Is 90 g of carbohydrate an hour still the ceiling?

A 2026 review proposes raising the carbohydrate ceiling in endurance exercise from 90 to 120 g/h for trained athletes. What it does and does not show.

A 2026 review in The Journal of Nutrition proposes that the upper limit of carbohydrate intake during endurance exercise could rise from 90 to 120 grams per hour, at least for trained athletes. The case rests on how much carbohydrate the body can burn at those intakes, not on proof of faster racing. The authors say the performance benefit above 90 g/h remains to be determined.

What do the current carbohydrate guidelines say?

The reference point is the 2016 American College of Sports Medicine guidance. The review by Morton et al., Journal of Nutrition 2026 quotes it as 30 to 60 g per hour for endurance and stop-and-start exercise lasting 1 to 2.5 hours, and up to 90 g per hour for ultraendurance exercise beyond 2.5 to 3 hours. The higher figure applies to blends of carbohydrates that use different gut transporters, such as glucose and fructose.

The proposal to raise the ceiling draws on studies that fed such blends at 120 to 144 g per hour. Average peak oxidation of the ingested carbohydrate in those studies reached 96 to 105 g per hour, above the 90 g/h figure.

Does more carbohydrate mean better performance, and what about the gut?

That is the open question. The authors write that whether intakes above 90 g/h improve performance beyond 60 to 90 g/h in exercise over 2.5 hours “remains to be determined”. The authors call for further research in both male and female athletes.

Gut comfort is part of the picture. In a marathon study described in the review, moderate gastrointestinal symptoms occurred at every intake, and nausea, stomach fullness and cramps peaked at 120 g/h. The review also reports that repeated exposure of the gut to carbohydrate in training has consistently reduced discomfort in studies at 30 to 90 g/h.

People differ. The review reports that larger athletes oxidised substantially more ingested glucose, and that body size correlated strongly with peak oxidation. Differences like these are why personal baselines can say more than group averages.

The bottom line

  • A 2026 review proposes raising the carbohydrate upper limit from 90 to 120 g/h for trained athletes, based on higher oxidation rates at those intakes.
  • Whether more than 90 g/h improves performance is not established, and intakes of 120 to 200 g/h are described as unsubstantiated.
  • Gut symptoms and carbohydrate oxidation differ between individuals, and the review calls for research in both male and female athletes.

Frequently asked questions

How much carbohydrate can the body use per hour during endurance exercise?
In some studies reviewed in 2026, carbohydrate blends fed at 120 to 144 g per hour produced average peak oxidation of the ingested carbohydrate of 96 to 105 g per hour. That shows the body can burn more than 90 g/h, not that racing performance improves.
Is more than 120 g of carbohydrate an hour supported by evidence?
Not according to the 2026 review. It reports that athletes experiment with 120 to 200 g per hour, but the efficacy of such doses is not yet substantiated by current research. The authors' proposed upper limit is 120 g/h, at least for trained participants.

Sources

  1. Morton JP, Fell JM, Gonzalez JT, Hearris MA, Podlogar T, Pugh JN, Wallis GA, 2026. From Metabolism to Medals: Contemporary Perspectives and Revisiting Carbohydrate Guidelines for Fueling Endurance Athletes during Exercise. The Journal of Nutrition 156(5), article 101442.
  2. Morton JP, Fell JM, Gonzalez JT, Hearris MA, Podlogar T, Pugh JN, Wallis GA, 2026. From Metabolism to Medals: Contemporary Perspectives and Revisiting Carbohydrate Guidelines for Fueling Endurance Athletes during Exercise (full text). The Journal of Nutrition 156(5), article 101442.

Hydra's editorial team. We write from primary research and cite every study we rely on, with its year and journal. We quantify claims wherever the evidence allows and state plainly where it does not: where a finding rests on a small or single trial, we say so in the text rather than in a footnote.