Have you been able to find information about the exact glucose:fructose ratio for Tailwind? I’m assuming since dextrose is the first ingredient and sucrose is the second ingredient, that it’s at least 3:1. Sound right?
I have no exact info for tailwind. All companies I’ve messaged have stonewalled on that front, unless it’s in their marketing in the first place. So I haven’t contacted further.
Dextrose, sucrose, as ingredients 1 & 2, respectively, means that it could be 50-50 between the two products, or it could be more like 95-5, if there are no other carb ingredients listed. If it’s 50-50, that gives a 2:1 gluc:fruc ratio. If it’s almost exclusively dextrose, then well, it could well be 50:1 gluc:fruc.
My optimism says it might be 2:1. Sucrose is cheaper than dextrose, so that’s what I’d do if I were them, and I were going to list dextrose then sucrose.
Very much appreciate you asking, and even if you would ever like to be contrarian, I absolutely welcome it!
Just to keep risk lower. I don’t see issue for a lot of folks at 120g/hr when things are managed well. But it does increase risk of mismanagement.
If ceiling consumption is 60g glucose per hour (it’s a smidge higher for a lot of folks), then when they get dehydrated, the gut may tend to lower that ceiling and revolt at lower glucose consumption rates. Same for if they go well above threshold. Gut sensitivity increases. Same story for fructose.
I generally just try to keep folks away from the ceiling as a gut safety preventative measure.
Getting way down in the weeds here, there’s also the argument that it might be optimal to include a bit of fructose at lower carb intake rates because folks are likely experience more pulsatility, stochasticity, or volatility, whatever you want to call it, in their blood sugar when flirting with lower intake rates while using only the fastest absorbing carbs. The “down” phases can sometimes feel kind of crummy if there are large time gaps between consumption.
Thanks for the reply. As athletes become more knowledgeable, companies are going to have to be more transparent, I think. I was interested in Tailwind because the price per gram carb is about as low as I can find aside from homemade solutions, and they’re from my hometown. If dextrose is 100% glucose and sucrose is 50% glucose (correct me if I’m wrong), then I would think that 3:1 is the minimum possible ratio with dextrose listed first.
Ingredients are listed in order of quantity. We don’t know what the quantity of each ingredient is. So for arguments sake, if they added 10g of dextrose and 1g of sucrose how do you come to your 3:1 ratio?
Any update on your bottle testing? The Bontrager Voda “Big Guy” Insulated bottle (28 oz / 828ml) has been nice however I am seeing some leaking/sputtering and a lot of post-ride sugar cleanup off the bike.
and in the “for what its worth” department…
there has been much enthusiasm on the forum for more carbs, even on training rides, and training the gut. So I tried 90g/hour on all my rides and after 2 weeks these are my thoughts
- my gut doesn’t need training, I can drink 90g/hour and 100g/hour without issues even when its very warm outside
- my recovery didn’t appear to get better
- consuming 90g/hour appeared to have no impact on RPE or ability to hold power
- while I cut back on carbs/calories during meals to compensate for additional fueling on the bike, my body struggled to find a new balance point and my weight slowly increased
- annoyingly had to clean the sugar off my bike after every ride
A few rides were in the gym at 1 hour / 800kJ, and the others were mostly 2 hours / 1200-1400kJ and the long rides week1 of 3 hours / 1520kJ and week2 of 4 hours / 1900kJ.
90g/hour is about 375 calories coming in, right?
My FTP of 270 my endurance around .7-.72 IF is roughly 700 calories/hour burned. If my FTP was 350 then that same endurance intensity would be roughly 900 calories/hour burned. Someone with an ftp of 350 would need to drop intensity to .56 IF (border of z1/z2 in Coggan zones) to only burn 700 calories/hour.
90g/hour? Absolutely convinced that fueling harder/longer rides is critical, having seen great results in the past by drinking 60g/hour and eating another 30g/hour on 6 hour rides with an IF over 0.80. But not seeing the benefits on fueling at that rate on all my rides.
I guess i am forgetting that this is maybe still an issue for some folks, 60g glucose has been the standard for like over a decade before people were utilizing the dual pathways, with a bunch of various products that used only maltodextrin for a long time. I always thought the issue was a concentration one, with older style gels being concentrated and requiring water that people wouldn’t take with the gel.
Obviously i’m on board with the glucose+fructose train, but I used to use straight maltodextrin for training without issue for a long time. Tasteless and easy to go down at 60g/hour even concentrated in a single bottle when chased with water
Totally possible. I’m just saying that for every gram of fructose, you would have to have at least three grams of glucose. That’s what I meant by a minimum of 3:1 (3/1) glucose:frustose ratio. 2:1, for example, I don’t think is possible given the order of ingredients.
Do I have my convention for stating the ratio backward?
You’ll love the article series I just wrote for slowtwitch. 7 articles, 7000 words. It’s been a day. (yes, all in the last 24 hours.) Found a groove.
When will SlowTwitch publish? I’m assuming articles = articles, and not posting 7 threads on the forum.
If I use your app, and put in 2 hours and 5 minutes at zone2 / Aerobic, it gives
- 120g carbs total
- 900mg sodium total
- 1000ml water total
so that is two 500ml bottles with 60g carbs each.
or roughly 500 calories total. Those rides for me are about 1200-1400kJ burned, and I generally consume 400-700 calories. Your app aligns nicely with what I’m currently doing, and I’m also timing pre and post ride meals.
Your app has a setting for weight, but not FTP. Do you think the recommendations should be independent of kJ burned? Or is adding FTP and/or workout targets a future feature?
At a potential ceiling of 120g/hour, that would be taking in 500 calories per hour.
Unsure on pub date on ST.
Adding FTP & fitness levels is a future feature.
The app can “know” a lot about a person based on what they’re already doing for fueling (which are early onboarding questions).
An early goal was to see how good we could make the recommendations with as little data as possible. So far, results are very positive.
Carb prescriptions should most often not be directly related to kJ burn or only slightly related. Most important is duration of exercise. Second most important is relative intensity. It’s assumed that most folks burn more than they can consume, especially when operating at higher intensities.
But, yes, we’ll be growing the data intake list in the future.
Not pub’d yet.
What is the app? I’m intrigued