Fuel Smarter, Run Stronger: A Critical Look at the Science of Sports Nutrition and Fuelling for Runners | Find Your Stride | Edinburgh Podiatrist

The 2016 Nutrition and Athletic Performance position paper by the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, Dietitians of Canada, and the American College of Sports Medicine has been described as the sports nutrition world’s gold standard. The document puts forward evidence-based guidance on how food, fluids, and supplements affect training, recovery, and competition. But nearly a decade later, how well does the paper stand up — especially for runners looking to improve their performance, body composition, or recovery? Let’s take a look.

Nutrition is dynamic — something you periodise just like mileage

🧠 What the Paper Gets Right

1. Nutrition is Performance, Not a Side Note

The strongest and most valuable message of this paper is that nutrition isn’t just “fuel” — it’s a training tool. The authors emphasise periodised nutrition, meaning what and how you eat should change depending on your training cycle. That’s a crucial shift for runners: fueling hard workouts differently than recovery days can make the difference between adaptation and burnout.

2. Energy Availability is Everything

The concept of energy availability (calories consumed minus calories burned in training) gets major attention — and rightly so. The paper helped push the broader understanding of Relative Energy Deficiency in Sport (RED-S), which affects both men and women. For runners prone to underfueling, this is vital reading. Low energy availability isn’t “discipline”; it’s a fast track to fatigue, stress fractures, and declining performance.

3. Carbs are Not the Enemy

The report defends carbohydrates with scientific vigor. It recommends 5–12 grams per kilogram of body weight per day depending on training intensity — a range many modern low-carb enthusiasts might find alarming. But the evidence still supports carbs as the most efficient fuel for distance running. Even today, “train low, compete high” (occasionally training with low carb availability to boost fat oxidation) is a nuanced approach, not a wholesale carb boycott.

4. Protein Timing Matters

Another well-supported section concerns protein. Rather than mega-dosing once a day, the paper advocates for smaller, evenly spaced servings (about 0.3 g/kg every 3–4 hours). Runners who struggle with recovery could see big gains just by distributing protein intake smarter.

🧐 Where the Paper Falls Short

1. It’s Overly Generic for Real-World Athletes

While comprehensive, the recommendations can feel overly textbook. Few runners calculate grams per kilogram of carbohydrate daily, and the paper doesn’t offer much on practical translation. For example, how to apply these numbers to a marathon build-up, a 5K-focused block, or ultra running nutrition challenges.

2. Limited Acknowledgment of Individual Variation

The paper acknowledges that “nutrition should be individualised,” but the recommendations often revert to one-size-fits-all ranges. Since 2016, we’ve learned that genetics, gut microbiome differences, and metabolic efficiency can drastically alter how athletes respond to macronutrient ratios or supplements. The position statement doesn’t quite reach that level of nuance.

3. Underdeveloped Discussion of Micronutrients and Gut Health

Iron, vitamin D, and calcium get attention, but the coverage of gut health — now a hot topic in endurance sports — is minimal. Considering how gastrointestinal distress affects runners, this omission feels significant.

4. Conservative on Supplements

The cautious tone around supplements (e.g., caffeine, nitrates, creatine) makes sense from a clinical standpoint, but it may underserve competitive runners looking for marginal gains. Evidence has since strengthened for some ergogenic aids like beetroot juice or beta-alanine.

⚡ What’s Still Relevant for Runners in 2025

Despite being nearly ten years old, the paper remains foundational for endurance athletes. Its biggest legacy is reframing nutrition as dynamic — something you periodise just like mileage. It’s also one of the few consensus statements that explicitly links under fuelling to both health and performance decline. However, newer research has evolved the conversation. For runners, especially those training with polarised intensity or experimenting with low-carb phases, more modern insights into metabolic flexibility, gut training, and female physiology would round out this framework.

🏁 The Bottom Line

The Nutrition and Athletic Performance position paper is a masterclass in evidence-based sports nutrition — but it’s also a reminder that science moves forward. If you’re a runner, use its principles — adequate fuelling, carbohydrate periodisation, protein timing, and energy balance — as your foundation. But also remember that no paper, however thorough, replaces self-experimentation and guidance from a qualified sports dietitian.

In short: the science is solid, but your running body is the real lab.

Find Your Stride!

Citation:

Thomas, D. T., Erdman, K. A., & Burke, L. M. (2016). Nutrition and athletic performance. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 48(3), 543–568. https://doi.org/10.1249/MSS.0000000000000852