Another study by the same group compared glycogen resynthesis and cycling performance of WMS to dextrose, maltodextrin, and a slow starch (4). Other than the slow starch yielding poorer glycogen resynthesis rates than the other three groups, there were no significant differences. This doesn’t seem too bad, but it’s a far cry from the elevated performance we’ve come to expect from WMS.

One of the more surprising studies looked at the glycemic index of WMS, performed by one of the researchers who invented the very concept (1). It was compared to maltodextrin, sucrose (table sugar), and a slow starch. What’s interesting is that the WMS was not only outperformed by the maltodextrin and even the table sugar, but it was bad enough to be called a “low glycemic index treatment”. Stated differently: it’s slow.

Breaking News!

The last relevant study is so new that it’s not even published yet.

A research group out of Purdue University dug the final hole for WMS, by directly comparing the glycemic response of WMS to maltodextrin (with a little table sugar), and white bread (7). Once again, the WMS was blown away by maltodextrin… and white bread! Now to be fair, the blood sugar response was similar to the bread (which is hardly a good thing), but the insulin stimulation from WMS was significantly lower.

There’s another human WMS study floating around that makes WMS look only slightly worse than dextrose (3). But in this study, the WMS was boiled and given to the subjects as a paste, which probably doesn’t apply to too many of you. Even if you were revisiting your childhood and were eating WMS Play-Doh (coloring optional), the result was still inferior to dextrose.