220 Triathlon Examines Unflavoured Gels for Late-Race Fuelling

220 Triathlon’s feature, published October 18, 2026, examines whether unflavoured gels can help athletes continue taking in carbohydrate when sweet flavours become difficult to tolerate during prolonged racing. It also presents a contrasting approach: keeping flavour in the plan but introducing more variety.

The practical question is not which gel tastes best in isolation. It is which options remain appealing enough to use as a long event progresses. For endurance athletes over 35, that makes this a discussion about keeping a familiar fuelling plan workable rather than finding a superior type of carbohydrate.

Continued Intake Is the Central Question

According to 220 Triathlon’s feature, unflavoured gels deserve consideration because they may make continued fuelling easier when sweet flavours become unappealing. That is a narrower proposition than saying they improve performance. The article’s experts approach the same practical problem from different directions: reducing flavour exposure or changing the flavour experience.

Pugh Focuses on Making Carbohydrate Intake Easier

Dr Jamie Pugh is identified in the feature as a scientific advisor at Puresport and a lecturer and researcher at Liverpool John Moores University. His central distinction is between a gel’s flavour and its carbohydrate-fuelling purpose. He argues that the relevant metabolic issue is how much carbohydrate an athlete absorbs and uses.

In that framing, an unflavoured gel is useful if it helps an athlete continue taking in fuel. The advantage being proposed is practical acceptability. Pugh is not arguing that removing flavour makes the carbohydrate itself metabolically superior.

The feature suggests using flavoured gels earlier, when sweet tastes may be more appealing, and introducing unflavoured options later. Read this as an idea to test rather than a timetable. The useful question is whether a neutral option addresses a difficulty that actually occurs in your own racing.

Giusti Makes the Case for Sensory Variety

Lara Giusti offers another perspective. Identified as co-founder and head chef at gel brand Veloforte, she argues that flavour provides sensory reward. While a flavourless option might offer relief from palate fatigue, removing flavour altogether could also remove something that makes eating appealing.

Her preferred approach is variety. The feature describes rotating flavours and considering tart or more savoury options rather than relying exclusively on neutral gels. This keeps the emphasis on finding an appealing alternative instead of assuming that less flavour is always better.

These perspectives need not become opposing camps. Pugh places the emphasis on reducing a possible obstacle to intake. Giusti places it on preserving the appeal of eating. Both direct attention toward how the fuelling plan feels in use rather than how convincing a product sounds before the race.

The evidence boundary belongs here: this is an expert feature rather than a direct trial comparing flavour strategies or establishing a performance advantage. It refers to research on exercise-related taste changes without identifying studies or giving their methods and participant details. It provides no carbohydrate targets or gel quantities and supplies neither an intake schedule nor a gut-training progression. It also reports no age-specific evidence for older athletes.

For Athletes Over 35, Flavour Belongs Inside a Familiar Plan

The useful translation for a masters athlete is modest: treat flavour as one part of a personal fuelling plan. If sweet gels become unappealing during prolonged efforts, the feature supports trying neutral or different-flavoured options in training. If your current choices remain acceptable, there is no need to manufacture a flavour problem to solve.

That approach fits Reendure’s emphasis on practical guidance for sustained performance and long-term participation. A detail earns its place when it addresses a real difficulty. Flavour choice should support the wider plan rather than become a reason to replace familiar nutrition with an entirely different race-day approach.

Start With the Difficulty You Actually Experience

The feature’s contrasting views suggest a useful distinction to consider in training. Do you want less flavour as the effort continues, or do you want something different from the flavour you have already been using? Those preferences point toward different options.

A training trial can keep that question specific:

• If repeated sweet flavours become unappealing, consider whether an unflavoured option makes continued intake more acceptable.
• If you still want flavour but tire of the same taste, consider whether a different flavour provides useful variety.
• If your usual choices remain appealing, keep the familiar plan rather than changing it simply because another approach is receiving attention.

These are ways to assess preference within the feature’s advice to test fuelling in training. They are not a separate nutrition prescription. Keep this narrow flavour question alongside the broader decisions involved in using energy gels, rather than allowing taste alone to define the whole plan.

Keep Flavour Testing Connected to the Existing Plan

220 Triathlon also advises athletes to follow a tested fuelling plan and train their gut. Those recommendations provide the context for its flavour discussion. Trying a neutral gel or a different flavour belongs within that familiar planning process.

The practical aim is to learn whether the alternative remains acceptable when your usual choice becomes difficult to face. An option does not become useful merely because it is different. Its value is whether it helps you carry out the plan you intended to follow.

For an ambitious athlete, this is a reason to keep the experiment focused. Consider the flavour approach that matches your experience instead of adopting every suggestion in the feature at once. Personal nutrition decisions can be discussed with a qualified sports dietitian when the wider plan needs individual attention.

Savoury Options Still Need Practical Consideration

Giusti’s preference for variety does not mean every savoury food is interchangeable with a gel. The feature cautions that savoury foods may be less convenient during hard running. It also notes that they could be slower to digest, particularly when they contain fat or protein.

That caution keeps the discussion grounded in the demands of using the food during an event. Wanting a break from sweetness is one consideration. Whether an alternative fits the activity and your tested plan is another.

For masters athletes pursuing a sustainable approach to training and racing, the sensible emphasis is on resolving a specific difficulty without turning every nutrition choice into a major overhaul. A neutral option and a varied selection are both ideas worth considering when they answer an actual need.

The Useful Choice Is the One That Keeps the Plan Workable

220 Triathlon’s feature puts a practical detail under the spotlight: flavour may deserve attention when familiar sweet gels become difficult to tolerate. Pugh offers unflavoured gels as a possible aid to continued intake. Giusti argues for preserving sensory reward through variety.

The grounded takeaway is to test the relevant option in training while keeping the wider fuelling plan familiar. Use the discussion to address an observed problem, not to create a new rule for every long race. Flavour is a supporting part of the plan rather than a reason to abandon what already works.

Sources

1. Can unflavoured gels boost your triathlon performance?