Are Ketone Supplements the Cycling World's Next Big Debate? The governing body of cycling, the UCI, has sparked a fiery discussion by advising riders to steer clear of ketone supplements, claiming there’s no solid proof they enhance performance or recovery. But here’s where it gets controversial: supplement brands and top cycling teams are pushing back, calling the UCI’s move perplexing and unwarranted. Let’s dive into this heated debate and uncover why it’s dividing opinions in the cycling community.
The UCI’s Stance: Caution Over Ketones
Yesterday, the UCI made waves by issuing an official statement urging cyclists and teams to avoid ketone supplements. While these products won’t be banned, the UCI argues there’s no scientific evidence to back their use. This comes despite ketones being a naturally occurring compound in the body, utilized during exercise when glucose levels dip. Yet, the UCI’s recommendation has left many scratching their heads, especially those who’ve witnessed ketone supplements become a staple in the routines of elite cyclists.
Supplement Brands Fight Back: 'Let Riders Decide'
Ketone supplement providers, like KetoneAid and Ketone-IQ, aren’t taking the UCI’s advice lying down. Frank Llosa, CEO of KetoneAid, which supplies WorldTour teams like Soudal Quick-Step and Astana Qazaqstan, questioned the UCI’s rationale. 'If ketones are safe and ineffective, why not let riders make their own choices?' he asked. Llosa also poked holes in the UCI’s statement, noting it references 'a very comprehensive, high-quality study' without citing it. Meanwhile, studies like the Poffé 2021 research in Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise have shown significant recovery benefits, with riders experiencing up to 15% more watts the next day. 'Did they read it differently? Hard to say when they don’t tell us which study they’re referencing,' Llosa added.
The Bigger Picture: Where Do We Draw the Line?
This debate raises a broader question: Should governing bodies dictate nutritional choices when products are safe and widely used? Michael Brandt, CEO of Ketone-IQ, which partners with Visma-Lease a Bike, 'respectfully disagrees' with the UCI’s stance. He highlights robust data showing Ketone-IQ’s benefits, akin to those of altitude training. 'Healthier, stronger riders are safer riders, which is a win for the entire sport,' Brandt emphasized. His company’s research, conducted with KU Leuven’s human performance institute, suggests measurable improvements in EPO, angiogenesis, and vascular function—all critical for enhanced performance.
The Safety Angle: A Silent Victory?
One silver lining in the UCI’s statement is the absence of safety concerns. Llosa noted, 'The good news is that the UCI’s original concern on ketones was safety, and this statement doesn’t mention that at all.' This shift suggests safety issues have been addressed, leaving the debate squarely on efficacy.
What’s Next? The Floor is Open
As the dust settles, the cycling world is left with a thought-provoking question: Should the UCI focus on regulating performance-enhancing substances with proven risks, or is it overstepping by advising against legal, safe supplements? And this is the part most people miss: If ketones are deemed ineffective, why not let the best nutritionists and riders decide what works for them?
Your Turn: Weigh In!
What’s your take? Is the UCI’s intervention justified, or should riders have the freedom to choose their nutritional strategies? Do you think ketone supplements have a place in cycling, or is the science still too murky? Let’s keep the conversation going—share your thoughts in the comments below!
