Metabolism. This Article Appears Here in Its Accepted, Peer

“Solid, Gel, and Liquid Carbohydrate Format Effects on Gut Comfort and Performance” by Guillochon M, Rowlands DS
International Journal of Sport Nutrition and Exercise Metabolism

© 2016 Human Kinetics, Inc.
Note: This article will be published in a forthcoming issue of

the International Journal of Sport Nutrition and Exercise
Metabolism. This article appears here in its accepted, peer-
reviewed form; it has not been copyedited, proofed, or
formatted by the publisher.
Section: Original Research
Article Title: Solid, Gel, and Liquid Carbohydrate Format Effects on Gut Comfort and
Performance
Authors: Mathilde Guillochon and David S. Rowlands
Affiliations: School of Sport and Exercise, Massey University, Wellington, New Zealand.
Running Head: Carbohydrate format and performance
Journal: International Journal of Sport Nutrition and Exercise
Acceptance Date: November 2, 2016
©2016 Human Kinetics, Inc.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1123/ijsnem.2016-0211
Solid, Gel, and Liquid Carbohydrate Format Effects on Gut Comfort and Performance
Mathilde Guillochon and David S. Rowlands
School of Sport and Exercise, Massey University, Wellington, New Zealand
Correspondence:
David Rowlands
Downloaded by UCONN on 12/21/16, Volume 0, Article Number 0
School of Sport and Exercise

Massey University
PO Box 756, Wellington
New Zealand
Ph +64 4 801 5799 ext 63295
Fax +64 4 801 4994
d.s.rowlands@massey.ac.nz
Running head: Carbohydrate format and performance

ABSTRACT
Carbohydrate sports drinks produce worthwhile benefits to endurance performance compared
with non-caloric controls. However, athletes now consume carbohydrate in a range of
formats, including gels and bars, but the comparable performance outcomes are unknown.
Therefore, the aim of this study was to establish the relative effects of drink, gel, bar, and
mixed carbohydrate formats on intense cycling performance. In a treatment-apparent
randomised crossover design, 12 well-trained male cyclists completed 4 trials comprising a
140-min race simulation, followed by a double-blind slow-ramp to exhaustion (0.333 W·s-1).
Carbohydrate comprising fructose and maltodextrin was ingested every 20 min via
commercial drink, gel, bar, or mix of all 3, providing 80 g carbohydrate·h-1. Fluid ingestion
was 705 ml·h-1. Exertion, fatigue, and gastrointestinal discomfort were measured with VAS.
Performance peak power (SD) was 370 (41), 376 (37), 362 (51) and 368 W (54) for drink,
gels, bars, and mix respectively. The reduction in power (-3.9%; 90%CI ±4.3) following bar
ingestion vs. gel was likely substantial (likelihood harm 81.2%; benefit 0.8%), but no clear
differences between drinks, gels, and the mix were evident. Bars also produced small-
moderate standardized increases in nausea, stomach fullness, abdominal cramps, and
perceived exertion, relative to gels (likelihood harm 95-99.5%; benefit <0.01%) and drink
(75-95%; <0.01%); mix also increased nausea relative to gels (95%; <0.01%). Relative to a
gel, carbohydrate bar ingestion reduced peak power, gut comfort, and ease of exertion;
furthermore, no clear difference relative to drink suggests bars alone are the less favourable
exogenous-carbohydrate energy source for intense endurance performance.
Keywords: gastrointestinal distress, peak power, placebo, intermittent exercise.

INTRODUCTION
The effects of carbohydrate supplements on endurance performance have almost
exclusively been examined with sports beverage feedings (Jeukendrup, 2004). The goal of
these drinks is to provide fluid, an exogenous source of carbohydrate, and electrolytes during
exercise to offset dehydration which could compromise performance (Goulet, 2013;
Jeukendrup, 2004). In addition to drinks, other carbohydrate sources are available to
endurance athletes during exercise, such as, sandwiches, cakes, and fruits (Brouns et al.,
2002). With recent packaging and format innovations, other carbohydrate sources are now
commonly used by athletes, including commercially available gels and bars (Pfeiffer et al.,
2012). However, the relative benefit to performance of each format has not been resolved
empirically.
The lack of resolution is important because nutrition workers, commercial interests,
and athletes have assumed via inference from indirect metabolic or case-study descriptive
evidence that there is little difference between carbohydrate format or type on performance
(Campbell et al., 2008; Jeukendrup, 2014; Kern et al., 2007; Lugo et al., 1993; Mason, et al.,
1993; Murdoch et al., 1993; Paddon-Jones & Pearson, 1998; Pfeiffer et al., 2010a, 2010b;
Robergs et al., 1998). However, effects of carbohydrate form on carbohydrate bioavailability
(rate of intestinal absorption) and gastrointestinal distress are likely to alter endurance
performance. Gut discomfort is frequently reported during higher-intensity endurance
exercise, especially competition, related to food ingestion (Peters et al., 1999; Pfeiffer et al.,
2012; Rehrer et al., 1992). Carbohydrate gels were well tolerated by runners causing only
mild gastrointestinal distress symptoms, but when responses were evaluated individually,
some of the runners experienced high gastrointestinal distress, (Pfeiffer et al., 2009). Fat,
fibre and protein co-ingestion with carbohydrate were also related to gastrointestinal distress
(Rehrer et al., 1992), and may be responsible for slower performance vs drinks (Rauch et al.,
1999). In runners and triathletes, no statistically significant differences were reported in race
finishing time between carbohydrate drink or gel (Lee et al., 2014; Sareban et al., 2016),
although gut comfort was decreased with the gel during triathlon (Sareban et al., 2016).
Amongst these studies, none have directly compared the effect of carbohydrate food format
ingested as a drink, gel, and bars when ingested at optimal rates (Smith et al., 2013).
Therefore, the aim of our study is to determine the effects of 4 different formats of
carbohydrate supplements (drink, gel, bars, and a mixture) on performance and gut comfort
during a ~150-min simulated road cycling race. We predicted higher gut comfort and
performance with the drink relative to the other carbohydrate formats, but similar comfort
and performance between the gel and bar given the equi-carbohydrate administration and
semi-solid or solid format.
METHODS
Subjects
Twelve trained male cyclists, mountain bikers and triathletes aged 33.6 (SD 9.4) y,
measuring 179.7 (7.9) cm and with a body mass of 75.3 (8.1) kg participated in the study.
Inclusion criteria were: male aged 18-55 y, cycling >8 h·wk-1 and regular competition.
Exclusion criteria were: smokers, failure to meet health requirements, estimated VO2max
lower than 55 mLkg-1min-1 and poor tolerance to the treatment during the familiarization
sessions. Maximal power (Wmax) and VO2max were 368W (31) and 66.8 mL·kg-1·min-1 (4.7).
Each person was screened for contraindications to exercise, was fully informed of the
purpose and risks associated with the procedure, and signed written informed consent. The
study was approved by the Massey University Human Ethics Committee.

Experimental Design
The study design was a randomized, 4-way crossover summarized in Figure 1. The
carbohydrates were ingested and gut comfort and energy ratings were sampled at the
beginning and during the performance test (day 6). The experimental trials were separated by
7 d. Each trial was conducted at the same time of day (starting between 14:00 and 18:00 h) to
control for circadian variance.
Protocols
Preliminary testing and familiarization. A peak power test and full protocol
familiarisation occurred ~10-d prior to the start of the crossover. Wmax was determined as
described previously using a VeloTron ergometer (Racer Mate, Seattle, WA) (O'Brien &
Rowlands, 2011). Following 1 min of rest, participants then completed a familiarization of
the first hour of the experimental trial, including drink ingestion and psychometric scales,
followed by the performance test.
Training and diet. Subjects modified and recorded their training during the first week
of the study as follows: day 1, long-duration ride (3–4 h); day 2 and 3, medium-duration ride
(2–3 h); day 4, laboratory-based training (2 h at 50% Wmax); day 5 rest day, day 6,
experimental trial; day 7, recovery ride (1–2 h). Participants then repeated this weekly for the
remainder of the study. To standardize diet, subjects were asked to record and repeat food
and drink intake from breakfast of day 3 to lunch of day 5. Thereafter, to assist in
standardizing energy intake, subjects were provided with 3 ready-packaged meals providing
sufficient energy to balance individual caloric requirements based on the Harris–Benedict
equation for an activity factor of 1.6 (152.7 ± 8.6 kJ, 5.5 ± 0.3 g carbohydrate, 1.2 ± 0.1 g
protein, 1.6 ± 0.1 g fat per kg body mass, on average of 58% of carbohydrate, 13% of protein
and 29% of fat) to be consumed 24-h prior to testing on day 6: dinner for the day before each
experimental trial, breakfast and lunch of the testing day. To standardize the effect of caffeine
on performance, 2 sachets of instant coffee (Nescafe, Nestle, Auckland, NZ) were provided
for breakfast. At lunch, participants ingested the prepared meal and 500 ml of 7%
carbohydrate sports drink, and a muesli bar and 500 ml of sports drink 1 h, at 3 and 1 h before
commencing exercise, respectively. Cyclists were asked to consume no alcohol 24-h prior to
the experimental trial, and to avoid strenuous activity.
Experimental trial. Participants reported to the laboratory of day 6 with a rest day
prior (Figure 1). After a 5 min warm-up at 30% Wmax, participants cycled for 140-min of
variable-intensity simulated road cycling race (Palmer et al., 1997), followed by immediate
transition to the performance test, during which time no carbohydrate was ingested.
Workload for the performance test began at 50% Wmax, incrementing 1 W·3 s-1 until
volitional exhaustion (O'Brien & Rowlands, 2011). Environmental conditions were
maintained at 20°C and ~49% relative humidity, with a standardized air flow maintained over
the cyclist by way of a fan.
Carbohydrate feedings. Carbohydrate was ingested at the beginning of the test and
every 20-min during exercise. The 4 equi-carbohydrate conditions were formulated using the
same multiple transportable carbohydrates at 2:1 maltodextrin:fructose ratio. Carbohydrates
were ingested at a rate of 80.1 g·h-1 (1.33 g·min-1) (Smith et al., 2013). The supplements were
commercial products comprising of a drink (Drink, Powerbar Endurance LemonLime,
Powerbar, St. Louis, MO: 11.4% carbohydrate solution; 26.7 g carbohydrate, 107 kcal, 298.7
mg Na+ and 15.7 mg K+), gel (Gel, Powerbar Tropical Fruit Gel, Powerbar, St. Louis, MO:
41 g total weight; 26.7 g carbohydrate, 107 kcal, 205 mg Na+), and bar (Bar, Powerbar
Mango PassionFruit, Powerbar, St. Louis, MO): 37.1 g total weight, 26.7 g carbohydrate,
1.35 g fat, 3.71 g protein, 134.8 kcal, 128.1 mg Na+ and 50.6 mg Mg++). The 4th condition
was a mixture of the different food formats: 40% Drink (4.55%; providing 10.7 g of
carbohydrate per 20 min), 25% Bar (6.7 g/20 min), and 35% Gel (9.3 g/20 min), based on
ingestion proportions during Ironman, marathon and cycling competition (Pfeiffer et al.,
2012). Bars and gels were given in plain packed when used individually, and given repacked
for the bar and by 10-ml syringe for the gel in the Mix condition. Fluid was ingested at 235
ml every 20 min until the end of the 140-min preload. Feedings were distributed randomly
according to Latin Square design. Participants were supervised to finish the entire supplement
allocation at each point, but negligible residual gel and drink (0-5 ml) on occasions (not
recorded) remained in the storage containers to a maximum equivalent to 0.5 g carbohydrate.
Psychometric scales. Perception ratings were recorded at the beginning of the test and
during the ride every 20 min, 10 min after the feeding to score the effect of carbohydrate
format on physical exertion (perceived exertion and leg muscle tiredness) and gastrointestinal
comfort (nausea, stomach fullness, abdominal cramping). Intensities of the ride during the
recording of the feelings were alternatively of 60 and 85% of the peak power. Participants
were instructed to make a pen mark on a linear visual analogue scale: 0 (nothing), 1 (slight),
2 (mild), 4 (moderate), 6 (high), 8 (very high), 10 (maximum).
Food format preference survey. In order to provide evidence for or against pre-study
bias in format preference, participants completed pre- and post-study food preference
surveys. In the pre-study survey, participants identified what they usually ingested during
competition (sport drinks, gels, bars or other items) and to answer the question “What format
do you believe lead to the best road cycling performance?” The possibilities reflect the 4
formats ingested during the study. Following the study, participants were asked to nominate
the trial in which they performed best, based on their perceptions of effort and for which
treatment they will use for their next races. No clues were given.
Statistical Analysis
Magnitude-based inference was used for sample size and inference ( Hopkins &
Batterham, 2016; Hopkins et al., 2009). Sample size was based on the smallest worthwhile
threshold effect of 1% and performance test coefficient of variation (CV) of 1.3% (O'Brien &
Rowlands, 2011). The effects of treatment on outcomes were estimated with mixed models
(Proc Mixed, SAS version 9.1, SAS Institute, Cary, NC). Power was analysed after natural
log transformation. Fixed effects were treatment, sequence and period. For the psychometric
data set, the grand mean centred x-axis variable (time) was added for linear modeling. The
random effect was subject. The CV was estimated from the residual variance. The threshold
for smallest effect on performance was 0.3 x CV. For psychometric outcomes, the
conventional smallest standardized difference (0.2) and inferential thresholds were utilised.
RESULTS
Performance
Mean peak power was highest with the Gel and least with the Bar (Figure 2), with
ingestion of Bar likely to lower peak power by 4%, relative to Gel (likelihood of
harm/trivial/benefit relative to smallest change threshold of 2%: 81.2%/18.1%/0.8%); other
contrasts were inconclusive (Table 1).
Gastrointestinal Comfort and Physical Exertion
Gastrointestinal comfort. The markers of gastrointestinal comfort increased from
none to mild-moderate by the end of the 140-min preload (Figure 2). Overall, nausea with
Bar was almost certainly higher relative to Gel and likely higher relative to Drink (likelihoods
of standardised mean increase with Bar: 99.9% and 96.2%, respectively; <0.01% chance
decrease). Nausea was also likely higher with Mix compared with Gel (94.8%; <0.01%
chance decrease), but the inferential outcomes for the other contrasts were less clear (Table
1). Stomach fullness was very likely higher with Bar vs. Gel (99.5%; <0.01% chance
decrease), and likely higher vs. Drink (93.8%; <0.01% chance decrease). Other contrasts
were likely small (Mix-Gel) or trivial (Table 1). More abdominal cramps were likely with
Bar vs. Gel, but all other comparisons were likely trivial or possibly small (Table 1).
Perceived exertion, muscle tiredness. The perception of physical exertion and muscle
tiredness rose throughout the 140-min preload ride from moderate at time 30 to high by 120
min for all conditions (Figure 2). The Bar format compared to the Gel led to very likely more
perceived exertion (97.3; <0.01% chance decrease) and almost certainly more muscle
tiredness (99.8; <0.01% chance decrease) (Table 1). The Bar also caused very likely more
muscle tiredness compared to the Mix (96.1; <0.01% chance decrease). The Drink caused a
likely small increase in muscle exertion compared to the Gel (97.8; <0.01% chance decrease).
Slope contrasts derived from the linear model presented a similar inferential pattern to the
overall effects, but were omitted here for brevity.

Food Format Preference Survey
Prior to the study, 100, 75, 75, and 33% of participants used in-competition sport
drinks, gels, bars or other items respectively (data not shown for brevity). Participants were
asked about their expectations for the best carbohydrate format to improve performance;
expectation matched outcome by only 42%. 67% of participants were able to correctly
nominate the trial in which they performed best. When asked which treatment they will use
for their next races, 67% reported that they would change from pre-study habits. Despite the
absence of a sample-mean clear enhancement of performance, a majority of athletes stated
that they would consume a mix (drink, bars and gel) in future races.
DISCUSSION
The main finding was a likely reduction in peak power when cyclists ingested a
carbohydrate in bar relative to gel format. The performance harm induced by the bar was
associated with very likely to almost certain small-moderate standardised increases in
gastrointestinal discomfort and perceived exertion, relative to the same quantity of
carbohydrate ingested within the drink, gel and mix carbohydrate formats. The bar-gel-drink
mixed food format condition also likely increased nausea and stomach fullness relative to the
gel, but these effects were not associated with a clear detriment to performance.
The motivation for the current study was to generate new knowledge to improve
supplement practice in performance nutrition. The performance effects of carbohydrate
formats, such as gels, sports bars, bananas, baked items used by athletes (Brouns et al., 2002;
Pfeiffer et al., 2012; Wilson, 2015) have received very little attention. This is unfortunate,
because a common practice in the sports community and industry is to extrapolate the
ergogenic benefit of carbohydrate beverages to other carbohydrate food formats. To this end,
the present observation of relatively impaired gut comfort and performance with bar vs gel
ingestion may help to improve supplement choice selection for athletes undertaking intense
exercise. Surprisingly, the finding was not consistent with our pre-study hypothesis that
athletes would perform best with the drink and there would be limited difference between the
bar and gel, although it should be noted that there was a possible small decrease in power
with the bar relative to the drink, and statistical uncertainty allowed for more substantial
effects (Table 1).
Gastrointestinal distress and reduced exogenous-carbohydrate availability to the
muscle are two candidate mechanisms that may account for the harm effect of carbohydrate
ingested in bar format on performance; we have data for the former, but the latter was
unmeasured in the current trial. Increased perception of nausea, stomach fullness, and
abdominal cramps may operate to impair high-intensity performance by inducing fatigue
sensations (O'Brien & Rowlands, 2011; Rehrer et al., 1992; Rowlands, et al., 2012). Stomach
fullness is symptomatic of slower gastric emptying, which may lower the net rate of
exogenous-carbohydrate carbohydrate delivery and absorption across the intestinal epithelia.
Fat and protein can delay gastric emptying compared with carbohydrate (Calbet & MacLean,
1997; Woodward, 1957). The bar contained only 1.4 g of fat (~4.3 g·h-1) and 3.7 g protein
(11.9 g·h-1) per serving, but repeated ingestion may have been sufficient to slow gastric
emptying and delay carbohydrate absorption (Jeukendrup & Moseley, 2008). Concomitantly,
the bar also contained 26% more kilojoules than the drink and the gel; the moderately higher
fullness response suggests this extra energy may also have lengthened gastric emptying time
in a manner independent of the nutrient source (Hunt & Stubbs, 1975). Food viscosity may
also have been influential. An isocaloric semi-solid meal was emptied from the stomach
slower compared to a liquefied meal (Mackieet al., 2013). Additionally, delay in absorption
and availability of carbohydrate within the bar is possible due to digestion time of food
matrix and long-chain glucose polymers. For example, Pfeiffer et al. (Pfeiffer et al., 2010b)
showed the oxidation of fructose and maltodextrin in a bar during exercise was 0.11 g·min-1
(95% CI, -0.29, 0.05; small standardised effect -0.55; 95%CL: -1.45 to 0.25, 81% likely
decrease) lower that the same carbohydrate in a drink. These data suggest that bar factors
may be mechanistic in increased gut discomfort and reduced performance.
Both the current and other studies examined energy supplement ingestion on gut
comfort responses during maximal endurance exercise (Peters et al., 1999; Pfeiffer et al.,
2012; Rehrer et al., 1992; Wilson, 2015). Intestinal glucose absorption (Lang et al., 2006) and
splanchnic blood flow (Rehrer et al., 2001) may be lower at 70% VO2max compared to 30%
and 50% VO2max. The average intensity in the current study was 61.2% of peak power
(~70% VO2max). The contribution of reduced blood flow and slower digestion of
carbohydrate with the bar, may have increased secretion accentuating gut discomfort. While
participants were provided 705 ml·h-1 of fluid to offset dehydration, gastrointestinal distresses
gradually increased as exercise duration proceeded in all conditions (Figure 2). As athletes on
average ingest similar amounts of fluid (Pfeiffer et al., 2012), we can infer that the current
experimental model and outcomes are likely to reflect athlete responses in competition.
A limitation of this and other food format studies is the inherent impossibility to blind
treatment format. To mitigate possible placebo effects on performance we ran a double-blind,
open-ended performance test. Test time and power were concealed from participants and
researchers during performance test, with only the pedal cadence visible. While participants
and researchers were aware of the treatment, neither could judge pace, physiological effort,
nor gather performance feedback cues leaving the performance outcome entirely the function
of motivation and physiological limitation, which is the same situation as in treatment blind
trials. Interpretation of the format-preference survey data also pointed to there being little
clear impact from bias. Even though we could not find the exact information about the
electrolyte content of the 3 different products; any difference of performance is unlikely due
to salt differences (Carr et al. , 2011).
In conclusion, relative to an isocaloric identical-carbohydrate gel, a carbohydrate-rich
sports bar likely harmed peak power and increased gastrointestinal discomfort during a
simulated cycle race. Performance contrasts between the drink, gel and the mixture were not
clearly different suggesting that individual athletes apply personal format preference to any of
the carbohydrate drink, gel, and mix format options without likely clear harm to performance.
To validate the current laboratory findings of relative harm with the bar, the effect should be
studied in competition and in both sexes.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Mathilde Guillochon recruited participants, ran and manged the study, prepared the data, and
drafted the manuscript. David Rowland designed the study, arranged funding, assisted with
data collection, analysed the data and co-wrote the paper. Shanggari Venugopal, Brandon
Woolley, Rachel Carbanes, and Julie Godoye for their assistance in the laboratory. Financial
support internally from a School of Sport and Exercise project grant. Authors have no
conflicts of interest. The results of the study are presented clearly, honestly, and without
fabrication, falsification, or inappropriate data manipulation.
Source of Funding:
Financial support was from a School of Sport and Exercise project grant.
Conflict of Interest:
No conflicts of interest exist with any authors.

REFERENCES
Brouns, F., Nieuwenhoven, M., Jeukendrup, A., & Marken Lichtenbelt, W. (2002). Functional foods
and food supplements for athletes: from myths to benefit claims substantiation through the
study of selected biomarkers. British Journal of Nutrition, 88 Suppl 2, S177-186. doi:
10.1079/bjn2002683
Calbet, J. A., & MacLean, D. A. (1997). Role of caloric content on gastric emptying in humans.
Journal of Physiology, 498(2), 553-559. doi: 10.1113/jphysiol.1997.sp021881
Campbell, C., Prince, D., Braun, M., Applegate, E., & Casazza, G. A. (2008). Carbohydrate-
supplement form and exercise performance. Internatinal Journal of Sport Nutrition and
Exercise Metabolism, 18(2), 179-190.
Carr, A. J., Hopkins, W. G., & Gore, C. J. (2011). Effects of acute alkalosis and acidosis on
performance: a meta-analysis. Sports Medicine, 41(10), 801-814. doi: 10.2165/11591440-
000000000-00000
Goulet, E. D. B. (2013). Effect of exercise-induced dehydration on endurance performance:

evaluating the impact of exercise protocols on outcomes using a meta-analytic procedure.

British Journal of Sports Medicine, 47, 679-686. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2012-090958
Hopkins, W. G., & Batterham, A. M. (2016). Error Rates, Decisive Outcomes and Publication Bias
with Several Inferential Methods. Sports Medicine, 1-11. doi: 10.1007/s40279-016-0517-x
Hopkins, W. G., Marshall, S. W., Batterham, A. M., & Hanin, J. (2009). Progressive statistics for
studies in sports medicine and exercise science. Medicine and Science in Sport and Exercise,
41(1), 3-13.
Hunt, J. N., & Stubbs, D. F. (1975). The volume and energy content of meals as determinants of
gastric emptying. Journal of Physiology, 245(1), 209-225.
Jeukendrup, A. E. (2004). Carbohydrate intake during exercise and performance. Nutrition, 20(7-8),
669-677.
Jeukendrup, A. E. (2014). A step towards personalized sports nutrition: carbohydrate intake during
exercise. Sports Medicine, 44(Suppl 1), 25-33. doi: 10.1007/s40279-014-0148-z
Jeukendrup, A. E., & Moseley, L. (2008). Multiple transportable carbohydrates enhance gastric
emptying and fluid delivery. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 20(1),
112-121.
Kern, M., Heslin, C. J., & Rezende, R. S. (2007). Metabolic and performance effects of raisins versus
sports gel as pre-exercise feedings in cyclists. Journal of Strength Conditioning Research,
21(4), 1204-1207. doi: 10.1519/r-21226.1
Lang, J. A., Gisolfi, C. V., & Lambert, G. P. (2006). Effect of exercise intensity on active and passive
glucose absorption. Internatinal Journal of Sport Nutrition and Exercise Metabolism, 16(5),
485-493.
Lee, M. J., Hammond, K. M., Vasdev, A., Poole, K. L., Impey, S. G., Close, G. L., & Morton, J. P.
(2014). Self-selecting fluid intake while maintaining high carbohydrate availability does not
impair half-marathon performance. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 35(14), 1216-
1222. doi: 10.1055/s-0034-1375635
Lugo, M., Sherman, W. M., Wimer, W. M., & Garleb, K. (1993). Metabolic responses when different
foms of carbohydrate energy are consumed during cycling. Internatinal Journal of Sport
Nutrition, 3, 398-407.
Mackie, A. R., Rafiee, H., Malcolm, P., Salt, L., & van Aken, G. (2013). Specific food structures
supress appetite through reduced gastric emptying rate. American Journal of Physiology
Gastrointestinal Liver Physiology, 304(11), G1038-1043. doi: 10.1152/ajpgi.00060.2013
Mason, W. L., McConell, G., & Hargreaves, M. (1993). Carbohydrate ingestion during exercise:
liquid vs solid feedings. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 25(8), 966-969.
Murdoch, S. D., Bazzare, T. L., Snider, I. P., & Goldfarb, A. H. (1993). Differences in the effects of
carbohydrate food form on endurance performance to exhaustion. International Journal of
Sports Nutrition, 3, 41-54.
O'Brien, W. J., & Rowlands, D. S. (2011). Fructose-maltodextrin ratio in a carbohydrate-electrolyte

solution differentially affects exogenous carbohydrate oxidation rate, gut comfort, and
performance. Amercian Journal of Physiololgy Gastrointestinal and Liver Physiology,
300(1), G181-G189. doi: 10.1152/ajpgi.00419.2010
Paddon-Jones, D. J., & Pearson, D. R. (1998). Cost-Effectiveness of Pre-Exercise Carbohydrate

Meals and Their Impact on Endurance Performance. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning
Research, 12(2), 90-94.
Palmer, G. S., Noakes, T. D., & Hawley, J. A. (1997). Effects of steady-state versus stochastic
exercise on subsequent cycling performance. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise,
29(5), 684-687.
Peters, H. P., Bos, M., Seebregts, L., Akkermans, L. M., van Berge Henegouwen, G. P., Bol, E., . . .
de Vries, W. R. (1999). Gastrointestinal symptoms in long-distance runners, cyclists, and
triathletes: prevalence, medication, and etiology. American Journal of Gastroenterology,
94(6), 1570-1581. doi: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.1999.01147.x
Pfeiffer, B., Cotterill, A., Grathwohl, D., Stellingwerff, T., & Jeukendrup, A. E. (2009). The Effect of
Carbohydrate Gels on Gastrointestinal Tolerance During a 16-km Run. International Journal
of Sport Nurtrition and Exercise Metabolism, 19(5), 485-503.
Pfeiffer, B., Stellingwerff, T., Hodgson, A. B., Randell, R., Pottgen, K., Res, P., & Jeukendrup, A. E.
(2012). Nutritional intake and gastrointestinal problems during competitive endurance events.
Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 44(2), 344-351. doi:
10.1249/MSS.0b013e31822dc809
Pfeiffer, B., Stellingwerff, T., Zaltas, E., & Jeukendrup, A. E. (2010a). CHO oxidation from a CHO
gel compared with a drink during exercise. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise,
42(11), 2038-2045. doi: 10.1249/MSS.0b013e3181e0efe6
Pfeiffer, B., Stellingwerff, T., Zaltas, E., & Jeukendrup, A. E. (2010b). Oxidation of solid versus
liquid CHO sources during exercise. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 42(11), 2030-
2037.
Rauch, H. G. L., Hawley, J. A., Woodey, M., Noakes, T. D., & Dennis, S. C. (1999). Effects of
ingesting a sports bar versus glucose polymer on substrate utilisation and ultra-endurance
performance. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 20(4), 252-257.
Rehrer, N. J., Smets, A., Reynaert, H., Goes, E., & De Meirleir, K. (2001). Effect of exercise on portal
vein blood flow in man. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 33(9), 1533-1537.
Rehrer, N. J., van Kemenade, M., Meester, W., Brouns, F., Saris, W. H., Rehrer, N. J., . . . Saris, W.
H. (1992). Gastrointestinal complaints in relation to dietary intake in triathletes. International
Journal of Sport Nutrition, 2(1), 48-59.
Robergs, R. A., McMinn, S. B., Mermier, C., Leadbetter, G., Ruby, B., & Quinn, C. (1998). Blood
glucose and glucoregulatory hormone responses to solid and liquid carbohydrate ingestion
during exercise. International Journal of Sport Nutrition, 8(1), 70-83.
Rowlands, D. S., Swift, M., Ros, M., & Green, J. G. (2012). Composite versus single transportable
carbohydrate solution enhances race and laboratory cycling performance. Applied Physiology
Nutrition and Metabolism, 37(3), 425-436. doi: 10.1139/h2012-013
Sareban, M., Zugel, D., Koehler, K., Hartveg, P., Zugel, M., Schumann, U., . . . Treff, G. (2016).
Carbohydrate Intake in Form of Gel Is Associated With Increased Gastrointestinal Distress
but Not With Performance Differences Compared With Liquid Carbohydrate Ingestion
During Simulated Long-Distance Triathlon. Internatinal Journal of Sport Nutrition and
Exercise Metabolism, 26(2), 114-122. doi: 10.1123/ijsnem.2015-0060
Smith, J. W., Pascoe, D. D., Passe, D., Ruby, B. C., Stewart, L. K., Baker, L. B., & Zachwieja, J. J.
(2013). Curvilinear dose-response relationship of carbohydrate (0-120 g.h-1) and

performance. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 45(2), 336-341. doi:
10.1249/MSS.0b013e31827205d1
Wilson, P. B. (2015). Dietary and non-dietary correlates of gastrointestinal distress during the cycle
and run of a triathlon. European Journal of Sports Science, 16(4), 448-454. doi:
10.1080/17461391.2015.1046191
Woodward, E. R. (1957). The mechanism by which ingested fat delays gastric emptying. Surgery,
41(6), 1016-1018.
Figure 1. Study design showing the time course for preliminary testing, detailing the
preliminary incremental test to establish Wmax, one experimental block, periods of
standardization of diet and training, and on day 7 of each weekly block (inset) the power
profile of the 140-min preload and incremental ramp test to exhaustion for the assay of
performance. The weekly experimental block detail was reproduced for 3 subsequent weeks
to complete the 4-way crossover.
Figure 2. Peak power in the incremental test. Error bars are SD. **Peak power in the Bar
condition likely less than in the Gel condition (see Table 1).
Figure 3. The effect of carbohydrate format on gastrointestinal comfort, perceived effort and
muscle soreness during the 140-min preload ride. Data points are means and vertical error
bars are the average between-subject standard deviation for all sampling points. Symbols to
the right of each data trace represent the likelihood of substantial change relative to the
smallest standardised effect for the following overall-effect contrasts: a Bar-Gel; b Mix-Gel; c
Drink-Gel; d Bar-Drink; e Mix-Drink; f Bar-Mix; using a as an example, aa, likely, aaa very
likely, aaaa almost certain. The full matrix of standardised effect sizes and statistical certainty
are qualified in Table 1
Table 1. Statistical estimates of treatment effect contrasts and magnitude-based inferential summary
for the effect of carbohydrate food format on performance, gut comfort and fatigue.
Contrast (Mean Effecta with CLb and Inferenced)

Outcome (units) Bar-Gel Mix-Gel Drink-Gel Bar-Drink Mix-Drink Bar-Mix Thresholdc
Peak power (%) -3.9 ±4.3 -2.4 ±4.6 -1.9 ±4.6 -2.1 ±4.2 -0.5 ±4.4 -1.6 ±4.3 2
Small** Unclear Unclear Small* Unclear Unclear
Gastrointestinal
distress and fatigue
(0-10 Scale units)e
Nausea 0.6 ±0.2 0.4 ±0.2 0.2 ±0.2 0.5 ±0.2 0.3 ±0.2 0.2 ±0.2 0.2
Moderate* Small** Trivial* Small*** Small* Trivial*
***
Stomach fullness 0.8 ±0.3 0.5 ±0.3 0.2 ±0.3 0.6 ±0.3 0.3 ±0.3 0.4 ±0.3 0.3
Moderate* Small** Trivial* Moderate* Trivial* Small*
** *
Abdominal 0.5 ±0.3 0.2 ±0.3 0.1 ±0.3 0.4 ±0.3 0.1 ±0.3 0.3 ±0.3 0.3
cramps Small** Small* Trivial** Small* Trivial** Small*
Perceived 0.6 ±0.3 0.3 ±0.3 0.4 ±0.3 0.2 ±0.3 -0.1 ±0.3 0.3 ±0.3 0.2
exertion Small*** Small* Small** Small* Unclear Small*

Muscle tiredness 0.7 ±0.3 0.2 ±0.3 0.5 ±0.3 0.2 ±0.3 -0.3 ±0.3 0.5 ±0.3 0.2
Moderate* Small* Small*** Trivial* Small** Small***
***
a
Effect of food format on performance from the analysis of the log data. Effect magnitudes are relative to
the standardized difference classification: trivial 0.0–0.2, small 0.2–0.6, moderate 0.6–1.2, large 1.2–2.0,
very large 2.0–4.0, enormous >4.0 (William G. Hopkins et al., 2009).
b
±90% confidence limits (CL): add and subtract this number to the mean effect to obtain the 90%
confidence limits for the true difference.
c
Threshold for substantial for performance is 0.3 times test CV and for psychometric it is the smallest
standardised difference (0.2 times baseline standard deviation).
d
Symbols for the likelihood of a substantial change follow the magnitude-based descriptor:
*possible (25-75%), **likely (>75%), ***very likely (>95%), ****most likely (>99.5%).
e
Effect of food format on the overall psychometric response derived from the linear model analysis of the
raw scale unit data.

Metabolism. This Article Appears Here in Its Accepted, Peer

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Metabolism. This Article Appears Here in Its Accepted, Peer

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

“Solid, Gel, and Liquid Carbohydrate Format Effects on Gut Comfort and Performance” by Guillochon M, Rowlands DS

International Journal of Sport Nutrition and Exercise Metabolism

Note: This article will be published in a forthcoming issue of

Section: Original Research

Authors: Mathilde Guillochon and David S. Rowlands

Running Head: Carbohydrate format and performance

Journal: International Journal of Sport Nutrition and Exercise

Acceptance Date: November 2, 2016

©2016 Human Kinetics, Inc.

Mathilde Guillochon and David S. Rowlands

School of Sport and Exercise, Massey University, Wellington, New Zealand

School of Sport and Exercise

Running head: Carbohydrate format and performance

Carbohydrate sports drinks produce worthwhile benefits to endurance performance compared

with non-caloric controls. However, athletes now consume carbohydrate in a range of

mixed carbohydrate formats on intense cycling performance. In a treatment-apparent

randomised crossover design, 12 well-trained male cyclists completed 4 trials comprising a

140-min race simulation, followed by a double-blind slow-ramp to exhaustion (0.333 W·s-1).

moderate standardized increases in nausea, stomach fullness, abdominal cramps, and

exogenous-carbohydrate energy source for intense endurance performance.

Keywords: gastrointestinal distress, peak power, placebo, intermittent exercise.

The effects of carbohydrate supplements on endurance performance have almost

exercise to offset dehydration which could compromise performance (Goulet, 2013;

Jeukendrup, 2004). In addition to drinks, other carbohydrate sources are available to

The lack of resolution is important because nutrition workers, commercial interests,

Robergs et al., 1998). However, effects of carbohydrate form on carbohydrate bioavailability

performance. Gut discomfort is frequently reported during higher-intensity endurance

semi-solid or solid format.

study was approved by the Massey University Human Ethics Committee.

control for circadian variance.

Rowlands, 2011). Following 1 min of rest, participants then completed a familiarization of

followed by the performance test.

sufficient energy to balance individual caloric requirements based on the Harris–Benedict

the experimental trial, and to avoid strenuous activity.

volitional exhaustion (O'Brien & Rowlands, 2011). Environmental conditions were

the cyclist by way of a fan.

same multiple transportable carbohydrates at 2:1 maltodextrin:fructose ratio. Carbohydrates

commercial products comprising of a drink (Drink, Powerbar Endurance LemonLime,

recorded) remained in the storage containers to a maximum equivalent to 0.5 g carbohydrate.

2 (mild), 4 (moderate), 6 (high), 8 (very high), 10 (maximum).

harm/trivial/benefit relative to smallest change threshold of 2%: 81.2%/18.1%/0.8%); other

contrasts were inconclusive (Table 1).

Gastrointestinal Comfort and Physical Exertion

Gastrointestinal comfort. The markers of gastrointestinal comfort increased from

overall effects, but were omitted here for brevity.

Food Format Preference Survey

absence of a sample-mean clear enhancement of performance, a majority of athletes stated

associated with very likely to almost certain small-moderate standardised increases in

gastrointestinal discomfort and perceived exertion, relative to the same quantity of

supplement practice in performance nutrition. The performance effects of carbohydrate

effects (Table 1).

Gastrointestinal distress and reduced exogenous-carbohydrate availability to the

abdominal cramps may operate to impair high-intensity performance by inducing fatigue

exogenous-carbohydrate carbohydrate delivery and absorption across the intestinal epithelia.

may be mechanistic in increased gut discomfort and reduced performance.

treatment format. To mitigate possible placebo effects on performance we ran a double-blind,

to salt differences (Carr et al. , 2011).

In conclusion, relative to an isocaloric identical-carbohydrate gel, a carbohydrate-rich

studied in competition and in both sexes.

fabrication, falsification, or inappropriate data manipulation.

No conflicts of interest exist with any authors.

Goulet, E. D. B. (2013). Effect of exercise-induced dehydration on endurance performance:

evaluating the impact of exercise protocols on outcomes using a meta-analytic procedure.