The Time-Crunched Cyclist Podcast by CTS

Episode 192: Do Time-Crunched Cyclists Benefit From Super High Carbohydrate Intakes?

• CTS • Season 4 • Episode 192

Share episode

The pros are eating 120 grams of carbohydrate per hour in some races and hard training sessions. Should you consume that much? Would you perform better if you did? In Episode 192 of The Time-Crunched Cyclist Podcast, Outside Magazine's Sweat Science columnist Alex Hutchinson joins Host Adam Pulford to discuss the latest trend toward super-high carbohydrate intakes during exercise. 

Topics in this Episode:

  • History of carbohydrate fueling recommendations
  • Endogenous vs. Exogenous fueling
  • When would more carbohydrate be beneficial?
  • Why might more carbohydrate not be better?
  • Super-high carbohydrate for elites vs. masters and amateur cyclists
  • Why replace 30-40% of energy expenditure on performance days
  • Practical carbohydrate fueling recommendations for Time-Crunched Cyclists

Resources:


Guest: Alex Hutchinson, PhD
Alex Hutchinson is a National Magazine Award-winning journalist and Outside’s Sweat Science columnist, covering the latest research on endurance and outdoor sports. His most recent book is the New York Times bestseller Endure: Mind, Body, and the Curiously Elastic Limits of Human Performance. Before becoming a journalist, he completed a PhD in physics at the University of Cambridge and worked as a researcher in the National Security Agency’s Quantum Computing group. He also competed for the Canadian national team in track, cross-country, road, and mountain running. He lives (and runs) in Toronto.

ASK A QUESTION FOR A FUTURE PODCAST

Host
Adam Pulford has been a CTS Coach for more than 14 years and holds a B.S. in Exercise Physiology. He's participated in and coached hundreds of athletes for endurance events all around the world.

Listen to the episode on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, Google Podcasts, or on your favorite podcast platform

GET FREE TRAINING CONTENT

Join our weekly newsletter

CONNECT WITH CTS

Website: trainright.com
Instagram: @cts_trainright
Twitter: @trainright
Facebook: @CTSAthlete

Speaker 1:

From the team at CTS. This is the Time Crunch Cyclist podcast, our show dedicated to answering your training questions and providing actionable advice to help you improve your performance even if you're strapped for time. I'm your host, coach Adam Pulford, and I'm one of the over 50 professional coaches who make up the team at CTS. In each episode, I draw on our team's collective knowledge, other coaches and experts in the field to provide you with the practical ways to get the most out of your training and ultimately become the best cyclist that you can be. Now on to our show. Welcome back, time Crunch fans. I'm your host, coach Adam Pulford. I'm here once again with national award-winning journalist and author of Endure, alex Hutchinson. Alex, welcome back. Thank you, adam. Yeah, so the carbohydrate revolution is upon us. More carbs is better, right.

Speaker 1:

That's what I hear on the internet, Uh so the internet is always right, so that must be it. Eat a bunch of carbohydrates and you'll go fast.

Speaker 2:

The end.

Speaker 1:

The end. Just kidding, alex. You're an author and a columnist on Outside Magazine. In the column called Sweat Science, you wrote a great article all about high carbohydrate fueling for the endurance athlete. Why do you think that this high carb thing is being pushed so much right now? What's going on?

Speaker 2:

Yeah on, yeah, I mean, this is something that's been bubbling up for a couple years now a year or two uh in the, in the in the public consciousness at least, probably a little longer than that in the in the peloton, at the top level, I think there's there's two things happening right now. One is that there are some studies coming out suggesting that it is possible to consume carbohydrate at higher levels than we previously thought, and not without getting too into the nitty-gritty. Basically, 10 years ago, the nutrition guidelines said aim for about 60 grams of carbohydrate an hour and then that'll max you out. And then at that point guidelines were changed. There was some work on mixing carbohydrate, different types of carbohydrates, and the consensus was oh, actually, if you mix different kinds of carbohydrates, you can get 90 grams of carbohydrate an hour. And but what's happening now is there have been a few recent studies testing 120 grams of carbohydrate an hour and showing that, sure enough, people can consume 120 grams of carbohydrate. They will, in some cases at least, be able to burn more of that carbohydrate than they would if they were taking low. That doesn't mean that if you eat 120 grams of carbohydrate per hour, it doesn't mean you're burning all of that, but you will burn more carbohydrate than you would if you were taking 90 or 60. And these people are able to do it without ending up in the porta potty. So it is tolerable to take these super high doses that were not really thought possible. That's one thing. So the science is like oh, actually you can consume this much.

Speaker 2:

And then the other thing is the anecdotal evidence from top-end Grand Tour cycling teams. There was a, I think it was uh, it was Matthew Vanderpoel. Uh, a couple of years ago there was a photo that circulated. Um, someone got a, uh, a picture that showed he had his nutrition plan taped to the stem of his bike and people were able to like decipher it by zooming in on the photo. And it's like what the heck he's? He's consuming more than a 100 grams of carbohydrate per hour in this race. That violates the nutrition recommendations. And since then there's been a steady trickle of team nutritionists and athletes saying that, yeah, at some points, in some contexts, we're taking 120 grams, maybe even more, of carbohydrates. So the elites are doing it and the science says that it's possible, that that is the current. I think that's what's fueling all the interest right now.

Speaker 1:

Pun intended, of course.

Speaker 2:

Pun not intended, but I'll take credit for it.

Speaker 1:

Yeah, no, that's. That definitely checks the boxes on this end too, and look like I'm a big proponent of carbohydrate, but I'm all I always have been, and this is a thing with, I think, coaches, athletes, writers in this space, where we always knew carbohydrate added some benefit.

Speaker 1:

Yes, Don't call it a carbohydrate comeback? Oh man, the jokes are rolling today. Yeah, let's not call it that. And let's not also call it a carbohydrate carbohydrate revolution, because fueling with carbohydrates have has been around for a while. Yeah, we're pushing some boundaries in the upper end. But you know, let's go back to that. One specific example with Vanderpool, you know it was a hundred grams versus, say, 90, that we knew. So it was like 10 gram difference, not mind blowing.

Speaker 1:

But also with my athletes, I'm just going to throw out some generalities here. With my kind of like bigger athletes that are producing more power and burning more carbohydrate per hour, they have the. They can put in the upper end echelon of fueling and get away with that. But it also takes gut training to get there, takes practice, takes consequences and failure to get that done. So I like the arc of history that you gave with, you know, our fueling recommendations per hour, kind of like 30 to 60, then kind of 60 to 90. And now we're exploring different, you know sugar combinations that might get us there. But before we do, uh, alex, can you talk about just the basic principle or concepts of you can fuel something endogenously and you can also fuel something exogenously, and what those two things are.

Speaker 2:

Yeah, like you know, if, look, if I get up in the morning and go for a long run or long ride before I've eaten anything, that's no problem, right? It's not like I'm incapable of going anywhere until I have filled up my fuel tanks. We carry a bunch of fuel around with us in broad and look, this is I'm not a nutritionist, so I will say this in broad and general terms. We have a lot of fat in our bodies and a little bit of carbohydrate enough carbohydrate in our muscles and liver to last ballpark like 90 minutes of hard exercise. Maybe it's two hours, maybe it's less. Depends on how well you feel, depends on a lot of things.

Speaker 2:

But we don't have infinite carbohydrate stores and so if you're going to be out there longer than 90 minutes, you're you're, you're going to be running low, let's say, on carbohydrate, and carbohydrate has some advantages relative to fat. Most noticeably, you can. You can access it at a faster rate. So you've got as much fat as you want, but you can't sprint forever because you can't burn fat quickly enough to fuel a sprint. So if you're racing, if you're competing or if you just don't want to feel like crap and you're going to be out there for longer than 90 minutes. It is likely that you're going to want to supplement your internal or endogenous stores with some external fuel, that you're going to want to supplement your internal or endogenous stores with some external fuel. So you're going to take in some carbohydrates so you can burn some of that. And the idea in theory is that if you're taking in carbohydrate, you're consuming carbohydrate. That means you can burn that and you don't have to burn through your internal stores as quickly.

Speaker 2:

And there's a word for what happens when your your internal stores get critically low, and that's bonking and it those who've experienced it know that it's not pleasant, and so you don't want to um, you want to. You know, put that off as long as possible. All of this is a super simplification, as, as I think the recent kind of interest in continuous glucose monitors showed all of us that it's like yeah, we're not cars with a gas tank and a fuel gauge. It's. It's very complicated. There's all these regular internal regulatory and counter regulatory mechanisms that are trying to make sure that you know, you've, your brain always has enough. You, we would rather have enough fuel going to your brain than to your cycling muscles, and so all of this is an oversimplification, but the basic idea is the more carbs you can cram in, the longer you can last before you run out of your internal stores and feel like crap.

Speaker 1:

Yes, yeah, and I've done various podcasts with nutritionists about this where we go really in depth, granular, like how much fuel you're actually carrying on your body. Look for anything that I did with Kristen Arnold or Nicole Rubenstein to talk about some of these like very specific numbers that Alex just went over. But I think, like the broad strokes that we're talking about, that is the most important part. So that's a good reminder of how we can fuel something with our own fuel, with our own fuel on board, or we can take some fuel, um, from a bottle or or a gel or something like that, and so you know, when we talk about, okay, well, we take in some carbohydrate, so that's better. More, wouldn't that be the best? What's the problem with trying to do? Just more is better, and what is the difference between elites and non-elites as it pertains to what we're finding in some of that literature? Alex?

Speaker 2:

Yeah, there's a bunch of things to consider. Let me actually step back and say one thing. Sure, it's not like it would be so simple if we just had we have tank A, tank B and tank C, and when tank A is emptied, we start, we move to tank B, and when tank B is empty, we move to tank C, and so then it's like okay, well, as long as we don't run out of carbohydrates, internal carbohydrates, you're going to be fine. That's not how the body works, and one of the manifestations of that is that you will feel fatigue. If you're so a car, you can drive your car at its maximum speed until it runs out of gas. So if you're, if your car was like your body, what you would find is that when the gas tank is half full, you can't get up to full speed and it's sort of starting to misfire a little bit. And when it's a quarter full, it like it's really trying to stop it. All the engine light, all the warning lights are on. This is important because it, when we get back to this idea of is more better or is, is you know? Do you need this much carb versus that much carb?

Speaker 2:

The thing is, it's not cut and dried. It's not so much. Did you run out of carbohydrate? That's never what we're talking about, or rarely you know it. If you're well prepared, you're not going to totally bonk. But the problem is, even if you're just low, that can affect your perception of effort. Even if you're just partially depleted, that can affect how well your muscles, muscle fibers, are firing, and so there can be these sort of subtle secondary effects. I didn't run out of fuel, but I was a little low and I ended up going more slowly than I would have. So anyway, sorry, that's a bit of a digression.

Speaker 1:

To answer your question is more always but it's perfect, because I think we always try to be talking these terms where we say our engine, our aerobic engine, right, like we use these similarities, like that, in reality, we're just dumbing something down that is actually very complex, that has taken thousands of years to get to the point where we're at, so that we don't die effectively. And when you say we don't run really out of carbohydrate, it's true, and you write about that in your article where, even if you take nothing on board and you go full tilt, full gas for a couple hours, your body's smart enough to not drain everything, right. So there's these checks and balances that you're talking about with that analogy.

Speaker 2:

And I think the other thing that maybe is worth acknowledging is that, like this is a controversial topic and people have strong feelings about it. Nutrition is like religion, and at the two extremes, I think you can have views that are both overly black and white, and so that it's like look, we can prove that you don't actually run out of carbohydrate. Therefore, taking more carbohydrate doesn't help. Well, that's, that's an oversimplification, because, like I was saying, even if you're low, that might make a difference versus look, you can consume more carbohydrate. We know that carbohydrate is your fuel. Therefore, if you consume more, it must be better. Well, that's not necessarily true either. So, to get to your actual question, which is you know, why might more not be better? Well, we mentioned earlier, it's like you've got two sources of fuel in your body. You've got fat and carbohydrate.

Speaker 2:

One of the things that some of the experiments have suggested is that, the more carbohydrate you take, your body's like oh, we've got carbohydrate. We can downregulate the burning of our internal carbohydrate or of our internal fat stores, and so you're spooning in more carbohydrate. You're not necessarily getting more energy and you may not even be saving your own carbohydrate stores. Maybe you're just turning down the usage of your fat stores or whatever. So it's not necessarily. And then I guess I think the other key point of why is more not always better? There is a cost to shoveling in carbohydrates and it's not just that. Gels are really expensive these days. It's inconvenient, it's in your stomach. I know in running it's maybe more of a concern than cycling, but for runners the jostling and even just the logistics of trying to run it if you're running fast and trying to open a gel and get it in your mouth and chew it and having to keep your mouth closed or carry that much fuel over a distance or duration.

Speaker 2:

I mean, and if you're going to take in carbohydrates, you need to be taking in generally, you need to be taking in some fluid too. I mean this is a consideration for carb loading too. It's like, physiologically you can make the argument that having your carb stores maxed out is is awesome, but you're like you're adding a couple of pounds actually to like if you're, if you're fully maxed out. So but but probably the most important one is just the, the digestive comfort at the logistics and the digestive comfort of trying to take in. It's like fueling at 120 grams an hour is is, is like a full-time job You're doing. You're just cycling, you know a little bit on the side and you're mainly focused on shoveling food in your mouth.

Speaker 2:

So is there a cost? Well, it's hard to measure that right. Like it's not. Like you know, having a tummy that feels a little funny. That may have no effect. For some people that may have a crucial effect. So it may be that it's like three times out of five it has no effect, and two times out of five, or one time out of 10, or whatever the case may be, you just have an absolute terrible race because your stomach did not manage to handle the carbohydrates. So even if all the physiological arguments are correct, even if having more carbohydrate will enhance your performance, you have to weigh it against the logistical and digestive issues that may occur. And it's not even necessarily guaranteed. We know that you can consume more carbohydrates. There's no studies showing that you actually perform better. Because these studies are super hard to do. It's very hard to say all right, let's do a series. You know a series of five. You know five hour all out stage races and see who does better under different conditions. It's like these. These are the data is extremely hard to collect.

Speaker 1:

Correct. So to like summarize that point, there's nothing out there as far as I'm aware. That says 120 grams output per hour outperforms 100 grams per hour for this subset of individuals. Is that right?

Speaker 2:

That's correct. There's virtually nothing out there that even looks at performance. Now, after I wrote this article, I got into a lot of discussions with people. Not to pat myself on the back, I know it was a good article because people on both sides were mad at me. They're like you don't understand how great carbs are, you don't understand how terrible carbs are. It's like, oh like, I guess I'm somewhere in the middle, but you broke the bear, didn't you? The carbon?

Speaker 2:

yeah, yeah yeah, oh god, carbs are definitely the bear. But you know, I had some good discussions with people about like, well, what is the current evidence? And one of those. And so that led me and others to like, okay, well, let's go back. What's the evidence that 90 is better than 60? What's the evidence that 60 is better than 30? And the truth is, the actual performance evidence is super weak for 90 over 60, or even for like 60 over 40 or you know, and that's largely because there's very little evidence that compares apples to apples.

Speaker 2:

Like, let's do this, you know, under realistic conditions. Personally, if I were an elite cyclist in a stage race I'd certainly be going for 90. If I could, maybe even more, not because it's been proven, but if I look at the balance of evidence and suggestion and plausibility and physiology, if I could tolerate 90, that seems like a good bet. But then the other question you asked is like elites versus, you know, like the competitive context, the competitive context. And there's a big difference between riding in the Tour de France for three weeks as a, you know, as an elite, professional cyclist, and me you know he's a you know at this point a recreational athlete.

Speaker 1:

And me and the rest of our listeners right now.

Speaker 2:

basically, Even some very, very talented and fast listeners, most are not. You know riding, are not riding 25 hours a week or whatever the case may be. So if you talk to the carb skeptics, the people who are like, yeah, I don't think 120 is good, I don't even think 90 is necessarily good, and you say to them, okay, but what if you're a Tour de France cyclist? They're like, oh well, that's different, because Tour de France cyclists they not only have to to get through the ride, they have to get through the next day's ride and the next day's ride.

Speaker 2:

And so a lot of the people in the in the sort of tour de france world or the grand tour world, let's say, they would say that, uh, recovery is is as big as is a big factor. That if take if you're getting in 120 grams, or maybe not for the whole race, maybe just for certain high-intensity sections of the race, for the climbs or whatever, maybe it's going to be hard to measure whether you're any faster in that race, but your ability to recover, because it takes 12 to 24 hours to restore your glycogen levels. So if you're not digging yourself into that hole, performance aside, you're going to be better prepared for the next day. So even carb skeptics some of the ones, at least that I spoke to are more open to the idea that, yeah, if you're doing repeated long efforts, that's where there may start to be a harder or a better case.

Speaker 1:

But again, that's super hard to study where there may start to be a harder or a better case, but again, that's super hard to study. Yeah, so I would say, to bring it down to the here and now, to the listeners, to the weekend warriors, the time crunch athletes what's your message to them? I mean, should we be reaching for the super carbohydrate 1000 powder every single ride, or or like what seems conflicting? And it also seems conflicting based on what you said on these other podcasts, adam, because you say carbohydrate is good. What's our message?

Speaker 2:

Yeah well, and I would call to mind something we spoke about in a previous podcast, uh, about the difference between preparing for training and preparing for competition. So, um, your goal in every Sunday ride is not to to win the Sunday ride, it's. And so if you want to take high carbs in a competitive situation, then sure, you have to practice it sometimes, but you don't need to be a hundred percent maxed out. You, you know carbs dripping out of your ears every time you train. It's like speaking of fads that come and go, or or training ideas that become popular and fade away.

Speaker 2:

Depleted training, carb, low carb training was, was a big thing for a while. I don't. I don't hear as much about it anymore, um, but I think, even if you're not deliberately depleting yourself, I think there is there is some value to not always doing all your training in a state of carb saturation. Let's say you're doing a three hour training ride. If you start a little bit low in carbs, then that's going to help the last part of that ride feel a little bit more like the end of a six hour race. Where you start, you know you're going to have some experience. Your body is going to have some experience adapting to, to, uh, you know, putting out energy in a not full state. So anyway, all of which is to say I, I, I would see very, very few contexts in which a non-professional cyclist would want to take 120 grams per hour no, I, I, I agree with that, and I think it comes down to maybe maybe as simple as this.

Speaker 1:

It's like, personally, I think about it. It's like when do I want my performance, my performance days? Okay, those are the hard interval days, those are the group rides, the group runs, the race day, weekend, whatever, and at that point that's when I'm bringing carbohydrate on board and I'm going to how much. Well, I tease that out over a training program, right, like that. And this is probably the number one takeaway is don't just start doing 100 grams on race day because you heard Alex and Adam talk about it, because that's performance. You need to flush that out. That's performance. You need to flesh that out in training cycles beforehand. No-transcript. Somewhere between 30 and 40% for performance day. If you do the math, it does actually equate down to around 50 to 70 grams of carbohydrate ish for that time period. Okay, and somewhere between like 300 and 400 calories total for that, and I think that that is a very good, rather than like go down the grams coming from carbohydrate and then the fat and the all this kind of stuff.

Speaker 1:

I like to use that 30, 30 to 40% intake of output for a measurement. Most of that should be carbohydrate. The shorter it is, the more I want it to be like liquidy. So gels, sport drink water, that kind of thing. And for the longer session now you start to add more fuel and really I'm not fueling a ton unless it's over 90 minutes or if it's like super hard, super hot or something like that.

Speaker 1:

But then if the demand for performance are 30 to 90 minutes, if you're fueling during you're already missing the boat. You want to fuel everything leading into that, okay. So really my delineation is 90 minutes. If you're feeling during, you're already missing the boat, you want to fuel everything leading into that, okay. So really my delineation is 90 minutes and above 90 minutes with intensity, I'm going to fuel, and at 30 to 40% intake of output. And then that filters into every other podcast I've done about fueling with carbohydrate for performance and then on the endurance days, as long as you come in well fed, well hydrated and we're not doing anything, like you know, over kind of like two hours, I mean that's. I mean there's some delineation there, depending on who you talk about, um, but stay hydrated, that's it. I don't think you need to take a ton on board in that way, Um, so those are my like general recommendations on some fueling, to keep things as simple as possible.

Speaker 2:

Yeah, that makes sense. And I think maybe another thing to mention is that kind of drawing on what you said getting enough calories in the course of a given day is super important. I mean, everyone's challenges are different. Some people need to be controlling calories, other people need to struggle to get enough calories and this idea of you know relative energy deficiency in sports, so you need to get enough calories. And so in training I'd be more worried about are you getting enough calories? Not during your ride, it's not about I, you know it's not, as I mean, if for a long ride it's, it's useful to take them. But I'm more concerned, like, over the course of a day or in the six hours around your ride, are you getting in enough calories that you can recover, so you're not spending half the day in a big calorie deficit. And that's for the overall adaptation, as opposed to allowing you to win the workout, which is, which is less of a priority. And I certainly like as a runner, um, if I'm running less than two hours, which which is pretty much always these days, I, I, I wouldn't even think about taking, taking fuel during a run, like, or if I was, it would only be in the context of, like practicing for, uh, for a race where I was planning to fuel and just making sure that my gut could handle it. So I think, um, I mean, I think, yeah, the 120 should be. The articles about 120 written by idiots like me should be viewed as a window on what the pros are doing, not a guide to what people should be doing.

Speaker 2:

Ecological literature of what do recreational marathoners do during the race. Certainly like 10 years ago when the when the guidelines were, let's say, 60 grams of carbohydrate people were taking, the average was like 20 or whatever people were under fueling pretty dramatically. So if the elites are now doing 120, it's not like you should do 120, but maybe it's like if you were doing 20, maybe you should do 30. If you're doing 30, maybe you should do 40. Like that, it's a. It's. It's a maybe, a, a vote of confidence after an era of, after the ketogenic era, that carbs may be useful, but it's not. It's not something to be emulated as or to go back to what you're saying. It's not. It's not that more is always better. It's that having having enough is, is, is a good good goal.

Speaker 1:

Yeah, that, that's just it, and that's that's our main message today, because it can be super confusing when we see the elites, um, you know, pushing this new strategy, when, when we see great articles being written exploring the curiosities of those limits right Of the of the human body. But at the end of the day, I think it really comes down to that, the individualization of, like, what's the goal of the training today? What are the demands of that? Let's let's match our intake and hydration to meet the demands of that day and let's not overlook total energy, um, accumulation or total energy needs for the grand scheme of what I'm trying to accomplish in a train session. So, with all of that said, it is really like moderation and it's kind of like specific need on the day when it comes to fueling and, uh, I don't know any other key takeaways on carbohydrate fueling for our listeners on that, alex.

Speaker 2:

I mean, I think your point there, which I think, to put it another way, it's like if you're burning as many calories as a Tour de France rider, then you should take, by all means taken, as many calories as a Tour de France rider, but but most of us aren't. So we need to kind of titrate to to our, our specific needs and our specific demands, to kind of titrate to our specific needs and our specific demands.

Speaker 1:

Well, alex, we've had a good series of podcasting lately and it's always awesome to reconnect with you. Like I said, you've been on the podcast before and here we are again. But for our listeners, who may have not read your book Endure or may have caught any articles from you, if they want more Alexlex hutchinson in their life, where do they find you?

Speaker 2:

yeah, so I write about. Once a week I write an article breaking down usually breaking down a recent scientific study on the science of endurance uh, for outside magazine. That's my sweat science column. Um, I have a website, alex hutchinsonnet, which is, you know, permanently five years out of date but does have links to, uh, to the latest places to find me. So those are probably the easiest places to find me these days.

Speaker 1:

Awesome, and in the first uh, the first in the series that we talked about, we mentioned that you are in the process of writing a new book. Can you elaborate more on that, or what's it about? Tell us all the juicy details.

Speaker 2:

Yeah, I'm not quite in the homestretch, but or what's it about? Tell us all the juicy details. Yeah, I'm not quite in the homestretch, but let's say I'm rounding second base at this point. I'm writing a book about basically the science of exploring. Why is it that we're sort of impelled to explore the unknown, to look for new things? What do we get out of pursuing the, you know, ordering the dish at a restaurant that we've never tried before, rather than sticking with a favorite? Is this a good thing? Is it a bad thing? What did we get out of it? How can we do it better? So, just basically exploring, the idea of exploring. So it's turned out to be a bigger topic than I realized, so I've been wrestling with it for a couple of years, but I'm getting into the home straight now and hope to have the book out early next year.

Speaker 1:

Awesome. Well, I'll definitely be looking for it and I would suggest our listeners pick it up as well. And again, another good resource to find more of Alex's work is head to our landing page for the podcast, or go to trainwrightcom backslash podcast and you'll find the episode page there, and I've linked to all the articles that Alex has written in, in combination with the titles and the topics that we've been um discussing on the podcast, so you can you can find a ton more there about Alex. And finally, um, yeah, we'll wrap this thing up. So, Alex, thank you again for your time. Super appreciate it. I had a ton of fun, uh, chatting with you about all these goofy endurance things.

Speaker 2:

Thanks, Adam. It was definitely definitely fun to explore these topics.

Speaker 1:

Thanks for joining us on the time crunch cyclist podcast. We hope you enjoyed the show. If you want even more actionable training advice, head over to trainrightcom backslash newsletter and subscribe to our free weekly publication. Each week you'll get in-depth training content that goes beyond what we cover here on the podcast. That'll help you take your training to the next level. That's all for now. Until next time, train hard, train smart, train right.

People on this episode

Head Shot

Adam Pulford

Host