ACC urged Auckland marathoners to use practiced fueling and hydration routines. Here is the evidence and its relevance for endurance athletes over 35.
New Zealand’s Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) urged participants in the Barfoot & Thompson Runway Auckland Marathon to stick with routines established during training. RNZ reported the advice on October 31, 2026, with nutrition and hydration among the areas where runners were warned against trying something “radically new.”
ACC injury-prevention leader James Whitaker included footwear and clothing in the same message. His concern was that marathon stress on the body and gut could combine with unfamiliar gear or nutrition to contribute to cramping, stomach issues or dehydration.
RNZ said nearly 18,000 runners and walkers were expected at the event. For endurance athletes over 35, the useful question extends beyond that start line: how much of the intended race-day plan has actually been rehearsed?
Whitaker’s advice was to use what runners had already covered in training. As reported by RNZ, that meant keeping familiar practices across footwear, clothing, nutrition and hydration rather than making a substantial last-minute change.
The nutrition message is therefore about preparation rather than a particular product. ACC did not single out a type of gel or drink as the answer. Its warning focused on introducing something unfamiliar while already asking the body to complete a marathon.
That distinction matters when interpreting “nothing new on race day.” The practical question is not simply whether a product is widely used or sounds suitable. It is whether the runner has experience with the approach they intend to use.
Whitaker also advised participants to notice warning signs such as pain and slow down if needed. He framed running positively as beneficial for wellbeing. The warning was intended to help runners avoid physical setbacks rather than discourage participation.
A sports-science discussion from the Gatorade Sports Science Institute provides a useful explanation alongside ACC’s practical advice. It describes repeated practice of an appropriate, individualized fueling and hydration strategy as a way some athletes may improve tolerance during exercise. This is commonly called “gut training.”
The important words are practice and individualized. The discussion supports developing experience with a strategy during training. It does not present the choice of a product as a substitute for that process.
This shifts the emphasis from selecting race nutrition to rehearsing race nutrition. A plan on paper describes an intention. Training provides an opportunity to assess how that intention works for the athlete using it.
Taken together, the sources support a straightforward division of tasks. Training is where a proposed approach can be tested and refined. Competition is where the athlete draws on that preparation rather than introducing an unfamiliar strategy at the last moment.
RNZ’s report presents an injury-prevention warning rather than a trial. It supplies no comparison group or numerical estimate of the risk associated with changing products. It also provides no separate finding for runners over 35, so the advice should not be read as evidence of a special age-related vulnerability.
Familiarity alone does not establish that a plan is appropriate. The Gatorade Sports Science Institute notes that tolerance of very high carbohydrate intake depends on context and recommends progressive testing before competition. The approved sources also do not establish a universal fluid target or show that an unfamiliar product will inevitably cause symptoms.
For veteran runners, the useful translation is to make rehearsal part of preparation without treating this warning as a reason to lower ambition. The guidance concerns how a race plan is developed and executed. It does not require every athlete to replace an established approach.
Reendure’s focus is practical sports-science guidance for athletes who want to perform now and remain active for years. In this case, that means giving preparation more weight than the appeal of a last-minute change.
The most direct application of ACC’s advice is to compare the intended race setup with what has been used in training. Keep the review focused on the strategy itself rather than whether a product is popular or unfamiliar in name only.
Useful questions include:
These are preparation questions rather than a scoring system. The sources provide no required number of rehearsals or threshold for passing such a review. The purpose is to identify where race-day intentions and training experience do not yet match.
That also fits the broader task of connecting fueling preparation with race-day logistics. A nutrition plan belongs within the overall race plan rather than sitting apart from it.
The Gatorade Sports Science Institute’s discussion places progressive testing before competition. For an athlete considering a different fueling approach, the supported direction is to work on that change during training rather than debut it on race day.
This is a timing principle rather than a detailed protocol. Neither source supplies a schedule for introducing products or a set progression for every runner. There is no basis here for adding a universal sequence of sessions or intake increases.
The practical distinction is still clear: considering a change and being ready to race with that change are different stages. Training experience is the bridge between them.
ACC’s instruction to stick with a practiced routine should not be translated into “drink as much as possible.” Its message was about familiarity with nutrition and hydration rather than maximizing fluid intake.
A sensible reading is to rehearse the intended hydration approach alongside fueling. That preserves the individualized emphasis in the Gatorade Sports Science Institute discussion without turning a general prevention message into a fixed drinking rule.
For readers thinking through this part of preparation, an individualized approach to fluid planning is a more relevant framework than assuming all runners should follow the same target. Personal medical questions about fluid intake belong with a qualified healthcare professional.
Whitaker’s list extended beyond food and drink to footwear and clothing. That broader scope is useful because the agency’s message concerns race-day routines as a whole.
A review focused only on a gel packet would miss part of that advice. The same preparation question applies across the setup: is this what was used during training or is it an unfamiliar last-minute change?
This does not require turning race preparation into an elaborate new system. It means checking that the plan being taken to the start line reflects the preparation already completed. Keeping that review simple is consistent with ACC’s emphasis on established routines.
Whitaker advised runners to pay attention to pain and slow down if needed. That advice belongs alongside the nutrition message because preparation is only part of race execution. The runner still needs to respond to what happens during the event.
A rehearsed plan should support decisions rather than become something that must be followed regardless of symptoms. For personal decisions about pain or ongoing gastrointestinal concerns, a qualified healthcare professional is the appropriate source of assessment.
There is room for competitive ambition within that approach. ACC’s warning was framed around avoiding setbacks while recognizing running’s value for wellbeing. Paying attention to warning signs is consistent with taking both the current race and future participation seriously.
ACC’s Auckland Marathon advice puts a familiar principle into an official injury-prevention message: use the routines developed in training rather than making substantial unfamiliar changes on race day. The Gatorade Sports Science Institute adds support for repeated practice of individualized fueling and hydration.
For athletes over 35, the takeaway is preparation rather than reinvention. Rehearse the intended approach during training and place proposed changes there too. On race day, draw on that experience while remaining responsive to warning signs.
For further context, Reendure’s wider coverage of fueling and hydration keeps the focus on practical decisions. Here the evidence supports a modest conclusion: a race is an occasion to use preparation rather than replace it with an untested plan.
Follow ReEndure for practical insights on endurance training, recovery, nutrition and healthy aging. Stay connected for new articles, research led guidance and ideas to help you perform better for longer.
Read practical ideas on endurance training, recovery, nutrition and healthy aging to keep progressing for years to come.
Read the Blog