Some of us will never get faster. Now we know why
#1
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 3,247
Bikes: Moots Vamoots, Colnago C60, Santa Cruz Stigmata CC, and too many other bikes I don't ride
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 152 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 7 Times
in
6 Posts
Some of us will never get faster. Now we know why
Genetically low responder, that's why: https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/1...d-to-exercise/
Doesn't sound like any amount of HTFU will help. I am doomed.
Doesn't sound like any amount of HTFU will help. I am doomed.
#2
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 8,550
Bikes: Wilier Izoard XP (Record);Cinelli Xperience (Force);Specialized Allez (Rival);Bianchi Via Nirone 7 (Centaur); Colnago AC-R Disc;Colnago V1r Limited Edition;De Rosa King 3 Limited(Force 22);DeRosa Merak(Red):Pinarello Dogma 65.1 Hydro(Di2)
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 551 Post(s)
Liked 278 Times
in
146 Posts
Doesn't matter, you still need to HTFU!
#3
Professional Fuss-Budget
Yeah, no. At least, not quite.
The HERITAGE family study indicated that roughly 40% of an individual's ability to improve VO2max was based on genetic factors. A 2010 research project isolated these genetic factors to 29 genes, and XR Genomics has packaged this into a $320 test.
VO2max is obviously important for cycling, but a) that leaves 60% of the ability to improve VO2max to non-genetic causes (e.g. diet, early life exercise, general health, etc) and b) doesn't include a whole host of other factors that influence performance, ranging from muscle strength to body fat levels to injuries and so forth.
Also, at least as far as I know, no one has tested pro athletes to find out how many of them fit into the low, medium or high responder categories. We might presume that fast amateurs and pro cyclists would have a higher percentage of high responders, but there's no way to know for sure until we run the tests.
And, of course, you could have someone who is a high responder, but for various reasons isn't interested in working hard. I have few doubts that a medium responder who is willing to work harder and suffer more will be faster (after training) than a high responder who isn't interested in training or suffering on a ride.
It may be easy to say "it's all genetics," but that's just not the case. Genes are only a part of a very complicated puzzle, that we are still figuring out.
The HERITAGE family study indicated that roughly 40% of an individual's ability to improve VO2max was based on genetic factors. A 2010 research project isolated these genetic factors to 29 genes, and XR Genomics has packaged this into a $320 test.
VO2max is obviously important for cycling, but a) that leaves 60% of the ability to improve VO2max to non-genetic causes (e.g. diet, early life exercise, general health, etc) and b) doesn't include a whole host of other factors that influence performance, ranging from muscle strength to body fat levels to injuries and so forth.
Also, at least as far as I know, no one has tested pro athletes to find out how many of them fit into the low, medium or high responder categories. We might presume that fast amateurs and pro cyclists would have a higher percentage of high responders, but there's no way to know for sure until we run the tests.
And, of course, you could have someone who is a high responder, but for various reasons isn't interested in working hard. I have few doubts that a medium responder who is willing to work harder and suffer more will be faster (after training) than a high responder who isn't interested in training or suffering on a ride.
It may be easy to say "it's all genetics," but that's just not the case. Genes are only a part of a very complicated puzzle, that we are still figuring out.
#4
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Hudson Valley, NY
Posts: 33,071
Bikes: Merlin Cyrene '04; Bridgestone RB-1 '92
Mentioned: 326 Post(s)
Tagged: 2 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12013 Post(s)
Liked 6,764 Times
in
3,530 Posts
+1
__________________
See, this is why we can't have nice things. - - smarkinson
Where else but the internet can a bunch of cyclists go and be the tough guy? - - jdon
#6
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Gulf Breeze, FL
Posts: 4,128
Bikes: Rossetti Vertigo
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 229 Post(s)
Liked 119 Times
in
70 Posts
Yeah, no. At least, not quite.
The HERITAGE family study indicated that roughly 40% of an individual's ability to improve VO2max was based on genetic factors. A 2010 research project isolated these genetic factors to 29 genes, and XR Genomics has packaged this into a $320 test.
VO2max is obviously important for cycling, but a) that leaves 60% of the ability to improve VO2max to non-genetic causes (e.g. diet, early life exercise, general health, etc) and b) doesn't include a whole host of other factors that influence performance, ranging from muscle strength to body fat levels to injuries and so forth.
Also, at least as far as I know, no one has tested pro athletes to find out how many of them fit into the low, medium or high responder categories. We might presume that fast amateurs and pro cyclists would have a higher percentage of high responders, but there's no way to know for sure until we run the tests.
And, of course, you could have someone who is a high responder, but for various reasons isn't interested in working hard. I have few doubts that a medium responder who is willing to work harder and suffer more will be faster (after training) than a high responder who isn't interested in training or suffering on a ride.
It may be easy to say "it's all genetics," but that's just not the case. Genes are only a part of a very complicated puzzle, that we are still figuring out.
The HERITAGE family study indicated that roughly 40% of an individual's ability to improve VO2max was based on genetic factors. A 2010 research project isolated these genetic factors to 29 genes, and XR Genomics has packaged this into a $320 test.
VO2max is obviously important for cycling, but a) that leaves 60% of the ability to improve VO2max to non-genetic causes (e.g. diet, early life exercise, general health, etc) and b) doesn't include a whole host of other factors that influence performance, ranging from muscle strength to body fat levels to injuries and so forth.
Also, at least as far as I know, no one has tested pro athletes to find out how many of them fit into the low, medium or high responder categories. We might presume that fast amateurs and pro cyclists would have a higher percentage of high responders, but there's no way to know for sure until we run the tests.
And, of course, you could have someone who is a high responder, but for various reasons isn't interested in working hard. I have few doubts that a medium responder who is willing to work harder and suffer more will be faster (after training) than a high responder who isn't interested in training or suffering on a ride.
It may be easy to say "it's all genetics," but that's just not the case. Genes are only a part of a very complicated puzzle, that we are still figuring out.
#7
Senior Member
I got enough folks yellin HTFU at me. I don't need to spend $300+ for someone to yell it at me in a report.
I'll get there before I die and if I don't..... pfffffft, so what
I'll get there before I die and if I don't..... pfffffft, so what
#8
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Louisville, KY
Posts: 13,482
Mentioned: 33 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4263 Post(s)
Liked 2,980 Times
in
1,832 Posts
That sounds like a good attitude that I should adopt.
__________________
Bikes: 1996 Eddy Merckx Titanium EX, 1989/90 Colnago Super(issimo?) Piu(?),1990 Concorde Aquila(hit by car while riding), others in build queue "when I get the time"
Bikes: 1996 Eddy Merckx Titanium EX, 1989/90 Colnago Super(issimo?) Piu(?),
#9
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 3,456
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 50 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
Totally crappy article. Not enough rigorous control on whether people were even exercising enough to make gains.
You give me anybody without a serious physical disability under age 65 off the couch, and I will guarantee that I can get them at least a 5% increase in running or cycling performance in 12 weeks. There is simply no way you will get worse with training.
You give me anybody without a serious physical disability under age 65 off the couch, and I will guarantee that I can get them at least a 5% increase in running or cycling performance in 12 weeks. There is simply no way you will get worse with training.
#10
toasty!
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Troy, MI
Posts: 710
Bikes: 1998 Cannondale r200, 2011 Bianchi Via Nirone 7; 2007 Redline Conquest Pro
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Genetically low responder, that's why: https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/1...d-to-exercise/
Doesn't sound like any amount of HTFU will help. I am doomed.
Doesn't sound like any amount of HTFU will help. I am doomed.
#11
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Gulf Breeze, FL
Posts: 4,128
Bikes: Rossetti Vertigo
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 229 Post(s)
Liked 119 Times
in
70 Posts
Totally crappy article. Not enough rigorous control on whether people were even exercising enough to make gains.
You give me anybody without a serious physical disability under age 65 off the couch, and I will guarantee that I can get them at least a 5% increase in running or cycling performance in 12 weeks. There is simply no way you will get worse with training.
You give me anybody without a serious physical disability under age 65 off the couch, and I will guarantee that I can get them at least a 5% increase in running or cycling performance in 12 weeks. There is simply no way you will get worse with training.
“The idea is to help people to understand why” they might be progressing more slowly in an exercise program than their training partners are, says Dr. Timmons, one of the founders of XRGenomics.
The point is to understand why some people respond slower than others.
Last edited by pgjackson; 10-10-12 at 01:18 PM.
#12
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 3,247
Bikes: Moots Vamoots, Colnago C60, Santa Cruz Stigmata CC, and too many other bikes I don't ride
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 152 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 7 Times
in
6 Posts
Totally crappy article. Not enough rigorous control on whether people were even exercising enough to make gains.
You give me anybody without a serious physical disability under age 65 off the couch, and I will guarantee that I can get them at least a 5% increase in running or cycling performance in 12 weeks. There is simply no way you will get worse with training.
You give me anybody without a serious physical disability under age 65 off the couch, and I will guarantee that I can get them at least a 5% increase in running or cycling performance in 12 weeks. There is simply no way you will get worse with training.
#13
Senior Member
Hmm, it's very interesting stuff DNA and genetics and all, but I ride because I enjoy it, not to get faster or more fit.
When riding I'm the overweight slow guy with the happy face and the faraway look.
When riding I'm the overweight slow guy with the happy face and the faraway look.
#14
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 3,456
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 50 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
That wasn't the point of the article.
“The idea is to help people to understand why” they might be progressing more slowly in an exercise program than their training partners are, says Dr. Timmons, one of the founders of XRGenomics.
The point is to understand why some people respond slower than others.
“The idea is to help people to understand why” they might be progressing more slowly in an exercise program than their training partners are, says Dr. Timmons, one of the founders of XRGenomics.
The point is to understand why some people respond slower than others.
I have never heard of a nondisabled nonelderly person who went from couch to exercising regularly (and not just going through the motions) yet get worse at the trained measure of fitness. If you work up from couch to biking 5x/week in 12-14weeks, you absolutely will be better than when you were on the couch in terms of riding. I dispute the notion that there are some folks who can train like that and not improve or even get worse. I suspect the exercise methods and testing of the paper are the main contributor to this anomaly rather than physiology.
EDIT - I just realized I was commenting on a separate but recent related publication - not the exact one in the cited article above, which is why it seems a bit nonsequitur.
#15
Cat 5 field stuffer
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Hammond, La
Posts: 1,426
Bikes: Wabi Lightning RE, Wabi Classic
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 7 Times
in
3 Posts
I'm going to save the poor genetics excuse until I lose the next 30 Lbs and have to give up the "I'm too fat to climb" excuse.
#16
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Northern CA
Posts: 517
Bikes: Pinarello Paris/Ui2, BMC TeamMachine SLR01/Campy Record EPS
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
My wife has an incurable, progressive hereditary neuro-muscular disorder called Hereditary Spastic Paraplegia. Yeah, that's right, paraplegia, and although she's still got some muscle function, the neurological part of the disease still gives here spasms of biblical proportion. But, you know what? she gets on her recumbent trike, and hammers for all she's worth, 16 to 22 miles at a time, 4 - 5 days a week. And she's doing it for just the love of the road. Everyone who sees her, car drivers included, and always supportive, polite, and encouraging.
Two points... 1) If you think you know what "HTFU:" means, you need to watch what my lady goes through just to strap on her cleats. 2) Genetics and disease be damned, she is getting stronger, and she's got the Garmin data to prove it.
The only trouble is she makes it pretty clear I have no excuses...
Two points... 1) If you think you know what "HTFU:" means, you need to watch what my lady goes through just to strap on her cleats. 2) Genetics and disease be damned, she is getting stronger, and she's got the Garmin data to prove it.
The only trouble is she makes it pretty clear I have no excuses...
Last edited by bsektzer; 10-10-12 at 03:01 PM.
#17
Professional Fuss-Budget
As far as I know there are no studies to support this assertion; it's just an assumption based on observing traits and results whose origins are not necessarily genetic. You cannot possibly know the genetic makeup of Rider X unless you've actually tested their DNA, any more than you could prove paternity based on visual observation.
Originally Posted by pgjackson
Everyone can be better at whatever activity we like (running, swimming, cycling, football, soccer...) than we are right now. BUt no matter how hard we train, 99.9% of us will never be at the elite level.
A typical pro will have been riding hard since age 18, 16 or younger in many European nations -- e.g. kids on the Isle of Man are "racing" by age 12. They have access to top fitters, trainers, nutritionists, facilities, doctors, top-notch equipment and in-race support. Their social network is built around racing; they train with other top riders; they compete against other top riders. They don't have to work 40+ hours a week at something other than cycling. They've spent years building their fitness and refining their skills.
And it's not clear that the cutoff point early on is due to a yawning chasm of performance, where the 18 year old destined-to-be-pros are 100% faster than their destined-to-sit-on-the-couch amateur counterparts. It seems to me that early on, you have a gradual falling-off of skills and aptitudes. The large performance gaps develop later, when the pros start getting the time and resources that are generally unavailable to the amateurs.
Now, I would say that if we lived in a world where all the other factors were equal -- cultural involvement, diet, youth exercise, training etc -- then genetics would be a bigger factor. But that would only be because you're eliminating those other variables, not because "genetics is the only real factor." Since we don't live in that world yet, there are obviously lots of factors and variables other than genetics that result in athletic excellence.
#18
Professional Fuss-Budget
Originally Posted by hhnngg1
I have never heard of a nondisabled nonelderly person who went from couch to exercising regularly (and not just going through the motions) yet get worse at the trained measure of fitness.
The study in question tested one particular program, designed to work on both resistance and aerobic capacity, on 175 sedentary test subjects between the ages of 40 and 67. I agree that a loss of VO2max and/or MVC is a bit surprising, but that's why we do studies. And I expect you'd see similar things if the study was repeated, or in similar studies.
Originally Posted by hhnngg1
If you work up from couch to biking 5x/week in 12-14weeks, you absolutely will be better than when you were on the couch in terms of riding.
I for one have no doubt that exercise is beneficial for almost everyone. That doesn't mean that it is categorically true that every single middle-aged sedentary person who starts an exercise program will benefit.
#19
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 23,208
Mentioned: 89 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18883 Post(s)
Liked 10,646 Times
in
6,054 Posts
I think I've grown a lot as a cyclist this year, and I've gotten a bit slower in the process.
#20
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,884
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
took 3 reads before i realized my mistake...but now im in THE MOOD
#21
Senior Member
#22
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 3,456
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 50 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
Unless that exercise program was 'legit' for improvement, I'm not buying that some people just 'dont' improve with exercise'.
I'm admittedly too lazy to go dig up the actual article right now, but if you would like to and share the exercise regimen, we'd all be happy to comment on how rigorous (or not) it is.
I know for sure that if I exercise at lower than normal intensity 2-3x week now, yes, I'd get worse. Doesn't mean my genetics tell me I'm not capable of improving - it's just that the exercise regimen is below my current level of fitness. I suspect it's similar with the study individuals. This is a situation where even though it's a scientific article, common sense and real-world practical observations are pretty compelling arguments that you should question the methodology or findings of the science done.
I'm admittedly too lazy to go dig up the actual article right now, but if you would like to and share the exercise regimen, we'd all be happy to comment on how rigorous (or not) it is.
I know for sure that if I exercise at lower than normal intensity 2-3x week now, yes, I'd get worse. Doesn't mean my genetics tell me I'm not capable of improving - it's just that the exercise regimen is below my current level of fitness. I suspect it's similar with the study individuals. This is a situation where even though it's a scientific article, common sense and real-world practical observations are pretty compelling arguments that you should question the methodology or findings of the science done.
#23
Peloton Shelter Dog
__________________
https://www.cotsiscad.com
https://www.cotsiscad.com
#24
Professional Fuss-Budget
The HERITAGE study ran for 15 years, and produced an extensive, well-respected and frequently cited data set. And it's not alone in many of its conclusions, including the counter-intuitive ones. For example, 5 other studies also indicated that while most people benefit from exercise, roughly 10% of people who start exercising have a mild adverse affect to their cardiac system -- e.g. an increase in triglycerides, blood pressure, and insulin levels (see https://www.plosone.org/article/info%...l.pone.0037887 and https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/0...e-bad-for-you/). And those who improved? They improved to different degrees, sometimes based on genetics, sometimes based on other factors.
So now you've got to disregard six studies. Have fun with that.
Nor is this something that "real world practical observations" would have figured out. You can't check VO2max, triglyceride and insulin levels by looking at someone; no one is showing up at a club ride with a blood pressure monitor; and the overwhelming majority of couch potatoes who start exercising don't test their VO2max -- they probably don't have the slightest idea what VO2max is in the first place. And in the real world, people who get worse may well not realize it, or quit and head back to the couch.
"Common sense," by the way, has also given us wrong-headed ideas like "ride lots" and KOPS and "girls can't run a marathon." So yes, I don't put much stock in it.
Is it possible that the studies are all wrong? Sure. But the validity of the study can only be judged based on collecting further scientific evidence, not a presumption that "exercise must be good for every single person, no matter what."
#25
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 3,456
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 50 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
I don't dispute that the blood lab levels may be variable in response to exercise.
However, I will ALWAYS dispute that if you take a healthy nondisabled under 60 year old, and put them on a gradual, incremental training program, that they will NOT improve their run or bike (whatever you specifically train them for) after 14 weeks. I will NEVER believe any research that says that a small group of people will not improve at all in run/bike speed if you specifically train them for that activity. Muscle and cardiac physiology is well known, and it adapts to moderate stress.
I don't think these 6 studies make comments on actual performance in terms of running/cycling - they more focus on the lab values, which while are interesting, is not what I'm debating here.
I don't see any scenario how couch potato could ever get WORSE by going onto a 14 week exercise program that has them walking 5 days a week, and then even running (or cycling) for significant portions of the workout, gradually incremented of course.
I also don't dispute the variability of training effect in terms of the magnitude of improvement. That's stunningly obvious - you don't need a study to 'discover' that.
However, I will ALWAYS dispute that if you take a healthy nondisabled under 60 year old, and put them on a gradual, incremental training program, that they will NOT improve their run or bike (whatever you specifically train them for) after 14 weeks. I will NEVER believe any research that says that a small group of people will not improve at all in run/bike speed if you specifically train them for that activity. Muscle and cardiac physiology is well known, and it adapts to moderate stress.
I don't think these 6 studies make comments on actual performance in terms of running/cycling - they more focus on the lab values, which while are interesting, is not what I'm debating here.
I don't see any scenario how couch potato could ever get WORSE by going onto a 14 week exercise program that has them walking 5 days a week, and then even running (or cycling) for significant portions of the workout, gradually incremented of course.
I also don't dispute the variability of training effect in terms of the magnitude of improvement. That's stunningly obvious - you don't need a study to 'discover' that.