Fuelling for cycles

Macy0161

NamelessPhil wrote: »

Too much sugar may lead to digestive issues, nobody wants to do a Tom Dumoulin into a ditch.

Too much compared to normal, same as Sam in Wevelgem, not necessarily too much sugar. Tolerance is something that has to be experimented with, different mixes/ brands. They both did the big no no of trying something new on race day

Wildly Boaring

A pint of warm milk.
I'd be ok with it. Not first choice though.
Wife is holding back the urge to vomit here beside me!!

Macy0161

I love milk, but warm milk? Ye are feckin weirdos. Only place milk should be consumed warm is in tea or porridge.

eeeee

Ye're missing out.
Nice warm milk, not cold or too hot to shock the system, just nice and warm and just right

Macy0161

Oh, have another addition - in hot chocolate! But apart from that...

daragh_

For racing I don't tend to bring a lot. I might have a couple of Gels for a longer race but I usually forget to take them until it's too late.

I've done a couple of races without water. Once on the Dorey's Forge Circuit (forgot my bottles) at a League race and once in a Vets race (dropped both bottles going over a speed bump just after the start). Did ok both times but it would have been a different story in hot weather.

For endurance stuff I have to constantly remind myself to eat and drink. It's easier on group rides but on solo spins I'll find myself bonking if I don't set up an alarm on my Garmin.

Can't tolerate a lot of sugar. Bananas seem to work best. Couple of Jelly Snakes for an emergency.

JimmyVik

If I was doing a 100km cycle, some breakfast before I started and then a sandwich from a garage or a burger would do me AFTER i had finished.
Its nothing. Id probably hungrier spending 4 or 5 hours hill walking tbh.

JimmyVik

MayoSalmon wrote: »

What is a given is your recovery will be a lot longer and harder if you don't eat so depending on your training that is a massive consideration..

Recovery after only a 100Km spin

Wildly Boaring

JimmyVik wrote: »

Its nothing. Id probably hungrier spending 4 or 5 hours hill walking tbh.

I've mates who run 2 half marathons a week. I run 2 a year.

Declaring to those who may struggle to do 40k that 100k is nothing is counter productive

JimmyVik

Wildly Boaring wrote: »

I've mates who run 2 half marathons a week. I run 2 a year.

Declaring to those who may struggle to do 40k that 100k is nothing is counter productive

Nobody needs to fuel themselves, bar a normal meal for a 100km cycle.
Unless they are diabetic or something.

Wildly Boaring

JimmyVik wrote: »

Nobody needs to fuel themselves, bar a normal meal for a 100km cycle.
Unless they are diabetic or something.

I've a coach (for another sport) who would say you shouldn't eat a meal within 4 or 5 hours for performance.
Full stomach slows you down

Eat and then top up a bit one hour in advance.
Fuel now for 90 minutes time.

Ubbquittious

How many KM per breakfast roll can one expect?

JimmyVik

Ubbquittious wrote: »

How many KM per breakfast roll can one expect?

A fierce amount id wager

Brian?

JimmyVik wrote: »

Nobody needs to fuel themselves, bar a normal meal for a 100km cycle.
Unless they are diabetic or something.

That’s waaaaaayyyy too simplistic a view on it.

DaveyDave

JimmyVik wrote: »

Nobody needs to fuel themselves, bar a normal meal for a 100km cycle.
Unless they are diabetic or something.

That simply isn't true. I needed gels when cycling 70-90km a few times, I always had a decent meal before the ride.

You're not 100% every day. There's going to be days where you're just beat and need a boost. I don't see why people have a problem with people bringing snacks. When you start increasing distances it can be very difficult. Not everyone is doing a 100km ride every weekend and used to it.

Macy0161

People don't "need" to fuel it, as in they'll get around, but what is the benefit of not fuelling it? Science is science, anything over an hour your depleting muscle glycogen so consuming carbs will increase performance (notwithstanding people genuinely fat adapted* at low intensity). If consuming carbs makes people enjoy it more, go faster/ easier, not go home fecked, not raid the presses etc., it is not a bad thing? Fuelling properly, and not being wrecked is actually quite likely to increase NEAT anyway, so has other benefits even in terms of weight loss (if that is a concern)

*given the misunderstanding of "fasted" it really isn't as many cyclists as they like to think. There's more to doing exercise fasted than skipping breakfast.

JimmyVik

The problem these days is that anyone who hops on a bike and goes for a 100Km spin thinks they are an athlete

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMCkuqL9IcM

CramCycle

JimmyVik wrote: »

Nobody needs to fuel themselves, bar a normal meal for a 100km cycle.
Unless they are diabetic or something.

Based in the Diabetic comment, I'm gonna say you don't know what you are talking about. There are too many variables in your other posts for them to even make sense. 100km at what pace, race, sportive, Audax, touring? A meal before and after? What size, what did you eat, what are you used too?
If you never eat big meals but most days you graze with small snacks every 90minutes, you won't be able to last 3 hours on the saddle, on the same note if you don't eat a tap all day most days until dinner, you will probably be grand. Most of my spins I never have anything that morning or during, but depending on what happens, I might need it.
Everyone is different, not only this, but what they are doing and want to achieve maybe different as well.

JimmyVik

CramCycle wrote: »

Based in the Diabetic comment, I'm gonna say you don't know what you are talking about. There are too many variables in your other posts for them to even make sense. 100km at what pace, race, sportive, Audax, touring? A meal before and after? What size, what did you eat, what are you used too?
If you never eat big meals but most days you graze with small snacks every 90minutes, you won't be able to last 3 hours on the saddle, on the same note if you don't eat a tap all day most days until dinner, you will probably be grand. Most of my spins I never have anything that morning or during, but depending on what happens, I might need it.
Everyone is different, not only this, but what they are doing and want to achieve maybe different as well.

If you say so :rolleyes:

CramCycle

JimmyVik wrote: »

If you say so :rolleyes:

35 years a T1 Diabetic and researched T2 for 10 years so I have some idea about what I am talking about but maybe you know more. Maybe you can explain to me this one size fits all idea for any 100km cycle for everyone, because if you have it, lots of people will be interested, I'd say you will have a contract with a WT team by the end of the week, or endocrinologists around the world will be PMing you to write a paper on it. I for one am extremely interested.
Until then I'll stick with the premise that at the various levels of people posting here, that a one size fits all approach doesn't work.

Captain Havoc

JimmyVik wrote: »

The problem these days is that anyone who hops on a bike and goes for a 100Km spin thinks they are an athlete

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMCkuqL9IcM

Someone who can cycle 100 km would be defined as being an athlete.

eeeee

Captain Havoc wrote: »

Someone who can cycle 100 km would be defined as being an athlete.

Don't think I'd agree with that. 100km isn't that far, and anyone can do it if they go slow enough.
I've never thought of myself as an athlete despite having national medals, some gold.
I guess it's somewhat subjective, what is an isn't an athlete, but just cycling 100k wouldn't qualify for me. Maybe it does for others.

Macy0161

eeeee wrote: »

I guess it's somewhat subjective, what is an isn't an athlete, but just cycling 100k wouldn't qualify for me. Maybe it does for others.

You are in the context of the majority of the population. As is anyone that can do a 100km. Speaking as someone who used to have to stop 3 times on a 10km loop!

Captain Havoc

eeeee wrote: »

Don't think I'd agree with that. 100km isn't that far, and anyone can do it if they go slow enough.
I've never thought of myself as an athlete despite having national medals, some gold.
I guess it's somewhat subjective, what is an isn't an athlete, but just cycling 100k wouldn't qualify for me. Maybe it does for others.

I wouldn't go around calling myself an athlete either, but I consider someone who can cycle 100 km to be proficient in sport or physical exercise, which is the definition of an athlete.

Large bottle small glass

Macy0161 wrote: »

People don't "need" to fuel it, as in they'll get around, but what is the benefit of not fuelling it?

I've no idea what the rest of your post is about so I'll just answer that question for now.
1. Fasted training is beneficial for mitochondrial biogenesis and is used by pro athletes for that purpose (Google scholar is your friend)
2. For long to ultra distance it'll greatly reduce risk of intestinal distress probably the biggest cause of failure on such events
3. Metabolic flexibility is improved; one can get further without eating but can still eat if one wishes. There is no down side
4.Off the bike the mentality to be able to chose when you want to eat and what, and not panic at the thought of 4, 14 or 24 hrs without food. Yesterday I did 740km in car; I had home cooked fish pie at 8pm last night for break fast.

There is probably others that's just off the top of my head

Macy0161

Some pro athletes do it, but not all the time. They periodise it. They don't do it in high intensity training, or during races.
The rest is just n=1 preference tbh. You could've just as easily brought food with you and still not stressed about it.

Wishbone Ash

I have an above average appetite (not overweight). In a 12 hour day at work, I'll probably eat 4 or 5 times during the shift.

If I'm out for a 200k ride, I'll probably stop and eat something reasonably substantial (i.e. not a snack) perhaps 4 or 5 times.

I'll eat less on the bike than off the bike (purely due to logistics) so I don't understand why some feel that there is no need to fuel for cycling. I wouldn't survive without the food whether cycling or not.

Large bottle small glass

Macy0161 wrote: »

Some pro athletes do it, but not all the time. They periodise it. They don't do it in high intensity training, or during races.
The rest is just n=1 preference tbh. You could've just as easily brought food with you and still not stressed about it.

I never said they did it all the time.

You asked for reasons I gave them.

Intestinal distress is the biggest cause of failure on ultra type events. That is just a fact.

A tool that allows rider to eat less while exercising will reduce that risk. That is another fact.

Metabolic flexibility is improved; can't see how you can argue that

I couldn't easily bring food with me and be as efficient with my time or eat as well. Why would I even bother it's takes as much thought as breathing? I can still eat if I wish, it's jus a useful tool

For a metabolically healthy person there is no need to worry about raiding fridge or reduced NEAT. That is very much your N=1.