Marathon Hot Take: Gels are incredibly overrated

Small rice and bean cakes. Goldfish snack crackers. Flat Coke and Water mixed 50/50.

You don't want something that will digest slowly. Takes too long to help during a race + more likely to cause GI distress. I also suspect you aren't going to be hyperglycemic for a meaningful amount of time while exercising intensely. On the other hand, carrying 4-5 gels at 1 oz./ea is going to meaningfully slow you down, so could consider the cost/benefit there and just use the race gels.

1. We’ve done studies post 1970s… caffeine increases fat oxidation rates.

2. I would assume the body works differently while exercising than at rest. So comparing intake of sugars while at rest vs running a marathon would probably have different effects on insulin and fat oxidation rates.

3. Almost every elite marathoner and Tour rider uses gels. That’s not proof of anything, but ancedotely, many seem to do better when they increase their ability to digest carbs mid-race.

4. Taking some ketone esters and caffeine could potentially keeps fat oxidation rates moderate while your still replenishing glycogen stores. Best of both worlds maybe?

5. They have super starch products…but vast majority of pros still opt for maltodextrin/fructose based gels. Athletes do whatever they can to gain a competitive edge and try everything.. so these types of gels probably work best in the real world.

6. The goal is to run as fast as possible. So if you take sugar and then burn more carbs (and less fat) as a result it doesn’t really matter unless the increased rate your are burning is exceeding the rate your are I taking.

In the real world, maybe you’re burning 3g carbs and 1g fat a minute during a marathon. You then intake 1 g carbs per min and your body shifts and now you burn 3.5 g carbs and burn .77g fat. In 180 minutes you’re going to have 90 more grams of carbs to work with than if you hadn’t taken any sugar (since you were netting .5g a minute). PLUS, since the brain didn’t think it was going to run out of glycogen, it allowed to continue burning through carbs, instead of forcing you to slow down in order to rely more on fat instead.

that is a good question. If I am straight-up wrong on this that would be embarrassing, but hey I like to learn

Ok most gels are maltodextrin, right? isn't that a dimer of glucose? so some of that is probably broken down into glucose molecules by salivary amylase in the mouth. The rest would be broken down by pancreatic amylase produced by the pancreatic acinar cells, then the glucose monomer would be transported through the lumen of the intestine by glucose transporters (one of the GLUTs) into the bloodstream. Here it would flow all over the place, but if you are running marathon pace then little capillary sphincters will close off certain "shunts", diverting blood to places with high metabolic demands (ie skeletal muscle).

Skeletal muscles expressed the surface transport protein GLUT4 which takes up glucose, then there is glucose in the cytoplasm of the cell. Doesn't glycolysis occur in the cytoplasm?

Your proposed pathway: Ingestion->glycogenesis in muscle cells->gluconeogenesis in muscle cells -> glycolysis

My Proposed pathway: Ingestion-> absorption into muscle cells -> glycolysis -> energy

Not sure about any of the science, but I perform better after downing an electrolyte tablet . One in the morning with breakfast and one around half way.

Gels if nothing else, break up the monotonous running. I honestly don’t feel a difference unless I have several at once, like 3 at once.

If you burn faster than you absorb (you do) then there's no blood sugar spike and no insulin spike.

Also about the 'gels being placebo at that point' argument - there's consistent research which demonstrates even just sugar in your mouth is performance enhancing when fatigued so yeah that 'placebo' is exactly what you need.

Hydration > Gels . Never needed a gel during a marathon. Properly hydrating is way more important. I never carry gels or bother with them. It’s 3 hours max, your body has enough stored up to get you through.

nogellsslslls wrote:

Hydration > Gels . Never needed a gel during a marathon. Properly hydrating is way more important. I never carry gels or bother with them. It’s 3 hours max, your body has enough stored up to get you through.

Pretty much agree with this take. If you're running 3 hours or less - in optimal temperatures - really all you need is a little water here and there. Maybe some of the lemon-lime Nuun or whatever they have if you want some extra calories.

You're overthinking this. Try different approaches during training. Find out what works best for you. If that ends up being gels, use gels. If its potato starch, eat potato starch.

Your post refers to me as the subject in a few places, so I've responded in kind treating myself as the subject of our conversation in the context of the larger discussion around marathoning.

So, most of the carbs and sugars I'm getting from the coke is based in corn syrup, and there are certainly maltodextrin options (cytocarb, mainly) that I've used to tailor that over the years. The goldfish are for additional sodium and the fact that *I* digest them well. I can also eat them in smaller and more regular portions than gels, and they weigh less per calorie. I usually like to add some sesame or coconut oil to the rice (because it goes down easier and can better carry a little bit of flavor like spicy paprika or garlic and a lil bit of bacon), and there's definitely fat inside the bean paste.

Here's the other piece of that: I'm still going to be initially reliant on the glycogen stores, even when they're replenishing during the run. I'd rather spread out and increase the caloric intake if I can, and especially make it diverse so that not all of those calories are burnt at once.

I'm sure cyclists who operate with in-depth team support infrastructure, marathoners who are pedigreed to be perfect 26.2mi machines, and all the other perfected competitive specimens who are typically included in sports science studies - I am certain that maltodextrin and fructose based gels work for them. I am a normal dude who has an existential bone to pick with himself. I'm out here trying to run for 12+ hours at a time really hard, so while gels are great for the first 2-5 hours of that competition, they set up an incredibly rough back half at best. I want my wide diet of carbs. I want some of them to be more rapidly digestible than others.

My goal isn't to run as fast as possible by any means. I'm not running road marathons, I'm spending 3/4 of a normal 16 hour day covering a great distance somewhat rapidly. I don't want to empty that tank running on sugars all day. I aim, typically, for a 65/35 carb/fat ratio in my day-to-day diet. That helps me build up they glycogen and fat stores within and around (respectively) my muscle tissue so that I can have a significantly longer-looking gas tank on raceday.

Also, net expenditure ratios within metabolic equations are essentially useless if you don't take into account energy stores that are existent within the body. If I take in the amount of calories I'm burning over the course of a marathon, I'd be taking in a significant number of gels. Either you're assuming - for a road marathon - that a person doesn't have stored energy on their body to burn, or that they don't want to burn any of their stored energy and would rather run with a trough of GU dangling in front of their presumably jowly face.

Now because the marathon is the specific content of the thread, I do think that maximizing performance relies on the glycogen system more than the fat oxidation system. However, for the vast majority of runners who run marathons they will not be exerting at a near-maximal heart rate for the vast majority of the run. Let's say - and this is conservative - 70% of runners are just out there to complete the race, and not necessarily compete within it. Just completing the marathon, and being comfortable doing so, means we don't necessarily have to restrict ourselves to something that will almost invariably wreck our hypothetical gut health. Again - back to your 6th point - it really isn't always the goal in a marathon to run as fast as possible. Running the right speed may mean sacrificing some portions of what would be the ultimately efficient course of action (doing what you're describing and utilizing the glycogen chain exclusively).

Referring to your first point, there are also a significant number of studies that have been conducted post 1970 talking about the importance and utility of fat oxidation, and I'm not even an absolutist about it, I just like it. Thinking that there's some absolute right answer to the fueling question based on scientific studies kind of demonstrates that you're missing the point of the science - that lessons learned *can be applied to people, not necessarily *should be or *should exclusively be applied to people. I'm not sure why you're talking about point 2, given that the delicious snacks I've described above are consumed by yours truly en route to long distance trail running success. I addressed points 3 and 4 given that I want fat oxidation, and see it's utility for the hobby joggers (and I've attached an article below that should help reinforce my rebuttals of 1, 3, and 4). I addressed 5 above as well, and given your massive ellipses-based logical leap that If the pros do it we should do it, too; I don't really see the point in having to address it further.

You clearly know quite a bit about physiology and bioenergetics, but your earlier statement about the insulin surge and "glucose spike" is inaccurate during exercise. Exercise (muscle contraction) suppresses insulin release. By the same token, muscle contraction promotes glucose uptake into the cells- it's called "contraction mediated pathway" or "insulin independent glucose disposal". You don't always need insulin to get glucose into the cells. If someone was just hammering gels at rest, not exercising, then yeah- you'd have an insulin spike. Not during continuous exercise. Elite marathoners are excellent "fat burners" , but they're also excellent "carb burners." If you're running 4:40 per mile, you need lots of glucose.

You could make the argument that you have enough stored glycogen to get you through a marathon, but it depends on how fit (fast) you are. I bet Kipchoge could have shaved some seconds off his sub-2 time if he didn't take in ANY nutrition during his effort (save time reaching for bottles and drinking). Less than 2 hours...you won't get terribly dehydrated, and will probably be able to just empty the glycogen tank.

Yes, I'm not aware of any studies on this, but I'd be shocked if taking a gel during vigorous exercise generated an insulin spike.

It's also questionable whether we should even be calling the effect of swishing carbs in your mouth a "placebo," since it works even when you know you're not going to ingest the carbs. It seems to generate a physiological response, even if only on the nervous system.

Just the reverse. You don't need water during a marathon if temperatures are ideal and you started hydrated, but if you're running fast, you need carbs. The carb/fat burning ratio gets higher the faster you go (relative to your VO2max), so highly trained runners need carbs more than joggers. An average recreational runner might be running a marathon at 72% of VO2max, and at that pace, they're getting about 76% of their energy from carbs. The carb contribution only goes up from there as you get into the elite ranks.

So assuming this is true (and I doubt it is when simple carbs are consumed during high intensity exercise), so what? Do you have any reason to think that any increase in carb burn rate will outpace the additional intake so that you deplete sooner when supplementing than you would otherwise? The RER is largely dictated by relative intensity. Training, diet, and genetics can shift the ratio a bit, but any well trained marathoner is absolutely torching carbs. USATF says marathon pace in trained runners is around 82% of VO2max, but some runners are racing at over 85%.

Another thing to consider is that when you're already racing at such a high percentage of your VO2max, burning fat isn't desirable because it requires more oxygen than burning carbs.

I agree Gels are overrated and even more so overpriced sugar.

I found them useful in high altitude ultraraces but I prefer real food anytime.

Basically the idea behind Ucan.

Purely anecdotal evidence, but gels have worked for me without a doubt. Same goes for electrolyte mix. Quick cred check: in my prime, I ran sub 14:30, sub 30, sub 2:20, so these were some decent efforts for long runs and marathons. I would notice the most significant spike if I took something (gel or fluid mix) around 80% into the long run or race. I'm not sure if it helped much before that, and I never really felt like I needed it until I started feeling a little depleted towards the end. Once I took said gel/mix, I would notice a significant bump and markedly increased ability to sustain pace those final miles. Just my personal experience, for whatever it's worth.

So where are you going to get this potato starch you plan to eat during the race? Are you just going to eat it straight, as a powder? Or down a bunch of baked potatoes?

Also, on the subject of gels, a study from the Aalborg University in Denmark seems to indicate they help marathoners in the 3:30 to 4:00 range a lot, if you eat a lot of them.

https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/10/29/sports-gels-can-improve-marathon-times-but-pace-them-right/?searchResultPosition=2

Look, this is a really flawed understanding of the basic physiology here. Simply, activation of the sympathetic nervous system inhibits insulin release. Running a marathon is a profoundly different biochemical state than sitting on a couch and as such the mobilization and utilization of energy is profoundly different.

You have to be running for much longer than 2 hours for starch to be a good plan. Even then it isn’t for everyone. Most Ironman pros (7-8 hour races still use gels or equivalent in liquid form)