A New York City Marathon guide links early fueling to course landmarks. Here is how its targets and aid-station details fit an established plan.
The Running Channel published Mark Dredge’s New York City Marathon pacing and fueling guide on October 28, 2026. Its central recommendation is to begin carbohydrate intake early and plan some gels around the course’s major climbs. Drinking from the early aid stations is also part of its strategy.
The timing makes this a practical race-week discussion. Marathon Handbook’s course guide lists the 2026 event for Sunday, November 1, with nearly 60,000 runners expected. For runners reviewing their plans now, the useful question is how the published advice fits their preparation and the supplies available on the route.
Dredge’s article in The Running Channel treats fueling as part of the course plan rather than something reserved for the closing miles. It discusses a pre-start gel and places the first on-course gel around miles 3 to 4. It also suggests taking gels shortly before the main hills.
The central idea is straightforward: decide where intake belongs before reaching the demanding sections. The guide uses recognizable course features to make that planning concrete.
The Running Channel describes the route as having 810 feet of elevation gain and 824 feet of descent. Its account includes five bridges and a later uphill section on Fifth Avenue. Those features organize the article’s pacing and fueling advice.
Among the landmarks it identifies are:
The article suggests gels a few minutes before the main hills. Roughly every three miles or five kilometres is offered as one possible pattern that would place gels before some climbs.
The practical value of those landmarks is organizational. They give a runner something specific to compare with an existing plan: where an intake point falls and which course feature comes next. A course map becomes more useful when it includes the logistics of eating and drinking alongside the route itself.
The Running Channel recommends at least 60 grams of carbohydrate per hour. It presents 80 or 100 grams per hour as higher targets. Those figures are prominent enough to deserve attention, but they need to stay attached to the article’s emphasis on preparation and tolerance.
There are separate decisions within that advice. One is the amount of carbohydrate in the plan. Another is where intake falls along the route. The guide addresses both by pairing hourly targets with suggested gel locations.
Keeping those decisions separate makes the article easier to interpret. A runner can examine the course-based timing idea without automatically adopting its highest carbohydrate target. Likewise, an established intake plan can be checked against the bridges without being rebuilt around every suggested landmark.
For readers comparing published recommendations, Reendure’s discussion of carbohydrate targets and gels provides related context. The relevant distinction here is between understanding a recommendation and deciding that it belongs in an individual race plan.
The Running Channel suggests sipping water from the first stations, which it places at mile 3. Marathon Handbook adds a more detailed inventory of the on-course options. Its guide lists water and sports drink from mile 3 through mile 25, with exceptions at miles 5, 7 and 9.
Marathon Handbook also lists gel depots at miles 12 and 18. It notes that gel supplies are limited. That qualification matters when comparing a planned fueling schedule with what the course offers.
The first gel depot is a different landmark from the first fluid station. A plan that relies on taking carbohydrate early therefore needs to account for where that carbohydrate will come from. The existence of later gel depots does not settle the earlier part of the schedule.
This is where the two guides complement each other. The Running Channel supplies a suggested strategy. Marathon Handbook supplies aid-station locations and availability details that runners can use to check its logistics.
These sources are a strategy article and a course guide, not a trial comparing fueling schedules. They do not establish a universal carbohydrate requirement or demonstrate that gels before hills improve performance for every runner. They also provide no specific target for athletes aged 35 to 65 and no basis for making age alone the deciding factor.
The hydration advice has a similar boundary: suggesting early sips does not provide a personalized fluid volume. Taken together, the guides support course planning rather than an individual nutrition prescription. Decisions involving personal health needs belong with a qualified clinician or sports dietitian.
For an endurance athlete over 35, the most useful comparison is between the guide and the fueling approach already supported by preparation. The question is not whether the highest published figure sounds ambitious. It is whether the amount and timing fit what the runner knows they tolerate.
That keeps the race-week task focused. Reviewing a guide can reveal a logistical gap without creating a reason to replace an established intake plan. The route information may be useful even when the article’s suggested quantities are not the right match.
At Reendure, the priority is clear guidance that serves both current performance and long-term participation. In this case, that means separating the value of better organization from the appeal of a higher number. Those are different goals and should be judged separately.
A useful review of the published course information can stay practical:
These checks do not require adopting a new carbohydrate target. They turn a general schedule into a course-specific one. They also make the distinction between an available aid station and a planned intake point explicit.
For hydration, the same planning logic applies. Treat the station map as a record of opportunities to follow an established plan. It is not a requirement to consume a fixed quantity at every table.
The course-based approach also gives a race review something concrete to examine afterward. A runner can compare intended intake locations with where eating and drinking actually happened. That is a more focused discussion than judging the entire plan only by the finish time.
Reendure’s structured approach to reviewing a race is relevant here. The purpose is to identify what matched the plan and what became difficult to execute. That turns this guide into a set of planning questions rather than a standard every runner must meet.
The Running Channel’s contribution is a course-specific strategy: begin intake early and consider where gels fall relative to demanding climbs. Marathon Handbook adds the supply details needed to evaluate that strategy, including fluid-station exceptions and limited gel availability.
For athletes over 35, the modest takeaway is to organize a familiar fueling approach around the route and its available supplies. Keep the guide’s carbohydrate figures attached to preparation and tolerance. The useful race-week improvement is a clearer plan, not an automatic increase in intake.
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