Cycling performance tips

[Source: East Coast Cycos newsletter, in Tri-Rudy newsletter, January 30, 2008]

Energy Gels/Sports Drinks
Energy bars, energy gels, and sports drinks all provide carbohydrate supplements for the active athlete or cyclist, but with differing water content. Solid energy bars are easy to carry, but require conscious attention to maintaining hydration (drinking). Gels offer some alternative taste options, and are prefered by some who find themselves aspirating (and coughing) on the crumbs from a bar. Drinking is still mandatory to maintain hydration. Sports drinks are basically gels with water already added and thus provide the added advantage of helping maintain your hydration as they resupply your energy needs. Which one you choose to use depends more on personal preferences than performance advantages.

Energy gels (also called carbo gels) are a thick carbohydrate syrup or paste designed as an alternative snack supplement to extend your muscle glycogen stores and provide additional Calories and energy for rides of more than 2 hours. They contain a combination of simple and complex carbohydrates (usually maltodextrin, rice syrup, or polysaccharides) packaged in a palm sized packet of plastic or foil with a tear off end to allow the contents to be "sucked" out rather than chewed, and provide between 70 and 100 Calories (17 - 25 grams of carbohydrate) per packet. An additional advantage is that they are completely fat free minimizing any delay in gastric emptying. To provide the 60 grams of carbohydrate per hour usually suggested to supplement exercising muscle glycogen supplies, you would need a gel packet every 30 to 45 minutes.

Being semi-liquid, they should empty more quickly from the stomach providing a more rapid energy boost than solid sports bars, but at this time studies comparing solid and gel carbohydrate supplements haven't been published. And in a previous study of solid vs liquid carbohydrate supplements, cycling performance was similar in the two groups of cyclists using equivalent amounts of water and carbohydrate consumed either as a sport drink or as a solid sport bar with a water chaser. This suggests that aside from taste and ease of use, energy gels are a relatively pricey snack with little to recommend them over bagels or fig newtons as an on the bike carbohydrate supplement.

Yet I will regularly receive annecdotes such as this:

"I have to disagree with your point about no proven help from gels. I am an ultramarathon cyclist- having completed numerous double centuries. I train long, hard miles and have had to be extremely targeted in my Calorie intake for training. After trying a variety of products, I found my solution. *** and Sustained Energy drink from ***. I agree- gels don't make you fast. However, Calories must be replaced when cycling, and replacing calories with pure sugar has been a disaster for me (and many people I know). ** and ** provide the proper Calories without the sugar. All the endurance riders I know here in Northern California use the products. We swear by them. They do work. The only time we drink Coke is near the end of a ride when we need a spike of energy (and caffeine) and aren't worried about the side effects of sugar."

Is there any scientific data to back up this observation? I was able to find two articles that might provide some factual evidence. The first looked specifically at absorption rates of sugars in the small intestine. It failed to substantiate any difference in absorption rates of simple glucose versus a complex carbohydrate - assuming a normal intestinal tract. The second looked one step further along the absorption process by studying blood sugar levels (all complex carbs are broken down in the small intestine BEFORE being absorbed) to see if perhaps a difference could be demonstrated. Again, blood glucose levels were the same (both in terms of blood sugar levels and timing) with simple glucose and complex carbohysrates.

So what is the answer?? Perception of improvement, whether placebo or unproven fact, should not be ignored. However, the scientific literature offers no credible rationale to differntiate the benefits of the glucose from Coke versus a complex carbohydrate in the commercial product sold by ***. I wonder (unproven speculation) if the riders are really taking in equal amounts of carbohydrates per 15 minute interval when they use cola drinks with simple glucose versus complex carbs? Gels are easier to use, and less sweet per Calorie consumed. These two facts alone may be a subtle bias towards a more proactive and complete replacement of Calories used with a commercial product. For now the use of gels remains a personal choice, but without any hard facts to back up the marketing hype often encountered.

Most gels will also list additional ingredients. Some of the more common additives are:

medium chain triglycerides
caffeine
ginseng
amino acids
chromium
Do they add anything?? For comments see the author's editorial comments on gel/energy bar additives and the section on nutritional supplements. There is a nice comparison of commercial energy supplements at the University of Arizona website.

Or you can make your own energy gels.

Are energy gels worth it?? It is really a matter of personal preference. Some riders cannot chew and swallow a sports bar while pedaling. Others develop taste fatigue to sports drinks on long rides. For these individuals, gels provide another alternative. But aside from taste and texture, there are no PROVEN performance advantages no matter what the claims you've seen in their ads, and they are expensive if used on a regular basis on those long rides.

What about Dental Disease from Sports Drinks?

Q.Do you know of any recipes for sugar free sports drinks? My daughter is rotting her teeth, partly because of the dehydration from running, and partly because of sports drinks. We'd like to mix up something ourselves. Any ideas? Thanks! - Teresa

A.There has been ongoing speculation as to the role of acids in sports drinks in increasing the incidence of cavities (caries). One study from England suggested that sports drinks might be worse than colas, but lemon tea was even worse. The most recent review article, from 2005, identified only one study which implicated sports drinks as harmful to the athlete (which means that chance alone might have produced that single result as it has been unsupported by other studies). The review article also pointed out that poor saliva formation, perhaps aggravated by dehydration and mouth breathing in cyclists, might be the real culprit. Here are several other articles for those interested (article 1, article 2). Here is a short dental perspective - with a few thoughts on prevention.

To review, sports drinks provide:

Water - dehydration reduces saliva production, so drinking is key to keeping the mouth moist (with cyclist's tendency to mouth breath) and restoring a more normal pH.
Palatability (which helps maintain adequate rehydration) - any flavoring will do. Flavored waters (may are commercially available) would work just as well. But after 2 hours a cyclist may start to run out of carbs.
Electolytes (salt being the most common, then perhaps potassium) - but unless one is running 5 hour marathons, probably not a big deal.
Carbohydrates - to replace what is being metabolized, but only become important after two hours of continuous exercise. Carbs may be a contributor, along with a dry mouth, in promoting dental disease. A complex carb theoretically might be less of a problem (carboplex) but anything with simple glucose or sucrose is going to leave a sugar film on the teeth to aid the bacteria which cause decay.
Bottom line? If you are cycling less than 2 hours, water is just fine (perhaps flavored). Energy bars may be better for you if you need carbs, as there is less residue on your teeth after using them than from a gel, to aid cavity forming bacterial growth. Consider chewing gum while riding to stimulate saliva production, and brushing immediately after a ride might help.