A post of unpopular opinions.
2 different things. You can fuel well without buying the overpriced/hyped sports nutrition products.
1 Like
He didn’t say sports nutrition products though he said sports nutrition.
So as written exactly the same thing.
Not the same thing to me, but words are open to interpretation. My read was to infer “products”, not that fueling sports activity is a scam. The scam (if you subscribe to it) is taking simple carbs and electrolytes and marketing/pricing them as something special for sports nutrition. And for what it’s worth, I don’t 100% subscribe to it being a scam, but I do think it’s very marginal gains compared to substituting with “normal food” carbs and electrolytes.
2 Likes
But why would the top 10% benefit from scam products?
Like I said, I don’t totally subscribe to it being a scam. I think some of the products are marginally better at hitting the limits of nutrition for those looking for marginal gains. But for the typical racer who isn’t even grabbing the low hanging fruit, they don’t need $5 Mauten gels to get the benefits of decent fueling.
4 Likes
Apologies I did mean the hyped marketed stuff. Beetroot shots, cherry juice, ketones, nootropic gels.
Fuelling of exercise is probably underrated by many athletes that strive to emulate skinny pros by basically starving during long rides and training sessions in other sports. Less so nowadays but definitely in standard club runs most will eat nothing for 2 hrs have beans on toast at cafe and then eat nothing for 2hrs.
2 Likes
The new hype on tv.
Who needs water when all you need is salt.
1 Like
Technological advancement in the gravel racing space has produced no meaningful speed gains, at scale.
Event organizers, playing their part in the cycling industry, seek to minimize awareness of this fact by purposefully modifying their courses every year to make comparison impossible.
Are you saying that those promoters are lizard people?
Riding indoors is not inferior to riding outdoors. There, I’ve said it.
4 Likes
Time to break out the good old, “it depends”.
1 Like
Gravel races have gotten significantly faster at the pro and amateur levels in the last 10 years. A big part of that is the increased talent, but are you really saying equipment hasn’t made a significant contribution? We can debate things like suspension and gravel-specific groupsets, but the move to bigger tire volume has certainly made significant differences in average speed (including the ability to ride at speed without puncturing as frequently).
Do you really believe courses are being changed to make it harder to compare equipment performance year vs. year? I guess this is the “unpopular” opinions thread, but that is pretty far out there. The motivation to change courses (at least for the big Lifetime events) is to make the races more selective and less like road racing, has nothing to do with trying to obscure equipment performance for the sake of the bike industry.
2 Likes
I don’t know, what races have run the same course 10 years in a row?
It’s a fun thing to research and speculate. There are so many variables, even courses that have remained close to the same for several years; the speed difference over that time appears essentially random. Subject to change from factors other than equipment or technology.
I’m not sure real meta-analysis is possible, for segments sure, but for entire races compared historically? Probably not.
We can have a little fun in the unpopular opinions thread.
1 Like
I think Unbound would have a very difficult task if their aim was to produce a speed lower next year than in 2016. They’d probably have to lap Judge Hill 20 times.
I don’t know, the increases in average speed here for the past 10 years of Unbound seem pretty significant to me.
| Year | Winner | Course Distance | Elevation | Finish Time | Avg Speed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | Cameron Jones | 202.4 miles | 10,122 ft | 8:37:09 | 23.49 mph |
| 2024 | Lachlan Morton | 202.9 miles | ~11,000 ft | 9:11:47 | 22.06 mph |
| 2023 | Keegan Swenson | 205.5 miles | ~9,100 ft | 10:06:02 | 20.35 mph |
| 2022 | Ivar Slik | 200.0 miles | ~9,100 ft | 9:22:04 | 21.35 mph |
| 2021 | Ian Boswell | 206.0 miles | ~10,000 ft | 10:17:24 | 20.02 mph |
| 2020 | Cancelled (COVID-19) | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| 2019 | Colin Strickland | 201.0 miles | ~9,500 ft | 9:58:49 | 20.14 mph |
| 2018 | Ted King | 206.0 miles | ~9,000 ft | 10:44:22 | 19.18 mph |
| 2017 | Mat Stephens | 206.0 miles | ~9,500 ft | 10:49:08 | 19.04 mph |
| 2016 | Ted King | 206.0 miles | ~9,000 ft | 11:50:13 | 17.40 mph |
5 Likes
I disagree. Whilst indoor training might tick the physiological training and benefit boxes, there is no way it can provide the same mental health benefits.
I love to explore, to see the wildlife, to feel the wind, to experience the smell of fresh rain on asphalt. Grinding out workouts in my garage just can’t replicate that.
4 Likes
That’s why my opinion is unpopular 
most, no, all of my cycling friends agree with your - the popular - opinion. It took years to learn to take the road less traveled, even if that road is zero miles long and in a cellar.
Having said that, train indoors, ride outdoors is the less unpopular nuance for me.
7 Likes
Every year has been the same course?
In addition, it would probably be in our best interest to choose an event where the most recent running was not under scrutiny over how much aerodynamic assistance the lead riders received from the lead vehicle(s).
If the rider that placed 2nd says it was quite a lot, that creates another variable to account for.
Although perhaps that’s the wrinkle, lack of technological gains in the gravel racing space partially disguised by clever use of camera vehicles and helicopters.
Here’s the 100 mile Barry-Roubaix course for every year it’s been held.
| Year | Finish MPH |
|---|---|
| 2025 | 19.9 |
| 2024 | 20.1 |
| 2023 | 20.5 |
| 2022 | 17.6 |
| 2021 | 19.38 |
| 2020 | - |
| 2019 | 19.25 |
| 2018 | 18.56 |