2007 Australia Endurance Test
This test took place in Sydney Australia and ran from January to February 2007. The 32 test subjects were a mix of club to elite level cyclists and Ironman Triathletes. All athletes were experienced competitive athletes who race regularly. The test involved a total of more than 640 hours of hard riding. The research was a fair side-by-side comparison of the “best” commercially available sports drinks designed to meet the demands of endurance athletes. The research was a blind random crossover study.
The 5 drinks under test were:
EnergySource (High5 UK)
SiS PSP22 (Science in Sport Ltd UK)
SiS Go Electrolyte (Science in Sport Ltd UK)
Endura (Health World Ltd Australia)
Maxim (Maxim Europe BV).
High5 EnergySource was unique in the test group. It contained a high (35%) fructose content and it is formulated to delivery maximum possible carbohydrate and fluids. Earlier lab testing by Hertfordshire University in 2006 clearly showed that EnergySource significantly outperformed existing sports drink formulations in those crucial areas.
Test Protocol
Athletes were randomly required to complete testing on each of the different brands of drink. The athletes were split into 4 groups and each group was rotated with a different brand of drink each week of the test. Each athlete was allocated a colored wristband each test week. Drinks were provided to the athletes in identical bottles, based only on their coloured wristband. The athletes and all staff, with the exception of one researcher who prepared the drinks, were unaware of which brand of drink each group of athletes were using during each week of the test. Only at the end of the test were the athletes made aware of the brand of drink that they were using. The test protocol for each week was identical.
Consumption of the drinks under test was designed to be calorie matched where possible (and was according to manufacturers instruction on-pack). Consumption of all drinks was designed to be volume matched. It was decided not to include a control group using a water-based placebo, as it would have been dangerous for the athletes with the typical drop in blood sugar levels seen in lab tests when only water was consumed.
The performance test involved a closely controlled and monitored 3-hour warm up ride at 65% maxim heart rate. This warm up was then immediately followed by a 60K flat-out Time Trial. Athletes were provided with heart rate monitors (Polar RS 400) for continual monitoring of heart rates for the duration of the test. All subjects were highly experienced competitive athletes used to the discomfort and stress of racing, and all were familiar with the course and the physical demands of a 60km Time Trial.
Accurate temperature, wind speed and direction and humidity were downloaded from The Sydney Airport weather station a few KM away. Athletes were accurately weighed at the start and end of the testing. Urine was collected and weighed throughout. GI questionnaires were completed before the days test and upon completion. Athletes were required to complete a training log and diet sheets for the week prior to each test.
An independent timekeeper from the national sporting body undertook timing of the 60km Time Trial. Qualified supervisory staff, that took no direct part in the testing, independently monitored the collection of all data.
The subsequent analysis of the data showed statistical significance. The published performance data was not modified to account for external weather variables such as wind speed and direction. A separate analysis, however, did seek to compensate for these variables and the results were similar to the published data. Only athletes who completed 3 or more of the tests were included in the final data set.
The performance results are in most cases virtually identical to the 2006 lab based study conducted at Hertfordshire University comparing High5 EnergySource to SiS PSP22. In that test, exogenous carbohydrate oxidation was determined using C13 isotope measurements and fluid uptake by deuterium marker. EnergySource (high fructose) substantial improvement in both carbohydrate oxidation and fluid uptake as compared to SiS PSP-22.
The finish line graphic (below) shows how much further ahead an athlete would have finished, if he had raced "himself" using the 5 different drinks under test. You can see that he would finish 3km to 5km ahead when using High5 EnergySource as compared to the other drinks under test. The distance was calculated using the average time for the 60km Tim Trial.
2007 Australia Endurance Test Results: During the final 60km TT, when using Super Carbs, the athletes were on average:
8 min.40 faster than when using SiS PSP 22 - 39% better hydrated
7 min.39 faster than when using SiS Go - 17% better hydrated
5 min.07 faster than when using Maxim - 43% better hydrated
6 min.45 faster than when using Endura - 34% better hydrated
The results of the 2007 Australia Endurance Test were similar to the 6-minute performance gains and improved hydration seen during the 2006 laboratory test at Hertfordshire University.
This test took place in Sydney Australia and ran from January to February 2007. The 32 test subjects were a mix of club to elite level cyclists and Ironman Triathletes. All athletes were experienced competitive athletes who race regularly. The test involved a total of more than 640 hours of hard riding. The research was a fair side-by-side comparison of the “best” commercially available sports drinks designed to meet the demands of endurance athletes. The research was a blind random crossover study.
The 5 drinks under test were:
EnergySource (High5 UK)
SiS PSP22 (Science in Sport Ltd UK)
SiS Go Electrolyte (Science in Sport Ltd UK)
Endura (Health World Ltd Australia)
Maxim (Maxim Europe BV).
High5 EnergySource was unique in the test group. It contained a high (35%) fructose content and it is formulated to delivery maximum possible carbohydrate and fluids. Earlier lab testing by Hertfordshire University in 2006 clearly showed that EnergySource significantly outperformed existing sports drink formulations in those crucial areas.
Test Protocol
Athletes were randomly required to complete testing on each of the different brands of drink. The athletes were split into 4 groups and each group was rotated with a different brand of drink each week of the test. Each athlete was allocated a colored wristband each test week. Drinks were provided to the athletes in identical bottles, based only on their coloured wristband. The athletes and all staff, with the exception of one researcher who prepared the drinks, were unaware of which brand of drink each group of athletes were using during each week of the test. Only at the end of the test were the athletes made aware of the brand of drink that they were using. The test protocol for each week was identical.
Consumption of the drinks under test was designed to be calorie matched where possible (and was according to manufacturers instruction on-pack). Consumption of all drinks was designed to be volume matched. It was decided not to include a control group using a water-based placebo, as it would have been dangerous for the athletes with the typical drop in blood sugar levels seen in lab tests when only water was consumed.
The performance test involved a closely controlled and monitored 3-hour warm up ride at 65% maxim heart rate. This warm up was then immediately followed by a 60K flat-out Time Trial. Athletes were provided with heart rate monitors (Polar RS 400) for continual monitoring of heart rates for the duration of the test. All subjects were highly experienced competitive athletes used to the discomfort and stress of racing, and all were familiar with the course and the physical demands of a 60km Time Trial.
Accurate temperature, wind speed and direction and humidity were downloaded from The Sydney Airport weather station a few KM away. Athletes were accurately weighed at the start and end of the testing. Urine was collected and weighed throughout. GI questionnaires were completed before the days test and upon completion. Athletes were required to complete a training log and diet sheets for the week prior to each test.
An independent timekeeper from the national sporting body undertook timing of the 60km Time Trial. Qualified supervisory staff, that took no direct part in the testing, independently monitored the collection of all data.
The subsequent analysis of the data showed statistical significance. The published performance data was not modified to account for external weather variables such as wind speed and direction. A separate analysis, however, did seek to compensate for these variables and the results were similar to the published data. Only athletes who completed 3 or more of the tests were included in the final data set.
The performance results are in most cases virtually identical to the 2006 lab based study conducted at Hertfordshire University comparing High5 EnergySource to SiS PSP22. In that test, exogenous carbohydrate oxidation was determined using C13 isotope measurements and fluid uptake by deuterium marker. EnergySource (high fructose) substantial improvement in both carbohydrate oxidation and fluid uptake as compared to SiS PSP-22.
The finish line graphic (below) shows how much further ahead an athlete would have finished, if he had raced "himself" using the 5 different drinks under test. You can see that he would finish 3km to 5km ahead when using High5 EnergySource as compared to the other drinks under test. The distance was calculated using the average time for the 60km Tim Trial.
2007 Australia Endurance Test Results: During the final 60km TT, when using Super Carbs, the athletes were on average:
8 min.40 faster than when using SiS PSP 22 - 39% better hydrated
7 min.39 faster than when using SiS Go - 17% better hydrated
5 min.07 faster than when using Maxim - 43% better hydrated
6 min.45 faster than when using Endura - 34% better hydrated
The results of the 2007 Australia Endurance Test were similar to the 6-minute performance gains and improved hydration seen during the 2006 laboratory test at Hertfordshire University.
SiS is a trade mark of Science in Sport Ltd (UK). Maxim is a trade mark of Maxim Europe BV, Endura is a trade mark of Health World Ltd (Australia)
