I can only speak for the taxation where I'm from and what you describe is not the case with that particular tax treaty for income earned through professional sports in the US while living and paying taxes in Sweden. It's entirely possible that it has changed in the last 5-10 years but this was definitely something that was investigated thoroughly at the time. The treaty is also different for artists or other types of employment for example.

I'm just guessing it's similar in Norway considering Gustav is also paying double taxes. I'd be surprised if this is something he hasn't checked up on. But I could be wrong on that one.

---

---

BA coaching http://www.bjornandersson.se

The other point Staer mentioned about getting a "credit" from the US tax authorities, I'm not sure how they would gift the money back money to athletes. They may give you some credit if they think you over paid on the tax for said amount, but I dont think you get any real money back for paying tax on something. Your going to have to pay a "tax" on that money and you really aint likely to get any of that back.

---

Brooks Doughtie, M.S.
Exercise Physiology
-USAT Level II

Where are all the US tax accountants when you need them!?

I've never heard of an tax payment being returned to you. You can get a refund if you overpaid etc, but I've never heard of you paying an upfront tax and then getting it back at a later date, especially for a "prize".

Go read the stories of people who go on game shows and win and then end up paying large up front taxes in order to win the prize.

Craziest tax story I've ever heard of. The person that caught Barry Bond's HR ball was some fan, because of the value of the ball, he automatically had to pay taxes on said ball, even if he wasn't going to sell it. Just being in possession, tax authorities could legally tax you "owning" it.

---

Brooks Doughtie, M.S.
Exercise Physiology
-USAT Level II

He had to pay taxes on it because he sold it.

For Gustav, since he's an Athlete, I'm sure Daytona has an athlete Tax. Sounds like the PTO prize money went out as if the athletes were 1099 and taxes weren't deducted. So he'll need to pay attention to the local Athlete Tax.

---

Washed up footy player turned Triathlete.

Yes, precisely. Exceeding 60g/hr of glucose alone starts to come with potential tradeoffs. Exceeding 70g glucose per hour is guaranteed to be suboptimal for at least some of the subjects. Only the most high-carb-trained guts are going to tolerate 75g of glucose hourly, and of course, only in pretty optimal conditions.

Further, I'd expect that highest intake rates (100-150g/hr, broadly speaking) would be most beneficial for events lasting longer than 2 hrs but probably shorter than 6-10 hrs... very little research (if any?) done out at those durations, related to high-carb intake and the hydration balance issue.

I would love to see researchers study a 3-4-hr effort in cool/mild conditions with good airflow, with the following test groups:

90g/hr @ 2:1 gluc:fruc (as the "control")
90g/hr @ 1.5:1 gluc:fruc
90g/hr @ 1:1 gluc:fruc
110g/hr @ 1.5:1 gluc:fruc
110g/hr @ 1:1 gluc:fruc
130g/hr @ 1:1 gluc:fruc
150g/hr @ 1:1 gluc:fruc
130g/hr @ 0.8:1 gluc:fruc
150g/hr @ 0.8:1 gluc:fruc

To future researchers who read this: consider using sucrose for the 1:1 options because of lower osmolarity than maltodextrin:fructose.

But that's a LOT of testing conditions... so probably a decade of research or more until we'll know better.

For that to ever happen though, researchers are going to need to stop saying "therefore it appears that 110g/hr is additionally beneficial compared to 90g/hr for endurance exercise." It's simply not true. It's only true when you constrain it to less than 2.5 hrs of exercise, and when the ratio is constrained to 2:1. Under those constraints, yes, 110g/hr is no better than 90g/hr.

Unfortunately the time constraints are logistical and understandable in a research setting.

The ratio issue is a matter of dogma needing to perish. You can't go 2 clicks on the internet without seeing the numbers 30, 60, and 90 thrown around.

When nice round numbers are oft-cited, be on the lookout for dogma.

Example, article I wrote:
https://www.trainingpeaks.com/blog/how-to-optimize-carbohydrate-absorption/
TLDR: consume 90-140g/hr, not 60 or 90.

Meanwhile, a link WITHIN the text of my article links out to another article that says quite the opposite, and worse yet, it's written by a guy who should WANT you to consume more carbs... given that his company sells them for a living.
https://www.trainingpeaks.com/blog/carbohydrate-king-endurance-performance/
Quote from article: "We can only absorb around 60-90g of carbohydrate per hour during exercise" LOL.

I don't blame him. But, you know the dogma is thick and blinding to researchers in the industry, when the very people who are incentivized financially to tell you to consume more of their product, are still blindly citing the same nice round numbers. ;)

---

Dr. Alex Harrison | Founder & CEO | Sport Physiology & Performance PhD
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
📱 Check out our app → Saturday: Pro Fuel & Hydration, a performance nutrition coach in your pocket.
Join us on YouTube → Saturday Morning | Ride & Run Faster and our growing Saturday User Hub

I’ve always enjoyed Cody’s budget articles/posts. Having said that he’s missing out on 3-6$k in write offs from extra food or fuel.

Maurice