Riled Over Rilose

Posted By elissa on Apr 22, 2009 | 5 comments

Yesterday, a member of the “Bodybuilding Revealed” forum asked a question about Rilose… specifically, whether it was “worth the money” or not.

At this point, a lot of you might be wondering: what the heck is Rilose?  So before I go on, let me explain…

For the non-lifting public: it’s typical for serious lifters to suck down some fast-digesting carbs and protein before/during/after workouts, as this helps to limit catabolism and kick start the recovery process – including muscle protein synthesis (the raison d’etre of bodybuilding).  The carb sources people use range from plain ol’ Gatorade powder – which can be picked up at virtually any grocery store – to expensive specialty products like Vitargo, a high molecular weight, modified food starch.  However, most make use of dextrose (d-glucose), maltodextrin (medium chain glucose polymer) or waxy maize starch (long chain/branched glucose polymer).

Rilose is a rice-based carb source sold by an online retailer: ProteinFactory.com.  This explains the name:  a hybrid of “rice” and “ose” – the chemical suffix used to designate sugars (i.e., glucose, fructose, lactose, ribose, galactose, sucrose, etc.).  Needless to state, rilose isn’t a chemical name – it’s just a fakey, trade name for “glucose-from-hydrolyzed-rice-starch” invented by the retailer for marketing purposes.

Ok, so how’s Rilose look?  As a sometime Protein Factory customer, I was dimly aware of the product, but had never really looked it over.  Until yesterday, that is… Now that I had a query about it, I ambled on over to PF to take a closer look.

All I can say is wow… Just wow. Once I saw the spiel, I knew I had to share it with you…

Scientific description
A high quality carbohydrate made from brown rice. The brown rice carb is 97% glucose making digestion of this product almost immediately after taken. It is 100% natural. No chemicals are used to make the product. It is sweet to the taste, similar sweetness like dextrose. It mixes instantly with a spoon and dissolves completely in water.

Bodybuilding and Athletic Supplementation Description.
Unlike Maltodextrin, Dextrose, and Waxy Maize, which are made from corn, Rilose comes from rice, which is much more digestible than corn. Corn has a very, very, low absorption rate. Hence we can suggest that Rilose will cause a greater insulin spike than corn derived powders. The level of a products glycemic index rating is sometimes determined by the amount of that certain carb. For example 30 grams of glucose will have a GI rating of about 80, whereas 100 g of glucose will have a GI rating of 100. But we are thinking that the Dextrose and Maltodextrin, or the latest fad, Waxy Maize, being made from corn is not even being digested completely. Thus taking in 50 grams of Dextrose might only have a 50% absorption rate. (if you get cramps from these products this is why). Rice on the other hand is very digestible. Thus taking in 50 grams, 48 are going to be digested. Comparing the corn vs. rice carbs we can say that rice carbs are going to be more effective at raising insulin levels. An anabolic hormone that when utilized properly post workout can increase recovery, hence increasing muscle growth.

Un-freaking-believable.  This is so bad, I’m embarrassed for the company.  Beyond being a crime against the English language, it’s breathtakingly, jaw-droppingly, mind-numbingly WRONG, WRONG, WRONG from beginning to end.

Let’s unpack this, shall we?

1. The brown rice carb is 97% glucose making digestion of this product almost immediately after taken.

Did you know that cellulose – undigestible plant fiber – is actually 100% glucose?  By this logic, recycled newspaper would be the perfect workout carb source.

Digestibility has nothing to do with the percentage of glucose… it depends on HOW the individual glucose units are linked together.  In a digestible source like starch, the units are joined together by “alpha 1,4 glycosidic bonds” (with alpha 1,6 glycosidic bonds at branch points).  In cellulose, the units are joined together by beta 1,4 glycosidic bonds.  The body has enzymes that can break down the former, but not the latter.

In fairness, I imagine hydrolyzed brown rice starch would digest well – no reason why it shouldn’t.  But that’s not a reason to prefer this particular source over dextrose or malto – both of which also digest well (see below), and are cheaper.

2. Corn has a very, very, low absorption rate. Hence we can suggest that Rilose will cause a greater insulin spike than corn derived powders.

Ummmm…whole corn, eaten off the cob may appear to have a “very, very low absorption rate”…but that’s because the intact kernels contain a significant amount of fiber and typically aren’t chewed well enough.  Processed corn is another matter – which is why it’s been used for human nutrition for centuries.  Corn was THE staple crop in Mesoamerica, for example.  The Hopi called themselves “People of the Corn.”  In the Popul Vuh, the Mayan creation story, human beings were literally made from corn by the gods.  This level of veneration would be inconceivable if corn had a “very, very low absorption rate”.

Even so, it really doesn’t matter.  The “corn-derived powders” under discussion are the dextrins/sugars created from purified, virtually fiber-free corn starch.  By the time you take it to that level of refinement, the source grain scarcely matters.

By the way, do you notice the “hence we can suggest…” clause?  That’s just a purdy way of saying “we have no data, so we’re pulling this out of our you-know-whatses”.  Needless to state, this isn’t a very persuasive argument.

3. The level of a products glycemic index rating is sometimes determined by the amount of that certain carb.

Bullsh*t.  A standardized amount of carbohydrate is used to get a “glycemic index rating”.  Here’s how it’s done:

The GI value of a food is determined by feeding 10 or more healthy people a portion of the food containing 50 grams of digestible (available) carbohydrate and then measuring the effect on their blood glucose levels over the next two hours. For each person, the area under their two-hour blood glucose response (glucose AUC) for this food is then measured. On another occasion, the same 10 people consume an equal-carbohydrate portion of glucose sugar (the reference food) and their two-hour blood glucose response is also measured. A GI value for the test food is then calculated for each person by dividing their glucose AUC for the test food by their glucose AUC for the reference food. The final GI value for the test food is the average GI value for the 10 people.

It’s the glycemic load that takes the amount of carbohydrate into account – this is a related, but nonetheless distinct concept.

4. But we are thinking that the Dextrose and Maltodextrin, or the latest fad, Waxy Maize, being made from corn is not even being digested completely. Thus taking in 50 grams of Dextrose might only have a 50% absorption rate.

Ummm…dextrose is what the entire GI scale is based on.  Likewise, maltodextrin (not digestion-resistant maltodextrin, which is a new dietary fiber source), has a GI higher than dextrose itself (105).  Even Protein Factory acknowledges this in its maltodextrin write up:

“This complex carbohydrate is otherwise known as a glucose polymer. Maltodextrin has the highest rating on the glycemic index of 100, thus making it a good carbohydrate for weight gain and quick glycogen replenishment.”

…as well as the one on dextrose:

Dextrose is derived from corn starch, (very similar to maltodextrin)…Dextrose is a high glycemic carbohydrate that should be used for pre or post workout supplementation. The objective in using dextrose is to cause a rapid increase in insulin levels thus shuttling amino acids into the muscle cells.

(Emphasis mine)  Oopsie!

When it comes to dextrose, your body “sees” the chemically pure monosaccharide, not “corn”.  Once again, there are zero facts (not to mention zero logic) to support the “50% absorption rate” claim.

5. Comparing the corn vs. rice carbs we can say that rice carbs are going to be more effective at raising insulin levels.

Let’s forget about the fact that we’re talking about purified, hydrolyzed carbs for a second, and take this statement at face value.  Are rice carbs – in general – going to be more effective for raising insulin than corn carbs?

Since both are commercially viable sources of food starch, this is what we need to look at.

For the record, there are two basic kinds of starch: amylose and amylopectin.  Both are glucose polymers, of course, but they have different properties. Amylopectin is extensively branched, and easier/faster to break down than amylose.  High amylose grain varieties generally have a lower glycemic index (and induce a lower insulin response) than high amylopectin varieties.

So how does rice stack up to corn?  I have no idea…this depends on WHICH varieties you’re comparing.  As you might have guessed, there are high amylose rice varieties, which have a somewhat lower GI.  Likewise, there are high amylopectin, “waxy” corn varieties, which have a higher GI.  And the reverse is also true.  So, when comparing rice and corn starches, you need to know what varieties you’re comparing, in order to make predictions about GI and insulin response.

Grrrr…

Now, I don’t think Rilose is a “bad” carb source per se, or that it wouldn’t work well enough for the intended purpose…like I implied above, it’s likely just fine.  Nonetheless, I ended up giving a big, fat “thumbs down” to the original, “is it worth the money?” query.  By now, I think you can see why: when the sales pitch is an insult to the reader’s intelligence, s/he would be crazy to buy the product.  I don’t believe in rewarding bad behavior.

And that’s really the take home lesson of this post.  As you’ve seen, some retailers will say practically ANYTHING to move a product.  If there aren’t any supporting facts – no problem!  They can just make s**t up!  This is why it’s important to NEVER take product claims at face value (unless you happen to like wasting $$$!).