The Clinic

[mjr]

Based off this article linked by Grok in my question, [...]

There was no link to that in your question as it appeared on here.

While we're at it and asking questions, is this level of politeness the best you can muster? I'm sure you're capable of posting in a less nasty manner considering you were not provoked in any way.

I can be more polite, but posting Grok output in a discussion, especially unchecked, is not polite and totally provocation. Even if you've been literally living under a rock, surely everyone now realise that some people oppose these AI bots and their advice to do stuff like glue cheese onto pizzas.

You also seem to presume, that just because I linked a summery to answer phreak, that I have the obligation to read each and every study cited or link posted. While that may be the case in the fantasy land in your head, I have no such obligation.

Right, I'll try to remember that you feel no obligation not to repost misinformation.

I was trying to be helpful regarding phreak's question. The person asking the question can read the additional documentation to the level of his or her interest. While the goal shouldn't be to post misinformation, the original question was actually answered in my post. The subject is of moderate interest to me, so I am certainly not going to read every single study on the topic in entirety. If you are more of an expert you are more than welcome to chime in, but you didn't, did you? [...]

No, I was doing something else, then I wasted my time trying to look up the "proof" you claimed to have posted. If it's not of sufficient interest to you to check the answer, please don't fark the discussion for those who are. It's not really helpful to post a load of unchecked chatbot output into a discussion for others to check.

Edit: Also the Podlegar study referenced seems to be this one:

1. Podlogar T, Bokal Š, Cirnski S, Wallis GA. Increased exogenous but unaltered endogenous carbohydrate oxidation with combined fructose-maltodextrin ingested at 120 g h−1 versus 90 g h−1 at different ratios. Eur J Appl Physiol 122: 2393–2401, 2022. doi: 10.1007/s00421-022-05019-w

And not the one "Postexercise muscle glycogen synthesis with glucose, galactose, and combined galactose-glucose ingestion" you linked.

Oh right, so the citation was ambiguous and incomplete and might not be total madness... but I've no time to check a third citation just now because I'm off cycling to a gig. Have a nice weekend!

 

[M.R.M]

You haven't added anything meaningful at all to the actual question or discussion. Calling the use of a chatbot a provocation is laughable. I'm not right wing at all, the opposite actually. Fighting your self-rightous crusade against Elon Musk on the back of people who have 0 skin in the game and are entirely not involved is so nonsensical, that it astounds me that a seemingly otherwise smart person, can't see how ridiculously stupid it is.

You found the time to criticize in the harshest terms, but didn't have the time to check the validity of your claims, as when I did I was able to find your missing citations. So why even open your mouth?

 

[phreak]

As some of those studies looked at ultramarathons, I thought I'd look at ultramarathon results.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-Trail_du_Mont-Blanc#Participation_and_results

This one, for instance, doesn't really see any noticeable improvement in performance since 2020. It's a similar thing if you look at the World Ironman results. Small improvements, but nothing like the gains we're seeing in cycling.

Similarly, in the proam ranks, you don't see huge surges in speed in the Marmotte or Maratona, which if it was simply a case of training your body to eat more, you'd think that would be within the scope of riders at the sharp end of these events.

 

[Dogtrousers]

The graphs of average speed shown so far have used a false origin, which can make molehills look like mountains.

This version superimposes the overall length of each tour. So that it can appear on the same scale, and to ensure that any correlation is positive, I have deducted the distance in km from 8000 and divided by 100. I'm sure there are technical reasons why this is unsound...

View attachment 782179
Any thoughts?

Now to that other matter - I should have something today

I'm perfectly happy with my use of a false origin, as I'm plotting just one series in isolation.

I'm a bit less happy with the above and I think I'd take a different approach if I was trying to establish a correlation between speed and distance. But I don't have much time right now and it's all just silliness so I'll leave it for now

 

[Aravis]

I'm perfectly happy with my use of a false origin, as I'm plotting just one series in isolation.

I think this is a non sequitur, quite possibly deliberate.

I'm a bit less happy with the above (graph which I acknowledged is probably technically unsound) and I think I'd take a different approach if I was trying to establish a correlation between speed and distance. But I don't have much time right now and it's all just silliness so I'll leave it for now

This thread has been a mixture of the thought-provoking and downright silly. I think it might have been sounder had I treated 1960 as the base year and graphed % changes over the years.

I'm still mulling over the relevance of looking at the speed of all riders combined * instead of just the winner's. A graph of the lantern rouge's deficit alone might look quite interesting. I'm guessing that the science of avoiding unnecessary effort has advanced along with everything else

* I've just realised that the year I picked a few posts back (1980) is one of those where the last rider on GC was given his marching orders - probably later stages only?

 

[mididoctors]

It's faster because they race the whole stage or course . The feeding is better understood to maintain performance over the day .