pro recover versus vitargo

[OLD FORUM ARCHIVE]

kk
a lot of people ae banging the drum about virtago [its the must have pwo supplement -touted]
surely if it was so good-your team wold have included it in-pro recover.
also can recover be taken right up to a show.
the question is for several people at our gym.
thanks.

[OLD FORUM ARCHIVE]

Hi Mark,

Great question! I've always looked with amazement at some of the claims on Vitargo (12lbs gains in 2 weeks! WOW!) Their big claims are based on how fast it goes through the stomach but anything in the stomach will affect that absorbtion. I used your question to bring into the debate The Gifted One (Phil Connolly), here is his reply

Vitargo is nothing more than a trademarked name for Barley flour starch. The technical name they give for it is "polymeric glucose". That simply means that it is a whole bunch of glucose molecules bonded together and could be used to describe any grain starch, potato starch, and even some gums, such as locust bean gum or guar gum. Yes, a number of people are now touting the benefits of barley flour - but what are they really? There are 3 studies "showing" the benefits of Vitargo. Their results are contradicting in some cases and of questionable consequence to normal athletes. If you check out the clinical studies on Vitargo, this is what they state:

1.) Consuming Vitargo post-exercise results in faster and greater increases of blood serum levels of glucose and insulin compared to post-workout consumption of simple sugar drinks (glucose and low molecular weight, short chain glucose products). Those athletes who consumed Vitargo were slightly more able to perform better (stationary cycling) after 2 hours of rest post-exercise than those athletes that consumed the glucose drink.

2.) Consuming Vitargo post-exercise versus a glucose drink showed that Vitargo emptied out of the stomach faster than the glucose drink BUT also showed that there was NO DIFFERENCE between the Vitargo drink and the glucose drink on increases of blood serum glucose and insulin levels (doesn't that contradict the results of study 1?).

3.) Consuming Vitargo post-exercise versus a glucose drink showed NO DIFFERENCE AT ANY TIME (again? no difference?) in blood serum glucose and insulin levels. For the first 2 hours after exercise, Vitargo showed a signficant increase in glycogen synthesis. For the next 2 hours, however, the glucose drink showed more glycogen synthesis than Vitargo. 4 hours post-exercise, both the Vitargo and simple sugars drinks showed roughly the same amount of glycogen synthesis.

What does all of this mean? All three studies compared Vitargo to low molecular weight sugar products (glucose on up to maybe 5 glucose molecules bonded together). Of course, a long chain of glucose will react differently than a short chain of glucose in the body. What if Vitargo was compared to another polymeric glucose product, such as a low DE maltodextrin or other grain starch? Would there be a significant difference? In addition, although one study showed an increase in serum levels for glucose and insulin after consumption of Vitargo, the other two studies showed that there was no difference in serum levels between Vitargo and glucose. Also, the first study we mentioned concluded that athletes performed better 2 hours later after consuming Vitargo. That's a perfectly understandable result, considering the third study findings, that Vitargo replenished glycogen stores faster than glucose after 2 hours. After 4 hours, however, both groups of athletes would have been even in glycogen stores, and thus, both would probably have performed equally well.

What's left? Vitargo empties out of the stomach faster and replenishes glycogen stores faster than glucose (2 hours versus 4 hours), yet, over a 4 hour period is the same as glucose at replenshing glycogen stores.

What good does that do the average athlete? If you are involved in a discipline where you will exercise to complete exhaustion (defined as exercising to the point that your body can no longer produce energy - not to be confused with exerting one's muscles in short burst of strength - thereby having thoroughly depleted all of your glycogen stores) and then need to perform again at maximum efficiency 2 hours later, Vitargo would be a better choice of carbohydrate source than glucose. If, however, you exercise to exhaustion and are able to rest up for at least 4 hours before you exercise again, then glucose would serve you just as well as Vitargo (glucose costs significantly less than Vitargo). How many athletes really perform to complete exhaustion and then have to perform again within 4 hours? I can't think of any besides perhaps a mixed martial arts fighter in a weekend tournament who has to fight 3 times per day. Replenishing glycogen stores does help with energy demand, but it does nothing to repair the damage to muscle fibers that such intense exercise will cause. Participating in exhaustive exercise twice in one day, even at 4 hours apart, is not a good idea from the standpoint of muscle repair / recuperation.

Until such time as we see a significant scientific advantage to be gained by use of a new, more expensive ingredient, we will abstain from including it in our products. At this point, scientific evidence does not show a distinct advantage for Vitargo for the average athlete and certainly not at all for a resistance trainer who rests his muscle groups for days in between exhaustive exercise.

[OLD FORUM ARCHIVE]

kk,
so in simple terms[so people like me understand]
if vitargo was as good as people make out-you would consider using it in pro-recover.
this did cross my mind tbh. it seems vitargo is the latest trend.
i shall stick with the best pwo drink then.pro-recover

[OLD FORUM ARCHIVE]

kk - Exactly, it is far too expensive and you can see by Phils answer that it is a very overhyped brand name.

[OLD FORUM ARCHIVE]

Good read from Phil once again.

Looks like Glucose will always be a good enough carb then, especially for bodybuilders. I still look forward to the new Pro-Recover with other bits and bobs added.

John.