[ozarkaBRAND]

Thread title says it all...

[delsolrob]

I've been wondering about this too...been using WMS in my post workout drink with Creatine mono and Xtend for about a month now; but never used dextrose before.

[OCCFan023]

I don't think one is guaranteed superior than the other in the terms listed above. Some respond well to dextrose using intra/post workout while others will notice considerable stomach issues. WMS has better feedback as far as stomach issues, and personally I like the fact that it is low glycemic, but that does not make it better either.

Everyone is different in terms of genetics and response to nutritional factors. Just have to find what works for you.

[Red Dog]

In all honesty I think they are very, very similar in function..

I believe WMS is absorbed slightly faster than dex, but it is almost negligible..

The only real reason I could see anybody saying WMS is superior to dex is if they get bloat from the dex (most likely) or, for whatever reason, they like the taste of WMS better..

Otherwise, it's just personal preference I guess.. I use dex but if somebody gave me some WMS, I'd use it!

They are pretty much equal -- take your pick!

[avgBdybldr]

i wouldn't say they are equall. WMS as no sugar in it, and it does digest faster than dextrose. That is why i prefer WMS.

[pmiller383]

Right now I do a 50/50 mix of dex and malto during training and I really see no difference between the times I have used WMS except the dex/malto taste better. If you can digest it go for the cheaper option of dex and malto.

[Red Dog]

Originally Posted by avgBdybldr

i wouldn't say they are equall. WMS as no sugar in it, and it does digest faster than dextrose. That is why i prefer WMS.

I see what you're saying, and the sugar part may be true, but he is asking about recovery -- and in terms of recovery, I would say they are quite equal.

Here is a post from John Berardi on another board..

Originally Posted by John Berardi
I've been seeing more and more waxy maize discussion here and as a result I thought I'd jump in.

For starters, the claims that WM is "much, much" faster absorbed seems fairly irrelevant to me - for most recreational exercisers - as well as high level athletes.

Let's not forget, the reason we minimize maltodextrin, sucrose, and dextrose in our daily intake is because they are already very, very quickly absorbed, leading to high blood concentrations of carbohydrate and concomitant surges of insulin. (Of course, this is precisely the reason we take them during/post exercise - for the blood sugar boost and anabolic insulin surge).

If we look to the data, huge blood sugar (and insulin) increases with malto and dextrose occur within 15-20 minutes of ingestion. However, these carbs are appearing in the bloodstream even faster. You see, digestion (and some absorption) of these 2 carbs begins in the mouth. So although PEAK blood concentrations don't occur until 15-20min in, there's no delay.

So, here's some food for thought...just a question to ponder...
Do you really need your blood sugar and blood insulin to peak 5-10 minutes sooner?

In the end, be careful with the marketing rhetoric about the amazing properties of WM and how fast it's absorbed. Dextrose, sucrose, and malto are also VERY quickly absorbed. And the difference between these and WM (which are real and have been measured) may very well be negligible.

So, with respect to speed of digestion/absorption, all this ado, seems to me, about nothing.

http://www.sherdog.net/forums/showthread.php?t=736811

[ozarkaBRAND]

I love you guys... Awesome information.

Let the discussion rage on!!

[SamBoz19]

Honestly it really is a matter of preference. For recovery, I notice a minor difference between the two. I prefer WMS because it is sugar-free and it tends to give me a pump even more so when I take my NeoVar with it post-workout, and WMS doesn't give me a bloated feeling. To be honest though...to say one is superior to the other...thats purely subjective. Just adding in my two cents!

Cheers!

[ozarkaBRAND]

What about the insulin response of each? Where is WMS on the GI?

[EasyEJL]

keep in mind GI only matters if you consume that material on an empty stomach with water only. add anything else and the GI changes and there is no telling how much. So even if WMS is 20 points lower as far as GI goes, how it affects you when mixed with BCAAs or whey may be no different than how dextrose dose

Also I think this is one of those things where the difference would only be measureable if you are at your genetic max and training natural only. Otherwise my assumption would be that the difference is so tiny that likely other "mistakes" or problems would cover up the statistical significance of their difference. On the average person here, I bet the difference wouldn't add up to an oz of muscle mass a month.

[SamBoz19]

Originally Posted by EasyEJL

keep in mind GI only matters if you consume that material on an empty stomach with water only. add anything else and the GI changes and there is no telling how much. So even if WMS is 20 points lower as far as GI goes, how it affects you when mixed with BCAAs or whey may be no different than how dextrose dose

Also I think this is one of those things where the difference would only be measureable if you are at your genetic max and training natural only. Otherwise my assumption would be that the difference is so tiny that likely other "mistakes" or problems would cover up the statistical significance of their difference. On the average person here, I bet the difference wouldn't add up to an oz of muscle mass a month.

^^^Ozarka...I believe Easy just answered your question. He beat me to it, but what he has said here is along the same lines of what I would have said. This is why I say the topic is purely subjective.

Cheers!

[EasyEJL]

Originally Posted by SamBoz19

^^^Ozarka...I believe Easy just answered your question. He beat me to it, but what he has said here is along the same lines of what I would have said. This is why I say the topic is purely subjective.

Cheers!

its something i've thought for a while, but a few weeks ago I spent a bunch of time talking with Hugo Rivera, and that was one of the things he mentioned - its not really that complicated, and those tiny differences add up to so little that being completely anal about the detail is ok when you have nothing else important to worry about, but almost none of us are in those shoes. So for most us, the difference between hitting 40/40/20 for macros and 37/41/22 for a day is inconsequential, and the effort (and life enjoyment leve) it takes to perfectly acheive the 40/40/20 isn't necessarily worth it.