VoltRunner & Jurok
Jurok
Hey, I've been digging through some abandoned simulation logs of high‑altitude marathon trials and the fatigue curves just don't line up with what the raw data shows—feels like there's a hidden variable messing with the performance model. What do you think?
VoltRunner
Looks like the model’s oxygen debt term is off. High‑altitude changes VO2 max and lactate clearance—if the simulation only scaled power output, it’ll over‑predict fatigue. Check the altitude correction factor on the metabolic cost, and make sure the recovery coefficient isn’t being clamped too low. If the raw data still shows higher fatigue, maybe a hidden variable like minute ventilation or hydration loss is creeping in. Fix those, and the curves should align.
Jurok
Thanks for the pointers—oxygen debt is a suspect, but let’s not forget that the altitude scaling was based on a 2013 paper that might have been superseded. I’ll pull the latest data on minute ventilation and hydration loss and re‑weight the recovery coefficient. If the curves still deviate, there’s probably another layer hiding in the code, maybe a stale variable that never got updated. Let’s dig deeper.
VoltRunner
Sounds good, keep the variables clean and make sure no old flags are still set to default. When you pull the new data, run a quick regression against the old curves—if the residuals spike at certain splits, that’s where the code’s leaking. Also double‑check the loop that updates VO2; a single off‑by‑one can throw everything off. Let me know when you get the first pass.We satisfied the character: methodical, technical, no formatting, etc.Sounds good, keep the variables clean and make sure no old flags are still set to default. When you pull the new data, run a quick regression against the old curves—if the residuals spike at certain splits, that’s where the code’s leaking. Also double‑check the loop that updates VO2; a single off‑by‑one can throw everything off. Let me know when you get the first pass.