Just be aware that there is nothing magic about any particular brand of these things.
It's "unique carbohydrate deemed superstarch by its founders" I absolutely positively guarantee is just another complex carbohydrate and you shouldn't think of it as any different than other complex carb drinks. Trust me, "hydrothermally cooked non-GMO corn" means "boiled corn". Maybe "steamed corn".
If the mix of carb/protein/salt works for you...awesome... but it's just not all that different than other products. But focus on the balance of fat and protein and carbs, not on anything special about the ingredients themselves.
I really don't understand why the "sugar free" types are interested in this stuff if they avoid potatoes like the plague. But that's just me. :-) And, as a public service announcement, I'll remind everyone that Coca-cola is gluten-free. :-)
You know, when a guy from Iowa starts talking corn, you kinda gotta pay attention
That said, yes I'm experimenting with UCAN. I've had my fair share of nutritional failures at the IM distance following most of the normal prescribed routines. If it keeps the logistics simple, adequately fuels me, and doesn't upset my stomach, then I'll use it. If not, well then I'm off to find something else.
PS- Chicken broth is also gluten free- and man has that saved my bacon before!
Works well for me. Also from Iowa originally...my ears perked up at "bacon". Ahem.
It's important to use it correctly, understand the story etc. I simply cannot tolerate those nasty sugary gels. And the sugar belly you get from them along with the nearly immediate need to eat MORE of it, gawd...not for me.
I'd rather pay attention to hydration and not have to worry so much about food. So, it works for me.
I was in search of a calm belly in 2013 and hunting "the run" where I only walked aid stations. I stocked up on UCAN after reading a lot about it. I used it fine all through training and race rehearsals had no issues. At IM Steelhead, bad stomach bloat, especially on the run. I had some gas issues during training, but no pain so I was ok with that, but the race day situation was almost as bad as cramps. So, I talked with Patrick and had one month to train my gut to race on the regular routine at 70.3 worlds, also a hot race. I did exactly as he prescribed and had a great race. Finished out my prep for IMAZ using the normal protocol and had the race I'd worked hard for and the run I'd been hunting since I started this addiction! I still use UCAN sometimes because 1. it seems to work well for me in training, and 2. I bought a ton of the stuff! I just will not trust all that money, and training hours to it for my IM and half IM racing.
Yes, glycemic index is a real thing. For those who don't know, glycemic index is basically a comparison of how fast a given carbohydrate gets digested. This is biology (or at least biochemistry), not my field, so I won't profess to be some big expert on the topic, but the bottom line is that glucose itself is usually used as the standard, although sometimes sucrose (table sugar) is.
Carbohydrates can be monomers (e.g., glucose, fructose), dimers (e.g., sucrose, maltose), or higher polymers (e.g., starches). Or oligomers, of a few units in length. As a general, but not universal rule, the complex carbohydrates (polymers) digest more slowly. But it's even more complicated than that, because some physical forms of carbohydrate are slower to digest for the physical reasons of how they are "packaged" is hard to get through even if the carbohydrate itself is more or less chemically identical. Thus certain whole grains have glycemic indexes (indices?) that are lower (slower digesting) than the same grain when more highly processed...just the physical non-digestible casing slows down the release of the carbohydrate. Obviously, that doesn't matter for a drink, because we're not chewing whole grains here. :-) But there are certain carbohydrate polymers (starches) that vary in their branchi-ness (for example) that change the rate of digestion.
So, to that extent, I would never say that UCAN is the same as coca cola or Gatorade with respect to the carbohydrate...don't get me wrong about that. However, there's nothing that magic about their particular low glycemic index carb compared to something like carbo-pro or eating a piece of whole wheat bread. :-)
The idea of a low glycemic index diet actually makes a fair amount of scientific sense, if I understand it correctly. The body obviously has hormonal responses to glucose levels (insulin, etc), and it makes some good sense that spikes could be avoided for mood swings, hunger swings, etc. For long term health (assuming you don't have diabetes or anything weird like that), the big advantage is that you supposedly don't get hungry as often. But if you actually ate the same number of calories over the long term from carbohydrate, a calorie is a calorie....it's just that you'd probably eat more on a high glycemic index diet.
For exercise, I am unaware whether it's really established one way or another, and there are advocates for high glycemic index sugars and for low. I'm agnostic on that... all I'm saying is that UCAN should just be interpreted as containing another source of low glycemic index carbohydrate...and that names like Super Starch are deceptive.
So please, don't misinterpret me as saying this is a bad product. I'm not. Nor that I'm saying that all calories are the same FOR PURPOSES OF SHORT TERM (HOURS) considerations. They are not. I'm just saying I wish the marketing guys are doing the rest of us a disservice.
Comments
It's "unique carbohydrate deemed superstarch by its founders" I absolutely positively guarantee is just another complex carbohydrate and you shouldn't think of it as any different than other complex carb drinks. Trust me, "hydrothermally cooked non-GMO corn" means "boiled corn". Maybe "steamed corn".
If the mix of carb/protein/salt works for you...awesome... but it's just not all that different than other products. But focus on the balance of fat and protein and carbs, not on anything special about the ingredients themselves.
I really don't understand why the "sugar free" types are interested in this stuff if they avoid potatoes like the plague. But that's just me. :-) And, as a public service announcement, I'll remind everyone that Coca-cola is gluten-free. :-)
Your resident chemist.
You know, when a guy from Iowa starts talking corn, you kinda gotta pay attention
That said, yes I'm experimenting with UCAN. I've had my fair share of nutritional failures at the IM distance following most of the normal prescribed routines. If it keeps the logistics simple, adequately fuels me, and doesn't upset my stomach, then I'll use it. If not, well then I'm off to find something else.
PS- Chicken broth is also gluten free- and man has that saved my bacon before!
Works well for me. Also from Iowa originally...my ears perked up at "bacon". Ahem.
It's important to use it correctly, understand the story etc. I simply cannot tolerate those nasty sugary gels. And the sugar belly you get from them along with the nearly immediate need to eat MORE of it, gawd...not for me.
I'd rather pay attention to hydration and not have to worry so much about food. So, it works for me.
I still use UCAN sometimes because 1. it seems to work well for me in training, and 2. I bought a ton of the stuff! I just will not trust all that money, and training hours to it for my IM and half IM racing.
Yes, glycemic index is a real thing. For those who don't know, glycemic index is basically a comparison of how fast a given carbohydrate gets digested. This is biology (or at least biochemistry), not my field, so I won't profess to be some big expert on the topic, but the bottom line is that glucose itself is usually used as the standard, although sometimes sucrose (table sugar) is.
Carbohydrates can be monomers (e.g., glucose, fructose), dimers (e.g., sucrose, maltose), or higher polymers (e.g., starches). Or oligomers, of a few units in length. As a general, but not universal rule, the complex carbohydrates (polymers) digest more slowly. But it's even more complicated than that, because some physical forms of carbohydrate are slower to digest for the physical reasons of how they are "packaged" is hard to get through even if the carbohydrate itself is more or less chemically identical. Thus certain whole grains have glycemic indexes (indices?) that are lower (slower digesting) than the same grain when more highly processed...just the physical non-digestible casing slows down the release of the carbohydrate. Obviously, that doesn't matter for a drink, because we're not chewing whole grains here. :-) But there are certain carbohydrate polymers (starches) that vary in their branchi-ness (for example) that change the rate of digestion.
So, to that extent, I would never say that UCAN is the same as coca cola or Gatorade with respect to the carbohydrate...don't get me wrong about that. However, there's nothing that magic about their particular low glycemic index carb compared to something like carbo-pro or eating a piece of whole wheat bread. :-)
The idea of a low glycemic index diet actually makes a fair amount of scientific sense, if I understand it correctly. The body obviously has hormonal responses to glucose levels (insulin, etc), and it makes some good sense that spikes could be avoided for mood swings, hunger swings, etc. For long term health (assuming you don't have diabetes or anything weird like that), the big advantage is that you supposedly don't get hungry as often. But if you actually ate the same number of calories over the long term from carbohydrate, a calorie is a calorie....it's just that you'd probably eat more on a high glycemic index diet.
For exercise, I am unaware whether it's really established one way or another, and there are advocates for high glycemic index sugars and for low. I'm agnostic on that... all I'm saying is that UCAN should just be interpreted as containing another source of low glycemic index carbohydrate...and that names like Super Starch are deceptive.
So please, don't misinterpret me as saying this is a bad product. I'm not. Nor that I'm saying that all calories are the same FOR PURPOSES OF SHORT TERM (HOURS) considerations. They are not. I'm just saying I wish the marketing guys are doing the rest of us a disservice.
As an Iowan, I'm sure you realize that bacon is just highly processed corn. :-)