Nowadays, some riders use glucose monitoring devices during training with relation to how long it takes from ingesting and getting into blood. They are now measuring more and more things, and food is a crucial role.
Glucose monitoring is banned during races, but I guess that is why you don't see some cyclist collapsing like as 15 years ago is because they understand their glucose levels.
For sure, doping it's still a fear, but these guys cannot climb Galibier at that speed only with storoids/drugs, it's insane the effort that they did over the year.
I haven't been a cyclist since about the time that the market of energy drinks first exploded. And at the time there were a number of articles that said that really all you need is Gatorade, that most of these new drinks were advertising more calories per liter, but Gatorade was already tested out on absorption rates and dialed in to the maximum calories per liter of water that the average human stomach can absorb.
The tricky word there is average. If Tadej can absorb an extra 5 grams per liter, then you should give Tadej an extra five grams per liter. If Jonas can absorb 2 grams less per liter than the average then you should give him that serving.
These race results come down to mere seconds per hundred miles, for cyclists that are averaging 20 miles an hour. Any 1% difference is going into the training regimen.
The limits aren't wrt water absorption, but gut tolerance of sugar.
I get about 100g of sugar into a bottle by doing roughly 50:50 Gatorade and maltodextrin, and then throwing in some extra Na an K salt if it's going to be hot. Although with the super hi carb stuff you should make sure that you have some plain water as well - it sucks to be super thirsty but only have carb drink on the bike.
that is outdated advice. for one, some people sweat more than others, the salt levels in the sweat is totally different too. this means that if you're really serious about sport or are doing endurance races (ie 2 hours+) you should really not just use gatorade, but something where the mix of salt/water is closer to whatever you're sweating.
if i personally use gatorade for endurance exercise, i'll just cramp up after 90 minutes and not be able to ride normally. if i use a high salt mix instead, this isn't an issue whatsoever. I'm sure the exact same is true about food itself. remember that for the tour de france, last years time difference between the winner (Vingegaard) and the second (Pogadcar) was 8 minutes out of 82h 05' 42", aka only 0.16% faster overall. every single sub-percentage matters here.
there are tons of products that cater to this. the one i've been using is https://www.precisionhydration.com/ which is cheaper and more tailored than gatorade (i have no affiliation to them).
On the Netflix TdF documentary, they mentioned that the difference between the winner and last place is 2%. There was one stage where the winner won by 4 inches.
It also said that doping made a 20% difference, so either none of the current competitors are doping or all of them are.
> for cyclists that are averaging 20 miles an hour
I don’t think modern professional cyclists even can ride at 20 miles an hour ;-)
20 miles an hour didn’t win you the Tour de France in 1950. Nowadays, with better tech, better training, and shorter stages, you have to do over 25 miles an hour to win it, and the last rider in the general classification easily is within 10% of that.
There are multiple kinds of carbohydrate and the differences can matter.
Gatorade’s ingredients list shows sucrose (glucose+fructose) and dextrose (glucose).
Maltodextrin is isotonic in a 6x stronger solution than fructose and glucose. This means you need to drink meaningfully less water during a race to digest maltodextrin. So do we want all maltodextrin? Nope! Fructose can be absorbed by a separate pathway, which is less efficient, but increases your total intake of carbohydrates into the bloodstream.
So you’re probably not going to see Tour de France teams giving their riders Gatorade. You want more maltodextrin and less glucose.
That is indeed why you don´t see them collapsing and also why the finals are much longer nowadays. Riders train their guts to be able to eat up to 120g of carbs per hour, for the whole duration of the race.
I am far FAR from the tour de france but I do train for and run ultramarathons.
When I started the general guidance seemed to be about 200 calories (50g of carbs) per hour during training and races. I followed that or a little above for a long time, and constantly had problems both physically and cognitively near the end of races.
It took about a year to get used to fueling heavier (for me...about 400 calories per hour or 100g). Lots of figuring out digestion and timing and sources and other factors. But once I got there it was transformative...I could push much harder for much longer without a deep bonk and recovery was faster. More importantly, my ability to think/plan/make decisions at the end of races was orders of magnitude better.
I'd bet if you went to an aid station around 80 miles on a 100mile ultra marathon you could pretty reliably identify who had been on the 200cal end of the spectrum and who had been on the 400 + end.
> For sure, doping it's still a fear, but these guys cannot climb Galibier at that speed only with storoids/drugs, it's insane the effort that they did over the year.
The way I heard it, the don't use doping to improve their performance. They use it so they can train longer and more intensely than they would be able to without it.
That's part of it sure, but anything which improves oxygen transport like EPO or blood transfusions will absolutely improve climbing performance regardless of training quality. For anyone with good fitness the main limiting factor is amount of oxygen delivered to the muscles.
I'm a bit sad that a topic I find so interesting mostly gathers knee-jerk reactions here on HN.
Yes, doping, blah blah we get it. But the logistics of TdF is insane. With a new city every day, things need to move fast and preparations start early. For instance Uno-X team has a small trailer with 800 kgs of ice they travel around with, after having trouble sourcing enough ice in the small villages they stay at.
Actually having your own chef source stuff is one way to avoid accidental doping scandals.
I've read the Velochef book and like the recipes there. One thing I've never appreciated before is how hard it is to actually get this amount of calories down. Especially since much of it must be consumed on the bike so needs to be easy to transport/store/eat on the fly. And eating while working out can be tough on the stomach. EDB finally got his break through when they managed to nail a nutrition he didn't get cramps from eating.
reminds me of an anecdote from Le Ride (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Ride ) that talks about in one of the early Tours de France, a rider was disqualified because he broke his crank, hobbled to a nearby town, found the blacksmith, and the rider welded his own crank back together, but the blacksmith's son operated the bellows and this was seen as too much external assistance.
The part about not eating too much fibre because it irritates the gut reminded me of an amusing anecdote in Dan Martin's autobiography, where he talked about coming (I think) third in The Tour and was sitting with Chris Froome and Geraint Thomas from Team Sky (now Ineos Grenadiers) after the finish in Paris. He was looking forward to a big burger and chips, and Froome and Thomas were discussing how they were really looking forward to a nice salad (i.e. lots of fibre). He partly admired the dedication, but at the same time wondered how on earth they could live like that.
Salads can be really good in Paris! :D Martin might just be imagining a slice of tomato on a leaf of lettuce, Froome and Thomas might have been imagining a range of herbs and roasted nuts with a delicious oil or vinaigrette, chunks of an interesting cheese or two and some powerful olives and garlic. Or thereabouts.
Yeah, I'm sure he knows that - he lives in Andorra - but I read it as him being surprised that of all the tasty things they weren't allowed to eat (as the article makes clear the food during the Tour tends to be pretty bland) the first thing they'd crave is a salad.
One my trainers when I was in college told me that when you crave foods, its not your lack of willpower, its actually your body telling you it needs certain nutrients. He told me when you crave chocolate its because your body needs carbs, so if you get some carbs, your chocolate cravings will go away.
I'm guessing the idea you crave a cheeseburger is the same thing, his body was in need of complex carbs and protein?
This is purely anecdotal evidence of this, but in my experience as an endurance athlete (soccer, cycling, adventure racing) its seems to work. When I've craved chocolate, I just eat some toast or chips or drink some Mt. Dew (a lot of people have no idea how many carbs are in soda) and the desire for something chocolatey goes away.
As others have pointed out in the thread, everybody is different, but in my case, this idea seems to be accurate.
Regarding drugs, yes it´s most likely still happening, but nowhere near the levels it used to be.
Riders are tested a lot and have to provide year-round whereabouts for random testing. They also have a frequently updated blood passport to detect sudden changes in values caused by PEDs. It can never be fully waterproof, but at least serious efforts are made.
>> Riders are tested a lot and have to provide year-round whereabouts for random testing.
If I remember correctly, these rules were changed after the Armstrong scandal where he would be scheduled for testing, he would say he was at his house in Texas. The testing folks would show up and he just wouldn't answer the door and wait until they left so they couldn't test him. It was one of the ways he was able to dope on a set schedule, all the while being able to maintain he was being tested more than any other athlete - when in reality, he was just avoiding being tested.
It seems like a lot has changed since his scandal and several others that followed and they've really clamped down on what you're saying, changes in blood values and getting suspended if you cannot be reached for testing.
Cyclist need to log virtually everything they consume (food, water, medications), on top of declaring their whereabouts and biological passports, in case they return a positive test. I'm not disagreeing with the "price of admission" for competing in the world tour shouldn't be high, but I can imagine it's stressful that something as simple as drinking water from a tap could, effectively, end your career.
Lizzy Banks goes into great detail about her experince with doping control and trying to overturn a positive result due to a contamination. It's a long read, but if you're a fan of the sport it's super interesting.
https://lizzybanks.co.uk/
There is an app where you have to give your whereabouts for one hour every day. If you don't fill it in or are unavailable at the location for that hour, you get a strike. Three strikes in a set period and you will get a ban as if you had been doping.
One problem with the system is that it relies on countries being strict with their athletes, which they aren't incentivized to do. Also, it's easy to "be available" but not get tested by going somewhere remote for a height camp for a few weeks.
At the Track and Field qualifiers for the 2024 Olympics they kept talking about how one of the runners was disqualified from Tokyo because she violated the whereabouts rules. They didn't say how.
Is that like parole where they check in, or is it like house arrest where you have an ankle monitor?
It's a bit of both. If you're an athlete being tested at that level, you have to keep your country's antidoping agency informed of your whereabouts at all times. They will randomly send testers to wherever you are and you have a short time window, like 1-3 hours to show up. If you no-show 3 times (I think) it counts as a positive test and you're banned. I really don't know how someone could run in the trials with too many missed tests and not be allowed to race the olympics... I'm pretty sure the rules are the same.
They have moved on from pharmaceutical doping due to the extensive testing to what is referred to as "mechanical doping". Motors are hidden in hubs/frames and the organisation is busy doing everything they can to pretend that it isn't a problem.
They do systematic checks for the winner, whoever has suspicious performance jumps one day, as well as random racers. They do take it very seriously and what you are saying is a bit far from the truth.
Some people will try, and some scandals will happen, sure. But it is not a widespread problem and is unlikely to become one.
We've had a handful of cases at the lower levels of the sport, but I think the scrutineering is just too strict for anyone to get away with it at the ProTour level. The UCI have got mobile x-ray facilities which they're starting to use much more rigorously.
Mechanical doping, a problem so wide-spread that only one person at the elite level has ever been found to have been doing it. To date, no one has ever provided hard evidence of another rider using a motor. I am not saying that this doesn't happen at the amateur level (it certainly does) but to imply that this is a pervasive problem in elite cycling is little more than a baseless conspiracy theory until someone shows up with some actual evidence of motors being used in major events.
Ghost in the Machine [1] is a great podcast on this topic.
Impossible to use mechanical doping now with the current inspections.
Has it been used before these inspections were implemented? Very likely. An hungarian engineer developed a motor with spools in the rims and the stator in the forks. For sure at some point this offered a better risk/reward than PEDs.
In professional sports taking drugs is not considered a secret, it's common practice
Fixed. Cycling has one of the strictest out-of-competition testing regimens. Which isn't to say doping doesn't exist - it does, no question - only that it's WAY better now than during the Armstrong era.
They're still fighting a losing battle. The business of cycling dictates that they remain ever vigilant and attempt to catch dopers and keep the sport "clean", while the science of what the atheletes are trying to do suggests they should just accept the reality and not police legal vs. illegal. It's like a drug-free body building contenst; what's the point?
There is a common refrain about the Armstrong era "all the top guys were taking them so it's fair" but it's not really accurate. Because yes, the people at the top were all taking them, but that's because the clean guys that _would_ have been at the top otherwise aren't there: the prevalence of doping meant that you had to dope to even be in the conversation at that level, and so the clean athletes that might have won otherwise aren't coming in 18th, they're at home on the couch or they're racing at the pro-conti level.
For example, Greg LeMond won the TdF in 1990. In 1991 he came 7th, and then never completed it again. There is some complication here because of the hunting accident he suffered in '87, but he also said "The speeds were faster and riders that I had easily outperformed were now dropping me", and the guy who won in 1991 was Indurain who was basically the first mega-doper.
Without EPO and blood doping becoming prevalent, does Greg LeMond compete for a few more years? Do other guys with similar talent who aren't willing to dope also make it to that top level. I think the answer is probably yes, and so all those guys who doped are responsible for excluding those clean athletes from the top level.
My personal semi-conspiracy theory is that cycling is the only sport that took anti doping measures seriously and sort of fucked itself over. All the "anti" doping measures in major sports are laughable. There's too much money involved for the athletes to be not on steroids.
If it were only for the money...In CrossFit, even in competitions at the regional or provincial level, the top positions are practically all taken by athletes who use performance-enhancing drugs. Or, to take another example, in jiu jitsu, a discipline in which you almost always have to pay to compete and win nothing but a medal that will cost five dollars at the department store, I would venture to say that at least 90% of those placed in the top positions use PEDs.
EPO and other red-cell increasing drugs provide a massive gain for endurance athletes (runners, cyclists, XC skiing). Steroids are a massive gain for strength athletes (sprinters/athletics, contact sports).
Both can be used "safely" or "unsafely" depending on dosage, combinations with other drugs, etc.
What's the distinction? What about taking something when you have a cold, or nutritional supplements? It seems weird to draw an arbitrary line between things that make a body perform by stimulating natural production vs directly using synthetics.
> "The food I make is all transparent," says (chef) Blandy. "There are no rich sauces, it's all plain, simple cooking with a light amount of seasoning, light amount of oil, fresh herbs and citrus.
If you think you have no interest in cycle road racing I strongly recommend watching the Netflix series Tour de France Unchained. I watched it on a whim with no interest whatsoever in road racing and I found it addictive and it got me hooked on the sport (to the extent I can be hooked - UCI is a garbage organisation that makes it as difficult as possible to actually watch it).
Start with series 1, even though it's 2 years out of date. They explain how the sport works, and they skip over this in series 2. It's important information.
Readit News
Glucose monitoring is banned during races, but I guess that is why you don't see some cyclist collapsing like as 15 years ago is because they understand their glucose levels.
For sure, doping it's still a fear, but these guys cannot climb Galibier at that speed only with storoids/drugs, it's insane the effort that they did over the year.
The tricky word there is average. If Tadej can absorb an extra 5 grams per liter, then you should give Tadej an extra five grams per liter. If Jonas can absorb 2 grams less per liter than the average then you should give him that serving.
These race results come down to mere seconds per hundred miles, for cyclists that are averaging 20 miles an hour. Any 1% difference is going into the training regimen.
The limits aren't wrt water absorption, but gut tolerance of sugar.
I get about 100g of sugar into a bottle by doing roughly 50:50 Gatorade and maltodextrin, and then throwing in some extra Na an K salt if it's going to be hot. Although with the super hi carb stuff you should make sure that you have some plain water as well - it sucks to be super thirsty but only have carb drink on the bike.
if i personally use gatorade for endurance exercise, i'll just cramp up after 90 minutes and not be able to ride normally. if i use a high salt mix instead, this isn't an issue whatsoever. I'm sure the exact same is true about food itself. remember that for the tour de france, last years time difference between the winner (Vingegaard) and the second (Pogadcar) was 8 minutes out of 82h 05' 42", aka only 0.16% faster overall. every single sub-percentage matters here.
there are tons of products that cater to this. the one i've been using is https://www.precisionhydration.com/ which is cheaper and more tailored than gatorade (i have no affiliation to them).
It also said that doping made a 20% difference, so either none of the current competitors are doping or all of them are.
I don’t think modern professional cyclists even can ride at 20 miles an hour ;-)
20 miles an hour didn’t win you the Tour de France in 1950. Nowadays, with better tech, better training, and shorter stages, you have to do over 25 miles an hour to win it, and the last rider in the general classification easily is within 10% of that.
Gatorade’s ingredients list shows sucrose (glucose+fructose) and dextrose (glucose).
Maltodextrin is isotonic in a 6x stronger solution than fructose and glucose. This means you need to drink meaningfully less water during a race to digest maltodextrin. So do we want all maltodextrin? Nope! Fructose can be absorbed by a separate pathway, which is less efficient, but increases your total intake of carbohydrates into the bloodstream.
So you’re probably not going to see Tour de France teams giving their riders Gatorade. You want more maltodextrin and less glucose.
When I started the general guidance seemed to be about 200 calories (50g of carbs) per hour during training and races. I followed that or a little above for a long time, and constantly had problems both physically and cognitively near the end of races.
It took about a year to get used to fueling heavier (for me...about 400 calories per hour or 100g). Lots of figuring out digestion and timing and sources and other factors. But once I got there it was transformative...I could push much harder for much longer without a deep bonk and recovery was faster. More importantly, my ability to think/plan/make decisions at the end of races was orders of magnitude better.
I'd bet if you went to an aid station around 80 miles on a 100mile ultra marathon you could pretty reliably identify who had been on the 200cal end of the spectrum and who had been on the 400 + end.
The way I heard it, the don't use doping to improve their performance. They use it so they can train longer and more intensely than they would be able to without it.
Yes, doping, blah blah we get it. But the logistics of TdF is insane. With a new city every day, things need to move fast and preparations start early. For instance Uno-X team has a small trailer with 800 kgs of ice they travel around with, after having trouble sourcing enough ice in the small villages they stay at.
Actually having your own chef source stuff is one way to avoid accidental doping scandals.
I've read the Velochef book and like the recipes there. One thing I've never appreciated before is how hard it is to actually get this amount of calories down. Especially since much of it must be consumed on the bike so needs to be easy to transport/store/eat on the fly. And eating while working out can be tough on the stomach. EDB finally got his break through when they managed to nail a nutrition he didn't get cramps from eating.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eug%C3%A8ne_Christophe
No matter what happen and where the race goes.
I think pectin is easier on the stomach than insoluble fiber, but I have a lot of gaps in this part of my knowledge.
The cheeseburger calls to us all. Some of us are just "better" at resisting the call.
One my trainers when I was in college told me that when you crave foods, its not your lack of willpower, its actually your body telling you it needs certain nutrients. He told me when you crave chocolate its because your body needs carbs, so if you get some carbs, your chocolate cravings will go away.
I'm guessing the idea you crave a cheeseburger is the same thing, his body was in need of complex carbs and protein?
This is purely anecdotal evidence of this, but in my experience as an endurance athlete (soccer, cycling, adventure racing) its seems to work. When I've craved chocolate, I just eat some toast or chips or drink some Mt. Dew (a lot of people have no idea how many carbs are in soda) and the desire for something chocolatey goes away.
As others have pointed out in the thread, everybody is different, but in my case, this idea seems to be accurate.
Riders are tested a lot and have to provide year-round whereabouts for random testing. They also have a frequently updated blood passport to detect sudden changes in values caused by PEDs. It can never be fully waterproof, but at least serious efforts are made.
If I remember correctly, these rules were changed after the Armstrong scandal where he would be scheduled for testing, he would say he was at his house in Texas. The testing folks would show up and he just wouldn't answer the door and wait until they left so they couldn't test him. It was one of the ways he was able to dope on a set schedule, all the while being able to maintain he was being tested more than any other athlete - when in reality, he was just avoiding being tested.
It seems like a lot has changed since his scandal and several others that followed and they've really clamped down on what you're saying, changes in blood values and getting suspended if you cannot be reached for testing.
Lizzy Banks goes into great detail about her experince with doping control and trying to overturn a positive result due to a contamination. It's a long read, but if you're a fan of the sport it's super interesting. https://lizzybanks.co.uk/
It was also discussed here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40612281
One problem with the system is that it relies on countries being strict with their athletes, which they aren't incentivized to do. Also, it's easy to "be available" but not get tested by going somewhere remote for a height camp for a few weeks.
Hard to believe it took a scandal for that to be a rule.
Is that like parole where they check in, or is it like house arrest where you have an ankle monitor?
Some people will try, and some scandals will happen, sure. But it is not a widespread problem and is unlikely to become one.
See here, for example: https://velo.outsideonline.com/road/road-racing/tour-de-fran...
https://www.uci.org/pressrelease/uci-reveals-technological-f...
Ghost in the Machine [1] is a great podcast on this topic.
[1] https://play.pocketcasts.com/discover/podcast/de6ba1d0-9132-...
Deleted Comment
Fixed. Cycling has one of the strictest out-of-competition testing regimens. Which isn't to say doping doesn't exist - it does, no question - only that it's WAY better now than during the Armstrong era.
Some details... https://lanternerouge.com/2023/03/26/how-clean-is-cycling-an...
For example, Greg LeMond won the TdF in 1990. In 1991 he came 7th, and then never completed it again. There is some complication here because of the hunting accident he suffered in '87, but he also said "The speeds were faster and riders that I had easily outperformed were now dropping me", and the guy who won in 1991 was Indurain who was basically the first mega-doper.
Without EPO and blood doping becoming prevalent, does Greg LeMond compete for a few more years? Do other guys with similar talent who aren't willing to dope also make it to that top level. I think the answer is probably yes, and so all those guys who doped are responsible for excluding those clean athletes from the top level.
EPO and other red-cell increasing drugs provide a massive gain for endurance athletes (runners, cyclists, XC skiing). Steroids are a massive gain for strength athletes (sprinters/athletics, contact sports).
Both can be used "safely" or "unsafely" depending on dosage, combinations with other drugs, etc.
That’s some top-notch nominative determinism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominative_determinism
https://www.reddit.com/r/NominativeDeterminism/
Deleted Comment
Deleted Comment
Start with series 1, even though it's 2 years out of date. They explain how the sport works, and they skip over this in series 2. It's important information.