CTS Ultramarathon Advice Puts Training-Tested Fuel Before Elite Targets

CTS's ultramarathon race-strategy article by Cliff Pittman, a CTS Pro Ultrarunning Coach, is marked updated October 28, 2026. His central fueling recommendation is to build hourly carbohydrate and sodium targets around successful training intake rather than an elite runner's online example.

The article also separates two decisions that are easy to blur: what a runner consumes at an aid station and what must be carried to the next one. For endurance athletes over 35, the useful story is this planning distinction, not a new intake target.

What does the CTS article recommend?

In Pittman's race-strategy article, training experience supplies the starting point for race fueling. The relevant information is what the runner actually consumed and tolerated. An ambitious target copied from another athlete is a different kind of information: it describes someone else's approach rather than the runner's own experience.

Pittman then connects that personal intake history to the course. Food and drink consumed at an aid station belong in the overall plan. Food and fluid carried away from that station must cover the stretch until the next resupply. Those are related decisions, but they are not interchangeable.

The article identifies opposite errors. A runner may leave with too little to cover the next leg. Alternatively, the runner may consume the planned hourly amount between stations and then eat substantially more at a crew stop. In that second case, the written target no longer describes actual consumption.

The scientific context comes from the International Society of Sports Nutrition's position stand on single-stage ultramarathons, summarized in The Lap Windermere Ultra guide. It treats carbohydrate intake and fluid volume as distinct considerations. Its sodium guidance is expressed mainly as a concentration in fluid rather than a universal hourly amount.

That distinction matters when interpreting a fueling plan. A carbohydrate target does not settle how much fluid a runner needs to carry. A sodium concentration does not establish an hourly sodium requirement without considering fluid consumption. The position stand also explicitly warns that sodium does not make excessive drinking safe.

A 2026 review from the Gatorade Sports Science Institute adds a similar emphasis on context. It describes carbohydrate type and amount as matters to individualize, alongside format and timing. Very high intake rates should be tested progressively in training rather than assumed to suit every athlete.

How strong is the evidence behind this advice?

The CTS page is a coaching article. Although it carries an update date, it does not identify what changed or cite research. Its recommendations are practical coaching guidance rather than the announcement of a new scientific consensus.

The ISSN position stand provides a scientific backdrop, but its authors describe an incomplete evidence base. Ultramarathon studies can involve small samples and short observation periods. Some also have limited randomization or controls. Its recommendations therefore deserve to be read as guidance rather than precisely established requirements for every runner.

The sources also do not establish separate intake targets for athletes over 35. An age-specific formula would go beyond the evidence presented here.

With those boundaries clear, the practical contribution is useful: the coaching article explains how to organize a plan, while the scientific sources explain why individual tolerance and race context belong in that plan. Neither source needs to supply a compulsory number for that approach to have value. The appropriate translation is to rehearse realistic choices and account for the full race routine.

What does this mean for ultrarunners over 35?

For a veteran endurance athlete, this is an opportunity to make race planning more specific without making it more complicated. The focus is on connecting ambition to observed training intake and the actual resupply opportunities on the course.

At Reendure, we favor that practical interpretation: keep the ambition, then make the plan specific enough to rehearse. These sources support attention to a few concrete details rather than a wholesale change in training or nutrition.

What information is worth recording in training?

Pittman explicitly recommends drawing race targets from real training consumption data. That makes the difference between intended intake and actual intake worth recording. A plan that looked manageable before a session may not describe what was eaten and drunk during it.

A useful record can stay focused on the questions the sources raise:

• What was actually consumed? Record the food and drink used rather than only the planned target.
• What was tolerated? Note whether the chosen foods and drinks were manageable during the session.
• What was the context? Keep the conditions and effort in view when interpreting that experience.
• What would need to be carried? Connect consumption with the distance between resupply opportunities on the intended course.

These observations serve different purposes. Consumption shows what happened. Tolerance describes the runner's experience. Context helps explain where that experience came from, while carrying needs connect it to race logistics.

This is also a useful companion to thinking about fuel choices in relation to session demands. The point is to gather relevant experience, not to turn every training outing into a test of the highest possible intake.

How should aid stations fit into the plan?

Pittman's station-versus-carrying distinction turns a broad hourly target into a course-specific plan. The first question is what the runner expects to consume at the station. The second is what food and fluid must leave with the runner for the next leg.

Keeping those entries separate makes the plan easier to review. Station intake remains part of total consumption rather than an uncounted addition. Carrying needs remain visible rather than being assumed to take care of themselves.

The ISSN position stand also recommends anticipating checkpoint food availability and carrying food that meets individual needs. Together, these recommendations support checking the planned station choices against foods already used in training. The race menu and the practiced menu should be considered together.

This logistical focus also connects with planning fuel and fluid around the conditions of a night ultra. An hourly target is only one part of the routine. Access to the planned food and drink is another.

Where do fluid and sodium fit?

The ISSN position stand says fluid planning should account for environmental conditions and race duration. It also identifies work rate and body mass as relevant, along with fluid tolerance and prior gut training. Its published range is a reference to interpret within those factors rather than a compulsory drinking schedule.

For runners refining a plan, the position stand supports estimating sweat rate in conditions resembling competition. That is a way to gather relevant information rather than assume that another runner's fluid intake applies.

Our discussion of individualized fluid planning offers related reading. Here, the key organizational point is to keep fluid volume and sodium concentration visible as separate parts of the plan. Combining them into a single vague instruction to take more electrolytes loses an important distinction.

Medical conditions or uncertainty about personal hydration and sodium needs are reasons to discuss the plan with a qualified clinician or sports dietitian. Recurring gastrointestinal problems also warrant individualized professional guidance rather than repeated attempts to force a published target.

What if food preferences or race circumstances change?

The ISSN position stand notes that food preferences can shift during long races, with runners tending toward savory options later. It also cautions that very high carbohydrate intake may be unrealistic in longer ultras and can contribute to poor absorption or gastrointestinal distress for some runners.

That supports rehearsing food options rather than relying only on one preferred format. The relevant question is which available choices have worked in training and how they fit the overall plan.

Pittman also places fueling within a broader strategy that includes goals and psychology under fatigue. Course demands and realistic pacing matter too. His Plan A/B/C framework brings contingency planning into that discussion. Fueling belongs within the wider race strategy rather than operating as an isolated number that must remain unchanged regardless of circumstances.

What is the practical takeaway?

The most useful contribution of the CTS article is its connection between training experience and race logistics. A target based on actual consumption gives the plan a personal starting point. Separating aid-station intake from between-station supplies makes that plan more concrete.

For athletes over 35, the practical priority is a rehearsed routine: familiar food and drink, an understanding of what was tolerated, and a clear account of what happens at each resupply. Published guidance can inform that preparation without becoming a contest to match someone else's intake.

Keep the race goal ambitious. Let the fueling plan reflect the training evidence and the course it must serve.

Sources

1. The Athlete Gut: Gastrointestinal Function, Fueling Tolerance, And The Emerging Role Of The Microbiome - Gatorade Sports Science Institute
2. How to Build an Ultramarathon Race Strategy - CTS
3. The Lap Windermere Ultra: The Beginner's Guide