SHOULD YOU MAKE THE MOVE TO MAURTEN®?

All of us in the Endurance world look for that little extra edge as well as the essentials of nutrition. In 2021 a little known company out of Sweden launched a new form of energy gel and fast forwards to 2023 and that brand is one of the biggest in the world of endurance nutrition. Maurten® is currently making an estimated £1mn a week and projected to hit annual reviews of £27.5mn.1 With its global visibility bolstered within the endurance market due to it being a key nutrition sponsor of Ironman® and marathons (such as Berlin) then should this be your brand of choice for carb gels and drinks?

Image source: www.reins.cc

.

The history of the brand & its science

Olof Sköld brothers wife sisters husband (;-)) was called Mårten (Maurten®) and wanted to create a better sports drink, so he and Olof Sköld come up with the use of a pharma based delivery technology of sodium alginate + pectin.2 From this others (Karl Sköld, Henrik Wingstrand and Sven Mårten Fryknäs are listed as co-founders) where brought on board and with the help of the academics Martin Ahnoff and Anna STRÖM helped develop, patent and bring to market Maurten AB and its carb gel and drink2 (Note: Maurten AB is a subsidiary of Laminaria Group AB, which holds all the IP for Maurten from April 2016).

At this time of launch no public data other than anecdotal evidence from athlete testimonials was available to demonstrate efficacy such as well controlled research that was peer reviewed studies.

.

The Kiphoge effect

One of the smartest moves was the approach of Maurten® to work with Professor Yannis Pitsiladis on the ‘Breaking2’ project, where World and Olympic gold medalist runner Elliud Kiphoge would attempt to break the 2 hour barrier in the marathon. In addition, to their work with Kenenisa Bekele for the 2016 Berlin marathon and the ‘development of the real world’ application of the Gel technology (and likely the result that got them in the door for Breaking2), it was the global recognition from the ‘Sub2’ event in 2017 propelled them onto the world stage. Maurten® was now recognised as an “ultra” premium, science-based, endurance product and brand.

Image Source: https://www.holabirdsports.com/pages/maurten

In addition to the success from Sub2, some nice marketing with unbranded gels that suggesting athletes want to use Maurten® even if sponsored by other endurance product brands made some headlines. The result of this innovative marketing was in effect a “No ‘independent’ proof before promises” approach that on the back of athlete testimonials propelled Maurten® from a regional brand to the multi-million £ global brand we recognise today.

.

A Closer look at the “REAL” science

It’s a true story of low tech gorilla marketing against the brand led traditions in the endurance market. It also takes a page out of the designer clothing market that it’s not just about the cost of goods but about developing true brand value. Beyond the food marketing and product promotion aka “the hype”, what does the REAL science say about these products? As the founders of Maurten® would say, is their product a leap in science that has not changed that much from the 1960’s?

Well let’s take a look at the published evidence using the following search terms in Pubmed:

[Search terms: Sodium AND Alginate AND Hydrogel AND carbohydrate]

[Limits: Clinical trial, Meta-analysis, Review, Systematic review]

Table 1. Summary of Maurten® HydroGel studies

Following a search using the above inclusion / exclusion criteria and then reading over each related paper we find there are 11 published peer review studies and in addition we note 1 abstract that was surplus to the search above. So let’s take a dive into the outcomes of these studies as summarised in the table above.

What did the evidence tell us?

We have 10 papers (excluding the review paper) that are relevant to the use of the Maurten® Hydrogel. Of these we should really look at 3 key areas.

1. Does Hydrogel enhance performance above that of a none-gel forming carb drink?

2. Does HydroGel increase Carb oxidation, decrease use of stored carbs or enhance fat use?

3. Does Hydrogel result in less GI issues?

Key area 1Performance enhance: Of the 10 relevant papers 5 do not contain any assessment of the effects of HydroGel on physical performance. Of these remaining 5 only 1 study (Rowe et al 2022) demonstrates any performance benefit.

Summary 1: So on the face of it we can conclude that Maurten Hydrogel on the basis of the performance tests within these studies as a general view is no better that carbohydrate formulations that don’t form a gel following ingestion. 

Key Area 2 – Spares glycogen (stored carbs): Of the 10 studies 9 measured either rates of CHO/Fat oxidation and or Endogenous use of Carbs. Of these 2 demonstrated a decrease in endogenous oxidation of carbs (burning stored carbs for energy) and 7 showed no difference in whole body oxidation rates.

Summary 2: So whilst we see some evidence that Hydrogel can in certain exercise conditions spare muscle glycogen, which may enhance performance later in competition, that data is weak. 

Key area 3: – Less GI issues: Finally, we should consider one of the main issues faced by many an endurance athlete and especially those involved in long course triathlon. Of the 10 studies, 8 measure Gastrointestinal (GI) stress / discomfort to some degree. Of the 8 studies measuring GI stress, 2 showed increased discomfort and 2 showing less from Hydrogel and the others no difference.

Summary 3: So we can conclude on balance there are based on the study designs no consistent benefits on GI complaints that what we see using none-gel forming carbohydrate sources. 

.

Conclusions: Should you hang your hat with Maurten®

At this point all we can really say from the published research (as reviewed in this blog) does not demonstrate any consistent performance, biochemical nor gastrointestinal comfort benefits against carb matched alternatives. There are a number of issues to consider in drawing such a conclusion:

  1. Not all studies use the same exercise protocol or performance tests
  2. The type of exercise (run, cycle) and its duration is not the same
  3. Dietary controls and fitness of the participants are different
  4. Some of the chemical/physiological techniques used to assess some of the proposed benefits differ between papers. 

The results of such methodological difference mean we don’t see consistency in the data and what we are likely to see is Maurten® cherry picking the data supporting its views and distractors or business competitors the opposite. 

My own view is I am on neither side here. The fact is the difference between conventional 2:1 carb products (none-gel forming) vs. Hydrogels are neither here no there…based on the published peer reviewed evidence. The choice of what to go for training and race day are really one of personal preference and in this case likely also one of price point. 

What Maurten® need to do going forwards its to invest in relevant study designs that replicate what endurance and indeed ultra-endurance athletes need for a marathon and or long distance triathlon. To date we really don’t have that evidence. 

I hope you find this assessment of use and we did contact Maurten® science team who kindly provided comment in relation to the available studies before we wrote this review. 

NOTE: We do see an addition 4 references in the published literature that are of interest but do not fall within the scope of the article but will include in reference list to ensure completeness of the review. Interesting is the publication of Leiper et al that seems to pre-date the Maurten® products (Interesting from a novelty standpoint).

.

References/Sources

  1. New energy drinks – without all the nasties (7th October 2023) Accessed online 17th October 2023 at: https://www.ft.com/content/d6f1d56d-ca86-43df-b14c-de076c76cc91
  2. The Entrepreneurs Maurten (25th September 2019) Episode 415. Accessed online 17th October 2023 at: https://monocle.com/radio/shows/the-entrepreneurs/415/
  3. Pettersson S, Edin F, Bakkman L, McGawley K. Effects of supplementing with an 18% carbohydrate-hydrogel drink versus a placebo during whole-body exercise in -5 °C with elite cross-country ski athletes: a crossover study. J Int Soc Sports Nutr. 2019 Oct 26;16(1):46. doi: 10.1186/s12970-019-0317-4. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31655603/
  4. Marciani L , Lopez-Sanchez P , Pettersson S , Hoad C , Abrehart N , Ahnoff M , Ström A . Alginate and HM-pectin in sports-drink give rise to intra-gastric gelation in vivo. Food Funct. 2019 Dec 11;10(12):7892-7899. doi: 10.1039/c9fo01617a. PMID: 31793602. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31793602/
  5. McCubbin AJ, Zhu A, Gaskell SK, Costa RJS. Hydrogel Carbohydrate-Electrolyte Beverage Does Not Improve Glucose Availability, Substrate Oxidation, Gastrointestinal Symptoms or Exercise Performance, Compared With a Concentration and Nutrient-Matched Placebo. Int J Sport Nutr Exerc Metab. 2020 Jan 1;30(1):25-33. doi: 10.1123/ijsnem.2019-0090. https://tinyurl.com/yckezb2f
  6. Barber JFP, Thomas J, Narang B, Hengist A, Betts JA, Wallis GA, Gonzalez JT. Pectin-Alginate Does Not Further Enhance Exogenous Carbohydrate Oxidation in Running. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2020 Jun;52(6):1376-1384. doi: 10.1249/MSS.0000000000002262. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31977640/
  7. Pettersson S, Ahnoff M, Edin F, Lingström P, Simark Mattsson C, Andersson-Hall U. A Hydrogel Drink With High Fructose Content Generates Higher Exogenous Carbohydrate Oxidation and Lower Dental Biofilm pH Compared to Two Other, Commercially Available, Carbohydrate Sports Drinks. Front Nutr. 2020 Jun 12;7:88. doi: 10.3389/fnut.2020.00088. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7303329/
  8. Mears SA, Worley J, Mason GS, Hulston CJ, James LJ. Addition of sodium alginate and pectin to a carbohydrate-electrolyte solution does not influence substrate oxidation, gastrointestinal comfort, or cycling performance. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab. 2020 Jun;45(6):675-678. doi: 10.1139/apnm-2019-0802. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31967853/ 
  9. Sutehall S, Galloway SDR, Bosch A, Pitsiladis Y. Addition of an Alginate Hydrogel to a Carbohydrate Beverage Enhances Gastric Emptying. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2020 Aug;52(8):1785-1792. doi: 10.1249/MSS.0000000000002301. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32079920/
  10. King AJ, Rowe JT, Burke LM. Carbohydrate Hydrogel Products Do Not Improve Performance or Gastrointestinal Distress During Moderate-Intensity Endurance Exercise. Int J Sport Nutr Exerc Metab. 2020 Sep 1;30(5):305-314. doi: 10.1123/ijsnem.2020-0102. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32707564/
  11. Flood TR, Montanari S, Wicks M, Blanchard J, Sharp H, Taylor L, Kuennen MR, Lee BJ. Addition of pectin-alginate to a carbohydrate beverage does not maintain gastrointestinal barrier function during exercise in hot-humid conditions better than carbohydrate ingestion alone. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab. 2020 Oct;45(10):1145-1155. doi: 10.1139/apnm-2020-0118. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32365303/
  12. Sutehall S, Muniz-Pardos B, Bosch AN, Galloway SD, Pitsiladis Y. The Impact of Sodium Alginate Hydrogel on Exogenous Glucose Oxidation Rate and Gastrointestinal Comfort in Well-Trained Runners. Front Nutr. 2022 Jan 20;8:810041. doi: 10.3389/fnut.2021.810041. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8811475/
  13. Rowe JT, King RFGJ, King AJ, Morrison DJ, Preston T, Wilson OJ, O’Hara JP. Glucose and Fructose Hydrogel Enhances Running Performance, Exogenous Carbohydrate Oxidation, and Gastrointestinal Tolerance. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2022 Jan 1;54(1):129-140. doi: 10.1249/MSS.0000000000002764. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34334720/

Other Studies of Note

Leiper JB, Aulin KP, Söderlund K. Improved gastric emptying rate in humans of a unique glucose polymer with gel-forming properties. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2000 Nov;35(11):1143-9. doi: 10.1080/003655200750056600.

Lopez-Sanchez P, Martinez-Sanz M, Bonilla MR, Wang D, Gilbert EP, Stokes JR, Gidley MJ. Cellulose-pectin composite hydrogels: Intermolecular interactions and material properties depend on order of assembly. Carbohydr Polym. 2017 Apr 15;162:71-81. doi: 10.1016/j.carbpol.2017.01.049. 

Lopez-Sanchez P, Fredriksson N, Larsson A, Altskar A, Strom A. High sugar content impacts microstructure, mechanics and release of calciumalginate Gels. 2018; 84: 26-33. Doi: 10.1016/j.foodhyd.2018.05.029

Lopez-Sanchez P, Assifaoui A, Cousin F, Moser J, Bonilla MR, Ström A. Impact of Glucose on the Nanostructure and Mechanical Properties of Calcium-Alginate Hydrogels. Gels. 2022 Jan 22;8(2):71. doi: 10.3390/gels8020071. 

The Myth of Functional Threshold Power (FTP)

“If you repeat something long enough people will begin to believe it’s the truth.”

 

 

How can I set training zones based on power? Are they accurate? Are they based on evidence? These are just some of the basic questions those looking to base their training on power. One of the most widely used and accepted methods of setting up training zones are based on what is know as the “Functional Threshold Power (FTP) test”. We see it used by coaches, listed in the magazines, and now it’s proliferated into online virtual training platforms and virtual reality training platforms such as Zwift and TrainerRoad.

However, what is the scientific basis of the FTP test? Does it measure / reflect lactate threshold? What are its limitations? Are there better options? In this blog and want to take a real look into the limitations of this suggested method of setting up a training program and why I believe it’s not all its suggest to be.

*In advance there is a little bit of physiology and some discussion of studies in the following blog. This sometimes breaks up the flow of a discussion but try to stick with it as it should help explain my views on FTP.

**November 2017 BLOG UPDATE: Please see comments and clarification following the publication with Dr Coggan, regarding FTP tests. 

FTP or Critical Power

The basis of FTP and other measures of so-called ‘threshold testing’ is defining that point between energy being primarily supplied by the aerobic system (i.e. sustainable over a long time) and the anaerobic system (sustainable over a short period of time).

According to one of the main academics behind the FTP test; Dr Andrew Coggan[1] states, “FTP is the highest power that a rider can maintain in a quasi-steady state without fatiguing for approximately one hour.” In addition it is suggested that the best predictor of performance is performance itself – so a 60-minute time trial is just that a great predictor of 60 minute time trial. Because 60minutes is often very difficult (especially the relatively untrained) its suggest by Coggan that a 20minute test can be used, which is described as underestimating the 60minute test by 5%. Knowing this the 20minute test is suggested as a means of determining FTP.[2] This is interesting as a description of the test but what is the scientific basis? Why should we use it (or not) to develop training zones?

The underlying basis of the FTP test is touted as being 1. Being representative of lactate threshold (See Figure 1) and, 2. The mathematical concept of critical power (CP). So lets take a look at both of these with reference to the FTP test.

 

Figure 1

Figure 1. Here we see a test of lactate threshold with a subject working and increasing power and lactate levels rising at a relatively low rate until a threshold (LT) is reached where any additional increase in power output results in an almost exponential increase in lactate.[From Coggan AR. Training and racing using a power meter: an introduction. 2003. Accessed online at: www.ipmultisport.com/ref_lib/Coggan_Power_Meter.pdf].

 

Lactate threshold and FTP

One of the main studies cited as supportive of the 60minute FTP test as being reflective of lactate threshold and a pragmatic approach to non-lab based testing is that by Coyle et al. [3] In this study 14 male endurance athletes where used. The cycling lactate threshold test was based on testing at 5 different intensities and looked for a 1mmol (a blood measure of lactate) change on blood lactate above baseline as representing the balance between lactate production and use.

The performance test was cycling until fatigue at 88% of maximum (Vo2max). The study split the group into 2. One group (HL) that could work at a higher % of the maximum at lactate threshold (72-86%) and one at lower level (LL) (59-71%). The results in terms of time to fatigue for the LL group (working at 34% above threshold) and the HL (3% below threshold) was as follows.

Time to fatigue in the HL group was 60mins and the LL was 29mins.

Therefore, how can was state that a 60 minute FTP performance test can be related to this study and lactate threshold when the LL group did not work at lactate threshold but 34% above it. Similarly, the HL group although lasting on average 60mins, when we look at individual subjects we have one lasting 75minutes and another only 51minutes be fatigue. That’s a possible variation of 24Minutes between subjects? As such we cannot base any type of assumption that the FTP test is reflective of any type of late threshold based on the results of this study.

Given that subjects during the test where not aware of the elapsed time this perhaps speaks of the inherent variability and weakness of the FTP test i.e. how motivated are you to perform? When the real question is when does lactate threshold occur.

Therefore, I am not convinced that a 60minute test can predict accurately where the lactate threshold is or power at lactate threshold (or at least not without possible significant variability). Although there is no doubt a relationship between Lactate threshold and time to exhaustion that does not mean that time to exhaustion or max power produced over 60 minutes is an accurate value to determine training zones.

 

The concept of critical power (CP)

The critical power (CP) test was the mathematical basis of FTP in many ways but it when we look at what the CP test involves it not merely a 20 or 60minute performance test.

The relationship between power output and fatigue was initially introduced by Hill (1927).[4] However, it was Monod and Scherrer (1965)[5] that coined the term ‘Critical power’. These researchers investigated the relationship between power output and time to exhaustion during multiple bouts of exercise on specific, isolated muscle groups. They then derived a mathematical equation that defined the relationship between power output and time to fatigue. This test involved 4 -5 bouts over a time period of 2 – 24 minutes and the data then entered into the equation to define CP.

We can already see limitations to this work – as they say ‘no muscle is an island’ as such testing a single muscle group would not be reflective of the physiological stress brought about during cycling where we see modern day application of FTP. So what about looking at a more relevant studies.

One of the primary papers referenced as underpinning the suggestion that CP is representative of maximum lactate steady state (MLSS)(i.e. just below lactate threshold where there is a balance between the rate of lactate production and the rate of lactate removal primarily representing aerobic system) or just above it is that by Poole et al.[6] In this trial a cycling test was used to assess the relationship between power and MLSS. Similarly, we see other studies referenced to demonstrate a relationship.[7]

 However, although there maybe a relationship that does not mean accurate. For example I might say driving when the group is icy may result in a 60% chance of a crash but 60% although significant does not predict it will happen. In assessing the accuracy of such a relationship last year Maturana and collegues[8] demonstrate that CP (calculated in tests over 1-20mins) over-estimated MLSS by 20w (based on subjects with a threshold of about 255w). That’s an 8% overestimation and although it may not sound like much if you cycle 20w above MLSS it will result in a continual rise in blood lactate ending in subjects fatiguing before the end of the test.[9] These results have been further repeated by studies from the likes of Bull et al, which demonstrated that CP overestimates the power output that can be maintained over 60minutes. [10]

Finally, the calculation of CP is highly impacted by the mathematics employed to identify CP, as is training status of subjects and pedalling frequency (higher cadence resulting in lower CP and FTP).[11]

As such this general view amongst people that CP and FTP are representative of lactate threshold is clearly flawed and at best controversial among scientists. Therefore, care should be taken to base any type of training program on the basis that FTP or CP is an accurate representation of an athlete’s true threshold.

 

What else does FTP testing not tell us as athletes?

An important factor in developing an effective training program is to know what our physiological strengths and weakness are. As part of determining where there are weaknesses we need to look at factors such as aerobic or anaerobic capacity, or economic an athlete maybe (the oxygen cost of cycling at certain intensities). What we get from FTP testing is one value, ‘a performance measure over one hour’. We do not get a measure of oxygen cost (or oxygen cost per watt – economy), lactate threshold, or similar measures that are independent of psychological motivation to complete a test to full exhaustion. In fact in most lab-based test of aerobic capacity most can generate a value well before physical exhaustion.

Another important factor is the assessment of fuel use across a given range of exercise intensities. What I mean by this is how much fat (grams/min) and carbs (grams/min) are you burning to maintain a given effort (say 200w vs. 250w). You may ask why is this important?

Well for any event exceeding 2.5-3hours in duration it can be massively important as the results from sub-maximal and max testing can give and indication of how much carbs we would need to take on board (based on stored carbs or circa 400-500g) to get us through an event. For Ironman based events such information can be vital to effectively determine pacing and nutritional (Carb) intake requirements.

So what about the practicalities of getting testing carried out in a lab (no I don’t do such testing)? A submax (check of bodies response to aerobic up to threshold work), max (anaerobic capacity and maximum oxygen uptake), and LT test carried out for cycling and running may cost in the region of £300-400 in the UK. For cyclists only needed a bike test or runners needing a run test its going to be half this cost. When you think about the money spent on a new wheel, helmet or the latest watch such costs spread over the course of a year should not break the bank for most. The data from such testing should not be under estimated and can be massively important in tracking fitness but more importantly identifying how a training program should be structured and how much time dedicated to base, build and comp specific periods.

 

Conclusions

So whilst testing FTP are great as a performance measure and I do believe performance is the best measure of performance its limited as a tool for accurately setting up training zones. However, few of us compete in only 20minute time trials or even 60-minute time trial. As such I would rather base my performance on a performance trial that is closer to what I would experience in a race. The problem is I do Ironman and other than jumping into a half Ironman I don’t thing any performance test would be appropriate.

FTP repeated over time can help be a measure of improvement in fitness/ performance once any learning effects are overcome (i.e. the first time you do an FTP test you may go out to hard and burn out, the next time you will pace better, spreading the effort over the 20mins). However, what I am discussing in the blog is the data in the scientific literature. Maybe tomorrow a new study will find some other reason why the FTP 20 Min test is accurate as a measure of threshold, however, until I see that evidence I can only base my views of what I have read so far.

For setting training zones I want to know how my body is reacting internally – so how much oxygen, carbs, fat am I using at given intensity (heart rate, power, or velocity) and how much lactate I am producing. Psychologically, I cannot significantly control my lactate response of the amount of oxygen my muscle consume for a given power, yet I can control how hard I feel I am pushing for the FTP test.

I am sure many coaches would swear that FTP is a great way to monitor athletes and set up training zones but is this because they don’t have access to other forms of testing? Is it because FTP is quick and easy, needing limited equipment? Have they actually looked at the other options? The bro-science response well my athlete did x or qualified for Y using FTP is not a response to the limitations discussed above. Maybe if they used other ways to set up training their athletes would have achieved their goals earlier, or perhaps many of their athletes don’t achieve but they just pull out those that have as a defence.

In conclusion FTP has its limitations and if it works for you as a coach or athlete and you improving year on year then keep on using it. However, don’t do it blindly, always consider why you are doing something what are the limitations? Is it based on real evidence? I will in later blogs look at the other measure I mention above such as lactate threshold, Vo2max etc but for now I hope you find this blog useful.

Keep training and best of luck for 2017!

Ps. I asked some of the key authors behind the FTP test for comment on what I feel are the limitation before writing this blog but received no response.

 

References

  1. Hunter A, Coggan A. (2006) Training and racing with a power meter. VeloPress, Colorado USA.
  2. Ibid, pg.51
  3. Coyle EF, Coggan AR, Hopper MK, Walters TJ. Determinants of endurance in well-trained cyclists. J. Appl. Physiol. 64:2622-2630, 1988.
  4. Hill AV (1927). Speed and energy requirement. In Muscular Movement in Man, pp. 41–44. McGraw-Hill, New York.
  5. Monod H & Scherrer J (1965). The work capacity of a synergic muscular group. Ergonomics 8, 329–338.
  6. Poole DC, Ward SA, Whipp BJ. The effects of training on the metabolic and respiratory profile of high-intensity cycle ergometer exercise. Eur J Appl Physiol. 1990;59:421–9.
  7. Pringle JSM, Jones AM. Maximal lactate steady state, critical power and EMG during cycling. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2002;88:214–26.
  8. Maturana FM, Keir DA, McLay KM, Maurias JM. Can measures of critical power precisely estimate the maximal metabolic steady-state? Appl Physiol Nutr Metab. 2016; 41: 1197–1203
  9. Ibid n8, pg 218, 222
  10. Bull AJ, Housh TJ, Johnson GO, Perry SR. Effect of mathematical modeling on the estimation of critical power. Med Sci Sport & Ex. 2000; 32 (2), 526–530
  11. Barker T, Poole DC, Nobel ML, Barstow TJ. Human critical power – oxygen uptake relationship at different pedaling frequencies. Exp Physiol 91 (3), 621-632.