Are Hydrogels Worth The Hype?
When Eliud Kipchoge was attempting to break the two hour marathon all eyes were on what exactly he was doing: the shoes, the training, and of course, his nutrition. Kipchoge was going to be fueling with Maurten, a new hydrogel.
From the Maurten website on what exactly a hydrogel is:
Our patented Hydrogel technology enables us to increase the amount of carbohydrates available to the body as fuel. Hydrogel technology reduces the risk of gastrointestinal problems that arise when loading the stomach with traditional sports fuels and unnecessary ingredients like colorants, preservatives, and artificial flavors, that do not aid your performance.
It’s pretty similar to the claims of other hydrogels like Science In Sport: gels that more easily transport carbohydrates into the stomach than traditional gels which in turn reduce stomach problems and quicker energy production. Especially with Maurten, they are delivering more carbs than the average gel to your system without the added GI stress. The claim is that the more carbs you can get while training, the better your performance.
Sounds great right? All that comes with a pretty steep price tag: a Maurten gel costs around $4, which adds up during a heavy block of training. That long run will end up costing you $16–20.
But do they work?
Australian researchers published a study that compared a hydrogel drink with a glucose/fructose drink to see if there was any performance benefit. They had runners randomized in two groups where they each completed a 3 hour low to moderate run which was immediately followed by a time trial to exhaustion. Each group consumed 90 grams of carbohydrate/electrolyte drink with one being the hydrogel and the other was the glucose/fructose drink. So each runner was drinking the same amount of carbs and electrolytes but just from different drinks. The repeated the trail again but just reversed the drink groups. What did they find?
- The blood sugar response was the same in all of the runners
- All the runners developed GI distress during the trails. It was the same for each runner regardless of which drink they consumed.
- There was no difference in how quickly the runner tired during the time trail no matter what drink they consumed.
Long story short: There was no difference between the hydrogel and the other drink.
From another study done in England:
In January of this year, a team of British researchers also compared the performance benefits of a hydrogel drink to a non-gel carbohydrate drink, this time using a slightly lower intake of 68 grams per hour(14). Using a similar format as above, eight cyclists consumed 68 grams per hour of a hydrogel carbohydrate/electrolyte drink or a taste and carbohydrate-type matched carbohydrate-electrolyte solution during a 2-hour ride at 55% of maximum power (moderate intensity). This was immediately followed by a 20-minute time trial. Once again, when they compared blood glucose concentrations, carbohydrate oxidation rates, gastrointestinal symptoms and time-trial performances, there were no significant differences between the trials, meaning that the hydrogel drink hadn’t conferred any benefits. SOURCE
The marketing of the hydrogels makes it sound like these gels are the solution to all of your running problems: no GI stress, you’ll run longer/faster, etc. But the science isn’t there to back up the claims. On the flip side, there is no negative to using a hydrogel, except for your bank account.
At the end of the day, running nutrition is highly individualized. What works for you may not work for anyone else and what works for everyone else may not work for you. I’ve tried them before and I do like the taste which is almost nonexistent. It tastes like clear, plain Jell-O. I never really felt a big difference but I do have some clients who swear that these gels have been a game-changer for them. I always encourage my clients to trust scientific studies over anecdotal evidence.
More reading:
https://journals.humankinetics.com/view/journals/ijsnem/30/5/article-p305.xml
