Energy gels are a staple among endurance athletes, providing a quick and easy way to refuel mid-race or ride. But understanding what’s in that sachet you’ve been carrying in your jersey pocket is a practically impossible task. You have to take the claims on the packaging at face value.
It’s a problem we at BikeRadar face. It’s why our guide to the best energy gels comes with the caveat that we assess these products based on taste and digestibility – and the manufacturer’s published nutritional values.
However, a study published in the International Journal of Sport Nutrition and Exercise Metabolism casts doubt on the contents of carbohydrate (CHO) gels.
The study examined CHO gels from eight brands, including Maurten, Precision Fuel and Science in Sport, revealing a discrepancy between their stated and actual nutritional value.
Nick Tiller, one of the study’s authors, said on X: “We found a systematic bias toward less energy and carbohydrates in the gels compared to their labels.”
What’s actually in the gels?
Seven of the eight brands fell within 15 per cent of the labelled amounts. They therefore comply with the accuracy guidelines set out by US, Canadian and European governing bodies.
However, Spring Energy gels had 70 per cent less energy and 72 per cent fewer carbohydrates than stated on the packaging.
The study says if an athlete followed an hourly fueling strategy of 2x 54g servings of Spring Energy’s Awesome Sauce gel, they would expect to consume 90g of carbohydrates and 360kcal. However, the study’s analysis indicates that the fueling strategy could provide 30g of carbs and 144kcal.
The most accurate product was the Maurten 100 gel. The study says it has 3 per cent more calories than claimed. It matches the 25g of carbs stated on the packet.
Science in Sports Beta Fuel also came close to its stated nutritional content, matching the claimed 158kcal, with 0.8g fewer carbs than the packet says.
Why is accuracy important?
Nobody likes to be misled, but there could be significant implications from energy gels misstating their nutritional value.
The study, published in November, says insufficient CHO intake during competition can increase your risk of exercise-induced hypoglycemia. If not managed, this can lead to cognitive decline, syncope (or ‘passing out’) and other “serious health complications”.
“The risks of severe outcomes may be considerably greater at endurance events contested in remote locations (e.g. in the mountains), where the environment can impede prompt medical aid and at ultra-endurance events where contestants may exercise for prolonged periods in relative isolation”, the authors write.
Underfueling can also lead to poor long-term health. The study highlights Relative Energy Deficiency in Sport (REDS), stating it can impair physiological function.
It also says low CHO intake has been shown to increase circulating stress hormones, causing issues in immune function. This can inadvertently increase susceptibility to overtraining-related illness and injury.
The authors urge product manufacturers to pay close attention to quality control and production, but highlight limitations of their analysis. They explain that, due to funding, they only tested eight brands of CHO gel from more than 20 available worldwide. Their selection was based on popularity with athletes and coaches.
They only tested one product from each group, apart from Spring Energy where a secondary analysis was conducted.
“We urge caution before extrapolating too broadly from the primary analysis,” they state.
