dalava

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.

tagaproject6

Doesn't matter, you still need to HTFU!

Bacciagalupe

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.

BillyD

That would be me. I've never been interested in working that hard at biking. Other sports, yes, but not biking.

+1

jdon

Meh, I am getting older faster than I am getting faster.

pgjackson

It's not ALL genetics, but genetics seems to be what separates the really good amatures from the elite professionals. 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. You and I will never run a 10 second 100 meters or be able to throw a 98mph fastball or be able to hang with the peleton in the TdF regardless of how hard we work at it. Some people are just gifted.

IBOHUNT

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

himespau 

That sounds like a good attitude that I should adopt.

hhnngg1

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.

AK404

All the more reason to HTFU: you need to beat those odds.

pgjackson

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.

dalava

reading is essential

Waxbytes

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.

hhnngg1

Still, a major point of their article was their finding that a small but significant percentage of people didn't improve and actually got WORSE.

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.

bbeasley

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.

bsektzer

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...

Bacciagalupe

Yeah, sorry to say this is the mentality I'm talking about.

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.


That sounds reasonable -- but how would you prove it?

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.

Bacciagalupe

Actually, the "major point" of that particular study was that people do not have a consistent and uniform response to the same exercise regime, in part due to genetics and in part due to other factors.


Sorry, but anecdotes and "common sense" have basically no scientific merit.

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.


Unless you have an undiagnosed medical condition, or a bad diet, or use the new exercise regime to eat crappy foods, or the exercise program could be too strenuous for that individual, or get injured, and so forth. If you've got a pool of 175 people, there's lots of things that could go wrong.

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.

Seattle Forrest

I think I've grown a lot as a cyclist this year, and I've gotten a bit slower in the process.

abstractform20

i first read that as "When Im riding the overweight slow guy with the happy face and the faraway look


took 3 reads before i realized my mistake...but now im in THE MOOD

Waxbytes

LOL... maybe you were in the mood before reading and that's why you misread??

hhnngg1

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.

patentcad

Effin A Fredly.

Bacciagalupe

Well, I've got some more bad news for you.

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."

hhnngg1

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.