Overuse of energy drinks

I suppose an 18 mile training run might take an average club runner maybe 2.5 hours. So how far could you cycle in 2.5 hours going at a fair effort but not racing - maybe 50 miles ?

I know that the 18 mile run would probably leave you feeling more beaten up but I'm thinking that's due to the impact rather than energy expenditure.

Personally I'd probably take a snack if I'm doing over 2 hours on the bike - couple of bananas or something - and I might think about it now for running if I'm going over 13 miles though I used to just carry a coke bottle full of orange squash for my long runs and that was 20 miles around 2 hours 40. If I need to top up on a long ride and I've got nothing with me I stop and get a coke and maybe a flapjack or something - I find that can give you a real boost for say the final hour on an 80 miler.

PianoMan wrote:

Bacon and egg never made any fat in the 50's and 60's (and I wasn't even born then). Then again, each to one's own.

My father worked in the shipyards as a welder, he was thin and healthy and he ate loads of bacon butties fried in lard....Oh and mum fried tons of chips in the 60's with pans of lard and she, me and my sisters were all thin. It's only since the advent of easy meals that Mum, me and sisters started to put on weight

Back to drinks. I experimented during this years Ryedale Rumble with my own energy drinks. I had read about what to put and what measures to use. I usually have just plain water. The result was stomach cramp just before Boltby. I decided to ditch the energy drinks and fill up with plain water at the last stop. Result was my stomach eased fairly quickly after a few swills of fresh water.

Lesson learned for me. Stick to plain and simple drinks, food and a few gels.

Tom Butcher wrote:

It's reasonable to assume the radio discussion was making a point that generally people do not need to be consuming energy drinks as frequently as many do - and used the example that most people can complete a 16-18 mile run without without a drop off in performance. Far from being crap that is a perfectly sensible point.

If you exhaust your glycogen supplies, you need to replenish them, you could replenish them during the exercise when your insulin response is completely different to when resting and there's no chance of creating any insulin resistence. Or you could replenish them immediately after exercise with an energy drink when again your insulin response is different and you won't see any resistence. Both of those options require "energy drinks" - either during or after.

Or you could replenish them by eating throughout the rest of the day. That's quite likely to cause insulin spikes as you crave food and binge to overcome them.

Most people also cannot complete an 16-18 mile run without a drop off in performance, most people will not be able to go for more than 90 minutes, and an untrained person more than 60. At _marathon pace_ the limit tends to be 16-18 miles but of course that's miles under the maximum pace people can do 16 miles at.

I was talking about a training run - how many people do you think run 16-18 miles in training at quicker than marathon race pace ?

I don't mind you disagreeing with me but please read what I wrote and address that rather than quoting me and then saying something unrelated.

Omar Little wrote:

i often see people in the gym walking on the treadmill for about 15 minutes and they go through about 500ml bottle of energy drink during that time!

But they need that extra energy because the TV adverts told them so :shock:

JGSI wrote:

Tickles me tho that the very cream of celbrity TV doctors leaving no stone unturned in the quest to find cause of UK diabetes crisis.

I wonder what percentage of diabetes sufferers develop the problem due to their sedentary lifestyle watching said celebrity doctors on daytime TV rather than getting up and doing some form of exercise

As always common sense really should prevail, but I guess there are plenty of folk lacking in that.

You have enough glycogen stored in your muscles to work hard for about 80-90 minutes. To some extent it depends on the intensity of the exercise and how well your body uses fat to determine how long you can exercise without taking on any extra energy drink, through drinks or gels.

There is a case for using a low calorie hydration drink because it is better than just water. Performance decreases with dehydration.

Now to look at it from a different perspective... Research shows that people who use sports drinks, gels etc during exercise usually work at a higher intensity. Therefore you are likely to get a better performance benefit. You are also going to burn more calories per minute. I read an interesting article in a running magazine the other day which suggested that the intensity at which you burn fat is relatively broad and its better to work at the higher end of the spectrum because although the percentage fat burned is slightly lower, the overall calories burned is higher so you burn more calories of fats in total than at a lower intensity.

Another point to make is that those exercising with energy drinks/gels end up consuming far less after exercise (over the following 2 days). Those that don't take on energy drinks/gels end up overeating afterwards.

For weight loss it is simply about a negative energy balance - ie burn more calories than you consume. During one hour exercise you would not be able to consume enough carbs to replace what you have burnt - the difference could likely be 3-400 calories. So you can have your energy drink during exercise as long as you don't then eat extra during the rest of the day.

I agree with you - energy drinks have a place - mostly for racing or other hard efforts over 90 minutes. My feelings are though (not sure if you agree?) that they are over used. If you can do 80-90 minutes hard exercise on glycogen stores then you can go for a fair bit longer at a lower intensity. If we stick with running if a semi serious runner does a half marathon in 1.25 then working at a lower intensity they can go further because they are using relatively more fat as a fuel.

I don't know about their role in damping down hunger post exercise - a lot of research on these kind of things are done on very small samples and are funded by the sports nutrition industry. Where the researcher and the funder have a mutual interest in a certain finding then you have to use caution in accepting the findings at face value. Still if that finding is correct it's interesting.

As far as using them post exercise to replenish glycogen - unless we are training twice a day there is no problem in replenishing glycogen within 24 hours with an ordinary healty diet given a bit of thought. When you add in the effect on your teeth, the cost and the gooey mess they make of your bike I think I'll stick with bananas !

Tom Butcher wrote:

IAs far as using them post exercise to replenish glycogen - unless we are training twice a day there is no problem in replenishing glycogen within 24 hours with an ordinary healty diet given a bit of thought. When you add in the effect on your teeth, the cost and the gooey mess they make of your bike I think I'll stick with bananas !

If you are training hard and really deplete your glycogen, then it could take up to 48 hours to fully replenish it. If you are training daily then this does become an issue, it doesn't have to be twice a day.

A post recovery shake is ideal for post recovery, as you need to get a good mix of protein and carbs into the body asap after exercise to get the best start to glycogen replenishment. It only needs to be a chocolate milkshake or something similar.

SBezza - I've read published research that said 24 hours to fully restock glycogen stores with proper diet so it seems to depend what you read. If 48 hours then yes if people are doing back to back training then it becomes an issue - so you pays your money and takes your choice on that one.

Rapha - Yes efficient if you need to get carbs and protein into your system quickly - a race or hard training situation - possibly if you go for the 48 hours to restock then back to back racing or very hard training days. Some people though will claim to need sports drink and gels for a 10k or even a 5k run. Much of the time people are just fatigued and mistake it for lacking fuel - if you could ride 4-5 hours on orange juice are you sure it's not just a psychological crutch to think you need sports drink now after 90 minutes ?

Tom Butcher wrote:

Rapha - Yes efficient if you need to get carbs and protein into your system quickly - a race or hard training situation - possibly if you go for the 48 hours to restock then back to back racing or very hard training days. Some people though will claim to need sports drink and gels for a 10k or even a 5k run. Much of the time people are just fatigued and mistake it for lacking fuel - if you could ride 4-5 hours on orange juice are you sure it's not just a psychological crutch to think you need sports drink now after 90 minutes ?

For 5k and 10k its not necessary but if they think it helps them, even if its just in their heard, then I don't see why they shouldn't use them.

The way your body works is completely different when you do 20-25hrs a week training compared to a few hours a week. I probably ride harder now, my muscles are likely to be using more carbs for energy because I'm less efficient, I was used to eating a much larger breakfast than what I'd have now

To the recreational cyclist, energy drinks/gels will make a bigger difference than to an elite cyclist but at the elite level only very small differences can make a huge different. So nutrition is important for both

Henri Le Conte wrote:

Speaking from a type 1 diabetics point of view I have in the past avoided them like the plague, doing an 100k + ride I thought I would give some a trial and was not overly impressed finding all they gave me was a high MMOL and not any noticeable benefit.

I also find I prefer the slower release something like a cereal / flapjack like bar gives over gels and such like which just give me stomach ache, I appreciate this view is not the same for everyone but my body apart from my pancreas is not that dissimilar to most and I normally find by having these types of more substantial foods gives me lower yearnings for additional food at the end of a ride.
For reference I have had type 1 diabetes since 18 months old so cannot comment on how my body performed prior to being diagnosed.

Henri - I've come across this through a few mates and we did a bit of research on the matter. Most of them use High5 4:1 now because its a much more controlled insulin release over a longer period of time. This seems to be due to the added protein.

jibberjim wrote:

Tom Butcher wrote:

I suppose an 18 mile training run might take an average club runner maybe 2.5 hours. So how far could you cycle in 2.5 hours going at a fair effort but not racing - maybe 50 miles ?

You can't compare that way. Running is reasonably constant calorie expenditure per mile, regardless of your speed, so it doesn't matter if you run it in 90 minutes or 3 hours, the number of calories will be pretty similar - they won't all come from glycogen of course so it's not completely the same. So the headline "18 miles" is a load of crap, but it's a lot more accurate for running that it possibly could be for cycling.

In cycling, miles covered is not a measure of intensity at all, you can due to the way speed scales with intensity. So there's nothing equivalent.

In general you have sufficient glycogen for 60-90 minutes of all out exercise, and once you get out to 10 or more hours "all out" intensity you essentially have unlimited glycogen - well it's down to just what your brain etc. is using so you'll just need to eat for that.

I also don't agree particularly with the suggestion, since exhausting your glycogen will just mean you'll need to move your consumption of calories into immediately after the event which will have all the same issues and will likely cause more blood sugar and insulin spikes as your body deals with the very low glycogen levels by craving food!

Yep +1 Jim,

Sugar spikes are horrible things if you are diabetic as well, my body just can't handle them, my heart starts pounding and I lose all energy, typical of taking too many gels.

All medical research indicates that you should consume a minimum of 500-750ml of fluids per hour as well, those who don't typically get headaches.

Slow release of carbs is better than starvation and then bonking.

freehub wrote:

Omar Little wrote:

i often see people in the gym walking on the treadmill for about 15 minutes and they go through about 500ml bottle of energy drink during that time!

500ml is not alot tbh, if I'm thirsty I could go through a 500ml bottle sitting on my ars* at my computer.

Loads of people go out and buy bottles of energy drink when they're thursty, like Lucozade, I do once in a blue moon cause they taste nice. I might have one on a bike ride from a garage maybe but usually even on 100+ rides I'm just on Orange juice.

If you're thirsty you should drink water. No need to consume all the chemicals and calories as well. Lucozade to quench thirst whilst you're sat at a computer is typical overuse of an energy drink. It's like people who sit on the train drinking Red Bull - just eat a proper diet and you don't need energy and caffeine drinks to get you up and about! As for the taste, Lucozade and Red Bull are revolting IMO!