REF-1742 · Fleitas-Paniagua et al., 2026 · Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, · Paper · PubMed

In 12 recreationally trained women, a carbohydrate drink during 90 min of heavy cycling made a following 4-km time trial faster than placebo to a similar degree in the mid-follicular and mid-luteal phases (9.9 and 9.8 min vs 10.4 and 10.0 min), and performance and performance fatigability did not differ between the two phases (one small crossover, read from its abstract)

Main caveat: One crossover of 12; the abstract gives no p value for the phase effect or the interaction, so "similar across phases" is the authors' reading without its…
limited, mixed evidenceMeasured on recreational to trained athletesRead from the abstract only

Fleitas-Paniagua and colleagues (the Murias laboratory) asked whether a carbohydrate drink during heavy cycling helps a later time trial equally across two menstrual cycle phases, and whether the phase changes perceived or muscle fatigue.

Twelve recreationally trained women rode 90 min at a constant power in the lower heavy domain four times, two sessions in each of the mid-follicular and mid-luteal phases, once with carbohydrate and once with placebo in each phase, and then rode a 4-km time trial.

Carbohydrate made the time trial faster in both phases (p = 0.005): 9.9 vs 10.4 min in the follicular and 9.8 vs 10.0 min in the luteal phase. With carbohydrate the potentiated twitch fell a little more (−46% and −50% vs −43% and −43%; p = 0.044), and breathlessness was rated higher in the luteal phase with carbohydrate than with placebo.

Maximal voluntary force, voluntary activation, low-frequency fatigue, RPE, rating of fatigue and leg pain did not differ. The authors conclude that performance and performance fatigability do not differ between these two phases after this bout, and that carbohydrate helps similarly in both.

Participants

n = 12 recreationally trained, naturally menstruating females (inferred from the phase design; contraceptive use is not stated in the abstract).
Age, VO2max, training history and cycle characteristics: not in the abstract.

Protocol

Visit 1: step-ramp-step test to estimate GET and MMSSest.
Four randomised sessions: 90 min at 20% of the way from GET to MMSSest, in the mid-follicular (F) and mid-luteal (L) phases, each with carbohydrate (CHO) or placebo (PLA): F-CHO, F-PLA, L-CHO, L-PLA.
After each bout: a 4-km time trial.
Measures: RPE, rating of fatigue, dyspnoea, leg pain; change in isometric maximal voluntary contraction, voluntary activation, low-frequency fatigue (Db10:100) and potentiated twitch.
Not in the abstract: how phases were identified and confirmed (calendar, ovulation test, hormones), carbohydrate dose, type and schedule, blinding, pre-trial diet.

Key Results

OutcomeF-CHOL-CHOF-PLAL-PLAp
4-km time trial, min (mean ± SD)9.9 ± 2.19.8 ± 2.010.4 ± 2.610.0 ± 1.90.005 (CHO better than PLA, similar in both phases)
Potentiated twitch, change−46% ± 12%−50% ± 12%−43% ± 12%−43% ± 14%0.044 (greater decline with CHO)
Dyspnoea rating, as printed (the abstract does not name the summary statistic)—10 (9-10)—9 (8-9)0.020 (L-CHO vs L-PLA)
No difference: maximal voluntary contraction, voluntary activation, Db10:100, RPE, rating of fatigue, leg pain.
The phase main effect and the phase × drink interaction are described as not different; their p values are not in the abstract.
Our arithmetic from the means: the carbohydrate gain was about 0.5 min in the follicular and 0.2 min in the luteal phase; the abstract reports them as similar, with no interval for either.

Practical Application

Carbohydrate during a long hard ride helped a later time trial in both the mid-follicular and the mid-luteal phase, and the result did not differ between phases; there is no reason from this trial to change ride fuelling by cycle phase. One small crossover of recreationally trained women, read from its abstract.
This agrees with [SYNTH-37]: "the phase is not the lever". It adds a fuelling-specific null to the guide's performance and caffeine nulls (REF-335, REF-1691).
Fuel by the session, not the calendar: the hourly rate comes from SYNTH-02; this trial gives no dose, because the dose is not in the abstract.
Inference, not tested here: the early follicular phase (menstruation), when symptoms are usually heaviest, was not tested; SYNTH-37 acts on symptoms, and nothing here changes that.

Limitations

One crossover of 12; the abstract gives no p value for the phase effect or the interaction, so "similar across phases" is the authors' reading without its statistics in front of us.
How the phases were confirmed, the carbohydrate dose and whether the drinks were blinded are not in the abstract.
Only two phases were tested; the early follicular and late luteal phases, and women on hormonal contraception, were not.
The neuromuscular findings (potentiated twitch, dyspnoea) are marker and perception measures, not performance.
The same laboratory ran the same 90-min heavy bout in 12 men (REF-1740); the two abstracts describe different participants (women here, men there), so the two results are separate samples.
Written from the abstract and the PubMed record; full text not read.
How this entry was checked and changed
Why this level

a crossover of 12 (the rubric's B band) taken one step down because it is read from the abstract only, which does not say how phases were confirmed, what dose was given or whether drinks were blinded, and gives no test statistic for the phase comparison