Cycling research tests 140 grams of carbohydrate per hour. The key questions are fuel use, tolerance and whether a higher intake helps performance.
Lotto-Intermarché and Ghent University are investigating carbohydrate use in professional cyclists at intakes above 120 grams per hour. Reporting from Brujula Bike describes an experimental intake of 140 grams per hour, but not a new standard that other athletes should adopt.
The important question is not simply whether a rider can consume that amount. It is how much of it the rider uses, whether it is tolerated and whether it helps performance. Those are different questions. Treating them as interchangeable turns a useful experiment into an unsupported nutrition prescription.
An intake figure tells us how much carbohydrate was consumed. It does not, by itself, show how much was used as fuel or what happened to performance. Brujula Bike makes that distinction central to its coverage: the researchers are interested in use, not just consumption.
That matters because a bigger intake number can look like a better result before any competitive benefit has been established. A rider consuming more is one observation. A rider using more is another. A rider performing better is the outcome an athlete would ultimately want to understand.
The reporting also emphasizes individual variation. Professional riders are relevant to the experiment because they are accustomed to consuming large amounts of carbohydrate in training and competition. That makes them an informative group for this particular question, rather than a template for everyone else's fueling.
The practical interpretation is straightforward: a possible upper limit for one athlete is not automatically an effective intake for another. There is no need to turn the largest experimental number into the central goal of a nutrition plan.
According to Brujula Bike, researchers use carbohydrate containing carbon isotopes and analyze samples of the riders' exhaled air. The method is intended to estimate how much of the ingested carbohydrate is used. It goes beyond recording how much a rider drank or ate.
That is the useful methodological distinction. The test is asking about the fate of the carbohydrate consumed, rather than treating the contents of a bottle as evidence of fuel use. It is a measurement question before it is a recommendation question.
The same coverage describes exploratory work on whether differences in the gut microbiome might help explain variation between riders. That is a possible explanation under investigation, not an established reason for an athlete to change their diet.
The evidence boundaries belong together:
Brujula Bike also states that definitive results establishing a new intake limit have not been published. The appropriate reading is an investigation of individual capacity, not a revised fueling guideline.
Reendure translates research into practical guidance for athletes over 35, with long-term performance in view. In this case, that means separating an interesting laboratory question from a personal nutrition decision.
For an ambitious masters cyclist, runner or triathlete, the useful question is not how to reach the highest reported intake. It is what evidence would justify a change to a fueling approach that is already serving its purpose. This report makes tolerance and individual response central to that discussion.
Brujula Bike cautions that more intake does not automatically mean better performance. The reporting also warns that excessive carbohydrate intake can cause gastrointestinal problems. That makes tolerance part of the evaluation, not an inconvenient detail to ignore in pursuit of a larger number.
The implication is not to be afraid of carbohydrate. It is to avoid using the intake figure alone as a scorecard. A plan that looks ambitious on paper still needs to make sense in the setting where it will be used.
For related context, our analysis of carbohydrate intake during prolonged cycling considers another part of the fueling evidence. The important habit is to keep the actual outcome of each piece of research in view.
Brujula Bike describes gradual increases during training for riders who appear able to use more carbohydrate. That is a description of a selective process, not an instruction for every reader to increase intake. Training is the setting discussed in the reporting, rather than an untested race-day jump.
The distinction matters for interpretation. Being able to consume an amount during practice and having a reason to use it in a race are separate judgments. The report supports caution about a sudden change, not a requirement to keep moving an hourly target upward.
Personal nutrition decisions are best discussed with a qualified sports dietitian. Where medical conditions are part of the decision, involve a qualified clinician. The professional team's experimental intake is not a substitute for that individual assessment.
Our discussion of the evidence behind extreme fueling claims offers more context for evaluating high-intake headlines. The aim is to make the decision more informed, not to turn fueling into a contest over whose number is largest.
The useful lesson here is the distinction between consuming carbohydrate and using it. Lotto-Intermarché and Ghent University are investigating individual capacity, while the reporting keeps 140 grams per hour in the category of an experimental intake.
For athletes over 35, this is research worth following rather than a target that demands action. There is no evidence-grounded reason in this reporting to replace a working fueling approach simply because a professional experiment tests a higher number. Keep the performance question ahead of the intake headline.
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