The stretch from Thanksgiving to New Year’s is one of the toughest times of year for endurance athletes. Schedules get messy, routines fall apart, and motivation takes a hit. But losing fitness isn’t inevitable. With a realistic plan, a focus on the essentials, and a few key non-negotiables, you can maintain momentum through the holidays and roll into January ready to build—not rebuild.
Continue readingSoS Gravel Collective 2026
Creatine for Endurance Athletes: What the Science Says
Creatine isn’t just for bodybuilders. Endurance athletes—from cyclists and triathletes to motocross riders—are discovering its benefits for performance, recovery, and even mental health. While creatine won’t boost your VO₂ max, it can improve your ability to handle surges, sprints, and climbs, all while supporting faster recovery between training sessions. Current research also suggests creatine may play a role in cognitive function and mood regulation, adding another layer of potential benefit. In this article, we break down what the science really says about creatine for endurance athletes, how it impacts recovery, and the best way to use it—dosage, timing, and all.
Continue readingCrank Length: Does It Really Matter?
For decades, cyclists and fitters alike have treated crank length as sacred—often dictated by outdated rules or assumptions that “taller riders need longer cranks.” But recent research paints a very different picture—one that challenges conventional wisdom and brings the focus back to function over tradition.
Myth: Longer Cranks = More Power
At face value, the idea that longer cranks generate more leverage and therefore more power seems logical. But Martin and Spirduso (2001) debunked this in a landmark study where cyclists rode with crank lengths ranging from 120 mm to 220 mm. They found that maximum power output remained unchanged across crank lengths between 145 and 195 mm—a surprisingly wide “neutral zone” with no performance loss.
More recently, Burrus et al. (2021) tested novice cyclists using 145 mm and 175 mm cranks. Riders using the shorter cranks produced 3–5.5% more power at the same oxygen cost—indicating improved efficiency, not just mechanical leverage.
No Major Differences in Joint Power, but Big Differences in Fit
Barrett et al. (2011) and Barratt et al. (2016) explored crank lengths from 150 mm to 190 mm and found no significant difference in hip, knee, or ankle power contribution. However, longer cranks did increase joint range of motion, particularly at the hips and knees. This matters, especially in aero positions where hip closure can restrict breathing, reduce glute recruitment, and cause discomfort or injury.
A 2023 study using statistical parametric mapping (SPM) confirmed that shorter cranks reduce excessive knee and pelvic motion, promoting a more stable and efficient pedal stroke.
Crank Length and Efficiency
From an aerobic perspective, research continues to show crank length has little to no effect on oxygen consumption or heart rate at submaximal efforts. Whether you’re using 165 mm or 175 mm cranks, your engine runs just as efficiently, assuming cadence remains consistent.
For time trialists, triathletes, and riders seeking a more aggressive position, shorter cranks help open the hip angle, improve comfort, and reduce the risk of overuse injuries—without sacrificing performance.
Real-World Trends
Many pro cyclists are shifting toward shorter cranks—not to gain watts, but to reduce joint strain and allow for more aerodynamic positioning. At the 2025 Tour de France, 160–165 mm cranks were increasingly common in the peloton, even among taller riders (Cycling Weekly, 2025).
Practical Takeaways
So, should you change your crank length? Here’s what the science suggests:
- Stick with what works if you’re comfortable and performing well in the 170–175 mm range.
- Go shorter if you’re experiencing hip, knee, or low back discomfort—especially in aero setups.
- Don’t chase leverage—you won’t gain power with longer cranks, but you may sacrifice joint health and positioning.
- Fit always comes first. Crank length should complement—not compromise—your position, flexibility, and performance demands.
Final Word
Crank length isn’t a magic bullet. But when dialed in properly, it can significantly improve your comfort, biomechanics, and long-term durability on the bike. If you’re unsure whether your setup is optimized, a professional bike fit may be the smartest investment you can make in your training and performance.
References
- Martin JC, Spirduso WW. (2001). Determinants of maximal cycling power: crank length, pedaling rate, and pedal speed.
- Burrus B, Armendariz M, Moscicki T. (2021). Shorter crank lengths improve cycling performance in novice cyclists. J Strength Cond Res.
- Barrett RS et al. (2011). Crank length does not influence joint-specific power during submaximal cycling.
- Barratt PR et al. (2016). Influence of crank length on cycling biomechanics.
- Cycling Weekly. (2025). Five tech trends from the 2025 Tour de France.
- SPM Study: PubMed ID 40464620
Are You Carb Over-Loading?
In recent years, the endurance sports world has embraced a growing trend: pushing carbohydrate intake higher and higher. From group rides to Ironman events to the Tour de France, athletes are now reporting intakes of 180 to 220 grams of carbohydrate per hour—a massive leap from previous guidelines.
But here’s the critical question: Do you actually need that much?
The Rise of High-Carb Racing
The shift toward extreme fueling strategies has largely been driven by elite-level data. We now understand that the gut, like any other physiological system, can be trained to absorb more carbohydrates. Elite athletes in long events are pushing boundaries, with measurable performance gains.
Take Stage 9 of the 2025 Tour de France, where Jonas Rickaert rode nearly 3.5 hours at an average of 356 watts. His total caloric expenditure? Roughly 4,900 kcal. Even assuming 40% of that energy came from fat, that still leaves around 2,900 kcal from carbohydrate—or ~200 grams of CHO per hour. In that context, his fueling needs make complete sense.
But here’s the problem: Most athletes aren’t Jonas Rickaert.
The Above-Average Cyclist
Let’s compare Rickaert’s numbers to those of an “above-average” amateur cyclist—someone with a 4.0 W/kg FTP, likely a strong contributor on local group rides, capable of maintaining steady efforts, but not elite. If this rider goes out for a 3.5-hour ride, their average power might sit around 190 watts, leading to an energy expenditure of approximately 2,600 kcal.
Using the same assumption—40% fat, 60% carbohydrate—this rider would require roughly 1,560 kcal from carbohydrate over the session. That breaks down to ~110 grams of carbs per hour—and that’s if they aim to fully replenish all carbs burned, which isn’t always necessary or even feasible.
If the rider is less fit, the power drops, the calorie burn drops, and the carb need drops even further.
One Size Doesn’t Fit All
Here’s the issue: much of the advice being circulated today is based on what elite athletes are doing. But for most amateur cyclists, runners, or triathletes, those needs simply don’t align with their energy expenditure. High-carb fueling has its place, especially in racing and high-intensity sessions, but blindly chasing 120+ grams per hour can lead to unnecessary gut distress, weight gain, or just wasted effort.
Fueling Smarter, Not Just More
Before adopting elite-level fueling, consider these three critical variables:
- Total Energy Expenditure – Are you burning 5,000 kcal on your ride… or 2,000?
- Intensity of Effort – Higher intensity = greater carb reliance. But at endurance pace (Zone 2), fat can cover 35–55% of energy needs.
- Fueling Goals – Are you trying to maximize performance, or just complete the session feeling strong?
For many athletes, aiming for 60–90g of carbs per hour is both practical and effective. Jumping to 100+ g/hr should only happen after considering workload and practicing gut tolerance.
Carb Type & Delivery Matter, Too
If you’re struggling with GI issues at higher intakes, it may not be the quantity—but the form. Liquids and gels are generally absorbed faster than solids or semi-solids. Likewise, combining multiple carb sources (e.g., glucose + fructose) can improve absorption rates and reduce GI distress.
The Bottom Line
Elite athletes have exceptional fitness, metabolic flexibility, and massive energy demands. Their fueling needs are not representative of the average cyclist or runner. Yes, it’s exciting to see what’s physiologically possible—but it’s a mistake to blindly copy their strategies without considering your own needs.
Instead, evaluate your output, test what works, and fuel with purpose. The body is trainable—but it’s also unique. Train your gut, track your workload, and align your carbohydrate intake with your actual performance demands, not just what’s trending.
Are you uncertain about how to fuel and how many calories you actually need during your workouts? Let one of our coaches help you understand and dial in your nutrition plan.
View the FULL RECAP on our YouTube channel!
Three Signs You Should Get a Bike Fit
Pain while riding a bicycle is not a rite of passage it is simply torture. If you have any of these three, common cycling discomforts, it is time for you to get a bike fit!
Continue readingMax Effort, Min Health: The Downsides of Going All-Out in Exercise
Feeling sore and exhausted after every workout? It might be time to reconsider your approach for better health, performance, and longevity. High-intensity exercise can suppress immune function, increase the risk of illness, and lead to burnout. Personalized high-intensity workouts are often more beneficial, considering individual fitness levels and goals. Read the full article to learn more about these three important aspects and how to optimize your workouts.
Continue reading





