Effects of 120 vs. 60 and 90 g/h Carbohydrate Intake during a Trail Marathon on Neuromuscular Function and High-Intensity Run Capacity Recovery
Participants
n=26 elite trail runners, randomly distributed into three groups by CHO intake during the race: LOW 60 g/h, MED 90 g/h, HIGH 120 g/h (same race as REF-331).
Protocol
Mountain marathon with 4000 m cumulative slope; CHO intake during the race fixed per group
Measured at baseline (T1) and 24 h after the race (T2):
Abalakov jump test (jump time ABKJT and jump height ABKH)
Half-squat 1RM test (HST1RM)
Aerobic power-capacity test (with fatigue and lactate measures)
Internal exercise load recorded for the race
Key Results
Pre → 24 h declines in Abalakov jump time, jump height and half-squat 1RM were significant only in LOW (60 g/h) and MED (90 g/h) (p < 0.05, Wilcoxon), not in HIGH (120 g/h) (p > 0.05)
Internal load during the race was significantly lower in HIGH than in LOW and MED (p = 0.017)
The change over the study was significantly smaller in HIGH than in LOW and MED for ABKJT (p = 0.038), ABKH (p = 0.038), HST1RM (p = 0.041), and for fatigue (p = 0.018) and lactate (p = 0.012) within the aerobic power-capacity test
60 and 90 g/h behaved alike on these markers; the abstract reports no separate advantage of 90 over 60
Authors' conclusion: 120 g/h "might limit" neuromuscular fatigue and improve recovery of high-intensity run capacity 24 h after the event compared with 90 and 60 g/h
Practical Application
In n=26 elite trail runners randomised to 60, 90 or 120 g/h carbohydrate during a 4000-m-climb mountain marathon, only the 120 g/h group showed no significant 24-h drop in jump performance or half-squat 1RM, with lower internal load during the race and less fatigue and lactate in a next-day run-capacity test; 60 and 90 g/h both declined — for back-to-back hard days, the highest intake tested protected next-day neuromuscular function, and 90 g/h was not enough to do so.
The effect is a "might limit" in the authors' words, from small groups (about 9 per arm) after one race; treat it as a reason to practise higher intakes, not as a guarantee.
The design is a trail marathon; transfer to a cycling stage race is plausible but not tested here (see REF-334 for the professional-peloton practice).
Limitations
Trail-running cohort; cycling extrapolation is reasonable but not identical
24-h follow-up only; longer recovery dynamics unknown
Small parallel groups (26 across 3 arms), non-parametric statistics; the abstract reports within-group declines and between-group differences in change, not a full dose-response model
Gut-training status before the race is not described in the abstract; 120 g/h is only usable when tolerated
How this entry was checked and changed
Why this level
regraded 2026-09-27 from A: parallel RCT, n=26
Content correction 2026-09-27
n=20 -> n=26 elite trail runners, three groups (60/90/120 g/h).
Outcomes "CMJ, MVC, 400-m run" -> Abalakov jump test, half-squat 1RM, aerobic power-capacity test, at baseline and 24 h.
"Each step up (60→90→120) improved recovery; HIGH >> MED > LOW" -> only the 120 g/h group avoided significant 24-h declines; 60 and 90 g/h both declined; internal load lower in HIGH; wording is "might limit".
Sport "cycling, running" and the Tour de France claim -> trail running; the 100-130 g/h peloton claim is not in this paper and was removed.