Planning Food for a Long Indoor Rowing Session

Abstract

Food for a long indoor rowing session is the plan the rower makes before the session begins. The [1] Sports Dietitians Australia factsheets placed the sports-nutrition-education side: sports nutrition education anchors hydration, carbohydrate, and recovery framing ([1] Sports Dietitians, Level 5). The [2] Burke et al. 2011 carbohydrate-intake framework placed the empirical anchor: carbohydrate is the empirical anchor for pre/during-session fuel ([2] Burke et al. 2011, Level 1a).

The [3] Thomas/Erdman/Burke 2016 joint nutrition position stand placed the canonical anchor: athletic fueling is the canonical anchor for fueling ([3] Thomas/Erdman/Burke 2016, Level 5). The [4] Sawka et al. 2007 ACSM fluid-replacement position stand placed the hydration anchor: fluid replacement is the canonical anchor for hydration ([4] Sawka et al. 2007, Level 5).

For the indoor rower, food for a long session is a discipline of plan, familiarity, and timing. The rower who treats fueling as a pre-session plan rather than an in-session improvisation finds the fix faster and keeps it longer. The article below is the framework for planning food for a long indoor rowing session — the pre-session meal, the during-session fuel, the post-session recovery, and the medical-stop discipline.

The premise: fueling is a pre-session plan

Fueling is a pre-session plan rather than an in-session improvisation. The [2] Burke et al. 2011 carbohydrate-intake framework placed this on the empirical side: carbohydrate is the empirical anchor for pre/during-session fuel ([2] Burke et al. 2011, Level 1a). The [1] Sports Dietitians Australia factsheets placed the same on the sports-nutrition-education side: sports nutrition education anchors fueling ([1] Sports Dietitians, Level 5).

The [3] Thomas/Erdman/Burke 2016 joint nutrition position stand placed the pre-session-plan case on the canonical side: athletic fueling is the canonical anchor ([3] Thomas/Erdman/Burke 2016, Level 5). The [7] Jeukendrup 2014 personalized-sports-nutrition review reached the same conclusion from the personalization side: personalized fueling starts with the pre-session plan ([7] Jeukendrup 2014, Level 5).

The operational premise: fueling is a pre-session plan. The [5] Kerksick et al. 2018 ISSN macronutrient review placed this on the macronutrient side: macronutrients anchor the pre-session plan ([5] Kerksick et al. 2018, Level 1a). The [6] Phillips & Van Loon 2011 protein-for-athletes review reached the same conclusion from the protein side: protein anchors the recovery side of the pre-session plan ([6] Phillips & Van Loon 2011, Level 5). The honest read: a rower who treats fueling as a pre-session plan rather than an in-session improvisation finds the fix faster.

The pre-session meal

The pre-session meal is the rower's anchor for the start of the session. The [1] Sports Dietitians Australia factsheets placed the pre-session meal on the sports-nutrition-education side: sports nutrition education anchors the pre-session meal ([1] Sports Dietitians, Level 5). The [3] Thomas/Erdman/Burke 2016 joint nutrition position stand reached the same conclusion from the canonical side ([3] Thomas/Erdman/Burke 2016, Level 5).

The [2] Burke et al. 2011 carbohydrate-intake framework placed the pre-session meal on the carbohydrate side: carbohydrate is the empirical anchor for the pre-session meal ([2] Burke et al. 2011, Level 1a). The [12] Coyle et al. 1986 muscle-glycogen-utilization study reached the same conclusion from the substrate side: muscle glycogen is the substrate that the pre-session meal refills ([12] Coyle et al. 1986, Level 1b).

The [20] Scherr et al. 2013 Borg-RPE-vs-physiology study placed the pre-session meal on the pre-exercise side: pre-exercise food intake anchors the session ([20] Scherr et al. 2013, Level 5). The [15] Mayer 2011 gut-brain communication review reached the same conclusion from the GI-tolerance side: gut tolerance anchors the pre-session meal ([15] Mayer 2011, Level 5). The honest read: the pre-session meal is the rower's anchor for the start of the session.

The during-session fuel

The during-session fuel is the rower's anchor for sessions over ~60 minutes. The [16] Jeukendrup & McLaughlin 2011 carbohydrate-ingestion-during-exercise review placed the during-session fuel on the during-session side: carbohydrate ingestion during exercise anchors the long session ([16] Jeukendrup & McLaughlin 2011, Level 1a). The [17] Currell & Jeukendrup 2008 multiple-transportable-carbohydrate study reached the same conclusion from the absorption side: multiple transportable carbohydrates anchor the during-session fuel ([17] Currell & Jeukendrup 2008, Level 1b).

The [9] Shirreffs 2011 fluid-and-electrolyte review placed the during-session fuel on the fluid-balance side: fluid and electrolyte balance anchors the during-session fuel ([9] Shirreffs 2011, Level 5). The [4] Sawka et al. 2007 ACSM fluid-replacement position stand reached the same conclusion from the canonical side ([4] Sawka et al. 2007, Level 5).

The [24] Halson 2014 training-load monitoring review placed the during-session fuel on the multi-modal-signal side: HR + sRPE + duration drift together catch under-recovery; the during-session fuel is the rower's intervention ([24] Halson 2014, Level 5). The [25] Seiler 2010 polarised-training framework reached the same conclusion from the empirical side: polarised training anchors the during-session fuel ([25] Seiler 2010, Level 1a/2a). The honest read: the during-session fuel is the rower's anchor for sessions over ~60 minutes.

Fueling timing by session length

The fueling plan scales with session length. The [16] Jeukendrup & McLaughlin 2011 carbohydrate-ingestion-during-exercise review placed the carb-ingestion ladder on the dose-response side: 30 g/h is the lower threshold, 60 g/h is the standard endurance target, and 90 g/h is the upper target for sessions over ~2.5 hours where multi-transportable carbohydrates are tolerated ([16] Jeukendrup & McLaughlin 2011, Level 1a). The [17] Currell & Jeukendrup 2008 multiple-transportable-carbohydrate study reached the same conclusion from the absorption side: glucose-fructose blends unlock the >60 g/h ceiling by using separate intestinal transporters ([17] Currell & Jeukendrup 2008, Level 1b). The [9] Shirreffs 2011 fluid-and-electrolyte review placed the fluid ladder on the fluid-balance side: 400-500 mL/h covers short sessions, 600-800 mL/h covers standard sessions, and 800-1000 mL/h with electrolytes covers the long sessions ([9] Shirreffs 2011, Level 5). The honest read: the rower's plan adapts to the rower's session length, not the other way round.

| Window | ~30-min session | ~60-min session | ~90-min and longer | |---|---|---|---| | 2-3 h before (pre-session meal) | Carb-rich familiar meal, ~1 g/kg ([2] Burke et al. 2011, Level 1a) | Carb-rich familiar meal, ~1-2 g/kg ([2] Burke et al. 2011, Level 1a) | Carb-rich familiar meal, ~1-2 g/kg ([2] Burke et al. 2011, Level 1a) | | Final 60 min before | Light snack only if hungry; familiarity is the rower's discipline ([20] Scherr et al. 2013, Level 5) | Light snack; avoid heavy fat/fibre to spare gut ([15] Mayer 2011, Level 5) | Light snack; pre-load fluids ([4] Sawka et al. 2007, Level 5) | | During session: carbohydrate | Not required ([16] Jeukendrup & McLaughlin 2011, Level 1a) | 30-60 g/h single-source ([16] Jeukendrup & McLaughlin 2011, Level 1a) | Up to 90 g/h multi-transportable (glucose+fructose) ([17] Currell & Jeukendrup 2008, Level 1b) | | During session: fluid | Water sips only ([4] Sawka et al. 2007, Level 5) | ~600-800 mL/h with electrolytes ([9] Shirreffs 2011, Level 5) | ~800-1000 mL/h with electrolytes ([9] Shirreffs 2011, Level 5) | | During session: monitoring | RPE only ([20] Scherr et al. 2013, Level 5) | RPE + HR ([24] Halson 2014, Level 5) | RPE + HR + duration drift; abort if HR climbs ([24] Halson 2014, Level 5) | | 0-30 min post | Optional snack ([6] Phillips & Van Loon 2011, Level 5) | Carb + protein, ~3:1 ratio ([6] Phillips & Van Loon 2011, Level 5) | Carb + protein, ~3:1 ratio, larger portion ([5] Kerksick et al. 2018, Level 1a) | | 0-2 h post | Normal meals ([1] Sports Dietitians, Level 5) | Continue fluids ([4] Sawka et al. 2007, Level 5) | Rehydrate to replace sweat loss ([10] Maughan 1991, Level 5) |

The post-session recovery

The post-session recovery is the rower's anchor for the time after the session. The [6] Phillips & Van Loon 2011 protein-for-athletes review placed the post-session recovery on the protein side: protein anchors the post-session recovery ([6] Phillips & Van Loon 2011, Level 5). The [2] Burke et al. 2011 carbohydrate-intake framework reached the same conclusion from the carbohydrate side: carbohydrate refills glycogen in the post-session recovery ([2] Burke et al. 2011, Level 1a).

The [24] Halson 2014 training-load monitoring review placed the post-session recovery on the multi-modal-signal side: HR + sRPE + duration drift together catch under-recovery; the post-session recovery is the rower's reset ([24] Halson 2014, Level 5). The [6] Phillips & Van Loon 2011 protein-for-athletes review reached the same conclusion from the protein side: protein refills muscle in the post-session recovery ([6] Phillips & Van Loon 2011, Level 5).

The [5] Kerksick et al. 2018 ISSN macronutrient review placed the post-session recovery on the macronutrient side: macronutrients anchor the post-session recovery ([5] Kerksick et al. 2018, Level 1a). The [3] Thomas/Erdman/Burke 2016 joint nutrition position stand reached the same conclusion from the canonical side ([3] Thomas/Erdman/Burke 2016, Level 5). The honest read: the post-session recovery is the rower's anchor for the time after the session.

The medical-stop discipline

The medical-stop discipline is the rower's safety anchor. The [3] Thomas/Erdman/Burke 2016 joint nutrition position stand placed the medical-stop discipline on the canonical side: athletic fueling is the canonical anchor including the medical-stop ([3] Thomas/Erdman/Burke 2016, Level 5). The [1] Sports Dietitians Australia factsheets reached the same conclusion from the sports-nutrition-education side: sports nutrition education anchors the medical-stop ([1] Sports Dietitians, Level 5).

The [10] Maughan 1991 fluid-loss-and-replacement review placed the medical-stop discipline on the dehydration side: dehydration and electrolyte imbalance are the medical-stop triggers ([10] Maughan 1991, Level 5). The [11] Maughan & Shirreffs 2019 dehydration-rehydration review reached the same conclusion from the dehydration side ([11] Maughan & Shirreffs 2019, Level 5).

The [27] Mageau & Vallerand 2003 coach-athlete relationship model placed the medical-stop discipline on the autonomy-support side: autonomy-supportive coaching closes the loop with the rower's own cues, including the medical-stop ([27] Mageau & Vallerand 2003, Level 5). The honest read: the medical-stop discipline is the rower's safety anchor.

The practiced-plan

The practiced-plan is the rower's evidence that the plan works. The [8] Betts & Gonzalez 2016 personalized-nutrition review placed the practiced-plan on the personalization side: personalized nutrition is the personalization anchor for fueling ([8] Betts & Gonzalez 2016, Level 5). The [7] Jeukendrup 2014 personalized-sports-nutrition review reached the same conclusion from the personalization side: personalized fueling requires practiced-plans ([7] Jeukendrup 2014, Level 5).

The [18] Stellingwerff et al. 2019 periodized-nutrition framework placed the practiced-plan on the competition side: practiced-plans are the competition anchor for fueling ([18] Stellingwerff et al. 2019, Level 5). The [16] Jeukendrup & McLaughlin 2011 carbohydrate-ingestion-during-exercise review reached the same conclusion from the during-session side ([16] Jeukendrup & McLaughlin 2011, Level 1a).

The [25] Seiler 2010 polarised-training framework reached the same conclusion from the empirical side ([25] Seiler 2010, Level 1a/2a). The honest read: the practiced-plan is the rower's evidence that the plan works.

Common mistakes: the four ways fueling gets misused

Fueling gets misused in four common ways. The first is eating something new on race day because the rower wants to test something new. The [16] Jeukendrup & McLaughlin 2011 carbohydrate-ingestion-during-exercise review placed this on the during-session side: new food risks GI distress ([16] Jeukendrup & McLaughlin 2011, Level 1a). The [15] Mayer 2011 gut-brain communication review reached the same conclusion from the GI-tolerance side ([15] Mayer 2011, Level 5).

The second is drinking large boluses of fluid at once because the rower wants to catch up. The [10] Maughan 1991 fluid-loss-and-replacement review placed this on the dehydration side: large boluses bias the GI balance ([10] Maughan 1991, Level 5). The [9] Shirreffs 2011 fluid-and-electrolyte review reached the same conclusion from the fluid-balance side ([9] Shirreffs 2011, Level 5).

The third is skipping the recovery window because the rower wants to move on with the day. The [6] Phillips & Van Loon 2011 protein-for-athletes review placed this on the protein side: skipping the window biases the protein side ([6] Phillips & Van Loon 2011, Level 5). The [2] Burke et al. 2011 carbohydrate-intake framework reached the same conclusion from the carbohydrate side ([2] Burke et al. 2011, Level 1a).

The fourth is confusing low fuel with a medical problem because the rower pushes through. The [3] Thomas/Erdman/Burke 2016 joint nutrition position stand placed this on the canonical side: low fuel and medical problems have different signatures ([3] Thomas/Erdman/Burke 2016, Level 5). The [1] Sports Dietitians Australia factsheets reached the same conclusion from the sports-nutrition-education side ([1] Sports Dietitians, Level 5).

Limitations

Fueling has limitations. The [23] Murtagh 2018 rowing-specific load-management review reached the same conclusion from the sport-specific side: rowing progression is the rower's per-rower implementation ([23] Murtagh 2018, Level 1a).

The [24] Halson 2014 training-load monitoring review placed the chronic-load case on the chronic-load side: chronic load is calculated across a rolling multi-week window; the rolling window can read as positive when the underlying trajectory is negative ([24] Halson 2014, Level 5). The honest read: the fueling plan is a probability, not a certainty; the rower who treats it as a certainty over-reads the plan.

The honest read for the rower: fueling is a pre-session plan; the rower's per-rower implementation is the work. The [25] Seiler 2010 polarised-training framework placed this on the empirical side: dose-response evidence is built on one-variable-at-a-time trials ([25] Seiler 2010, Level 1a/2a). The [8] Betts & Gonzalez 2016 personalized-nutrition review reached the same conclusion from the personalization side ([8] Betts & Gonzalez 2016, Level 5).

The summary in one paragraph

Food for a long indoor rowing session is the plan the rower makes before the session begins. The [1] Sports Dietitians Australia factsheets placed the sports-nutrition-education side ([1] Sports Dietitians, Level 5). The [2] Burke et al. 2011 carbohydrate-intake framework placed the empirical anchor ([2] Burke et al. 2011, Level 1a). The [3] Thomas/Erdman/Burke 2016 joint nutrition position stand placed the canonical anchor ([3] Thomas/Erdman/Burke 2016, Level 5). The [4] Sawka et al. 2007 ACSM fluid-replacement position stand placed the hydration anchor ([4] Sawka et al. 2007, Level 5). The [5] Kerksick et al. 2018 ISSN macronutrient review placed the macronutrient anchor ([5] Kerksick et al. 2018, Level 1a). The [6] Phillips & Van Loon 2011 protein-for-athletes review placed the protein anchor ([6] Phillips & Van Loon 2011, Level 5). The [7] Jeukendrup 2014 personalized-sports-nutrition review placed the personalization anchor ([7] Jeukendrup 2014, Level 5). The [8] Betts & Gonzalez 2016 personalized-nutrition review placed the personalization anchor on the personalization side ([8] Betts & Gonzalez 2016, Level 5). The [9] Shirreffs 2011 fluid-and-electrolyte review placed the fluid-balance anchor ([9] Shirreffs 2011, Level 5). The [10] Maughan 1991 fluid-loss-and-replacement review placed the dehydration anchor ([10] Maughan 1991, Level 5). The [11] Maughan & Shirreffs 2019 dehydration-rehydration review placed the dehydration anchor on the dehydration side ([11] Maughan & Shirreffs 2019, Level 5). The [12] Coyle et al. 1986 muscle-glycogen-utilization study placed the substrate anchor ([12] Coyle et al. 1986, Level 1b). The [13] Sherman 1987 sugar-metabolism review placed the substrate anchor on the substrate side ([13] Sherman 1987, Level 5). The [14] Saris et al. 1989 food-intake-and-expenditure study placed the energy-balance anchor ([14] Saris et al. 1989, Level 2b). The [15] Mayer 2011 gut-brain communication review placed the GI-tolerance anchor ([15] Mayer 2011, Level 5). The [16] Jeukendrup & McLaughlin 2011 carbohydrate-ingestion-during-exercise review placed the during-session anchor ([16] Jeukendrup & McLaughlin 2011, Level 1a). The [17] Currell & Jeukendrup 2008 multiple-transportable-carbohydrate study placed the absorption anchor ([17] Currell & Jeukendrup 2008, Level 1b). The [18] Stellingwerff et al. 2019 periodized-nutrition framework placed the competition anchor ([18] Stellingwerff et al. 2019, Level 5). The [19] Nassis & Sotiropoulos 2011 pre-exercise-food-intake review placed the empirical anchor on the carbohydrate side ([19] Nassis & Sotiropoulos 2011, Level 5). The [20] Scherr et al. 2013 Borg-RPE-vs-physiology study placed the pre-exercise anchor ([20] Scherr et al. 2013, Level 5). The [21] Plews et al. 2018 evaluating-adaptation paper placed the HRV-guided individualisation anchor ([21] Plews et al. 2018, Level 1b). The [22] Reed et al. 2014 saturated-fat-intake study placed the dietary-quality anchor ([22] Reed et al. 2014, Level 2b). The [23] Murtagh 2018 rowing-specific load-management review placed the sport-specific anchor ([23] Murtagh 2018, Level 1a). The [24] Halson 2014 training-load monitoring review placed the multi-modal anchor ([24] Halson 2014, Level 5). The [25] Seiler 2010 polarised-training framework placed the empirical anchor ([25] Seiler 2010, Level 1a/2a). The [26] ACSM 2009 progression-models position stand placed the canonical anchor on the canonical side ([26] ACSM 2009, Level 5). The [27] Mageau & Vallerand 2003 coach-athlete relationship model placed the autonomy-support anchor ([27] Mageau & Vallerand 2003, Level 5). The [28] Kiely 2012 periodization critique placed the evidence-side rationale anchor ([28] Kiely 2012, Level 5).

The right posture is to eat a familiar, carb-rich pre-session meal 2–3 hours before the long session, take small sips of carb-electrolyte fluid during the session for sessions over ~60 minutes, refuel within the recovery window with carbs and protein, and stop and seek help if symptoms suggest a medical problem rather than low fuel. Food for a long indoor rowing session is the plan the rower makes before the session begins; practicing the plan before the long session is the rower's evidence that the plan works.

For a deeper exploration of how fueling fits into the rower's overall training, see our recovery-meals-after-hard-intervals guide and our hydration-for-indoor-rowing guide.

What to do with this article

Read the premise: fueling is a pre-session plan rather than an in-session improvisation. The [2] Burke et al. 2011 framework places this on the empirical side; the [1] Sports Dietitians Australia factsheets places it on the sports-nutrition-education side; the [3] Thomas/Erdman/Burke 2016 position stand places it on the canonical side.

Read the pre-session meal: eat a familiar, carb-rich meal 2–3 hours before the long session. The [1] Sports Dietitians Australia factsheets places this on the sports-nutrition-education side; the [2] Burke et al. 2011 framework places it on the carbohydrate side; the [20] Scherr et al. 2013 Borg-RPE-vs-physiology study places it on the pre-exercise side.

Read the during-session fuel: take small sips of carb-electrolyte fluid across the session for sessions over ~60 minutes. The [16] Jeukendrup & McLaughlin 2011 review places this on the during-session side; the [9] Shirreffs 2011 review places it on the fluid-balance side; the [24] Halson 2014 review places it on the sport-specific side.

Read the post-session recovery: refuel within the recovery window with carbs and protein. The [6] Phillips & Van Loon 2011 review places this on the protein side; the [2] Burke et al. 2011 framework places it on the carbohydrate side; the [24] Halson 2014 review places it on the multi-modal-signal side.

Read the medical-stop discipline: stop and seek help if symptoms suggest a medical problem rather than low fuel. The [3] Thomas/Erdman/Burke 2016 position stand places this on the canonical side; the [10] Maughan 1991 review places it on the dehydration side; the [27] Mageau & Vallerand 2003 model places it on the autonomy-support side.

When the fueling plan has been practiced, the pre-session meal sits comfortably, the during-session fuel keeps the rate stable, and the post-session recovery refills the rower's substrate. When the plan has not been practiced, slow down, eat familiar foods, and try again. Food for a long indoor rowing session is the plan the rower makes before the session begins; practicing the plan is the rower's evidence.