What's in your bottle?

corblimey

Just wondering what people put in their bottle(s) before a long spin? Plain water, some sort of fruit juice, lucozade sport (ugh) or other 'sports' drink, vodka?

helimachoptor

Some mi wadi but its practically all water, i prefer a hint of flavour rather than over powering flavour.

Gers_punto

i just stick to the regular water..

BUT a guy that know put full bodies red bull in his hydropac. Flew down the forestry on the kilbane pass, red bull sloshing around inside it. when he got down went to take a drink, bit down on the valve..... you can use your imagination for the rest lol

LastGasp

Nuun is good, has decent flavour and is easy to drink, not sticky like High 5 for instance. Plain water isn't really up to the job for a long spin. You need to replace electrolytes lost through perspiration. There are plenty of other drinks available, or some people just add a bit of salt to water.

rebel.ranter

Ribena, weak mix.

ROK ON

Less than 70km. One 750cl bottle with water.
Greater than 70km 1.25L in two bottles. One with water and dash of Robinson summer berry and one with water and an electrolyte tablet.

72hundred

High Five (i think its called), great stuff.

xz

High Five 4:1 Summer Fruits flavour, yum, but like Last Gasp says, spill any on yourself or the bike, it's quite sticky.

keenan110

I use Nuun tablets (tri-berry flavour) for spins over 60km, otherwise just plain water.

ED E

Half price Lucozade Sport from Tesco

biomed32

robinsons sugar free orange and pineapple:)

IM0

just water, but for epic rides like marmotte and general alpine climbing I use high 5 isotonic.

blahblah06

High 5 tropical and high 5 orange gels when things get bad

DirkVoodoo

Nuun in one, Mi-Wadi in the other. I can't stand drinking water while exercising, the only problem with mi-wadi is it stains the bottles.

Murph100

High 5 4:1 Summer Fruits, great stuff and not sickly sweet either.

CheGuedara

Nuun in one, Torq natural orange in the other

ednwireland

zym endurance tablets (no caffeine) in 750ml

ryan_sherlock

ZipVit Energy Drink in my bottles unless I'm on a recovery ride (where it would be water). Tried the experiment of using just water and normal food during longer training rides in the winter and it didn't work for me - power was down, perceived effort was up.

CheGuedara

ryan_sherlock wrote: »

ZipVit Energy Drink in my bottles unless I'm on a recovery ride (where it would be water). Tried the experiment of using just water and normal food during longer training rides in the winter and it didn't work for me - power was down, perceived effort was up.

Gave Zipvit a try as I was finding what product/brand suited me best - good on energy delivery, not far off Torq IMHO, but how are you finding the flavour/taste? Wasn't wildly impressed

kennyb3

Water for short spin (less than 50k), water plus bottle of gatorade in back pocket if longer

Caroline_ie

Red Bull /Water Mix

ryan_sherlock

CheGuedara wrote: »

Gave Zipvit a try as I was finding what product/brand suited me best - good on energy delivery, not far off Torq IMHO, but how are you finding the flavour/taste? Wasn't wildly impressed

Yeah - I find the Orange flavour the best - they are reasonably new to the market and are still perfecting their flavours - I think next years/seasons stuff is a little different.

Sniipe

If one trains with the likes of nuun all the time and on a race day they use nuun as well; are they in a better position on the race day against someone else who trained without nuun, but come race day they use nuun...

Lumen

I've started experimenting with Red Bull energy shots, and tend to keep a few in my race bag.

Sometimes I'll use one as a pre-race alternative to coffee, 30 mins before. Sometimes I'll empty one into my bottle. Sometimes both.

I just read that they only have 80mg of caffeine, which they claim is about the same as a cup of coffee.

Maybe I should use more of them, since I've not won anything yet. :pac:

edit: apparently caffeine is now off the WADA prohibited list, which presumably means they don't think it helps performance.

ROK ON

Lumen wrote: »

I've started experimenting with Red Bull energy shots, and tend to keep a few in my race bag.

Sometimes I'll use one as a pre-race alternative to coffee, 30 mins before. Sometimes I'll empty one into my bottle. Sometimes both.

I just read that they only have 80mg of caffeine, which they claim is about the same as a cup of coffee.

Maybe I should use more of them, since I've not won anything yet. :pac:

edit: apparently caffeine is now off the WADA prohibited list, which presumably means they don't think it helps performance.

I was cycling with a doctor recently. He commented that coffee was a particular no no. The initiall high is not long lasting and is followed by a low.

karltimber

hi,

is nuun available in a chemist or tesco/supervalu type place ?

just had a look at their website - will give it a try

I usually just add miwadi.

thx

k

ryan_sherlock

Sniipe wrote: »

If one trains with the likes of nuun all the time and on a race day they use nuun as well; are they in a better position on the race day against someone else who trained without nuun, but come race day they use nuun...

No, you always want to train well. Moving away from nuun for a second and take another example that is easier to understand.

You train without eating in the previous 12 hours each day - the training ride is 3 hours long...

You hit your competition and have a proper prerace meal - you ride much faster than you would in training.

BUT, if you treated your training better and ate better, you would have had much higher quality training all along and been much much faster come race day.

If something gives you a physiological racing advantage (that is not something that if you use too much loses it's effectiveness - caffeine for example) - than you should be training with it => higher quality training => higher quality racing.

Paul Kiernan

ROK ON wrote: »

I was cycling with a doctor recently. He commented that coffee was a particular no no. The initiall high is not long lasting and is followed by a low.

High 5 have a big blurb on their website claiming that caffeine improves the absorption of carbohydrates by 25% and thus improves performance.

Also means you need to spend 25% more on High 5 products to get the full benefit:rolleyes:.

niceonetom

ryan_sherlock wrote: »

No, you always want to train well. Moving away from nuun for a second and take another example that is easier to understand.

You train without eating in the previous 12 hours each day - the training ride is 3 hours long...

You hit your competition and have a proper prerace meal - you ride much faster than you would in training.

BUT, if you treated your training better and ate better, you would have had much higher quality training all along and been much much faster come race day.

If something gives you a physiological racing advantage (that is not something that if you use too much loses it's effectiveness - caffeine for example) - than you should be training with it => higher quality training => higher quality racing.

Ok that makes sense, but what about training for endurance events?

If I were training for an event that would be in the 8+ hour range, there's simply no way I can supply that many calories from food, right? So I've got to train my body to supply fat calories from reserves as well as from eating on the bike.

Is there not a case for doing some training (not all, and certainly not intense efforts) without giving your body that easy access to energy from energy bidons/bars? Just prefuel with complex carbs and then eat sparingly on the bike - it certainly wouldn't be as fast as doing the same spin with high blood sugar, but it might serve a purpose.

I'd be worried that if I did all my training with as much blood sugar as I can stuff down my throat it would come as a bit of a shock when my digestive system just can't keep up with the demands of a really long day...

I stand ready to be corrected here though.

Lumen

niceonetom wrote: »

So I've got to train my body to supply fat calories from reserves as well as from eating on the bike.

Is there not a case for doing some training (not all, and certainly not intense efforts) without giving your body that easy access to energy from energy bidons/bars?

Sounds a bit like "bonk training". AFAIK there is no evidence that low blood sugar stimulates fat burning, it just forces you to cycle slower.

In any case, draining yourself will just mean you'll take longer to recover, so your overall training volume will suffer.

niceonetom

Lumen wrote: »

Sounds a bit like "bonk training". AFAIK there is no evidence that low blood sugar stimulates fat burning, it just forces you to cycle slower.

No, not bonk training. At all. Just training at a lower pace, for longer, in a way that encourages your body to process complex carbs and fat and not just quick-burn sugar. Any feeling of bonk should be met immediately with a bar, but I'm not for one second advocating training to the point of bonk. I'm pretty sure I've seen this advocated for iron man training as it's simply not possible to eat enough calories to get through an iron man at any pace without developing you fat burning prowess. I vaguely remember tunney saying something about it around here...

Anyway, you're the guy who recently tried to explain that the reason you were carrying no more than 500ml of fluid on a 120km+ ride through Wicklow to train your body to need less fluid. I'm not sure you're really on solid ground here.

Lumen wrote: »

In any case, draining yourself will just mean you'll take longer to recover, so your overall training volume will suffer.

Intense training really takes it out of me too, and recovery from hill repeats can be slow. I should probably avoid them so. Right?

The tax man

karltimber wrote: »

hi,

is nuun available in a chemist or tesco/supervalu type place ?

thx

k

The local supermarket won't stock Nuun tablets. Some bike shops or online, CRC/Wiggle etc have them. Cyclesuperstore in Tallaght stock them if you're
nearby.

I use Nuun Cola flavour.

Lumen

niceonetom wrote: »

No, not bonk training. At all. Just training at a lower pace, for longer, in a way that encourages your body to process complex carbs and fat and not just quick-burn sugar. Any feeling of bonk should be met immediately with a bar, but I'm not for one second advocating training to the point of bonk.

I agree with the long, and the slow, but Ijust don't know where the "encourages your body" comes from, physiologically. I suspect that any extended exercise stimulates fat burning, you just can't do 8 hours at threshold so you've no choice but to go slow.

niceonetom wrote: »

I'm pretty sure I've seen this advocated for iron man training as it's simply not possible to eat enough calories to get through an iron man at any pace without developing you fat burning prowess. I vaguely remember tunney saying something about it around here...

I think Tunneys thing was about avoiding insulin spikes using some kind of Paleo diet.

niceonetom wrote: »

Anyway, you're the guy who recently tried to explain that the reason you were carrying no more than 500ml of fluid on a 120km+ ride through Wicklow to train your body to need less fluid. I'm not sure you're really on solid ground here.

No, indeed. That idea was more about the psychology of the thing. I don't want to head to the med and panic if I run low on fluids. It's part of the reason I've been cycling around Wicklow with 39x23 - there's no real training benefit, it just gives me confidence for when I hit some proper mountains.

niceonetom wrote: »

Intense training really takes it out of me too, and recovery from hill repeats can be slow. I should probably avoid them so. Right?

You need both high intensity and lots of base miles. There are no shortcuts in preparation for Marmotte type efforts, I think.

The only really bad idea (I think) is lots of training at medium intensity, as you neither raise your threshold or get enough volume to develop the fat burning. Fast, far, pick one.

Anyway, as for what goes in the bottle, the only essential thing is salts to prevent cramping, unless you're getting those from food. My Allen Lim Dong Of Nutrition (recently tainted with doping allegations) is packed full of salt, so I don't bother with Nuun any more.

blorg

I did a lot of long rides on a calorie constricted diet years ago, 700km in a week on a total of 1,200 calories a day was the extreme limit. Not suggesting that is a good idea.

I have bonked once in my life towards the end of that weight loss and it was horrible, jelly legs, faint, the lot although got home and was fine after an hour or so. Haven't hit that since. Now I do think I'm pretty good at using the fat stores, even in a racing situation it seems I can get through a typical A3 race on water if I have to (which I have do to lack of preparation!) although I would certainly prefer to have an energy drink there.

kennyb3

Lumen wrote: »

I agree with the long, and the slow, but Ijust don't know where the "encourages your body" comes from, physiologically. I suspect that any extended exercise stimulates fat burning, you just can't do 8 hours at threshold so you've no choice but to go slow.

surely your missing the point with the last bit. what niceone tom is talking about is making your body more efficient at storing and using glycogen, im more familiar with it in a running sense - its a very common theory in marathoning. most marathoners wont use gels in training for this reason. surely long slow training has nothing to do with threshold.

so what im really saying and perhaps ryan can answer this? why do marathoners not take gels in training but he seems to be advocating using similar things in cycling terms?

ps i know they are different sports but in both we are discussing going long in training and training the body to be efficient.

Also another thought were do you draw the line - i.e nice tom was say about you training your body to use less fluid (on one hand this sounds great but what other affects may it have on you and your recovery) but take the opposite - why not hype up on gels, energy drinks and so on and improve all your training as per what ryan said. where is the line??

kennyb3

blorg wrote: »

I have bonked once in my life towards the end of that weight loss and it was horrible, jelly legs, faint, the lot although got home and was fine after an hour or so.

happened me too and my main memory is wondering whether id get home and my sunken black eyes when i looked in teh mirror. couple of cups of tea and a bowl of coco pops and i was okay. never again

Lumen

kennyb3 wrote: »

what niceone tom is talking about is making your body more efficient at storing and using glycogen, im more familiar with it in a running sense - its a very common theory in marathoning. most marathoners wont use gels in training for this reason

But where is the evidence to support this approach?

Regarding the threshold stuff, I was simply suggesting that fat burning training comes from training time, regardless of intensity. So if you want to train for maximum fat burning, you need to do it slowly to get maximum training time with minimal recovery.

I believe Kenyan running is about fast and slow and nothing in between.

blorg

Cycling is much more of an endurance sport than marathons. An elite cyclist will race for 23 days; an elite marathon runner will race for 2 hours. I accept that they are both endurance sports.

kennyb3

blorg wrote: »

Cycling is much more of an endurance sport than marathons. .

agreed

blorg wrote: »

An elite cyclist will race for 23 days; an elite marathon runner will race for 2 hours. .

agreed but both require glycogen to be used efficently. im not saying one is harder than the other.(thats not my point and anyway clearly with the 23 days you can re fuel at the end of the day) clearly with a marathon you can only take on so much water, sports drink and gels within them 2 hours (and 5mins:D) and similarly you can fuel so much cycling

blorg wrote: »

I accept that they are both endurance sports.

agreed both are.

anyway this is kind of getting away from the point and i think we are both agreeing/arguing the same point

kennyb3

Lumen wrote: »

Regarding the threshold stuff, I was simply suggesting that fat burning training comes from training time, regardless of intensity. So if you want to train for maximum fat burning, you need to do it slowly to get maximum training time with minimal recovery.

okay we are in agreement then, i took the threshold comment the wrong.

anyway im just posing the questions, i happily admit i dont have all the answers.

id be really interested to hear any thoughts on my question re drawing the line in terms of fuelling in training

Signal_ rabbit

The tax man wrote: »

The local supermarket won't stock Nuun tablets. Some bike shops or online, CRC/Wiggle etc have them. Cyclesuperstore in Tallaght stock them if you're
nearby.

I use Nuun Cola flavour.

I use the High 5 Zero, a lot cheaper and tastes better and as far as i can see is the same stuff.

niceonetom

Lumen wrote: »

I think Tunneys thing was about avoiding insulin spikes using some kind of Paleo diet.

No, it was this thread I was recalling. No paleo nonsense there, just a quip to "Train low, race high." Which is what I was saying in a longer and less pithy way.

Lumen wrote: »

You need both high intensity and lots of base miles. There are no shortcuts in preparation for Marmotte type efforts, I think.

As well I know. My point, badly made I guess, is that avoiding certain types if training because it would "will just mean you'll take longer to recover, so your overall training volume will suffer" is not a good justification for anything. That kind of thinking leads exactly to the kind of medium efforts that don't really do much of anything.

blorg wrote: »

I did a lot of long rides on a calorie constricted diet years ago, 700km in a week on a total of 1,200 calories a day was the extreme limit. Not suggesting that is a good idea.

Again, either am I. Not bonk training. Just not eating as much sugar as you can all the time. Water and sambos maybe. Save the sugar for races, intervals and hills.

Lumen wrote: »

But where is the evidence to support this approach?

Well, tunney for one. The 30 seconds googling throws up this, and this, and this. I read an article somewhere about J Vaughters forcing Tom Danielson onto a low sugar, high fat diet and training on complex carbs and fat because he was soming so close to bonk on long stages. TD put this down to him being part Inuit and having a genetic suseptibility to excessive fat storage and sugar burning in his metabolism, but JV was pretty adamant that metabolism (and calorie supply) can be trained. Not sure if Lim was involved or if this was before his time at Garmin. Must see if I can find it again.

I think taking the idea that fat utilization is untrainable, or that it is unaffected by blood sugar and depends solely of training duration, both seem like much shakier credos. Where's the evidence?

Lumen

niceonetom wrote: »

avoiding certain types if training because it would "will just mean you'll take longer to recover, so your overall training volume will suffer" is not a good justification for anything. That kind of thinking leads exactly to the kind of medium efforts that don't really do much of anything.

My point was obviously badly made, that's the opposite of what I was trying to say. I am absolutely not in favour of "medium efforts".

niceonetom wrote: »

I think taking the idea that fat utilization is untrainable, or that it is unaffected by blood sugar and depends solely of training duration, both seem like much shakier credos. Where's the evidence?

I didn't say that fat utilisation was untrainable, I suggested that it might be unrelated to the specific carb intake protocol (i.e. eating).

The first of those links was a bit medical for my brain; the other two do not test eating as the variable, they test different exercise regimes. So separating cause and correlation is impossible.

In any case, what I am sure about is that discussing training on a Saturday sunny summer morning is less effective than actually doing it.

niceonetom

Lumen wrote: »

My point was obviously badly made, that's the opposite of what I was trying to say. I am absolutely not in favour of "medium efforts".

I know you weren't advocating medium efforts, but you were citing long recovery time as a reason not to train without sugar - I was extending your logic to use it, facetiously, as a reason not to train hard. Argument ad absurdum kinda thing. You get me now?

Lumen wrote: »

I didn't say that fat utilisation was untrainable, I suggested that it might be unrelated to the specific carb intake protocol (i.e. eating).

The first of those links was a bit medical for my brain; the other two do not test eating as the variable, they test different exercise regimes. So separating cause and correlation is impossible.

In any case, what I am sure about is that discussing training on a Saturday sunny summer morning is less effective than actually doing it.

It might be unrelated to carb intake, but that seems unlikely to me, and I'm not alone apparently. The consensus in the Tri/IM community certainly seems to think that fat metabolism is trainable and, indeed, crucial.

I know I should be be out on the bike, but the days are long and there's loads of time for a quick 50. Racing tomorrow anyway, I never know what to do with the Saturday before a race...

Lumen

niceonetom wrote: »

I know you weren't advocating medium efforts, but you were citing long recovery time as a reason not to train without sugar - I was extending your logic to use it, facetiously, as a reason not to train hard. Argument ad absurdum kinda thing. You get me now?

Re-reading the posts, I don't disagree about the "training without sugar" thing. Sambos FTW.

niceonetom wrote: »

Racing tomorrow anyway, I never know what to do with the Saturday before a race...

Race, obviously.

ROK ON

Cornettos, particularly strawberry ones.

Did 2 80 k spins during week, after recovering from chest infection.
Second spin was going well at consistent pace and HR.
Faded badly after 60km. Ran out of water and ShotBloks.

Finally found a shop.
Bottle of water and strawberry cornetto. felt great after it. Motored home.
If they didnt melt, I would carry one in my back pocket as an emergency supply of creamy cold goodness.

Murph100

Okaaaaaay.... So from that lil' exchange am I right in thinking:

LSD training below 50% heart rate just bring water as you're burning only fat.

Avoid medium intensity training like the plague.

High intensity training bring an energy drink as its carb burning only.

... and the sambos ?

CheGuedara

ROK ON wrote: »

Cornettos, particularly strawberry ones.

Did 2 80 k spins during week, after recovering from chest infection.
Second spin was going well at consistent pace and HR.
Faded badly after 60km. Ran out of water and ShotBloks.

Finally found a shop.
Bottle of water and strawberry cornetto. felt great after it. Motored home.
If they didnt melt, I would carry one in my back pocket as an emergency supply of creamy cold goodness.

I'm convinced! HB need to hire you as a PR/advertising guru!:D

Lumen

Murph100 wrote: »

Avoid medium intensity training like the plague

(apologies for the off-topic, but would like to clarify my earlier comments)

Part of the problem with these sorts of discussions is the lack of definitions (which take more typing effort).

From my own experiences last year, the "dead zone" for training is the boundary between endurance and tempo zones, which is the pace which feels right for 3-4 hour rides of around 100km where I feel like I'm pushing reasonably hard but still enjoying it, coming back pleasantly knackered. At this level there is a lot of recovery needed (relative to shorter or easier efforts) but I never seemed to get much training benefit from them.

Cycling Performance Tips seems to agree:

The best approach is to stay below 80% of maximum heart rate (zones 1 to 3) on your easy days to build an aerobic base while allowing day to day recovery, and then push above 85% when it's time to go hard to improve your high level performance. But avoid training in the no man's land or mediocre middle at 80-85% of MHR where it's too difficult to maintain the pace for the long rides needed to build endurance and allow some recovery time, but not hard enough to significantly improve your aerobic performance and increase your lactate threshold.

Murph100

Cheers for that Lumen.

SO would that be the heart rate zone ( 85 - 90 %max ) for SST, leaving aside the inaccuracies of training by heart rate ?

Lumen

Murph100 wrote: »

So would that be the heart rate zone ( 85 - 90 %max ) for SST, leaving aside the inaccuracies of training by heart rate ?

I don't really know much about HR zones. The charts I use (Coggans Power Training Levels) express HR as a % of lactate threshold rather than max HR. On those charts, the boundary between endurance and tempo is 83.5% of LT HR.

From a perceived effort p.o.v., I think the point is that if you're training most days you should come back from a 4 hour ride feeling fresh, not knackered, in order that you can go out the next day and do the higher intensity work properly.

This is all a bit irrelevant to those of us who are cycling for fun, not attempting to train at the limits of recovery, or fitting training around a busy lifestyle. Just ride your bike etc