The UCI’s 2026 Nutrition Position Statement: What Amateur Cyclists Should Take From It

On 15 September 2026 the International Journal of Sport Nutrition and Exercise Metabolism (IJSNEM) published a position statement on nutrition for cycling, developed with the support of the UCI; the5krunner described it as the governing body’s first. Louise Burke and colleagues drew on 54 researchers and a series of 14 topic reviews to set out recommendations in ten themes, from race fueling to supplements, gadgets and body weight. The full text is free to read on the journal’s site.

The recommendations target elite riders, but the authors say they may also matter to “the many millions of cyclists who compete at lower tiers.” Paracycling is not covered. Below is what the statement says, where a second 2026 paper reads the carbohydrate evidence differently, and what an amateur can use.

Carbs on the Bike: Scaled to Race Length

The statement’s race table scales carbohydrate to duration. For races of 40–75 minutes it suggests a carbohydrate mouth rinse where practical: 5–10 seconds of contact between a sports drink or gel and the mouth, which may help pacing and perceived effort. For races of 1–2.5 hours it sets 30–60 g/h, which everyday foods or sports products can supply. Beyond 2.5 hours the target is 90 g/h.

Above 60 g/h, riders should use products with multiple transportable carbohydrates: glucose- and fructose-based mixes that the gut absorbs through different transporters. Tolerance is built by gut training, which means practising in training with gradually larger amounts of the products you plan to race with. Our on-bike fueling guide covers the practical side.

Two more race-day numbers: a pre-race meal with 1–4 g of carbohydrate per kg of body mass in the 1–4 hours before the start, and a fluid plan that keeps net losses under 2% of body mass, especially in the heat. Weighing yourself before and after similar training rides gives a gauge of sweat rate; comparing pre- and post-race weight shows whether the plan worked.

90 or 120 g/h?

On the highest intakes, the statement is cautious. Its text says race intakes can go higher than 90 g/h in highly trained riders, but its race table says the 120 g/h or more seen in some professionals still needs its benefits validated. Further studies are needed to show whether the practice brings systematic performance gains, the risk of gut problems has to be acknowledged, and any benefit may be indirect, for example by helping riders meet extreme daily energy needs or recover. The pros and cons of 120 g/h and above are on its list of priority research questions.

The practice itself is not in doubt. Jeukendrup and colleagues’ companion review of road racing describes reported on-bike intakes rising from about 30–60 g/h before 2010 to 90, and even 120 g/h and higher, today.

Morton et al. (2026), a review in the Journal of Nutrition accepted in February, is more open to higher doses. It notes that the 2016 American College of Sports Medicine guidelines cap intake at 90 g/h for exercise lasting more than 2.5–3 hours, then argues that the upper limit “could increase from 90 to 120 g/h”, at least for trained athletes, because both exogenous and whole-body carbohydrate oxidation rise at higher intakes. Some studies that fed 120–144 g/h measured average peak oxidation of the ingested carbohydrate at 96–105 g/h. On the doses studied so far, the authors call 90–120 g/h the best-supported upper limit for most athletes.

On performance, the two papers sit closer together than the headline numbers suggest. Morton et al. write that whether intakes above 90 g/h improve performance beyond the existing 60–90 g/h framework remains to be determined, and that the 120–200 g/h some athletes now experiment with is not substantiated. A dose-response trial they cite, a multisite study of 51 recreationally trained cyclists and triathletes given 0–120 g/h, found diminishing gains above about 78 g/h. Morton, Gonzalez and Podlogar are also authors of the UCI statement, which cites the Journal of Nutrition paper. Six of that paper’s seven authors declare industry relationships, five of them with Science in Sport (one as an employee).

Morton et al. also make the case for individual targets. In one study they summarise, trained cyclists over 70 kg oxidised more of a 90 g/h glucose dose than lighter riders (about 45 vs 33 g/h). In another, a personalised glucose dose averaging 65 g/h matched the peak oxidation of 90 g/h. Oxidation of ingested carbohydrate also falls by 20–30% in the heat. And the evidence base is narrow: by their count, fewer than 5% of studies involve elite or world-class athletes, and under 3% use female-only groups. Our 120 g/h article covers how riders build up to high intakes.

Daily Targets

Away from races, the statement gives daily ranges, which it says should be adjusted to each rider’s goals and experience.

Energy availability is the energy left from food once training has been paid for. The statement suggests the lower end of 40–45 kcal per kg of fat-free mass for riders with little activity outside training and the upper end for active ones. Short, planned periods of low energy availability are unlikely to be a problem if ample recovery follows. At the extreme, some stage races may call for 7,000–9,000 kcal a day. Protein goes toward the top of its range during low-carbohydrate or low-energy periods and on rest days after hard training. Our cycling nutrition guide covers day-to-day eating.

Energy Availability and the Weight Question

A companion review by Burke, Gonzalez and colleagues (IJSNEM, March 2026) explains why the topic gets its own paper. In surveys of well-trained cyclists, 86–97% agreed that competitive cyclists are a weight-conscious population. In a study of 203 competitive cyclists, 5.7% had clinical eating disorders and 16.7% had questionnaire scores indicating disordered eating. In another, 77% of 97 male cyclists had tried to lose weight in the previous year.

Its advice to riders is to treat body mass as a metric rather than a goal, and to work within a flexible weight range instead of a fixed target, keeping the low end for key races. For teams and federations, it recommends regular screening with the REDs CAT2 tool and an end to lighter-is-better messaging.

The review is open about uncertainty. Energy targets estimated from field data or simple equations should be treated with extreme caution, it says, and several project members have questioned parts of the IOC’s model of relative energy deficiency in sport (REDs); the IOC’s expert group responded, and they replied in turn. The position statement adds that menstrual irregularities may be an early sign of low energy availability and should prompt a review of diet and training load, that severe menstrual symptoms warrant medical support, and that iron, vitamin D and calcium supplements are best used within a plan from a sports physician or sports dietitian.

Supplements: Six With Evidence, Ketones Out

The project limited itself to six performance supplements with a robust evidence base when used to specific protocols in specific scenarios: caffeine, creatine, sodium bicarbonate, beta-alanine, nitrate (beetroot juice) and glycerol, all in Group A of the Australian Institute of Sport framework. Exogenous ketones were added as a much-discussed product with limited support (Group B). The statement rates each one by discipline:

For road riders, only caffeine, beta-alanine and glycerol get a tick; creatine, nitrate and bicarbonate need more road-specific evidence. Gravel gets a tick for caffeine alone, the only product rated strong in every discipline. For products and timing, see our caffeine guide. Bicarbonate is rated strong in every discipline except road and gravel, and the statement lists it, with caffeine, among supplements that can contribute to gut problems; it is a topic of its own.

Two warnings apply to all of them. Much of the research has been done in lower-calibre (Tier 2–3) male athletes, so effects in elite and female riders are less certain. And in most countries supplements are less strictly regulated than food or medicines: the statement tells even riders who never face doping control to use only reputable products that have been through third-party batch testing, noting that testing reduces the risk of contamination with prohibited substances but does not eliminate it.

Ketones get a cross in every column. That matches the UCI’s October 2025 press release which, as reported by BikeRadar, found no compelling evidence that ketones enhance performance or recovery and did not recommend them. BikeRadar notes that ketones have never been on WADA’s prohibited list. Our ketone article goes deeper.

Technology: Power Meters Yes, CGMs Not Yet

Of the nutrition-relevant gadgets it reviewed, the statement names power meters as meeting its tests of validity and reliability: they let coaches and nutritionists predict energy expenditure with reasonable validity. The companion energy review adds that most manufacturers claim about 1–3% error, and that converting pedal work into energy burned depends on gross efficiency, generally reported at about 19–23%.

Continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) are the statement’s leading example of a technology promoted to cyclists without enough evidence behind it. The sensors typically lag blood glucose by 10–15 minutes, may not read accurately during high-intensity exercise or after eating, and give consistently lower values on the leg than on the arm, so it is unclear whether their data can guide fueling. Spotting overreaching or low energy availability is a possible future use that needs more work. The UCI bans wearable sensors that capture metabolic data, glucose included, in competition unless the rider has Type 1 diabetes. Sweat, lactate and wearable core-temperature sensors also lack enough evidence of accuracy.

What Amateurs Can Take From It

• Match carbs to race length: a rinse for races of 40–75 minutes, 30–60 g/h for 1–2.5 hours, and about 90 g/h beyond that, using glucose–fructose products above 60 g/h.
• Treat 120 g/h as an experiment: both papers say its performance benefit is unproven. If you try it, build up gradually in training.
• Check your fluids: weigh before and after to keep losses under 2% of body mass.
• Eat enough protein: 1.6–2.1 g/kg a day, spread across meals, and don’t hold a race weight all year.
• Keep supplements few and tested: caffeine is the only one rated strong across every discipline; use third-party batch-tested products and skip ketones.
• Pick data you can act on: the power meter is the tool the statement names as meeting its bar for validity and reliability.
• Get professional help for iron, vitamin D or calcium supplements, and if signs of low energy availability appear.

Sources

• Position statement: Burke LM, Dolan E, Gonzalez JT, Mujika I, Jeukendrup AE, et al. (52 authors), “UCI Sports Nutrition Project: Position Statement on Nutrition for Cycling,” IJSNEM 36(6):700–726, published online 15 September 2026 (full text, free access, Human Kinetics; record on Europe PMC).
• Companion reviews (IJSNEM 36(3), 2026): Burke LM, Gonzalez JT, Areta JL, et al., “Body Composition, Energy Requirements, and Energy Availability in Cycling,” 305–323, online 30 March 2026 (full text); Jeukendrup AE, Redegeld M, Martins G, et al., “Race Nutrition for Road Cycling,” 215–232, online 31 March 2026 (abstract); Whitfield J, Egan B, Del Coso J, et al., “Considerations and Applications for the Use of Sports Foods and Supplements to Improve Performance in Cycling,” 187–214, online 1 May 2026 (abstract).
• Carbohydrate review: Morton JP, Fell JM, Gonzalez JT, Hearris MA, Podlogar T, Pugh JN, Wallis GA, “From Metabolism to Medals: Contemporary Perspectives and Revisiting Carbohydrate Guidelines for Fueling Endurance Athletes during Exercise,” Journal of Nutrition 156(5):101442, accepted 20 February 2026 (open access, PMC13197957).
• Coverage: the5krunner, “UCI backs 6 supplements, power meters, carb strategies” (16 September 2026); James Witts, “The UCI says riders shouldn’t take ketones. Where next for this polarising supplement?” BikeRadar (7 January 2026).

This article summarises published research and is not individual medical or dietary advice. No affiliate links were used.

Related Articles

• On-Bike Fueling: How to Eat During a Ride
• The 120g/hr Carb Revolution: How Pros Fuel and How You Can Too
• Cycling Nutrition: The Complete Fueling Guide
• Ketone Supplements in the Pro Peloton: Science, Hype, and What Amateurs Should Know
• Caffeine for Cycling Performance: Products, Dosing, and Timing