A La Nación report revisits low-carb adaptation and race fueling. A careful breakdown of the claims and their relevance for endurance athletes over 35.
La Nación published an October 28, 2026 report credited to El País (Uruguay) that revisits the debate over low-carbohydrate endurance training and high-carbohydrate race fueling. It contrasts a proposal about performing after low-carbohydrate adaptation with reports of elite runners consuming much higher amounts during competition.
The useful question is not which extreme wins. It is whether the claims address the same athletes, exercise demands and outcomes. Read carefully, the report supports a more specific conversation about fueling rather than a universal hourly target.
For endurance athletes over 35, that distinction matters. A striking intake figure is worth understanding before it becomes a reason to rewrite a training or race plan.
The report places 10 grams per hour alongside 120 grams per hour. Those numbers attract attention because they appear to offer opposing answers to one question: how much carbohydrate does an endurance athlete need?
But the evidence described behind them addresses different questions.
According to La Nación, an Endocrine Reviews review argues that athletes may sustain high performance on very low carbohydrate intake after at least four weeks of adaptation. The report also describes the proposal that 10 grams per hour could prevent hypoglycemia-related fatigue.
That wording matters. The claim concerns a proposed adaptation process and a particular explanation for fatigue. Preventing that proposed cause of fatigue is not the same question as identifying the fueling strategy that best supports a specific competitive effort.
The adaptation period and the hourly intake also describe different parts of the argument. One concerns preparation over time. The other concerns carbohydrate consumed during exercise.
La Nación contrasts that proposal with research involving elite runners who consumed 120 grams per hour after specific training. The report associates that intake with lower internal load and less post-race muscle damage.
Those are different outcomes from preventing hypoglycemia-related fatigue. They also come from a different setting: trained elite runners undertaking a race rather than a broad argument about adaptation.
The central finding of the report is therefore not that one number defeats the other. Its conclusion is that event demands and the athlete’s objective belong at the center of the discussion. The numbers become meaningful only when their context remains attached.
The first distinction is the type of review. La Nación explicitly describes the Endocrine Reviews paper as a narrative review rather than a systematic review. It cautions that the paper should not be treated as a definitive synthesis of all available evidence.
MySportScience identifies the paper as Noakes and colleagues’ 2026 review, “Carbohydrate ingestion on exercise metabolism and physical performance.” Its commentary disputes extending low-carbohydrate adaptation claims to maximal-intensity performance. It instead favors conventional glucose-fructose mixtures adjusted to individual tolerance.
The elite-runner comparison has a separate reporting limitation. La Nación does not name the study or provide its design, sample size or bibliography. Its account therefore does not establish a direct comparison between the two intake figures under otherwise matching conditions.
GU Energy Labs’ commercial explainer identifies a potentially relevant study: Viribay and colleagues’ 2020 mountain-marathon paper in Nutrients. Its summary reports lower muscle-damage markers in the 120 g/h condition than in the 60 and 90 g/h conditions. This is a secondary commercial account of one elite mountain-marathon study, not evidence that higher intake reduces muscle damage across endurance events.
These reported findings also do not establish a separate fueling requirement for athletes aged 35 to 65. The appropriate translation for that audience is a way to evaluate the claims, not an age-based intake prescription.
The practical value of the report is a better set of questions. Before considering a change, identify the event and the performance objective that the fueling strategy is supposed to support.
That keeps the discussion connected to training and competition rather than to loyalty toward a particular nutrition method.
A claim about adaptation during a low-carbohydrate approach is not automatically an answer to what should be consumed during a race. Likewise, a high intake reported in elite competition does not by itself define an everyday training strategy.
Ask which decision is actually under discussion. Is it the purpose of a training session? Is it fueling during competition? Or is it tolerance of the food and drink intended for that event?
Keeping those questions separate makes the evidence easier to interpret. Our guide to distinguishing training needs from competition demands offers a related framework for organizing that discussion.
This is also a useful boundary when discussing the topic with a coach or dietitian. Define the decision first. Then consider which evidence addresses it.
La Nación emphasizes event length and relative intensity alongside competitive goals. It highlights those considerations particularly for events lasting more than two or three hours.
For an ambitious veteran athlete, the useful starting point is the intended effort and outcome. Finishing an event and pursuing the strongest possible competitive performance are different objectives to bring into a fueling discussion.
A clear event description should therefore come before a preferred number. The report’s own questions provide the structure:
These questions do not supply a personal intake target. They help make the conversation specific enough for the evidence to be relevant.
La Nación reports that repeated exposure to high carbohydrate loads can improve tolerance, gastric emptying and absorption. That places gut adaptation within the discussion rather than treating intake as a number chosen independently of preparation.
The practical interpretation is to include tolerance when evaluating an event-specific fueling approach. The target and the athlete’s experience belong in the same conversation. There is little value in discussing a reported elite intake while ignoring the preparation described alongside it.
Our coverage of frequent fueling and gut-training considerations provides related reading on that distinction. The relevant idea here is preparation and individual response, not a requirement to reach the highest figure mentioned in a report.
When a study summary reports muscle-damage markers, keep that outcome attached to the result. When a review proposes preventing hypoglycemia-related fatigue, assess that proposal on its own terms. Neither phrase should quietly become a claim about every aspect of race performance or recovery.
This is a useful reading habit whenever nutrition coverage centers on an impressive number. Ask what was actually measured before deciding what the result means for your own competitive priorities.
Our discussion of the evidence behind extreme race-fueling targets addresses that broader interpretation problem. The aim is not to dismiss ambitious fueling strategies. It is to keep the conclusion matched to the evidence supporting it.
Where a personal nutrition decision intersects with health concerns, discuss it with a qualified clinician or sports dietitian. A news report is a starting point for that conversation rather than a personal prescription.
The La Nación report is most useful as a reminder to ask better questions about carbohydrate strategies. Its contrasting figures come from different claims with different outcomes, not from a single universal test of the best hourly intake.
For athletes over 35, the grounded takeaway is to match the fueling discussion to the event and competitive goal while accounting for individual tolerance. The available reporting supports that more specific approach. It does not require an automatic change to training or race nutrition.
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