Fueling for the Win: Separating Pro Cycling's Nutritional Hype from Reality

The world of professional cycling nutrition is in a fascinating state of flux. On one hand, it’s a data-driven frontier of wearable sensors, real-time metabolic analysis, and protocols that would have been unthinkable just five years ago. On the other, it’s a swirling vortex of trends, whispers, and expensive experiments. We’re hearing about athletes “carb bombing” with shocking amounts of fuel, getting their sweat analyzed down to the milligram, and re-embracing old-school supplements like sodium bicarbonate in new, high-tech formats.

The key question for the rest of us is simple: What, if any, of this actually matters? When should we lean into the complexity, and when should we stick to the fundamentals? Let’s cut through the noise.

The Great Sweat Debate: To Test or Not to Test?

As summer temperatures climb, so does the collective anxiety around hydration. An athlete blowing up on the first hot day of the year is a tale as old as time. The modern solution, we’re told, is the sweat test. The promise is alluring: find out exactly how much fluid and, more importantly, how much sodium you lose, and you can create a personalized hydration strategy.

The need for personalization is very real. The range of sodium concentration in sweat is staggering. A typical athlete might lose between 400-800 milligrams of sodium per liter of sweat. However, sports nutritionists working with World Tour teams have tested athletes who lose as little as 180mg/L and others who hemorrhage a jaw-dropping 1600mg/L. One of those athletes casually sipping a standard electrolyte drink is fine; the other is on a fast track to cramping and performance decline.

So, should you rush out to get tested? Modern consumer-grade sensors, like wearable sweat patches, are surprisingly accurate and can reveal how your sweat rate changes with intensity throughout a single ride. But before you dive down that rabbit hole, it's worth asking a more fundamental question: "Do I actually have a problem?"

If you don't suffer from recurring cramps in the heat, debilitating post-ride headaches, or find your kit caked in salt like the Bonneville Salt Flats, you likely fall within the normal range. In that case, the general recommendation—aiming for one to two bottles per hour and using a standard electrolyte mix—is probably sufficient. Consistency is more important than minute precision. If you do have those issues, then investing in a test can provide the data needed to solve a very real problem.

This same principle of individual response applies to the recent resurgence of sodium bicarbonate. While new products have solved many of the… explosive… gastrointestinal issues of the past, the performance benefits are still highly variable. There are known "non-responders," and the time it takes for bicarb to peak in the system can range from 30 minutes to six hours. It’s a powerful tool, but one that requires meticulous and highly individualized testing to be effective.

The Carb Bomb: Fueling for Performance or Just a Gut Punch?

The most aggressive new trend is "carb bombing." This isn't just about consistently consuming 90g or even 120g of carbohydrate per hour. This is the practice of ingesting a massive bolus of fuel—think 160, 180, even 200 grams of carbs within a single hour—in anticipation of a decisive race effort.

At this year's Unbound Gravel, the winner reportedly consumed 1.7 kilograms of carbs over his 8-hour, 47-minute ride, averaging an eye-watering 195g/hr. Since this intake was constrained by a few aid stations, his actual rate during those stops was likely much higher.

This raises a critical question: Can you swallow it? Sure. But can you use it? The body’s ability to process and oxidize carbohydrate for fuel is finite. While we know that combining glucose and fructose sources can push the absorption rate up, the only way to know your personal upper limit is through expensive isotope testing in a lab—a process that can run into the thousands of dollars.

Without that data, you're flying blind. If you’re not oxidizing that extra fuel, it’s not just sitting there harmlessly. It can draw water into the gut, leading to the very distress you’re trying to avoid. Furthermore, constantly flooding your system with exogenous carbs can down-regulate your body's ability to oxidize fat, making you less metabolically efficient and more reliant on the fuel you’re forcing down.

The current body of research offers a dose of reality. Studies show that increasing intake from 90g/hr to 120g/hr offers no significant intra-effort performance benefit. The primary advantage is a reduction in muscle inflammation and improved recovery. For a pro in the third week of a Grand Tour, that’s a massive gain. For an amateur doing a weekend gran fondo, the marginal benefit is likely negligible.

Finding the Signal in the Noise

For most athletes, the path to better performance isn’t paved with exotic supplements or extreme fueling protocols. The biggest gains are found in mastering the fundamentals. Before you worry about hitting 120g/hr, can you consistently hit 90g/hr on every hard ride without gut issues? That alone will put you ahead of the curve.

There is tremendous power in the placebo of a new protocol, especially when it involves something expensive or strong-tasting (we're looking at you, ketones). But the data often shows that the money and mental energy are better invested elsewhere—like on consistent training, better sleep, or simply nailing the basics of your nutrition, ride after ride. By all means, keep an eye on the pros—their experiments are what push the science forward. But for your own performance, focus on what's proven, not just what's trending.