10 ms·

Stunning results at the top of the field. Some interesting takeaways on both fuelling and shoes. Maurten spent months working with Sawe and other runners getti

• nradov 6mo ago
  The leaders were burning a lot more than 100kcal per hour. I think you mean 100g of carbohydrates per hour.
  • brianwawok 6mo ago
    Not burning, eating. They are eating 100g of carb per hour. Burning 1000+ calories.
• ekr____ 6mo ago
  Correction: 100g of carbohydrate/hr. That's approximately 400 calories/hr.
• groggo 6mo ago
  One gram of carbs is 4 calories., so more like 400 calories per hour. It was confusing when the running industry switched from calories to grams of carbs, but that's all anyone talks about now.
  • whycome 6mo ago
    It’s also confusing that most nutritional labels say “calories” (Cal) when they really mean kilocalories (kcal). And those are different from regular (‘small’) calories (a measure of energy needed to heat 1g water 1c). 1 food calorie as listed on a food label is enough to heat 1kg of water by 1c
    • schoen 6mo ago
      This was the explanation for why the scotch and soda diet doesn't work: https://www.futilitycloset.com/2008/11/16/the-mensa-diet/ https://www.futilitycloset.com/2008/11/16/the-mensa-diet/ (If the nutritional calories in the drink had been only the same number of thermodynamic calories, the drink would have been energetically negative for the body because of its low temperature.)
    • estomagordo 6mo ago
      Yeah, I assume this dumbification is spearheaded by the Americans.
  • justinwp 6mo ago
    It's deliberate, because you generally do not want calories from fat or protein during a marathon or other running race.
  • mbesto 6mo ago
    Because calories simply do not matter. At high intensities of working out, it's the amount of carbohydrates you can consume that allow more fuel to be burnt. "In the aerobic exercise domain up to ~100% of maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max), CHO is the dominant fuel, as CHO-based oxidative metabolism can be activated quickly, provide all of the fuel at high aerobic power outputs (> 85-90% VO2max) and is a more efficient fuel (kcal/L O2 used) when compared to fat." https://www.gssiweb.org/sports-science-exchange/article/regulation-of-fat-metabolism-during-exercise https://www.gssiweb.org/sports-science-exchange/article/regu...
• addaon 6mo ago
  100 g of carbs is 400 calories, not 100.
• PaulDavisThe1st 6mo ago
  > could absorb and burn 100 calories per hour burning a hundred calories an hour is trivial. Most people will burn 100 calories per mile when walking or running, and more if moving as fast as these athletes, and many, many humans can do this for far, far longer than 2 hours. It's the absorbtion that's the challenge. Maurten is not somehow alone in the particular stuff they've developed - ultra runners are generally shifting up into the 90-120 gram/hr range (or beyond!), using a variety of different companies' products. The gut training protocols for this are widely discussed in the world of running for almost any distance above a half marathon.
  • loeg 6mo ago
    > burning a hundred calories GP left out the units but is clearly talking about grams ("absorb ... 100 carbs per hour"), not calories (no one needs training to absorb 25g/hr). Carbs are 4 kcal/g. 100g of carb (400 kcal) an hour isn't replacement level for even casual athletic efforts, but it does mitigate the loss of glycogen in muscle somewhat.
    • andreareina 6mo ago
      Exogenous carbohydrate doesn't spare muscle glycogen, only liver glycogen.
  • chongli 6mo ago
    Wow so he was absorbing 400 calories per hour with this gel, but he was likely burning 3-4x that amount (or even more) while running 13.1 miles per hour!
    • brianwawok 6mo ago
      In a two hour race that’s still 800 bonus calories, that’s something. The race to tolerate lots of carbs is usually something you think of in 8 hour Ironmans. The good part is you can do most of it on the bike, which is much easier to eat as you go. As far as I know, many elite runners were doing like 50% water, 50% sports drink and consuming way under 100g.
• deleted 6mo ago
  [deleted]
• ChrisArchitect 6mo ago
  Adidas all over this one https://news.adidas.com/running/two-adidas-athletes-sabastian-sawe-and-yomif-kejelcha-break-the-sub-2-hour-marathon-barrier-in-the-r/s/d4be4eac-a3b8-47d5-835f-9cbd685638ca https://news.adidas.com/running/two-adidas-athletes-sabastia...
  • canucker2016 6mo ago
    The Adidas Adios Pro Evo 3 - https://news.adidas.com/running/adidas-unveils-its-first-sub-100-gram-supershoe--the-adizero-adios-pro-evo-3/s/ded7b6a2-952a-4246-b675-4129f78787c4 https://news.adidas.com/running/adidas-unveils-its-first-sub... adidas introduces the Adizero Adios Pro Evo 3 – the lightest and fastest Adizero shoe ever, weighing an average 97* grams. The race-day shoe represents the culmination of three years of cutting-edge research. It is 30% lighter, delivers 11% greater forefoot energy return, and improves running economy by 1.6% compared to its predecessor - making it a record breaker before it’s even laced up. The shoe will launch with a highly limited release, with ambitious runners able to sign up for the chance to get their hands on a pair from April 23. This will be followed by a wider release in the fall marathon season. The Adizero adios Pro Evo 3 will cost $500/€500. For other marathon racing shoes, Google says: The Nike Alphafly 3 is the lightest in the series, weighing approximately 7.0–7.7 oz (198–218g) for a men's size 9, and 6.1 oz (174g) for women's sizes. The PUMA Deviate NITRO™ Elite 3 is exceptionally lightweight, typically weighing 194g (6.8 oz) for a men's size 8 (UK)
    • andy_ppp 6mo ago
      You can buy them in the UK soon, just £450 and I suspect they'll disintegrate quickly... https://www.adidas.co.uk/adizero-adios-pro-evo-3-shoes/KH7678.html https://www.adidas.co.uk/adizero-adios-pro-evo-3-shoes/KH767...
      • brewdad 6mo ago
        Much like the road bikes that cost as much as a sedan, unless you are competing on a world stage, these aren’t meant for you. I’m sure someone will happily sell them to you if you enjoy wasting money.
• tokai 6mo ago
  Pro cycling has been on the high fueling strategy for a while, with huge results for record times. Its a game changer for endurance sports.
  • lostlogin 6mo ago
    [dead]
  • rimliu 6mo ago
    Can someone explain this in more details? Like will you run out of energy, your result will suffer drastically, anything else? The reason I am asking - I hike a lot, and for shorter hikes (<35km) I don't even bother with food. Just last Saturday I did 28km hike with 550m elevation gain - last meal I had was 5pm on Friday. No breakfast. No problem. I walk at a brisk (for layman) pace, ~7±2 km/h. Am I missing something by not caring about food there, or for my level of "performance" it does not matter anyway? The original question still stands.
    • qweiopqweiop 6mo ago
      I'm not an expert, so do some research, but it's probably a bit of a) you've trained yourself to burn fat more (a good thing) b) you're not exercising as strenously c) yes, if you ate you'd probably "perform better". I'd recommend you to do your own research though. But to add - yes, if you don't eat you will "bonk" on a long bike ride.
      • sriacha 6mo ago
        I think its important to state that "bonk point" is different based on if your metabolism is adapted for carb vs fat burning. If always training with high carb loads, you will bonk rather quickly going on a long ride without any compared to if you train fasted or more fat adapted.
    • noelwelsh 6mo ago
      Your muscles need energy to work. You have a variety of energy stores in your body, which range from small amounts of quickly available energy (ATP) to large amounts of slowly available energy (fat). Most relevant to this discussion is glycogen, which is is a carbohydrate. You have about 500g in your body, which is about 2000kcal. It is more readily accessible than fat, and 2000kcal is enough for an hour, or maybe two, of high intensity exercise. These gels and drinks are trying to replenish glycogen stores. The idea is to keep the runner using glycogen for the entire race, as it provides more energy per unit time than fat metabolism. In your hikes your energy demands probably aren't exceeding the rate that your fat metabolism can provide.
• deleted 6mo ago
  [deleted]
• tedggh 6mo ago
  I normally consume 90g of carbs per hour when long distance biking, so do a few other riders I know. No GI issues. I use Skratch some other guys like Precision.
  • dogmatism 6mo ago
    Yeah, I just literally use table sugar, which is 1:1 glucose:fructose. Maurten et al using 1:0.8, close enough! And I don't believe the hydrogel thing is any magic, just marketing. But yeah, this is a thing. There is some gut distress for sure at higher levels of intake. See guy finishing second -- still under 2 hrs! immediately puking, which is fairly common at the high intakes. I've heard of Blumenfeld (the triathlete) taking like 200g/hr or more. Insane. Though he's had some epic GI disasters too, lol.
    • chantepierre 6mo ago
      The hydrogel textures (not maurten but naak, but close enough), for me, allow while racing to swallow a full 40g gel in half a second without feeling the sugary taste a lot, which is nice. Compared to thick syrup-like gels, it’s a way better experience in a marathon. But I only buy for actual races, rest of the time, I do my own 1:0.8 mix with a bit of thickener, in soft flasks. Much more cost effective.
  • rpearl 6mo ago
    it is a lot more challenging when running than when biking. The jostling is not your friend.
  • deleted 6mo ago
    [deleted]
  • bluecalm 6mo ago
    It's much easier when cycling and there is much more freedom with your breakfast choice and timing. You are stable on the bike. When running there are constant vibrations and up and down movement that can easily upset your stomach/intestines.
• thefz 6mo ago
  > Maurten spent months working with Sawe and other runners getting their gut capacity trained so they could absorb and burn 100 carbs per hour[0][1] In trail running especially it's not uncommon to exceed the recommendation of 1g/Kg bodyweight/hour, up to 120g of carbs per hour, for those that can take it.
• paganel 6mo ago
  Which is why this feels so artificial and why it’s the 3rd most read article on the front page of the FT. Running as a sport has been very sadly and irremediably gentrified, gone are the days of Zatopek and of Abebe Bikila winning an Olympic marathon barefooted. Fuck Ineos and its owner, too, while I’m at it.
• aucisson_masque 6mo ago
  > The Maurten research team was embedded with Sawe’s team in Kenya for 32 days across six trips between last and this April. They were training his gut to absorb that load by mimicking race-day protocol in training. The hydrogel technology they have developed over the past 10 years now allows athletes to absorb 90–120 grams of carbs per hour without GI distress. That common knowledge, nothing revolutionary here. There are 2 types of sugar, fructose and glucose, you can max out on glucose around 60g/hour and train you guts to max out also on fucose. Personally I reached 90g/hour without training, no diarrhea or vomiting. And you know the best ? White sugar in everyone kitchen is almost perfectly 50% glucose, 50% fructose. You don't need 'advanced' gel to do that, a bottle of water with 120g of white sugar an hour. And the shoes, yeah they're light but guess what. Other competitors also have sponsors and excellent shoes, some even run bare feet and yet they don't go faster. No the real reason why he is able to run so fast is first excellent genetic, that's the common base. Secondly, excellent training, coaching. Third, his steroid/peds program is on point and his body is responding well to it. Typically for endurance runner you want profiles with low natural hematocrit so you can max out on the EPO, but there are also other considerations. For instance, are his tendons responding well to GH and other peptides ?
  • ragazzina 6mo ago
    > Third, his steroid/peds program is on point and his body is responding well to it. Do you have any evidence of this?
    • gadders 6mo ago
      We never had any for Lance Armstrong until he confessed.
    • ap99 6mo ago
      His comment is more of a general commentary that east African countries are notorious for doping. Like, if we find out the top two finishers here doped very few would be surprised. That said - it's still an amazing accomplishment.
      • 6mo ago
• kakacik 6mo ago
  Do we know of any adverse effects on such long term consumption of that amount of simplest carbs? While good source of immediate energy, simple carbs are basically a slow acting poison to various internal organs and over time bring stuff like diabetes. Its great they don't sit idly around in the body and get transformed into fat but rather they are burned in muscles, but still flooding body again and again with this may have long term negative effects that far outweigh any health gains gained from doing these sports, even at such intensity. Definitely not a diet one could recommend for regular sporty guys, unless they are uber-competitive freaks who have to win at all costs.
  • adrianN 6mo ago
    I don’t think there is any elite level sport that doesn’t trade long term health for performance in competitions.
  • adjejmxbdjdn 6mo ago
    > simple carbs are basically a slow acting poison to various internal organs and over time bring stuff like diabetes. Do you have any evidence for this? The problem with simple carbs (if you don’t already have insulin issues) is that they’re easy to digest and provide minimal satiety so you end up consuming significant calories. But as far as I’m aware there is no evidence that they’re worse for you than the rapid calorie addition.
  • snowwrestler 6mo ago
    These athletes are eating nutritionally complete diets overall. The simple carb intake is a strategy just for the run itself. That said, pretty much everything about highest-end athletics is net negative for long-term health. It’s incredibly hard on the body to run a marathon in general, let alone at record breaking pace.
• bluecalm 6mo ago
  Race day super shoes certainly help a lot but another difference is that super shoes allow them to train a lot more. Running training is limited by tendons. This is the reason even elite runners often train only 9-11 hours a week while many dedicated amateurs can easily spend 20+ hours per week cycling. This is also the main reason runners "double" that is they run 2 times a day. The body absorbs 2x45 minute session much better than one 1x90 minutes session. Super shoes are changing the game here allowing for more volume for months without injuries. When you look at Sawe's training his volume is insane. His easy/endurance days are 20km in the morning and 10km in the evening. This is some 100-110 minutes of running on "easy" days. His total time on feet must be around 14-15 hours per week - approaching cycling volume territory (especially when you consider that cyclists do significant % of their volume cruising/descending without putting almost any power at all which inflates the time).
• ano-ther 6mo ago
  Re [0] how do they measure this reliably during a race, especially the C-isotopes in the breath? From the picture it looks like he is only wearing a watch and there is perhaps a little bulge on his left side.
  • entropiae 6mo ago
    They collected samples every 5k in the 30k long run before the marathon, see Substrate section in http://athlete.maurten.com/ http://athlete.maurten.com/
• boringg 6mo ago
  In terms of getting to higher caloric loading due to gut system restraints. It sounds like running has finally caught on to what professional cycling has been doing over the last couple years. Bodies ability to handle high caloric loading is the rate limiting step.
• amai 6mo ago
  Not to forget the sodium bicarbonate loading 2h before the start.