"But the potential lesson of the new study would seem to be, he said, that we should closely monitor our body’s response to exercise. If after months of training, someone is not able to run any farther than he or she could before, maybe it is time to change the intensity or frequency of the workouts or try something else, like weight training. The genes that control the body’s responses to that activity are likely to be very different than those involved in responses to aerobic exercise, Dr. Wisloff said."

So no offense dude but maybe the same workout week in and week out on your power cranks really isn't letting you reach your full potential... Interesting.

The Athlete's gene touches on this subject in depth and explains it pretty well from a physiological standpoint.

= thank your parents for their gene contribution if you're one of the ~15% that respond especially well to aerobic training or write them a hate letter if you're one of the ~15% who essentially do not respond to aerobic training;)

Hugh

---

---

Genetics load the gun, lifestyle pulls the trigger.

At my age I think my results are just fine with anymore possible potential, which might mean getting hurt.

Again, so few folks understand training for older folks.
.

---

Dave Campbell | Facebook | @DaveECampbell | h2ofun@h2ofun.net

Boom Nutrition code 19F4Y3 $5 off 24 pack box | Bionic Runner | PowerCranks | Velotron | Spruzzamist

Lions don't lose sleep worrying about the sheep

Just wait until you're 70, that 20% at race pace might come back to bite you.

Do you mean The Sports Gene by David Epstein?
I was just looking at it on Amazon, and it looks like a really good read.

Thankfully we have you to explain it to us.

---

"Honestly, triathlon is a pussified version of duathlon on that final run."- Desert Dude

Or he has found what really works well for him even though many others haven't seen benefits and on the surface it looks like snake oil. Some day I think we have a better understanding of the various ways that people respond to training. The holy grail seems to be individualized monitoring of genetics and hormone response to exercise in order to tailor optimal training. Our present techniques use a best fit model but like any one-size-fits-all it works very well for some and not well for most.

But that only addresses how to maximize training given inherent biologic tendencies. The interesting part of the research is seeing the broad range of response to training. It raises for me the question about whether the issue is fundamental or just mis-applied technique. In other words, when we say someone is a non-responder is it because they are a born sprinter and we are measuring their ability to do time trials, for example? Or does this mean that some people would across the whole spectrum respond poorly. I like to think everyone has talent to be very good at something but they need to discover it.

That would be true if his cycling had ever improved. But, according to him, he still can't bike at a level that is even remotely close to his running level.

The idea of one size fits all training is generally only applied at the lower levels. If you work with a great coach or sport scientist, they will monitor you response to training and adjust things if it isn't working. People that are diligent and insightful can do that on their own as well. But most just take a stock plan ("I'm doing BarryP", for example) and leave it at that.

Yes, the Sports Gene. I botched the title. It's a great read.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/...articles/PMC3774727/

This study is flawed. If they wanted to improve the running economy of the rats, then the rats should have been using power cranks instead of tiny treadmills. Everyone knows that.

Thanks Andy,

I'm embarrassed to admit I've read that one at least once before but still allow my earlier learnings to prejudice my recollection. The analysis does seem to point to the need to up the intensity if lower intensity isn't getting the job done. Now who was it that has always said something similar??????????????????????? ;)

---

Genetics load the gun, lifestyle pulls the trigger.

Including you from many of the things you've posted on ST.

---

Brian Stover USAT LII
Accelerate3 Coaching
Insta

I think he must enjoy being a BOP cyclist.

that's some funny $hit right there, and well played. I am now cleaning my lunch time Coors Banquet Beer off of my keyboard.

---

"one eye doubles my eyesight, so things don't look half bad" John Hiatt

Great study. Especially valuable since they first selected for good/bad responders.

Potential for good follow up studies I am looking forward to.

Human meta studies are not suitable to answer that as clearly, and in this case are actually inferior, since genetic variability will always muddle the data.

Sometimes studying rodents (fruit flies, worms) gives better answers or raises better questions.

(Related story, directed at no one in particular.)

I actually sat in on one of the planning sessions for Claude Bouchard's Heritage Project, and would have been in charge of the muscle biochemistry core had John Holloszy opted to get involved. (Bouchard really wanted his participation, as he was concerned that NIH wouldn't view a Canadian PI favorably w/o a number of heavy-hitter US collaborators.) Ultimately he (Holloszy) did not, in part because he simply didn't believe that there was anyone out there who did not respond *at all* to exercise training, and in part because he didn't see such knowledge as "actionable intelligence." That is, suppose a genetic test was developed that told you a priori that you were a low responder to endurance training...what are you going to do with that information? Simply choose not to exercise?

That's a good book. definitely recommended. It's interesting and not in any way a "how to train" book...

Assuming this stuff might be true, it might help some set their expectations, and or choose which sport might be better.

Example, I just do terrible at endurance events, and I assume this means I do not have a lot of slowtwitch muscles. If one knew this, they could focus on shorter faster stuff
than be told all the time but if they just exercised correctly, ....

.

---

Dave Campbell | Facebook | @DaveECampbell | h2ofun@h2ofun.net

Boom Nutrition code 19F4Y3 $5 off 24 pack box | Bionic Runner | PowerCranks | Velotron | Spruzzamist

Lions don't lose sleep worrying about the sheep

Lift weights? Does being a poor responder to endurance mean they don't respond to anything?

I once read a study that showed people who use every opportunity to talk about themselves tend to perform badly at endurance events. Perhaps that is your problem.

Dave,

After all these years your lack of knowledge regarding the most basic exercise science concepts continues to surprise me.
Even a 5k is an endurance event paying dividends to those with an abundance of slowtwich fibers in their muscles. The folks with a good deal of fast twitch fibers are the 100,200 and 400 meter specialists. The fact that you can still run a sub 40 minute 10k in your late 50s is good evidence you likely have more than your fair share of slowtwitch fibers.

Hugh

---

Genetics load the gun, lifestyle pulls the trigger.

True, but not enough to do well in things like IM or Ultra stuff.

---

Dave Campbell | Facebook | @DaveECampbell | h2ofun@h2ofun.net

Boom Nutrition code 19F4Y3 $5 off 24 pack box | Bionic Runner | PowerCranks | Velotron | Spruzzamist

Lions don't lose sleep worrying about the sheep