Is the current High-Carb training paradigm total BS?

Training
42

Optimum carb is what sports nutritionists seem to be aiming for these days.

Periodised carb levels to match the objectives of the periodised training / racing plan.

The variation in intake can vary very significantly from day to day and from, say, base training to peak race season.

Same applies to other nutrients too of course.

One other thing on low carb weightloss due to water loss. If or when you switch back to higher carb, your body will store a bit more water, so that it is on hand to enable the increased carb metabolism.

1 Like
43

I agree that optimum is optimum

1 Like
44

1 gram of glycogen binds 3–4 grams of water, and I constantly see weight fluctuations of plus or minus 1 kg.
But for a more accurate understanding, I regularly use professional bioimpedance scales. Yes, also not perfect, but much better at showing what’s driving the weight change. When restricting carbs in the diet, this factor is important to keep in mind.

45

Sure. And the fiber in oats (and other foods), just a few dozen grams can store hundreds of grams of water.

46

Sure, a lot of unwarranted hype. Someone posted a link to Hexis blog and one title had something to do with “why 120g/hour doesn’t work for amateurs.”

The experts point out that its really about fueling the work.

Like someone else posted on this thread, when I was putting down 5000-7000kJ per week, I achieved better results (lost weight and gained fitness) from eating more carbs. About 7-9g/kg of carbs (lean body mass).

After getting rotator cuff repair over a decade ago, I started going to the gym. Didn’t see any real gains in strength for 6 months and then read about protein. Did some quick calculations in MyFitnessPal and realized my protein intake was very low. Started eating more protein and boom, strength gains. Even now at nearly sixty five with 1.6-2g/kg (lean mass) of protein intake I’m gaining strength without any bulking and losing weight.

Fuel the work.

Without looking at the big picture, your current experiment can be misleading. You are two weeks into the experiment and attributing the gains on bike to diet and gym. When it comes to aerobic adaptations to endurance training, with the exception of sprint interval training, the empirical evidence is that gains are seen 4-8 weeks later. Another reason for the recent gains could simply be you are seeing the effects of super-compensations from your previous push-kJ-work experiment.

2 Likes
47

The results - in weight loss terms at least - are not untypical (in fact quite typical) of the very short term results of a switch to a low carb diet.

1 Like
48

If your training is anything like 80/20 then I would do more carbs for the 20 and less (or zero) for the 80. I happen to be low carb keto almost all the time but I do seem to do a little better on harder trail runs (run walks) if I carb load but I’m more 85/15 than 80/20 but I’m also 72 years old.

It’s sport specific and my sport is section hiking the PCT every year and I take basically zero carbs backpacking but when my joints dont hurt I trail run and if I want to set a new PR I carb load and use liquid IV and an energy drink for a 10 mile trail.
If I were younger and knew what I know now I would do more carbs but I only started doing this at 65 years old and I don’t think I’ll ever gain any new fast twitch muscle at 72

It’s a good topic that I read up on as much as I can if/when I can find quality presentations but I doubt I’ll ever be a carb burner as my goal is distance rather than time. 100 miles with all my food on my back so carbs dont make sense for that as they are not calorically dense enough.

1 Like
49

Oh my experiment actually doesnt show gains vs carb fueled riding. In fact my cardiac efficiency is way down!
The same HR was producing 200w avg vs currently abotu 165w without carbs.

My current experiment shows the rate of adaptation to keto.A

For example: Carb fueled

Screenshot 2026-10-10 at 2.32.39 PM
Screenshot 2026-10-10 at 2.32.39 PM824×107 12.1 KB

50

Interesting because I gained weight on high-carb and 16,000 kj/week

51

How do pro cyclists do it?

52

Idk you ever watch one with your own eyes for 6 months?

53

Heart rate is a really unreliable metric overall.

Dehydration significantly raises heart rate, while a large plasma volume sharply lowers it. This became so obvious to me after a block of heat training. When, out of nowhere, over a couple of weeks my heart rate at the same power dropped by 10 beats. But did my real power at the same heart rate increase? Hence, on a carb deficit - less water, higher heart rate - but did real power drop?

Second example - 10 days of a cycling camp with high volume and intensity lowered my heart rate so much that I simply couldn’t get it above 155-157 at the highest intensity. The answer is simple: the CNS is suppressed. No research needed here, my own obvious examples are enough for me.

54

I hope you can come up with a non-sexist comparison.

2 Likes
55

The thing is, it’s all highly individual.

I’ve had similar experiences: cycling 15 hours a week and burning more than 10,000 kJ a week, whilst always consuming carbs and calories before, during and after training. Ultimately, this resulted in my waistline increasing by 3 cm at some point.

Blood tests revealed that my glucose levels were already approaching the upper limit of the normal range or above even when fasting.

I switched to a higher-protein diet, cut out refined sugar, and switched to a ‘healthy’ diet rich in long-chain carbohydrates and fibre (so still no low carb diet). I currently cycle perhaps 2,000 or 3,000 kJ a week, plus 2–3 short gym sessions. For sessions longer than 1 hour and high-intensity sessions, I consume 30–60 g of carbohydrates. Despite this, I have no cravings, and my blood sugar levels have normalised; my waist circumference has reduced by 5 cm whilst my weight has remained almost the same. If you’re already consuming 2,500 kcal off the bike, with 50% coming from carbs, that’s already 300g a day.

This is just my n=1 observation. And it’s perhaps also important to consider whether you’re exercising for performance reasons or for health benefits. I wouldn’t recommend anyone follow my example, which is why I can’t understand why there are these “unwritten” rules, that you have to eat 90g or 120g ( or even more) carbs per hour on the bike.

3 Likes
56

They measure it.

Every calorie in (in fact, these days, they measure pretty much every nutrient in) and every calorie burnt.

Their weight and body composition, regular blood panels.

The measurements these days are getting pretty accurate, so they can - with the help of their team staff - get their dietary regime very well tailored to best support their objectives.

That - along with a not inconsiderable level of commitment and willpower - is what it takes these days.

1 Like
57

Sorry, I didn’t mean anything like that. I probably wanted to say it with a quote from Rudyard Kipling, “The Cat walked by himself, and all places were alike to him,” but I wrote it crookedly.

58

Right. And the staff often uses tools like the Hexis app to time carb intake. With a small effort - the example that @r2tom provided above - its possible for ordinary athletes to do a better job at fueling.

2 Likes
59

I wanted to push back on a few points here because I think some of these claims are misleading, particularly for newer cyclists who might be reading this thread.

“The more carbs you consume, the less fat you burn. This has been scientifically proven. If you consume 120 g of carbs per hour during a leisurely 1-hour ride, you’ll burn virtually no fat.”

This is misleading and potentially false. Ingesting carbohydrates can suppress fat oxidation, but reducing fat oxidation is not the same as eliminating it. Our bodies utilize both carbohydrates and fat during exercise, and the relative contribution depends on intensity, duration, training status, and carbohydrate availability.

“I also recall a study that showed muscle glycogen is always used up first.”

This is simply incorrect. Muscle glycogen and fat are utilized simultaneously during exercise. You don’t need to deplete glycogen before your body starts oxidizing fat.

“My personal opinion is also that a general recommendation of 120 g/h of carbs is wrong.”

I think we should ground recommendations in research rather than personal opinion. There’s growing evidence supporting high carbohydrate intake during demanding endurance exercise, though the additional performance benefits of 120 g/h versus 90 g/h aren’t yet firmly established. That doesn’t mean 120 g/h is wrong; it means fueling recommendations should reflect the athlete’s intensity, duration, energy expenditure, and recovery needs.

More broadly, I think the cycling community sometimes places too much emphasis on maximizing fat oxidation and not enough on fueling adequately to support performance and recovery. Chronically underfueling training can compromise recovery and the quality of subsequent sessions.

Does someone noodling around for an hour need 120 g of carbs? Of course not. But plenty of recreational cyclists, even those training just a few times per week, could benefit from increasing their carbohydrate intake during longer or harder sessions.

My concern is that statements like these discourage cyclists from fueling appropriately based on a misunderstanding of exercise physiology. We should be encouraging athletes to fuel for the work they’re doing, not treating carbohydrate consumption as something inherently detrimental.

11 Likes
60

I’ll be tracking watts per kg per bpm in a specific 600kj slice of my ride for the next 60 days.

Each ride will be done in a keto state. Some days workout 6 hours perfore. The first ride for reference was not done in Keto state. So the w/bpm closer to baseline.

Date Ride kJ Weight kg Slice minutes Slice W Slice HR W/kg W/kg delta vs Sep 21 W/kg/bpm W/kg/bpm delta vs Sep 21
2026-09-20 1247.8 74.1 44.1 226.6 131.5 3.057 30.3% 0.02324 31.9%
2026-09-21 1377.5 74.3 57.4 174.3 133.1 2.346 0.0% 0.01762 0.0%
2026-09-22 839.9 73.6 — — — — —% — —%
2026-09-23 799.8 74.0 — — — — —% — —%
2026-09-24 760.3 72.0 — — — — —% — —%
2026-09-25 1090.6 71.6 — — — — —% — —%
2026-09-26 1195.4 71.0 — — — — —% — —%
2026-09-27 1204.4 71.3 69.6 143.8 117.3 2.016 -14.0% 0.01719 -2.5%
2026-09-28 1218.1 71.3 61.7 162.0 119.8 2.272 -3.1% 0.01896 7.6%
2026-09-29 1219.7 71.4 60.6 165.0 122.6 2.311 -1.5% 0.01885 7.0%
2026-09-30 1224.3 71.2 62.2 160.8 122.8 2.258 -3.7% 0.01840 4.4%
2026-10-01 1234.5 70.6 66.0 151.6 124.7 2.147 -8.5% 0.01722 -2.3%
2026-10-02 1247.0 70.6 62.1 161.1 122.2 2.282 -2.7% 0.01868 6.0%
2026-10-03 1247.4 71.0 59.1 169.3 125.7 2.385 1.7% 0.01897 7.7%
2026-10-04 1254.4 71.0 61.9 161.5 124.2 2.275 -3.0% 0.01831 3.9%
2026-10-05 1257.5 71.0 58.9 169.8 123.8 2.391 1.9% 0.01932 9.6%
2026-10-06 1270.3 70.0 60.0 166.7 135.3 2.382 1.5% 0.01761 -0.1%
2026-10-07 1269.7 69.5 59.6 167.8 127.1 2.414 2.9% 0.01899 7.8%
2026-10-08 1293.1 69.7 59.9 166.9 128.8 2.395 2.1% 0.01859 5.5%
2026-10-09 1270.1 69.5 59.7 167.4 128.8 2.409 2.7% 0.01870 6.1%
2026-10-10 1283.8 69.4 58.1 172.1 126.7 2.480 5.7% 0.01957 11.1%
2026-10-11 1298.9 69.7 57.8 173.0 128.6 2.482 5.8% 0.01930 9.5%
2026-10-12 1314.7 69.3 60.1 166.3 128.6 2.399 2.3% 0.01866 5.9%

We’ll see if the efficiency per bpm gains continue.

61

Worth a read and take in context

4 Likes