>"Riders are able to eat so many carbohydrates on the bike now, almost twice as much as before."
>“But what has changed is the way riders get their glycogen fix.
New formulations from nutrition brands like Maurten, Precision Fuel and Hydration, and Science in Sport means the age-old carb “ceiling” of 60-90 grams per hour has been blown into another orbit.”
“Consumption thresholds have been shifted thanks to “hydrogel” delivery models and new glucose-fructose ratios that ensure what goes down, stays down.”
I would have liked to see some actual details about the carbohydrate changes that have made the increased tolerance so much larger.
I looked at the three brands mentioned and the actual carbohydrate sources listed were tried and true things like maltodextrin [1], maltodextrin/fructose [2], and glucose/fructose [3].
I thought I might see something like highly branched cyclic dextrin. Since it doesn't seem to be any new form of carbohydrate, I'm curious what ancillary ingredients and/or ratios are proving to be the difference maker(s).
I believe this is just referring to the glucose:fructose ratio now being closer to 1:1 than what it used to be. In the old days people only looked at glucose and the 60g/hr limit is more or less for that metabolic pathway. Fructose takes a different path so you can easily go to 120g if you are using a 1:1 mix. Also the old 60g/hr limit isn’t universal so that is how you get some people that can handle 150g+
When I rode, years ago, my intake was ~110g/hr during 100mi+ rides. This was with the GU brand gels which is a mixture primarily compose of maltodextrin and fructose.
> I thought I might see something like highly branched cyclic dextrin
I just learned about HBCD but its advantage seems to be that its high molecular weight slows down digestion and absorption in the gut. This allows for a more sustained release of glucose into the bloodstream, providing a steady source of energy during prolonged activity. But in biking you can eat on the go, so you don't really need a slow release source.
The main biking innovation seems to be training and using a 1:1 glucose to fructose ratio to maximize both metabolic pathways. But since HBCD is just a slow-release glucose source it's still competing for the same limited metabolic pathway as glucose consumed directly.
I think the author is also try to describe how cyclists train and how recent findings about recovery allow athletes to be constantly consuming calories. But the article is vague and repetitive and it's hard to know exactly what the author is trying to say.
Drugs are a big part of the "how are people going faster for longer" equation, of course.
But in an endurance context, adequate fuelling is likely even more important than a new magic drug, because it doesn't matter how many drugs you take if you don't replenish your energy reserves. You can have the biggest engine in the world, or the most efficient, but once you run out of fuel, it's not going anywhere.
For those nearing the pointy end of strength sports, drugs are generally seen as a 10-15% boost for high intermediate level lifters, and single digit for advanced/expert.
When the difference between first place and not ending up on the board is sometimes 1-3%, the drugs are mandatory.
But everything else has to be there as well. Drugs don't replace hard work, dedication, and proper nutrition - they augment it.
If you safely can consume 10% more calories hourly than your competitors in a long endurance race, that means you can burn more calories and put out more average power than everyone else who is likely on a very similar drug cocktail.
This question in the article is almost comically naive. In the most drug-filled sport in history, with its most famous athlete a known drug cheat, the answer to this isn’t “carbohydrates”, it’s almost assuredly “drugs not being tested for”.
That seems like an unfair response. There are certainly still drugs in the peloton and there are a lot of teams trying to stretch the gray areas. But given the amount of testing and verification of those tests by reputable journalists it's unlikely that it would have the same impact it did in the early 2000's.
Training methods and nutrition have made a large impact on all levels of cycling in the past 10 years, and from personal experience I know that's certainly not all drugs.
First it wasn’t just him. The entire sport has been plagued by accusations that the top performers are doping.
Secondly, he won 7 consecutive races. When he dropped out, the race times didn’t change that much and now the Tour de France winning times are faster than Armstrong.
You can claim that it’s better bikes, training, diet etc. The simplest explanation given all the facts though seems like doping.
I’m not going to disagree with the sentiment that drugs are speeding up the peleton. but >>” most drug filled sport”. comes off as probably naive. o think footbal, hockey, soccer, or baseball are are more clean is laughable, they just dont test for anything EVER, except maybe steroids every so often. id bet my bottom dollar all those pro sports with $$$$ flying around HAMMER any drug cocktail that might get them the edge. its just not tested or as public as pro cycling.
Doping is probably still common, but the more endurance or speed based the more drugs help.
Soccer values attributes drugs exaggerate - but it has a skill component that is more important vs cycling. Soccer also has breaks and substitutes and ways to slow the game down to close the gap.
I'm not ignorant to the tactics and technique required in cycling, but its a smaller part of the sport vs tactics and skill in football.
So it's not as important to dope. But yes, still happens.
As I understand it, the main benefit of PEDs is improved recovery times. Regardless of the extent to which it affects the first race / game / training session, it permits your body to get back to peak condition more rapidly. The incremental gains from spending more time in the optimal performance window quickly compound.
There is a huge universe of PEDs, legal and otherwise. Some improve recovery times. Some accelerate muscle growth. Some, like EPO, directly boost aerobic capacity.
PEDs aren't just for endurance. Prescription painkillers, stimulants and corticosteroids are easy to get prescriptions for or even TUEs. The typical player in the NHL gets tested 2-3 times a year, and almost never in the off season. Some sports barely test more than once a year. In cycling it's closer to once a month for an average rider but it can get a lot higher if you're successful as most orgs will test their top 3 after every stage or race.
No, the cardio/fitness aspect of soccer absolutely cannot be overlooked, especially at the top levels where players are at the margin and need that edge, and where the amount of competition and pay and global attention is two orders of magnitude higher than cycling. And you got shit like EPO which basically erases recovery time, but you'll never catch unless you test daily.
this is absolutely the right answer to the question
that the peloton can go faster now that it did in the worst of the EPO years is a dire reminder that it'll always be a race between cheaters and the doctors that come up with reliable tests
other ludicrous explanations coming from people that make a living from the cycling industry is "improvement in bike technology" (which then again is absolutely laughable)
I am an amateur cycling and I am pretty sure that bike technology is a key factor in improvement in cycling performances. Better aerodynamic, disk brakes and more sliding wheels are a thing.
There is also another factor that is having an huge impact on cycling performances: power meters. Power meters help a lot on energy and fatigue management and also on training in a scientific way. In the 90s (the EPO era that you are referring), pros used only HR monitor, right now pros are using PM and a lot of other sensors to track every details of their body.
I am not saying that there is no doping, but reducing the improvements only to doping is a bit silly.
I remember a former pro that I know bought tlhis first PM around 2005: it was crazy expensive (more than 1500€ at that time) an not comparable with the PM that we have now (Assioma Duo costs 6/700€).But what it was a really game changer is data analysis tool: right now using free tools like GoldenCheetah or intervals.icu you can have an incredible set of metrics and analytics. Thanks to that, there was an huge improvement on training theory in the last year: things like VO2Max or Z2 where unknown in the '00.
And today pros are using also other sensors to have a more olystic overview of the body condition and training effects: glucose meter (banned on races), lactate sensor, basal temperature sensor, etc.
Thanks to that, there was an huge improvement on training theory in the last year: things like VO2Max or Z2 where unknown in the '00
I had my VO2Max tested forty years ago, and "Zone 2" training is just a rehash of Arthur Lydiard's coaching from the 60s. This stuff has been known for decades, but just repackaged with new marketing and sold again. And I'll guess that nearly every pro in the peloton had a power meter on their bike during the "Lance years". Had one on my race bike at that time.
Beside, you can collect all the data you want, you still have to do the work. I've known plenty of amateur cyclists that thought staring at power meter graph would reveal the mystery of why they suck, when the problem is too much staring at the computer, not enough riding.
power meters and bike improvements (carbon, 3D-printed gadgets, aero, etc) happened around 10 years ago in the professional peloton (give or take)
the dramatic increase in power output happened less than five years ago so it's not about the gear, it's chemistry
we're seeing ludicrous numbers of about 7W/kg on long climbs like we used to see in the worst of the mid to late 90's, it should tell you that what's going on is bad
I'd bet you're thinking about Lance Armstrong, and arguably that person would be Eddy Merckx - but the funny thing is that with either one that premise holds true
To be fair, with cycling, you can pick pretty much any famous one and you'd stand a fair chance of picking a doper (either exposed or widely suspected.)
> “At the time I was being beaten by a guy who was claiming to build bikes out of washing machines, eating marmalade sandwiches and getting up and do the hour record. It was quite irritating to say the least,” - Chris Boardman.
I went to a film premier about the great Graeme Obree and afterwards he gave a talk.
He mentioned that people used to laugh at him for eating marmalade sandwiches heavily in training. He countered that as far as he could see sugars are are just sugars no mater where you source them from ...and he happens to like marmalade and bread.
His down to earth approach to cycling was so ahead of it's time. He earned all his success the hard way. A truly interesting bloke.
Well, they realized that 40 grams per hour was not enough and you can actually absorb more. Then they experimented with mixing various carbohydrates (eg. adding fructose) and found a better balance. They also found out that you have to train your intestines to absorb the mix.
'This season saw 7w/kg become the new norm for grand tour contending climbers. Classics champions pushed 5.5w/kg for hours on end.' Armstrong and co were doing 7w/kg. Hint hint
Riders like Pidcock, Van Aert and Van der Pole will be racing all year round swapping between Road, MTB and Cyclocross.
In "Faster: The Obsession, Science and Luck Behind the World's Fastest Cyclists" Michael Hutchinson talks about how much effort Team Sky/Inneos into planing diets.
They copied the way doctors help cancer and terminally ill patients that have difficulty absorbing nutrients. The team use medical dietitians work out exact plans for each rider.
The final ingredient is guilt. Geraint Thomas talks on his podcast about how he could go off plan when no one is watching but that he knows it will come out when the team next meet up and start measuring performance. Guilt and fear of failure keeps them on the programme.
It's no coincidence that a lot of professional cyclist go a bit off they rails after they finally retire.
“For more than three weeks, two chefs from the team prepare 5 personalized meals daily for each rider. They prepare these in their own fully equipped cooking truck using only fresh groceries from Jumbo. This ensures optimal hygiene at all times, and the exact composition of each dish remains known. Because 'taste fatigue' is a serious danger during an exhausting race like the Tour de France, the chefs ensure that the riders are never served the same meal twice. This way, the riders look forward to the next meal every time, and it is ensured that they can keep eating.”
>“But what has changed is the way riders get their glycogen fix. New formulations from nutrition brands like Maurten, Precision Fuel and Hydration, and Science in Sport means the age-old carb “ceiling” of 60-90 grams per hour has been blown into another orbit.” “Consumption thresholds have been shifted thanks to “hydrogel” delivery models and new glucose-fructose ratios that ensure what goes down, stays down.”
I would have liked to see some actual details about the carbohydrate changes that have made the increased tolerance so much larger.
I looked at the three brands mentioned and the actual carbohydrate sources listed were tried and true things like maltodextrin [1], maltodextrin/fructose [2], and glucose/fructose [3].
I thought I might see something like highly branched cyclic dextrin. Since it doesn't seem to be any new form of carbohydrate, I'm curious what ancillary ingredients and/or ratios are proving to be the difference maker(s).
[1] https://www.scienceinsport.com/eu/go-isotonic-energy-gels-si... [2] https://www.precisionhydration.com/us/en/products/pf-30-gel/ [3] https://www.maurten.com/products/gel-160-us