banDeveloper

This is right up my alley, hopefully it'll be good. Thanks for sharing!

I worded the question as: "What's the temperature difference between 43°C and 23°C in Fahrenheit?" and GPT3.5 answered correctly.

You're right, it's the Supabase's anonymous API key they send with each anonymous request.

How were they able to generate / obtain the `apiKey` shown in the technical details in part 6?

Which part do you think applies exclusively to the pros though, I think it applies to everybody. I only used the pros as an example, since they are incentivised to perform at their best and therefore are most likely to apply the best fueling strategies.

> Have you ever tried it?

I have not tried it. Can you provide some sources explaining how it gives any more energy than metabolizing fat does?

> Imagine that you don't bonk, no matter if you eat or not, and you can still keep roughly the same level of intensity for the entirety of your session, however long it might be. As a matter of fact, you feel just as fresh mentally at the end as at the start. That's why.

You don't need to be ketogenic for that though, you just gotta keep it slow. One of my very last outdoor rides last year was like that. 100km ride where I kept it strictly in zone 2. It felt easy and I had a blast. Can't say I felt just as fresh as at the start though.

> You deplete your carb stores after a few hours (depending on pace etc), and then YOU ARE RUNNING ON KETONES, whether you like it or not. You physically cannot eat and digest enough carbs to sustain your pace for any longer period of time.

What do you mean, this is precisely why all professional runners and cyclists consume gels. Not only is it possible to not deplete your carb stores, it's actually pretty easy to keep them from depleting.

> What happens is that your body is not accustomed to burning fat for energy, and so it just doesn't know what to do.

Vast majority of professional cyclists and runners spend majority of their time training in low-instensity zones, where fats are the main source of energy. How then, would they not be accustomed to burning fat for energy?

That's not what happens anyway, the "bonk" is because your body was relying on turning carbs into energy, but the carb stores have depleted. If you try to keep the same effort, your body will be unable to provide sufficient energy to keep you going and you will "bonk". If you were to lower your effort enough for fats to be able to provide sufficient energy, you'd be fine. Anyway, the solution is to consume more carbs, to keep the stores from depleting and no to remove that fuel source entirely.

> Yes, your sprints will be slower, but in exchange you will simply not be hungry, or feel loss of energy.

Sure you won't feel a loss of energy, because you've never had that energy in the first place. I don't understand why you would remove a major fuel source entirely, is there any science behind this?

We can do multiple things to address climate change at the same time. My proposition is to slowly redirect all the animal agriculture subsidies elsewhere. Animal products going up in price by 3 - 10 fold would surely decrease consumption.

I mean thinking about long term consequences of their actions and making a choice that leads to the best outcome for the society at large. You're right in saying people have a preference, but the way you say it makes it seem like that's all their is to it, as if people's dietary choices have no broader impact.

The real problem is majority of crops being grown for animal agriculture, which is an extremely wasteful way of producing food. We'd only need a fraction of the farmlands if we were actually eating the crops we grow. Sadly, we can't count on consumers making rational choices and politicians are not going to tank their popularity by pushing for these changes. It's the same as climate change.