: Tex89 M-Sten RX Log... Dicing that iron -
08-07-2008, 11:19 AM
My vote goes to WMS.
I switch them up every month or two regardless.
08-07-2008, 11:22 AM
I would be interested to see a study comparing the two.
I've tried both for transport and I feel less bloated with the WMS.
When using maltodextrin as a transport I get stomach cramps.
When using dextrose I get something of a sugar high.
When using WMS, I get VERY hungry about an hour afterwards. There is some truth in advertising here, the WMS definitely clears my stomach the fastest.
08-07-2008, 01:04 PM
i am thinking to try supercarb by avant.
08-07-2008, 01:07 PM
im trying to find studies to link in here, but am having trouble. personal results are that WMS has proven better in my case
- Join Me: Tex89 M-Sten RX Log... Dicing that iron -
08-07-2008, 01:11 PM
08-07-2008, 03:16 PM
In the big picture and where it matters most, it's not going to make a whole lot of difference in the real world. However, depending on when you take your creatine, that could help you shape your CHO use.
08-08-2008, 10:34 AM
- 5'9" 191 lbs.
- Join Date
- Oct 2006
- The hood
- Rep Power
This would make it far superior IMO. Ecscpecially for someone like myself who is carb sensative and malto/dex mix make me a gassy, blaoted, fat mess.
I'm not saying your wrong in any way shape or form. Im more asking a question. These are things I've heard about WMS but never seen any hard evidence on it.
It seemed to work better for me (WMS) then my dex/malto drinks.
Serious Nutrition Solutions Representative
08-08-2008, 11:36 AM
The "starch" in waxy maize starch is amylopectin. I don't know why they don't just call the stuff what it is.
From what I gather, amylopectin has a GI that is fairly similar to dextrose and maltodextrin. It may be a little lower, but it certainly isn't a low GI food. (I can't find a study where they actually come out with the damn GI... they just keep comparing it to amylose)
As far as the supplement claim that the molecular weight is responsible for WMS's superiority, I would say from observation that:
WMS falls right out of solution in my shaker bottle, so it probably does the same thing in my stomach. Thus it settles out and rests right on top of the pyloric sphincter. The moment the pyloric sphincter opens to let anything through, the WMS will fall through it like a trap door - it cannot do otherwise. Other carbohydrate powders like maltodextrin and dextrose remain (more or less)in solution, so every time the pyloric sphincter relaxes to allow the passage of stomach fluids, less flows through in comparison to a similar dosing of WMS.
So, WMS probably gets to the small intestine more quickly. When it gets there, it is set upon by the digestive enzymes.
The time saved in stomach to intestine transfer may be offset by a lower GI - if, infact WMS has a lower GI than other supplement carbohydrates. EX:
WMS: Time of stomach clearance + time of digestion = total time to ergogenic effect (10 min to clear the stomach + 10 minutes to digest = 20 minutes to effect).
Other Carbs: 15 minutes to clear stomach + 5 minutes to digest = 20 minutes to effect
08-08-2008, 04:31 PM
WMS is actually more insulinemic & glycemic than your standard glucose polymer solution. Earlier research showed no difference in glycemia and insulinemia between WMS & the glucose polymer, but there are at least a couple major things to consider: a total of 300g was consumed in 30-minute intervals over a 6-hr period. The significance here is that this dosing scheme may have caused a highly efficient delivery of glucose to the intestine. Since this happened alongside a faster glucose uptake by the muscles, major increases in blood glucose were neutralized.
Now stick with me here. In the latest WMS study, a more realistic 100g was used, and better blood sampling methodology was used. Guess what? As a result of its quicker gastric emptying, WMS caused a 17.3% higher peak insulin level and a 10.9% higher blood glucose peak. Given this, any glucose intolerance or insulin sensitivity issues will definitely be amplfied with WMS. Keep in mind that when taking any CHO with protein or AA, the insulin response will synergistically elevate, and this can counteract and drive down the expected elevation in blood glucose.
08-08-2008, 04:38 PM
Well that's some handy knowledge! If it empties faster, and has a higher GI - then shouldn't it promote a better insulin spike for creatine transport?
08-08-2008, 04:47 PM
08-08-2008, 04:50 PM
WMS is the shyt!! 5.95 lbs will last you a long time if only taken as as part of your preworkout regiment. It will boost your workout and add to your pumps, also you won't get the sugar crash as with dextrose. I've taken them both and you can't even compare the two, it's like comparing Dave Chapelle and Polly Shore
08-08-2008, 11:22 PM
- 5'9" 215 lbs.
- Join Date
- Mar 2008
- Rep Power
What if you didn't need either
Millennium Sport Technologies Representative/Sponsored Athlete
Similar Forum Threads
- By rabican in forum SupplementsReplies: 2Last Post: 05-06-2008, 09:08 PM
- By bigpetefox in forum SupplementsReplies: 7Last Post: 08-17-2005, 01:53 PM
- By Kachinsky in forum AnabolicsReplies: 5Last Post: 11-18-2004, 02:17 PM
- By The Conqueror in forum SupplementsReplies: 1Last Post: 04-11-2004, 02:54 PM
- By cookmic5 in forum SupplementsReplies: 0Last Post: 07-26-2003, 07:24 PM