Originally Posted by
kenrudman
Yeah, but your 100 mile ride is around 4 hours, right? Most of us non-racers need 6+ hours. I would think that would be a major difference. It certainly seems that way for me.
Originally Posted by
merlinextraligh
I'd be willing to bet that his 100 mile rides with no food weren't 4 hours. Ride at a low intensity, and you don't need to eat as much, in part because you're utilizing fat stores. Ride at a higher intensity, and you can't use fat as much, and you're more dependent on muscle glyogen, and carbs
What Merlin said. A nice endurance pace, 5.5-6 hours for rolling 100 miles, no food necessary. Only burning 500-600 cal/hr. I did a 4.5 hour moderately hilly century, and ate 4 Clif bars and a bottle of Perpetuem. Burnng around 800-900 cal/hr, and a much higher ratio of carbs.
Originally Posted by
gregf83
How quickly you run out of glycogen is a function of how hard your are riding. If you want to extend the distance you ride without food just ride easier. At lower exercise intensites your body will use a higher percentage of fat. As the intensity increases and you ride closer to threshold the % of glycogen usage will go up and you'll burn through your reserves faster.
So, if you don't want to bonk at 80 miles you have only 2 options: eat more during the ride (250-300 Cals/hr) or ride slower. Carbo loading can be effective for races (probably more useful for marathons) but isn't necessary to long endurance rides.
This. And the fitter you are, the faster you can ride below you anaerobic threshold, therefore burning a lower ratio of carbs.