I realize this is a waste of time, but friends, please do better than this. If you need a distraction from the much more serious problems in the world, pop some popcorn and buckle up. I posted this all as a better-organized series of comments on the company’s Facebook post linked above, but they deleted it.
Formula 369 has posted an ad where they cite several papers, including one from Dr. Podlogar who has been on the TR podcast. They claim their 1:1 fructose:glucose mix is better than other companies’ 1:0.8 because one study found peak exogenous carb oxidation of 1.75 g/min and the other an average exogenous carb oxidation of 1.5 g/min. The averages were the same. And the 2 studies used different protocols (for example, the 1:1 study had people consuming 144 g/hr vs 120 in the 1:0.8 study) and were performed nearly 20 years apart in different places. The populations were different, too with the 1:1 study population having about a 10% higher VO2 max.
Dr. Podlogar, who has actually studied this question carefully, found that 1:0.8 was better than 1:1.25 but didn’t look at values in between. From a little looking I did, nobody has tried to compare 1:1 to 1:0.8, probably because they’re so close together that you’d likely find no difference
To top it off, the graph in the ad is clear AI slop - the bar graph isn’t to scale, the data labels don’t match the axes, they use a starburst callout to make the bar for their product look taller. Ugh.
I have no dog in this fight. I don’t work in the cycling or nutrition industries, I make my own hydration mix in bulk. If your product is good and reasonably priced, cool. But don’t dress yourself up in a lab coat and lie to people. Scientists poured years of their lives into generating this data. The least you can do is not lie about what it means.