These guides have the opposite failing to being too long — they're too flat. It's the same core diagnosis as the hydration CRO, just expressed in a different format.

Reading the structure off the screenshot tells the story. Every guide across all five columns (Running Training, Running Events, Bike Training, Bike Events, Triathlon, Tuning) runs the identical skeleton: a hero, then BEFORE / DURING / AFTER bands, then a "Sortlytics" column block at the end. It's a clean, logical, consistent template — and that consistency is exactly what's holding it back.

The issue in one line: these are reference documents, not conversion documents. They answer "what do I take and when" for someone who has already decided to fuel with SiS. They don't do any work on the person who hasn't decided yet — the same flaw the hydration page had. The proof, the stakes, the identity, the "why this matters to you" are all missing or buried, because the format assumes the reader is already sold and just needs the protocol.

1. Not too long, but front-loaded wrong. A BEFORE/DURING/AFTER fuelling guide should be fairly thorough — that's its job. The length is earned. What's missing is the first 20% that makes someone want to read the other 80%. There's no hook, no stake, no "here's what getting this wrong costs you." It opens at the protocol, which is Level 5 mechanism — the exact thing flagged on hydration. It needs to open at the consequence (the wall, the blow-up, the fade in the final 5K) before it earns the right to list grams and timings.

2. The hooks and social proof are the real gap. These guides have zero proof integrated into them. No "no stomach issues over 50 miles," no race-day PB quote, no star rating, no Informed Sport trust bar, no athlete endorsement at the decision point. That's a massive miss, because a fuelling guide is precisely where the proof-driven SiS athlete is deciding whether to trust the plan. The verified review language already harvested is the exact ammunition these guides are missing — it slots straight into the DURING band ("athletes fuelling this way report no GI issues").

3. Siloed by sport, not by reader-readiness. Smart that they're split Running / Bike / Tri — that matches the personas. But within each, there's no "is this your first marathon or your tenth" routing, no entry point for the nervous beginner vs. the optimising veteran. Same "which one is for me" gap the hydration page had.

Not a rewrite — a re-sequence plus injection.

• Add a hook + stake at the top (the consequence of bad fuelling for that sport) before the protocol.
• Inject proof into the bands (review snippets, ratings, Informed Sport, an athlete line) at the DURING decision moment.
• Add a one-line "who this is for" so a first-timer and a veteran both know they're in the right place.
• Close with the product + a CTA — the guides currently educate and then just stop, with no conversion beat.