← The FormularyMuscle & performanceWaxy maize
Also known as Waxy maize starch, waxy corn starch, Zea mays var. ceratinaA carbohydrate at one-thousandth of a carbohydrate dose.
This is the clearest case in the formula of an ingredient present for the label rather than the dose, and it deserves saying plainly. Waxy maize is sold as a carbohydrate. Carbohydrate does its job in tens of grams: 30 to 60 g an hour during exercise, or 70 to 100 g before it. The seven ingredients in the 550 mg blend average about 78 mg each, so the waxy maize share is roughly one thousandth of a working carbohydrate serving and contributes about a third of a calorie. You would need something like a thousand scoops to reach a dose anyone has studied. On top of that, the fast-emptying story was generated by a different polymer in six men, and transferred across to waxy maize by people selling waxy maize. Where modified waxy maize was tested properly in cyclists, the metabolism changed and the performance did not. What I would tell a friend: read this as a carrier — an excipient that made it onto the ingredients panel — and judge the product on the caffeine, the creatine and the beta-alanine instead.
Starch from a maize variety bred to be almost entirely amylopectin, the branched, high-molecular-weight form of starch. Ordinary maize starch is roughly three-quarters amylopectin and one-quarter amylose; waxy maize is close to all amylopectin.
The marketing mechanism is osmolarity. A high-molecular-weight starch puts fewer dissolved particles into solution per gram than dextrose or maltodextrin, and gastric emptying is sensitive to osmolarity, so in principle a big molecule leaves the stomach faster and reaches the muscle sooner. That principle was demonstrated in six men for a specific gel-forming glucose polymer of 78% amylopectin and 22% amylose — which is not plain waxy maize, and not the same material as the hydrothermally modified waxy maize used in the cycling trials. Measured directly, the modified waxy maize behaves as a slow, low-glycaemic starch, which is the opposite of the fast-emptying story. The mechanism, in other words, has been borrowed across products that are not interchangeable.
At real doses it is a carbohydrate — fuel and a glycogen substrate. At the amount present in this blend it functions as a carrier and flow agent for the powder.
At real doses, endurance athletes fuelling sessions over 90 minutes or refilling glycogen between two sessions in a day — and they should buy carbohydrate by the kilogram, not by the milligram. Not relevant to anyone at the amount here. Anyone with a corn allergy should avoid the product entirely, and anyone managing blood glucose should note that a third of a calorie changes nothing either way.
There is nothing to time. At genuine carbohydrate doses, starch is taken 30 to 60 minutes before a long session or sipped through it, and pairing it with fluid and electrolytes matters more than the starch type. Inside IGNITE it simply dissolves with everything else.
Nothing you will notice, and nothing you could notice. About 0.3 calories of starch cannot fuel a set, spare glycogen or alter gastric emptying. If a pre-workout feels like it is working, that is caffeine.
Leiper et al. (2000, Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology) compared two isoenergetic 13.5% carbohydrate drinks in six healthy men and found faster gastric emptying — half-emptying time 17.0 min — for a viscous, markedly hypotonic long-chain glucose polymer composed of 78% amylopectin and 22% amylose. That material is not plain waxy maize, which is close to 100% amylopectin. Stephens et al. (2008, Journal of Sports Sciences) had eight men cycle to exhaustion, then consume 100 g of a very-high-molecular-weight glucose polymer, a low-molecular-weight polymer, or flavoured water, and rest two hours: work output in a subsequent 15-minute time trial was higher on the high-molecular-weight drink (164.1 kJ) than on water (137.5 kJ) or the low-molecular-weight polymer (149.4 kJ). That is a post-exercise recovery finding, not a pre-workout one. Roberts et al. (2011, Nutrition) gave nine trained cyclists 1 g/kg of a high-molecular-weight hydrothermally modified waxy maize starch or maltodextrin before 150 minutes of cycling at 70% VO2peak: peak serum glucose was 7.4 mM versus 9.5 mM and peak insulin 2.5 versus 20.3 µIU/mL, with greater fat breakdown on the starch. The published outcomes are metabolic and hormonal; no performance advantage is reported. Oosthuyse et al. (2016, Nutrients) tested hydrothermally modified starch before and during about three hours of cycling in ten male cyclists and titled the finding as they found it — increased fat oxidation and gastrointestinal distress without changing performance, with no difference in sprint performance against an isocaloric sucrose/glucose drink and increased nausea. What is not supported: transferring the gel-forming-polymer gastric-emptying data to waxy maize starch, any performance benefit from starch type at matched carbohydrate intake, and any nutritional contribution at all from a fraction of a gram.
Read the labelDerived from maize, so avoid it if you react to corn. Maize starch is naturally gluten-free, but shared production lines mean coeliacs should check the manufacturing statement rather than the botany. At genuine carbohydrate doses, slow-absorbing modified starches have been shown to increase nausea and gastrointestinal distress during prolonged exercise — irrelevant at a fraction of a gram, but worth knowing if you buy it by the tub. It is a carbohydrate, so anyone managing blood glucose should count grams rather than brand names. Not a treatment for anything, and it is not a fat burner.
Evidence grades describe how well an ingredient is studied — A well-supported, C emerging — not a promise of results. Educational, not medical advice. Doses are typical ranges; follow the label on the product.