| ▲ | nikcub 8 hours ago |
| 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 getting their gut capacity trained so they could absorb and burn 100 carbs per hour[0][1] > 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. Second is the shoes. Adidas Adizero weigh 96 grams[2] with new foam tech and new carbon plates Nike and INEOS spent millions over years to get Kipchoge to a sub-2 in artificial conditions, and now the elite end of the field are knocking that barrier out in race conditions. Unreal. Running tech and training have been revolutionized in the past few years. [0] https://marathonhandbook.com/sebastian-sawe-arrives-in-londo... [1] https://www.instagram.com/p/DXmvAUvkWaq/ [2] https://www.runnersworld.com/uk/gear/shoes/a71129333/sabasti... edit: correct :s/calories/carbs thanks |
|
| ▲ | PaulDavisThe1st 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| > 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 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > 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. | |
| ▲ | wging 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I've read that even if you absorb it all, there's some question about whether it's useful. This Alex Hutchinson article suggests, among other things, that it may spare your fat stores rather than your muscle glycogen: > Even if you can absorb 120 grams per hour, it might not make you faster. In Podlogar’s study, cyclists burned more exogenous carbs when they consumed 120 rather than 90 grams per hour, but that didn’t reduce their rate of endogenous carb-burning—that is, they were still depleting the glycogen stores in their muscles just as quickly. https://www.outsideonline.com/health/training-performance/en... https://archive.ph/Vpk0h https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9560939/ | | |
| ▲ | loeg 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | That may still be worthwhile if fat is harder to recruit than exogenous carbs. |
| |
| ▲ | bethekind 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Where does discussion on gut training occur? All I know is you need a 5:4 ratio of glucose to fructose? Then when you train, you use the gels and the more you do it, the more capable your gut gets at absorbing without distress. Is that all the science to it? | |
| ▲ | chongli 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | 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 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | PaulDavisThe1st 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | > As far as I know, many elite runners were doing like 50% water, 50% sports drink and consuming way under 100g. This used to be true, and is still true for many athletes up the marathon distance. Above that, however, the momentum has swung heavily to very high carb intake. Most (though not all) of the world's best ultra runners (we're talking 7:00 min/mile pace through mountainous terrain) are picking this up, with many getting to and beyond 100g/hr of carb consumption. |
| |
| ▲ | almost_usual 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Your body stores roughly 2000 calories in glycogen. They are burning calories but nowhere near the amount a middle pack would be at this pace. So ~2800 calories of carbs with some fat being burned. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | groggo 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| 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. |
| |
| ▲ | mbesto 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | 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/regu... | | |
| ▲ | teiferer 7 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | Then why replace one imprecise term with another? Fiber is a carbohydrate. Humans use close to nothing from its energy. (Though it plays another important role in the digesive system.) Try eating 100g of grass per hour during a marathon and you will see. That's the metabolic edge horses have over humans. | |
| ▲ | fc417fc802 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Calories do matter (obviously, as energy intake is the entire point) but as you note the specific form that the fuel takes matters. However "carbs" is a catch all that includes plenty of things that (I assume) would be of similarly minimal use in this scenario. The calories need to take a very specific chemical form for this to work. | | |
| ▲ | mathgeek 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | The wording is certainly confusing here, but yes the calories don’t matter as much as the form. Eating protein and fats simply give you minimal useful calories during the race. Even most carbs won’t be useful if they are more complex. |
| |
| ▲ | loeg 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | They're equivalent modulo some multiple. It doesn't matter which one we talk about, as long as we're consistent. |
| |
| ▲ | whycome 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | 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 | | | |
| ▲ | justinwp 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | It's deliberate, because you generally do not want calories from fat or protein during a marathon or other running race. | |
| ▲ | 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
|
| ▲ | tedggh 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| 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. |
| |
| ▲ | 3 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | rpearl 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | it is a lot more challenging when running than when biking. The jostling is not your friend. | |
| ▲ | dogmatism 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | 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 an hour ago | parent [-] | | 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. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | nradov 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The leaders were burning a lot more than 100kcal per hour. I think you mean 100g of carbohydrates per hour. |
| |
| ▲ | brianwawok 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | Not burning, eating. They are eating 100g of carb per hour. Burning 1000+ calories. |
|
|
| ▲ | addaon 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| 100 g of carbs is 400 calories, not 100. |
|
| ▲ | tokai 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| 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. |
| |
|
| ▲ | ekr____ 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Correction: 100g of carbohydrate/hr. That's approximately 400 calories/hr. |
|
| ▲ | 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [deleted] |
|
| ▲ | 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [deleted] |
|
| ▲ | ChrisArchitect 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Adidas all over this one https://news.adidas.com/running/two-adidas-athletes-sabastia... |
| |
| ▲ | canucker2016 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | The Adidas Adios Pro Evo 3 - 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 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | 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/KH767... | | |
| ▲ | pcchristie 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | If anyone's interested, the shoe being purchasable by the general public is a condition of them being deemed legal for pros, after a crackdown on Supershoes a few years ago. The other conditions as I recall are there is only allowed to be one carbon plate in them and a maximum stack height of 40mm. It really is incredible that Nike kicked off this Supershoe arms race ten years ago and spent (presumably) an incredible amount on R&D, marketing and hype to try and complete the mission of being the first shoe to go Sub-2, and Adidas has pipped them at the last minute... twice in one race. Oh to be a fly on the wall at HQ today... Though I assume they made a lot of that cash back in the interim selling these things to weekend warrior suckers like myself! | |
| ▲ | nl 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Most superfoam shoes actually last longer than older EVA-based foams: > Improved durability: Supercritical foaming produces a more consistent cell structure in a midsole. This should translate to pressure and weight being more evenly distributed, which should lead to greater durability of the midsole. “We’ve done a lot of testing of what foams look like on a dynamic impactor fresh versus 300 or 500 miles later, and we see less degradation in those materials longer-term,” FitzPatrick says. > At least in terms of the midsole’s life span, super foams may have done away with the conventional benchmark that running shoes last about 300 miles. “I think it’s a dated standard,” Caprara of Brooks says. “It’s an easy go-to to help simplify. But every foam is different, and it’s not just the foam—it’s how it’s constructed, the shoe’s geometry, the rubber underneath it. There are so many factors. If I were to tell you the Glycerin Max lasts 300 miles, that’s probably less accurate than it is accurate. It’s probably closer to 500.” https://www.runnersworld.com/gear/a64969945/secret-to-super-... | |
| ▲ | brewdad 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | helsinkiandrew an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | > unless you are competing on a world stage, these aren’t meant for you. There’s a lot of people trying to get a 3 hour marathon or some other goal where chasing the marginal gains is worth the cost to them. | | |
| ▲ | Maxion 3 minutes ago | parent [-] | | 10% improvement on a 5 hour marathon time is more absolute seconds than on a 2.1hr marathon time. |
| |
| ▲ | sampullman 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | You don't need to be competing on the world stage to enjoy some of the benefits of Alpha flys or those pumas. 500 for the new Adidas does seem a little silly though. | | |
| ▲ | canucker2016 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | While the foam may last longer than older EVA foam shoes, the outsoles of the shoes have gotten ridiculously thin these days. The continental rubber outsole on these Adidas Adios Pro EVO 3 shoes are so thin (less than two sheets of paper, I think), that they don't even appear in side/profile views of the shoes. The outsole doesn't even extend the length of the entire shoe, it stops around the middle of the shoe. So heel strikers aren't welcome and will have loads of fun in wet weather. see https://www.adidas.com/us/adizero-adios-pro-evo-3/KH7678.htm... In general, these high stack, forward-leaning shoes are meant for going straight ahead - imagine ladies' high heel shoes with an inch and a half of foam on the bottom - any sharp turns will force the runner to slow down or they'll twist their ankles. Looking at the London Marathon course, https://www.londonmarathonevents.co.uk/london-marathon/cours..., there's about twenty ninety-degree or sharper turns. |
|
|
|
|
|