Skip to content

Potato ingestion is as effective as carbohydrate gels to support prolonged cycling performance.

PMID 31622159 (2019): carbohydrate, carb — Time to exhaustion, Time-trial performance, Fat oxidation (study note for endurance athletes).

Last updated/Feb 23, 2026, 10:34 PM

Study note • PMID 31622159

Potato ingestion is as effective as carbohydrate gels to support prolonged cycling performance.

Journal of applied physiology (Bethesda, Md. : 1985)2019 • DOI 10.1152/japplphysiol.00567.2019
Evidence B71/100
Action 1: Default

Low risk + high feasibility for most athletes.

ELI5

In plain language

Carbohydrate (CHO) ingestion is an established strategy to improve endurance performance. (randomized trial; trained cyclists).

The abstract doesn’t indicate a clear change in Time-trial performance under the tested conditions. Treat this as a signal, not a guarantee; confirm methods and context in the full paper.

Takeaways

What the abstract suggests

  • Study question: Carbohydrate (CHO) ingestion is an established strategy to improve endurance performance.
  • The abstract doesn’t indicate a clear change in Time-trial performance under the tested conditions.
  • Population: trained cyclists.
  • Protocol cues (title/abstract): 4.5 min • 4.2 min • 7.9 min.

Protocol

Protocol (as reported)

  • Intervention/exposure: carbohydrate, carb (vs comparison group).
  • Dose/time/duration cues in abstract/title: 4.5 min • 4.2 min • 7.9 min.
  • Outcomes: Time to exhaustion, Time-trial performance, Fat oxidation.
  • Replication note: abstracts often omit adherence and timing; confirm details before changing training or supplementation.

Fit

Who it helps, and who should skip it

Who it helps

  • Athletes similar to the study population (trained cyclists) working on fueling.
  • Athletes who can measure Time to exhaustion, Time-trial performance, Fat oxidation with a repeatable workout or time-trial effort.

Who should skip

  • If you have symptoms or conditions that make the intervention risky, get professional guidance.
  • If you’re near race day and can’t safely test, defer the experiment.

Methods

What the study actually did

  • Design: randomized trial.
  • Population: trained cyclists.
  • Comparator: comparison group.
  • Outcomes measured: Time to exhaustion, Time-trial performance, Fat oxidation.
  • Protocol cues mentioned: 4.5 min • 4.2 min • 7.9 min.
  • Source: PubMed PMID 31622159 (2019) — Journal of applied physiology (Bethesda, Md. : 1985).

Results excerpt

What the abstract reports

Moreover, no difference was observed in TT performance between CHO conditions (P = 1.00).

Note: excerpts are short; for full context, read the paper.

Limits

Limitations & bias

  • Abstract-only summaries can miss critical details (population, protocol, adherence, and context).
  • Single studies often don’t generalize to your event, history, and training load; treat results as a starting point.
  • If your context differs (elite vs recreational; cycling vs running), adjust expectations and be conservative.
  • This is performance information, not medical advice.

Coaching beta

Get a plan that adapts to your life.

Join the 26weeks.ai TestFlight beta for adaptive coaching, recovery-aware adjustments, and race-week reminders.

Keep going

Sources