ianrodger

Specialized 1-2: Stoltz, Stander

Er no, that was sincere, so i'm sorry if it came across as sarcasm; none was intended. but i agree the topic is a dead horse.

ok my sincere apologies to Mark and the gi brand, you're right - it wasn't shameless marketing, just normal good marketing. i hadn't checked that they weren't suspiciously-recent members who were singing it's praises. The website, admittedly with an "under construction" disclaimer, is not appalling, but has aspects that are poor. But i still await something looking like proof that it's better than any other commercial drink. It may well be, and i'd like it to be, and the proprietary ingedient has some applications in diabetes, but there's nothing yet presented to prove it's performance claims.

Yes I will. Will you give it back if I'm not happy with the results? sure' date=' i'll de-hypnotise you [img']https://assets.bikehub.co.za/legacy_images/smilies/smiley1.gif[/img]

it's all desperately easy to resolve - slap 12 people onto a power-measuring rig and in a double-blind randomised protocol, let them do a 20 or 40 km TT either as a stand-alone ride or after a one-hour submaximal ride, once with gi32 and another time with a maltodextrin or any other kind of energy drink and lets see what happens.

glad you're so willing for part with r200 for something of no established superior benefit. er wanna gimme r200 for a hypnosis session on the offchance it works? ja maybe i should be more productively occupied but carbohydrate metabolism is an interest and my field of study, so i'm always keen to hear about new and better products - but then they need be demonstrably better. Don't worry, i'll pass on the proof the moment i get it, butI've had no further response yet from 32gi.

[. Maybe you should do some more homework before posting like this - 1) Very briefly: You get type 1 and type 2 diabetes. They vary on age of onset and insulin dependence. Type 2 (the more common form) is often insulin resistent - they have high levels of insulin, but the body doesn't respond to it. They therefore require higher and higher doses of insulin to keep the blood sugar levels regulated. The high levels of blood insulin can be as damaging to the body, if not more damaging, than the high blood sugar levels. very briefly, you are wrong. type 2 is characterised by normal or near-normal insulin levels, not excessively high levels as you claim, and in fact over time insulin production can be lowered in type 2 also. Read it up. As for type 1, well, with no insulin to speak of in this condition, i fail to see how a low gi drink has any relevance. 2) What does sucrose/ fructose/ maltodextrin have to do with 32GI? This drink uses something completely different, unless I am terribly mistaken and misled. Not a lot, as i discovered after asking; the reason for my mentioning it was that novel carbohydrates and mixes are a promising area of research, so hence my mentioning that mix as an example. 3) Mark has been very open about giving any facts and proofs if you contact him (which I have done a few times) - he stated where the research was done etc a few times and it should not be very difficult to get all the research details if you try. No need to attack him or the product. The supposed proof has been extremely sketchy - just a few lines of text saying one group went faster on Palatinose - and I have already asked him for the details of this proof. Anyone that claims something without any proof is going to - and should - come in for some flak. My criticism is to do with the validity of the claims and supposed proof, not as a fun exercise to flame anyone.

shameless dodgy marketing here, and appalling website content aside, there are some serious questions regarding the validity of the fundamental claim, which is that cycling performance was imroved using 32gi. Sucrose/fructose is nothing incredibly new, as Asker Jeukendrup has been busy with various combinations of glucose, sucrose and fructose for some time, and has published extensively on the topic. Before y'all get too excited by marketing hype, here are my reservations, as just mailed to whoever is behind 32gi. I am interested in your product, specially the claimed research that showed it was superior to a maltodextrin. No details are given, just a claim that ?cyclists performed much better? on 32 gi. Please could you be specific as to what ?much better? entails? I see you provide no references to substantiate your claims. Please could you send me the abstract of the study that was done by the University, or give me the details of where this study was published (or relevant contact details at the university) so that I can view the study. Could you give me a brief description of the protocol of the study?<?: prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> I am intrigued by the graph of blood sugar you present, as the difference in the rise of blood glucose between a hi-gi drink and your drink is very little, i.e less than 1.5 mmol ? was this statistically significant? Was this measured at rest or during exercise? Looking at the small increase in blood glucose with the high-gi drink, I am certain this graph shows the effect on blood glucose of the drinks administered at the start of exercise, but this seems to be contradicted later on the curve where the blood glucose concentration drops below the resting value ? which does not happen during exercise . What was the dose of the initial administration? Also, I see you have data points on your 32 gi line but no data points on your high gi energy line. Does the high gi energy line come from actual data of yours or is it merely a stylised representation of the effects of a high gi drink? If it is from your own data then the data points need to be shown in similar fashion to your 32 gi line. I conclude that this is a stylised representation of the blood glucose concentration trend, and as such, opens you to the likelihood of someone filing a false advertising claim against you with the Advertising standards Authority. What concentration is the drink when made up? That is, how many grams of carbohydrate per 100 ml of drink, and what is the recommended intake rate? There is a glaring error in your section on diabetics, where you state that 32 gi does not cause insulin spiking in diabetics. It appears it is news to you that the condition of diabetes means that there is an insufficiency of insulin, and that no amount of high or low gi drink will precipitate an insulin spike - !! I am also fascinated by your statement that 32 gi is non weight bearing. Clearly whoever wrote this has no idea what weight bearing means, so I advise you to look it up and correct the text.

Thank you for your inane contribution. Seeing as you don't understand my signature or it's allusions, i can't be bothered to explain it, but look up h-u-m-o-u-r and i-r-o-n-y in your spare time. If you read my post you'll see i indeed made a statement. For the benefit of you and others missing the point i made, let me clarify it. Wearing armbands is a nice sentiment, but aside from creating some brief awareness, its hardly going to make a fundamental change to our driving culture - not to mention or our cycling culture, where fingers can also be justly pointed. For sure, if the publicity around wearing armbands is milked relentlessly, and converted into action, then we're getting somewhere, and ideas for action are where the posts are now thankfully headed. But wearing an armband is not going to change motorists' mindset, so we shouldn't imagine that the changes we need will come simply from doing that.

Looks like i posted on the wrong thread... Armbands? For Pete's sake. No, for the victims' sake. This is ridiculous - 3 people die in an incident refelcting all that is wrong with our driving culture and the response is to wear an armband? This is pointless and to my mind, disrespectful. Black armbands just say will always be powerless to make a change. So, instead of futile symbolism, how about coming up with actions instead that will make a difference. Join or form a lobbying group, find out from any of the various cycling bodies where to begin. Bid for funds from PPA, Lotto, CSA, corporates, whoever, to run ads at prime time, not during cycling tv shows to remind motorists of the law and to educate them on how to not knock over cyclists. Lobby via MECs or whoever for changes to laws that increase penalties and make prosecution and conviction more likely. Donate time. expertise or money to an organisation that can make a difference. But armbands? Give me a break. Interestingly, i see the "accident" happened at 6.05 - 6.15 supposedly due to being blinded by the sun. Sunrise: 6.24. And the narrow-roads-is-asking-to-get-hit refrain is the same logic as wearing-mini-skirts-is-asking-to-get-raped. Yes, busy narrow winding roads with poor forward visibility should be avoided, but the R62 there hardly falls into that category, but its more the mindset i object to, because it's a short hop from there to, "stay off the roads because they're dangerous". Its not the roads that knock cyclists over, its drivers.

Armbands? For Pete's sake. No, for the victims' sake. This is ridiculous - 3 people die in an incident refelcting all that is wrong with our driving culture and the response is to wear an armband? This is pointless and to my mind, disrespectful. Black armbands just say will always be powerless to make a change. So, instead of futile symbolism, how about coming up with actions instead that will make a difference. Join or form a lobbying group, find out from any of the various cycling bodies where to begin. Bid for funds from PPA, Lotto, CSA, corporates, whoever, to run ads at prime time, not during cycling tv shows to remind motorists of the law and to educate them on how to not knock over cyclists. Lobby via MECs or whoever for changes to laws that increase penalties and make prosecution and conviction more likely. Donate time. expertise or money to an organisation that can make a difference. But armbands? Give me a break. Interestingly, i see the "accident" happened at 6.05 - 6.15 supposedly due to being blinded by the sun. Sunrise: 6.24. And the narrow-roads-is-asking-to-get-hit refrain is the same logic as wearing-mini-skirts-is-asking-to-get-raped. Yes, busy narrow winding roads with poor forward visibility should be avoided, but the R62 there hardly falls into that category, but its more the mindset i object to, because it's a short hop from there to, "stay off the roads because they're dangerous". Its not the roads that knock cyclists over, its drivers.

Not so. as long as you properly simulate the type of riding ito intensity and cadence you can do better indoors, spesh for that limited time. you could do a steady hard tempo at the entire cadence range to develop strength and legspeed, threshold/vo2max/sprint/whatver efforts you most need/want to do. you wont pack that quality into an outdoors ride of same duration.

Age-predicted mhr is too inaccurate. Only way to get a decent idea of your max hr is to do either a lab test, say with Carol Austin (and you'll know your power output too, bonus), or do a death-sprint of ~ 30 sec up a steep hill at a high-ish cadence. From there you can apply standard zones to your mhr.

you'll find that the airlines will decide this for you and deflate your tyres for sensible reasons i could never extract. so dont put your sealant in before flying because it'll be everhwere you dont want it when you get your bike on the other side. And get to the airport very early because the planes dont wait to load all the bikes, leading to much angst and anger and midnight delivery of bikes to underberg. also, deny having any co2 cylinders in yr luggage; dont tajke them in handluggage as they'll be confiscated.