Oat + Whey shakes?

<div>
(4 8 15 16 23 42 @ Dec. 23 2006,01:45)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">It's not &quot;why I think&quot; bro... It's every chart, graph and journal I've read that states it's GI is around 40.</div>
show us the research rather than producing claims from bbrs


<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">
Regardless... I know what it does as do the many others who have given it extensive trial.
</div>
I dont care what it does, you stated it was low GI, but it isnt. <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">
I know the pwo rush you get from dex/malto and I know that WMS doesn't do this.</div>

Im glad you have different feelings, doesnt change what the product actually does.

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">And to your quote from VITARGO... read above where you quoted... that particular Vitargo is using Barley, not WMS, as I mentioned a few posts up.
</div>

Except the research that you posted was with carbohydrates from the origonal Vitargo, supplied by Carbamyl in Sweden, or amylopectin from potato. Its also used by vitargo in advertising.

WMS is a source of amylopectin, which can also be sourced from whatever high amylopectin flour they have (like wheat, barley or maize), potato starch etc yada yada yada. It is a highly branched starch, which allows for a product to be low osmolality, while allowing multiple endings for acess for amylases, allowing quick hydrolysis and availability to the gastrointestinal transporters for uptake.
 
<div>
(Tripex @ Dec. 22 2006,21:05)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">okay stop the bs. you don't know what you are talking about.</div>
rolleyes.gif


Again... I'm not talking about Vitargo...
 
<div>
(4 8 15 16 23 42 @ Dec. 24 2006,14:05)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Have you used it Aaron?</div>
Me using it does not prove anything.

Bro' logic doesnt prove anything.

Just as making unsubstantiated claims doesnt prove anything.
 
<div>
(Aaron_F @ Dec. 23 2006,21:41)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(4 8 15 16 23 42 @ Dec. 24 2006,14:05)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Have you used it Aaron?</div>
Me using it does not prove anything.

Bro' logic doesnt prove anything.

Just as making unsubstantiated claims doesnt prove anything.</div>
Not sure why the personal attacks, guys.

Are you a research chem?

I'm not making any of this up. We'll just have to agree to disagree.
 
<div>
(Tripex @ Dec. 21 2006,08:11)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">How could a LOW GI carb pass in the bloodstream very quickly? If it passes so quickly it is HIGH GI and it CERTAINLY would spike insulin unless you are diabetic. A healthy body won't let around 6gr of blood sugar (600 mg/dl) because it is dangerous. So I'd really like to see how this maize  thing works, what it is and any medical research that was done...</div>
Here's one of a few studies indicating that amylose versions of starch do not affect insulin in the same way that amylopectin  or sugars do. Note- this is only referencing the nature of this type of starch, not specifically WMS.

LINK


ANother referencing high-amylose content of starch reducing insulin response. LINK

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Table 1. Factors Affecting Glycemic Index of Foods
Soluble fiber
Amylose content
Particle size
Method of preparation </div>

Note that WMS as once used in Vitargo and as used as a plain fitness supplement are high in amylose/lower in amylopectin.
 
<div>
(4 8 15 16 23 42 @ Dec. 25 2006,01:20)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Not sure why the personal attacks, guys.</div>
Personal attacks?
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">
Are you a research chem? </div>
no
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">
I'm not making any of this up. We'll just have to agree to disagree.</div>

You havent actually provided any evidence, so that means you are making things up.

And n=1 examples do not actually prove anything.
 
<div>
(4 8 15 16 23 42 @ Dec. 25 2006,01:33)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Note that WMS as once used in Vitargo and as used as a plain fitness supplement are high in amylose/lower in amylopectin.</div>
Um,

Its not amylose, its amylopectin.

this is not a great source, but it is from a starch reseller



WAXY corn (maize) is a corn variety with grains that have a waxy appearance when cut, and that contains only branched-chain starch. Waxy corn starch is over 99% amylopectin, whereas regular corn contains 72-76% amylopectin and 24-28% amylose. Amylopectin is a branched form of starch of high molecular weight, while amylose is a smaller unbranched or linear form of starch. Waxy corn is processed in wet milling to produce waxy cornstarch which slowly retrogrades back to the crystalline form of starch. It is grown to make special starches for thickening foods in particularly those that undergo large temperature changes in processing and preparation.

or maybe the great (sic) information from wikipedia

maybe from a manufacturers sales site? maybe

maybe cornproducts USA in their FAQ


Question 5
How do you determine whether a starch is made from regular corn or waxy corn?

Answer 5
All starches contain amylose and/or amylopectin. Regular corn starch contains 25% amylose and 75% amylopectin while waxy corn starch contains 100% amylopectin. When using a typical iodine staining technique, amylose stains blue while amylopectin stains reddish brown when viewed under a microscope. By using this method, waxy corn starch will appear reddish brown while regular corn starch will appear blue (blue color of amylose dominates reddish brown color of amylopectin).


hmm
 
4 8 15 16 23 42

Is there a difference between Waxy Maize and Instant clear jel? I have been doing some research and they seem to be about the same (clear jel is just modified waxy maize). The biggest difference that I have found is price (instant clear jel is only around 3.75 per pound). Any thoughts?
 
The Wikipedia article was interesting enough, and I raised an eyebrow when, in the Southern corn leaf blight epidemic, the farmers noted the cows thriving on the waxy maize. Also:
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Increases of more than 20% in average daily weight gains in fattening lambs were observed when waxy grain was compared with normal dent [46]. In addition, a 14% increase in feed efficiency was noted in favor of waxy grain. Likewise an increase in feed efficiency approaching 10% was obtained in trials where waxy grain was compared with the dent counterparts when fed to finishing beef cattle.</div>

Of course, a cow has NINE stomachs to my ONE, but still...?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top