MinnMan

Of course, but the assertion is also that with the magic of keto, you feel good doing it.

MoAlpha

De gustibus non est disputandum.

rm -rf

Some years ago, I was surprised to find that maltodextrin has a higher glycemic index. It spikes blood sugar faster than table sugar. I assumed it would be a slow release alternative. No.
...this site says it's 95 vs 100 for table sugar. 95 for a baguette or baked potato too!

Bearhawker

Not sure where you got that "information" from, but it is not correct. It might be for someone not fat-adapted? As long as protein intake is high and the muscles are being used there is no loss of muscle. In fact the opposite is true in my case.

Sure seems to work for Shawn Baker...

Iride01 

I've seen some list maltodextrin at over 130 glycemic index. Whether it gets to be energy any quicker than any of the other common sugars in sports drinks or juices I don't know. Especially in light of MoAlpha 's statement that the body has a reflexive (?) action to perceiving new supplies of carbohydrate soon after it's consumed and will start going deeper into the energy stores knowing it has the supply to replenish it. It does seem to me that maltodextrin gives me a energy surge that lasts longer between the 10 - 12 minutes I might go between gulps.

I'm not too concerned about the sugar I consume for cycling as I expend more energy for the ride than I take in with carbohydrates. And when off the bike, except for the carbs in my recovery drink, every thing else I drink is unsweetened and I'm fairly sugar free my normal diet. Except for the sweet tooth I have for occasional desserts and the chocolate that my wife insists on keeping around. <grin>

Carbonfiberboy 

My guess is that neither you nor Mr. Baker have ridden "forever." And that you've never seen photos of the folks who survived the death marches of '45. "Fueling" includes all nutrients and gluconeogenesis is a real thing.

MinnMan

You do know that you are debating an M.D.?

MinnMan

'

Not sure I believe that site. It says that boiled celery has a higher GI (85) than white rice (70).

MoAlpha

Meh, so is the carnivore diet hack they cite. It's the internet; I could be a dog.

GhostRider62

I was full keto for 18 months and never lost muscle. (Keto is a PITA to maintain and nearly impossible when touring, so, I fell off the wagon permanently)

Here is a relevant study or three

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...26049515003340

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9762714/


​​​​​​​https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4663/7/2/40

MoAlpha

My only point was that gluconeogenesis is largely dependent on amino acids, which come from muscle. Of course, if one is assiduous about resistance training and diet, NET muscle loss can be avoided. It also helps to be young and male.

RH Clark

Most cyclists don't ride "forever" either. IMHO there is a huge difference between an elite athlete in his 30th hour consuming electrolytes and sugar to keep from dying and your average cyclist who is 20 lbs. overweight but thinks he needs 2 snickers bars to ride 2 hours to get a coffee and doughnut.

Iride01 

It's not a matter of how whether you ride forever or just a short ride. It's how hard you ride. Someone that rides a more leisurely pace can go for a long time and not need any additional supplementation because the body will get enough energy from fat. But if someone is riding at a high level of exertion, then even that 20 lb. overweight rider might want some supplementation to maintain that high level of exertion they desire. Carbohydrates will be absorbed and converted to energy much quicker than fat.

RH Clark

Anyone 20 lbs. overweight would be better off not refueling and burning the fat, if the object is to train to be better.

Iride01 

Depends on what the other immediate goals are. But this is sort of like you are saying that a person can't use any carbohydrates if you've deemed them overweight. But it's okay to use carbohydrates if you consider them as not over weight. And evidently 19 pounds is okay. But 20 or more is not?

RH Clark

No, I'm not against carbs except that my advice is to avoid them if wanting to lose weight. I also think more junk calories are consumed by most carb eaters than is healthy.

If you want to eat sugar or candy bars or whatever I don't mind as long as you aren't pretending they are healthy and that all those preservatives, and artificial everything does no harm at all.

I'm not saying or deeming anyone anything. That's for everyone to judge for themselves, but I think you are kidding yourself if you are overweight but think you are helping yourself by eating junk carbs. I'm not against carbs. I've lost weight on very low carbs and on very high carbs and low fat. I wasn't eating junk food carbs though and pretending that it was Ok because I cycled really hard.

Iride01 

Then you are missing the point of this thread topic. It's not about general diet. It's not about whether one is overweight or not. It's not even really about training.

The stuff that gets consumed on the bike is not a large part of any diet. And in the case of carbohydrates used during the ride, they will mostly be used up during the ride.

RH Clark

Ok we can stay on that part of the topic. Please allow me to humbly suggest health-conscious cyclists try to consume whole food carbs rather than processed junk. On that note. I hope ya'll have a good ride, and stay healthy.

PeteHski

There’s a big difference between consuming carbs on the bike vs off the bike, which you appear to have largely ignored.

For those who ride long and hard, it is actually physically impossible to consume too many carbs during a ride. It’s not like sitting on the sofa chugging cola, chocolate bars and sweets. Consuming enough carbs (especially solid food) when riding at tempo or above is hard work. I’m not talking about elite pro athletes either (who typically consume about double the carbs I can stomach at pace). Just regular fit guys riding fairly hard with a performance mentality.

Sure if you ride slower then you don’t need carbs to partially restore your glycogen. If I’m doing a steady long ride I might just take water and maybe one bar if I feel hungry half way. But if I’m riding hard for more than 90 mins then I will be aiming to take on 50g+ of carbs per hour. Basically as much as I can tolerate.

MinnMan

I've read things like this many times and I have to say that I don't understand. When on a long ride, I get my onboard fuel from a combination between gels and energy chews. The gels are kind of disgusting, but the chews are quite nice tasting. Ignoring the gels, I will normally have half a package of chews (Probar Bolt, 23 g carbs/package) every 5 miles, so that's about 50g/hour. The thing is, I'm pretty sure I *COULD* eat more, if I wanted to. That is, I haven't encountered any situation in which I felt some physical limit to my consumption. Maybe I just naturally self-regulate so that I don't hit that threshold.

GhostRider62

What percentage of your functional threshold power and for how long?

I suspect you have no clue.

You did say you consume 11.5 gm every 5 miles, so that is 50g/hr. 22 mph is pretty stout. Most would require 800 calories per hour or more for that speed. Refueling less than 75% of that on a long ride says something.

MinnMan

My point, which you seem to have missed, is that I have never been on the bike thinking, "there's no way I could tolerate another energy chew right now. " So when I see people writing that there is a maximum amount of carbs they can consume/hour on the bike, I am puzzled.

Instead, you seem to want to pin me down to numbers which I was throwing around quite casually. I was rounding my carb consumption - I don't follow a precisely prescribed formula.

As to your other comments and challenges, you are right that I don't know well the % of FTP on my rides.
Average moving speed on a typical long Saturday ride (say 80-100 miles) will be between 18-21 mph. My fastest century in a group ride this year was 22.8 mph, but I've done faster. Fastest solo century in recent years (in 2020, I think) was 20.4 mph. Maybe I ate more on these.

RH Clark

I simply don't think you should need that many carbs to exert yourself a couple hours and I think you would be healthier long term without the carbs, but it's Ok if you don't agree. We don't have to convince each other and that never happens anyway.

Trakhak

For a couple of hours, you're right, of course. For significantly longer rides at a sufficiently high average effort level, the nutritional requirements change. The on-bike fueling approach that seems to have been adopted by many pro teams includes consuming about 100 grams of carbs per hour.

And the side topic of junk carbs reminds me of a story from an early edition of the Coors Classic stage race. The race director (Mike Neel? Can't remember), who was in a follow car with a journalist from Bicycling! magazine, or maybe Winning, saw Greg Lemond, who was off the back, take a bottle of Coke from a spectator.

"Oh, wow!," said the race director. "He's gonna have a bad sugar crash from that Coke."

After the race, the journalist interviewed Lemond and mentioned what the race director had said. Lemond, angered, said, "He doesn't know what he's talking about. I'd missed a food hand-up and was bonking. There's no way I would have finished the stage without that Coke."

GhostRider62

GI intolerance. Tummy problems. Not uncommon on long rides