A carbohydrate revolution is speeding up pro cycling
velo.outsideonline.com
velo.outsideonline.com
>“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
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 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.
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”.
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.
It's all drugs.
And your argument strongly depends on accurate testing.
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.
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)
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 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.
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
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.
Extreme example (https://www.cyclingnews.com/news/jumbo-visma-and-uae-team-em...):
“Jonas Vingegaard has had no fewer than four blood tests in the last 48 hours. We are happy to participate in this.”
>> Soccer also has breaks and substitutes
Kiiiinda, but not really at the pro level.
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
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.
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.
https://amacx.com/blogs/news/what-does-a-team-jumbo-visma-ri...:
“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.”