Comparative effects of a glucose–fructose bar, glucose–fructose hydrogel and maltodextrin gel on carbohydrate oxidation and sprint performance in Tier 2 athletes

Carbohydrate supplementation optimises athletic performance, but the metabolic and performance impacts of commercial products/compositions are underexplored. We compared the efficacy of three commercial carbohydrate supplements: a glucose–fructose bar (GF‐Bar), a glucose–fructose hydrogel (GF‐Gel) and a maltodextrin‐based gel (MD‐Gel). Antegrade venous blood samples for glucose and insulin were measured alongside substrate utilisation in healthy Tier 2 athletes after ingesting 45 g of carbohydrates from the GF‐Bar, GF‐Gel and MD‐Gel during a modified 1‐h oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT). Additionally, the effect of supplementation on high‐intensity interval exercise was evaluated during repeated maximal sprint performance. During the OGTT, the GF‐Bar elicited greater total carbohydrate oxidation than MD‐Gel (24.6 ± 7.4 g vs. 17.8 ± 8.6 g, P = 0.038) but not GF‐Gel (20.1 ± 6.4 g, P > 0.05). Carbohydrate oxidation per minute varied over time ( P < 0.001) and between products ( P = 0.043), with GF‐Bar (0.27 ± 0.05 g min −1 ) showing higher oxidation than GF‐Gel (0.21 ± 0.05 g min −1 ) and MD‐Gel (0.19 ± 0.06 g min −1 ). No differences were observed in glucose peak, time to peak glucose or insulin concentration ( P > 0.05). Peak power ( P = 0.011), mean power ( P < 0.001) and total work varied across sprints ( P < 0.001) but not between products ( P > 0.05). Perceived exertion and gastrointestinal discomfort were similar between products ( P > 0.05). Despite differences in carbohydrate oxidation during the OGTT, the GF‐Bar, GF‐Gel and MD‐Gel displayed similar metabolic and sprint performance outcomes, suggesting that, within this study, carbohydrate formulation did not impact short‐duration maximal exercise.