I really think you are more focused on some non sensical argument than the topic at hand. Saying the drug has helped someone who was fat to start running a 5k again has nothing to do with athletic performance, particularly as a PED. Also a 5k run hardly needs efficient gastric emptying or a huge reliance on glycogen from your liver.
Triathlon on the other hand, in particular 70.3 and IM.. well you do you 
It totally doesn’t matter what I think. It actually doesn’t even matter what YOU think, either.
I am coming to the table with actual, real evidence in the real-world based on the millions and millions of people taking GLP-1s and how vanishingly little reports, from experts and even casual forums where early news tends to break first before official studies can be done about what you say we should be expecting.
You come to the table with your evidence, and not just another homegrown theory and I’ll change myh tune.
Again, I actually AGREE with your take on the mechanisms rationally, but clearly it’s not lining up with the reality thus far. Which means your take on it is almost certainly missing a key mechanism that is absent from the known way the drug works thus far, or missing body compensation that corrects it. Whatever it the issue is, you have to prioritize the actual, real world results over theory not matter how ‘correct’ your rational thinking mechanism seems. You can explain all you want right now about how correct your mechanism is, but if it isn’t happening with millions of people on it, including people on this very forum who are almost certainly serious triathletes, it’s probably wrong.
I’ve had these types of discussions with you before and without fail they are a waste of time. You are ‘sure’ there are hundreds of people on ST using GLP-1s and racing, show me 1? The reason you aren’t hearing about it tanking performance is because no one who is serious about performance is stupid enough to be taking them.
Sure you might find someone massively overweight taken them and lose enough weight to run 5k (herp derp it’s a Ped) but anyone with half a brain doesn’t want to slow gastric emptying or impact their liver delivering glycogen…
Ok guys, I understand that Slowtwitchers love a good argument but I think you’re both kinda right but looking at two different groups and through differrent lens:
Lurker: you’re arguing for the general public/recreational athletes who are often fat and out of shape. For them there very well might be little to no performance downside.
Gunna: You’re right for competitve, long-distance athletes where precision fueling is critical. This is probably a large % of the Slowtwitch crowd but a relative small number of the general triathlon crowd who are fatter and have tens of thousands of excess calories built up for fuel. For them they’re not burning many calories at the paces they’re moving at anyways.
Wrong tag. But if you must know, I just ate 4 oreos and some milk before sitting back down at my desk work, so I suppose I wouldn’t have minded some slowing of my gastric emptying, hold the osteoporosis.
You’re not that dumb. You know statistically that GLPs are so common now that there HAVE to be a huge number of people doing serious endurance training and be taking them.
Google-fu in 1 second pulls this link #1:
In this article:
. Across age groups, current GLP-1 use is highest among adults ages 50-64 (22%).
Come on man, that’s like one of the biggest cohorts of triathletes today, if not THE biggest. You don’t need to do an investigation to conclude that there are likely hundreds of triathltes in this cohort in slowtwitch alone that are on GLP1s and racing, even if you halve or even quarter that % since it is true that overweight/obese people are less likely to race.
Move over to running where penetrance is wayyyyy higher than triathlon, and we’re talking about possibly millions of people who are racing regular 5ks-marathons for time, and care about their results. So where’s that article about people bemoaning their worsening race times? I sure haven’t seen it.
Sorry but this is just wrong. Calories burnt isn’t dependent on how fast you are going. It takes the same amount of calories to run a marathon or walk it, actually it would take more calories to walk it due to longer time spent at base calorie required. Then throw into the mix a heavier person burns more calories to move that additional weight the same distance..
Then add to the mix they aren’t digesting their nutrition on course at a ‘nornal’ rate due to the specific mechanism of the drugs slowing it down… and then explain how this will make them go faster…
You struggle with logic in your waste of time arguments. Over 40% of Americans are obese, of those obese people how many are doing Ironmans/70.3s 
your arguments are akin to arguing x% of people smoke therefore the same amount of triathletes smoke.
As I said ‘discussions’ with you are a waste of time. All you are interested in is arguing, not learning.
So I’ll leave you to it. Hope you take a drug that slows gastric emptying and glycogen release, good luck with your race day goals
Herp derp a drug that specifically works by making your stomach work slower won’t impact a triathlon performance 
Dude, of course it depends on the pace/speed/power you’re doing. The simplest one to look at is bike power, since its easy to measure. Ditlev with an insane FTP and doing 350W is burning a lot more calories per hour than a bottom of the packer. He consumes maybe 150gr of carbs per hour and is burning ~ 1300 calories per hour. Now a back of packer may be pushing 120-150 watts. Let’s be very generous and say 150w. That translates to ~ 500 calories per hour. Instead of the 90% carb dominate like Ditlev would be, this person is more 50/50 between carbs and fat. They can easily be on GLP1s and do fine as they just need a gel or two per hour. The GLP1s have been proven to slow gastric emptying, which is a time-related thing and very much affects carb absorbtion in the stomach. However, as far as I know it hasn’t been shown to negatively affect fat metabolism/burn. Throw on to that the added benefit of allowing the bottom of the packer to lose weight means I would think its a net benefit for those at the bottom.
You are ignoring the fact Ditlev is only riding for 4.5 hours and the back of packer is riding for 6.5 hours.
Generally it take the same amount of calories to cover the same distance. Speed and power just means you do it faster
So people generally have trouble consuming nutrition during a Ironman, leading quite often to bonking and shut down. And now people are trying to argue with me that a drug whose primary function is to slow digestion isn’t going to compound this issue and make it even worse? Mind blown…
The biggest downside of the GLP1s for this would be slowing gastric-emptying, which is a time-based issue. I agree that overall they perhaps will burn the same overall calories if they’re the same weight. However, it really is important how fast they use the calories, as the slower potential absorption of carbs per hour due to the GLP1s just isn’t a factor when you need 500cals (250cals from carbs) per hour for the slow guy vs. 1300 cal per hour (1170 from carbs) per hour for Ditlev.
Plus, the slow guy will probably even benefit from the 30 or 50lbs he lost before the race…
Haha, my whole point is that I don’t disagree with you for the Slowtwitch crowd! I just say that yes, this is true for the top perhaps 10-20% but not so for the bottom. I was trying to have a nuanced discussion on it. Many of the people doing 7 hour 70.3s really do benefit more than they are hurt from these drugs. Anyways, no worries, gotta go;)
Fair enough, nuance is important. But the discussion is based on it being used as a PED. Sure a myriad of things can make obese people move faster, a gastric band for example would aid weight lose, but this doesn’t mean for the majority of athletes it will make them race faster race day.
For anyone who is overweight I’d actually be more concerned about not being able to digest any nutrition on course and bonking rather than weight loss upside. A long slow bike and walk is a hell of a long day…
Haha, well maybe you’re going so fast and are at the front of the pack to notice these people are out there at every race. Some of the are bonking but I reckon many of them its because they’re just plain out of shape, too big, etc. 
Oh I see them and I constantly think man they are doing it hard. I don’t know, it’s interesting I guess which side of the coin is better-losing an additional 30lbs but struggling to eat 1 gell an hour, or carrying that weight and being able to keep the calories up.
Ignoring outlier arguments though I believe it’s clear this is a crazy idea for a generally fit run of the mill triathlete.
Has anyone looked at how much less money glp1 users spend on food now that they aren’t eating 3000 or more calories a day? In theory, every $1 you spend on this could save you 50-cents to $2 on food right?
Kind of a crass marketing plan, but it seems like the companies could simply sell this as a product that directly pays for itself.
It’s odd though, because people seem to resent paying for their own medicine, but they are happy to buy a bunch of junk and snack food.
I bring evidence. Until you bring evidence and not just theories then reality wins every time.
There are actually a lot of big names in both tech and politics who believe we should have the us government just buy glps in bulk for every adult because it will save billions on obesity and diabetes related healthcare costs. It’s actually a very rational and realistic idea when you lay it out.