Dean, Ewan and Gaffney, Christopher and Hendrickse, Paul and Subar, Daren and Osborne, Ash (2025) Comparative analysis of carbohydrate delivery speeds of a glucose-fructose energy bar, a maltodextrin-based gel, and a glucose-fructose hydrogel in athletes. In: European College of Sports Science (ECSS) Annual Congress, 2025-07-01 - 2025-07-04, Rimini, Italy. (Unpublished)
Full text not available from this repository.Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Carbohydrate (CHO) supplementation during exercise is crucial to optimise athletic performance. Energy gels and bars are commonly used to provide rapid CHO by rapid digestion, absorption, and oxidation. While the effects of different sugar compositions – such as simple versus complex sugars and combinations of sugars, such as glucose-fructose – can influence digestion rates, how popular supplements perform in practice is less understood. This study examined the speed of delivery of three popular CHO supplements: a glucose-fructose-based energy bar (Voom Pocket Rocket; VOOM), a maltodextrin-based gel (SIS Go Isotonic; SIS), and a glucose-fructose hydrogel (Maurten Gel 160; MAU). METHODS: Sixteen healthy male Tier 2 runners, cyclists, and triathletes (mean ± SD) (aged 23 ± 4.2 years; height 182.03 ± 6.5 cm; weight 79.5 ± 8.3 kg; BMI 23.81 ± 1.2 kg/m²) completed a modified 60-minute oral glucose tolerance test at Lancaster University’s Human Performance Laboratory. This preregistered trial (NCT06375577) was approved by Lancaster University Medical School Research Ethics Committee (LMS-24-Dean-1). A baseline blood sample was taken following a 2-hour fast, before providing 45 g of CHO from VOOM, SIS, or MAU. Venous blood samples were taken at 5-minute intervals via antegrade-venous cannulation for 60 minutes for glucose and electrolytes (sodium, potassium, chloride). Substrate utilisation was assessed through indirect calorimetry via the respiratory quotient (RQ). Data were analysed for normality using Shapiro-Wilk. Parametric data was analysed via repeated measures ANOVA, while non-parametric data were analysed using the Friedman test. Significance was defined as p < 0.05. RESULTS: CHO oxidation per 5-minute interval was different between CHO supplements (p = 0.03), with VOOM exhibiting greater mean CHO oxidation (2.1 ± 0.3 g·min−1) compared to SIS (1.5 ± 0.4 g·min−1) and MAU (1.7 ± 0.3 g·min−1). Total CHO oxidation was significantly greater in VOOM than SIS (24.6 ± 7.4 g vs 17.8 ± 8.6 g, respectively, p = 0.01) but not MAU (MAU 20.1 ± 6.4 g, p > 0.05). Conversely, total fat oxidation was suppressed to a greater extent for VOOM than SIS (SIS 9.5 ± 3.4 g, VOOM 7.37 ± 2.29 g, p = 0.007) but not MAU (8.45 ± 3.36 g, p > 0.05). The mean RQ was greater for VOOM (0.86 ± 0.06) than MAU (0.84 ± 0.07) and SIS (0.83 ± 0.07) (X2 (38) = 187.8, p < 0.0001). No significant differences were observed in mean peak glucose (VOOM 6.6 ± 1.2 mmol/L, MAU 6.2 ± 1.1 mmol/L, SIS 6.4 ± 1.15 mmol/L) and time to glucose peak (VOOM 31.3 ± 14.0 min, MAU 39.1 ± 12.3 min, SIS 33.1 ± 11.1 min) or in electrolyte levels across supplements (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: These results suggest that the VOOM glucose-fructose Pocket Rocket delivers CHO as quickly, or perhaps even quicker, than maltodextrin or glucose-fructose energy gels, providing athletes with an effective alternative for carbohydrate supplementation.