Your workout may not work for you
August 15, 2024 8:26 AM Subscribe
Is Your Workout Not Working? Maybe You’re a Non-Responder “nonresponders to one form of exercise can probably switch to another exercise regimen to which their body will respond. And a simple test you can do at home will help you determine how well your workout is working for you.“ (Reynolds, NYT, 2017).
Do fitness non-responders exist? (Aerobic training) “some subjects improved by greater than 40 bpm, whilst others became markedly worse” (Pickering and Kiley, Sports Medicine, 2019)
Do Non-Responders Need More Volume? (Strength training, Helms, MASS Research Review)
Do fitness non-responders exist? (Aerobic training) “some subjects improved by greater than 40 bpm, whilst others became markedly worse” (Pickering and Kiley, Sports Medicine, 2019)
Do Non-Responders Need More Volume? (Strength training, Helms, MASS Research Review)
Thanks for your valuable feedback. I can tell you read the articles before replying.
posted by bq at 8:48 AM on August 15 [72 favorites]
posted by bq at 8:48 AM on August 15 [72 favorites]
Non-response is an interesting thing and has been talked about for a while - totally breaks the "obvious fact" that you put in hard work, you see results.
Right now, my non-response problem is the non-response of moving my feet into the gym, but I can't imagine how demotivating it would be to find yourself putting in all the work people tell you to only to find out it's not doing a damn thing for you.
posted by drewbage1847 at 9:07 AM on August 15 [5 favorites]
Right now, my non-response problem is the non-response of moving my feet into the gym, but I can't imagine how demotivating it would be to find yourself putting in all the work people tell you to only to find out it's not doing a damn thing for you.
posted by drewbage1847 at 9:07 AM on August 15 [5 favorites]
Fitness non-responder? If that's not cynical law enforcement lingo for 'driver fleeing scene of accident (leaving their vehicle behind)', it should be.
posted by Ashenmote at 9:15 AM on August 15
posted by Ashenmote at 9:15 AM on August 15
IMO, 3 weeks is far too short to judge if an exercise routine is working or not (it takes like 6 weeks to show noticeable results), but the answer 'simple test' is not actually simple. The 'simple test' is to test your heart rate and see if it's gone down, and if it hasn't then switch to a different exercise routine. Measuring your active heart rate is not that simple.
posted by The_Vegetables at 9:18 AM on August 15 [4 favorites]
posted by The_Vegetables at 9:18 AM on August 15 [4 favorites]
The 'simple test' is to test your heart rate and see if it's gone down, and if it hasn't then switch to a different exercise routine. Measuring your active heart rate is not that simple.
I don't understand what you mean.
posted by bq at 9:28 AM on August 15 [2 favorites]
I don't understand what you mean.
posted by bq at 9:28 AM on August 15 [2 favorites]
I've long considered myself a minimal to slow responder to physical exercise. It's not really a non-response or negative response though. I've weight trained off and since I was a teenager and i've never really gotten visibly muscular though I have gotten significantly stronger every time I've been 'on'. I've always been pretty cardio active so it is harder to see improvements there (though my VO2Max took a savage hit after my first bout of covid I've since got back to pre-pandy levels even with a second bout of the 'rona last month).
But I've probably had a mild-to-moderate case of ME/CFS since my early thirties and also had 40 years of a crap diet. My fitness efforts do seem to be much more productive now with less junk and making sure I actually mostly hit my macros.
I'd be very curious to see what a more comprehensive approach - nutrition, recovery and training - could do for people classed as non-responders.
That part about having to work four times as hard though. That's where I feel the ouch and exhaustion.
posted by srboisvert at 9:38 AM on August 15 [2 favorites]
But I've probably had a mild-to-moderate case of ME/CFS since my early thirties and also had 40 years of a crap diet. My fitness efforts do seem to be much more productive now with less junk and making sure I actually mostly hit my macros.
I'd be very curious to see what a more comprehensive approach - nutrition, recovery and training - could do for people classed as non-responders.
That part about having to work four times as hard though. That's where I feel the ouch and exhaustion.
posted by srboisvert at 9:38 AM on August 15 [2 favorites]
Measuring your active heart rate is not that simple.
This is the only thing smart watches have gotten pretty good at. If the research supports heart rate dynamics as a decent predictor of whether a given exercise will be more or less effective, that seems like a good application of always on heart rate monitoring.
Am I missing why you think this is hard? Concern that the watch is imprecise?
posted by Lenie Clarke at 9:51 AM on August 15 [7 favorites]
This is the only thing smart watches have gotten pretty good at. If the research supports heart rate dynamics as a decent predictor of whether a given exercise will be more or less effective, that seems like a good application of always on heart rate monitoring.
Am I missing why you think this is hard? Concern that the watch is imprecise?
posted by Lenie Clarke at 9:51 AM on August 15 [7 favorites]
Oh I actually love this--I've never tried interval training because it sounds absolutely miserable, just the worst thing on the planet. But that may be because I'm extrapolating from my experience doing endurance stuff, which has never made me feel very good at all but is the easiest for me to get in. Interval training just seems like "do the thing you hate and which makes you feel like passing out EVEN HARDER" and yes it's for a shorter period of time, but in general I prefer "small amounts of pain over a longer period of time" to "intense burst of pain and then it's over," for better or worse. But maybe interval training wouldn't suck as much and I'd actually see benefit from it!
I'm sure there's still a host of complications from my POTS and hypermobility etc., but I would love to find some kind of movement that actually helped me feel stronger and have more stamina and not just like, prevent my muscles from atrophying.
posted by brook horse at 10:14 AM on August 15 [6 favorites]
I'm sure there's still a host of complications from my POTS and hypermobility etc., but I would love to find some kind of movement that actually helped me feel stronger and have more stamina and not just like, prevent my muscles from atrophying.
posted by brook horse at 10:14 AM on August 15 [6 favorites]
Garmin watches are great for measuring heart rate, VO2Max, etc. The heart rate sensors in particular are highly accurate. I've worn my watch while also using my pulse oximeter and the results track each other. And even if they're a couple of BPM off, the main thing is HR zones and spikes / dips.
I totally believe non-responders exist; some people feel absolutely terrible after exercising. The most important thing, I've found, in terms of sticking with an exercise regimen is that you actually like it and that it makes you feel good. With running, it was mostly a struggle for years. My ankles would cramp up really quickly - I thought I was just not made for running. I would only run sporadically. Then I joined my local running group and - critically - got new shoes that accounted for my overpronation, and everything changed. I'm a social person, so the social pressure and rewards of a running club were a great fit for me. And the shoe change made it so I was no longer running to the limits of my pain endurance, but rather to the limits of my cardiovascular system. Now, it helps that I had, for my entire life, seen running as an aspirational goal and equated it with people who had their shit together. That turned out to be untrue, LOL! But anyway, that's what worked for me, and it only worked because it meshed with my psychology and my body didn't reject it. Grumpybearbride tried it and her knees started complaining in a way that made her stop. And she's got a better build for running than I do - the one time we raced, she smoked me. She does leg lifts and weighted hula-hooping instead.
I keep meaning to join the gym and do resistance training, since that's great for bone strength and general hardiness. Also: balance training. Because who wants to fall over?
posted by grumpybear69 at 10:20 AM on August 15 [2 favorites]
I totally believe non-responders exist; some people feel absolutely terrible after exercising. The most important thing, I've found, in terms of sticking with an exercise regimen is that you actually like it and that it makes you feel good. With running, it was mostly a struggle for years. My ankles would cramp up really quickly - I thought I was just not made for running. I would only run sporadically. Then I joined my local running group and - critically - got new shoes that accounted for my overpronation, and everything changed. I'm a social person, so the social pressure and rewards of a running club were a great fit for me. And the shoe change made it so I was no longer running to the limits of my pain endurance, but rather to the limits of my cardiovascular system. Now, it helps that I had, for my entire life, seen running as an aspirational goal and equated it with people who had their shit together. That turned out to be untrue, LOL! But anyway, that's what worked for me, and it only worked because it meshed with my psychology and my body didn't reject it. Grumpybearbride tried it and her knees started complaining in a way that made her stop. And she's got a better build for running than I do - the one time we raced, she smoked me. She does leg lifts and weighted hula-hooping instead.
I keep meaning to join the gym and do resistance training, since that's great for bone strength and general hardiness. Also: balance training. Because who wants to fall over?
posted by grumpybear69 at 10:20 AM on August 15 [2 favorites]
So there's one thing about this phenomenon that tickled my own personal experience triggers, so I dug into one of the studies cited in the Sports Medicine article, which stated:
Bringing this back to the nonresponder topic more specifically: I switched to weightlifting as my PE class in my senior year of high school, and found that the leg press machine simply did not have a setting high enough to actually feel like exercise to me. Other kids and even the teacher would top out somewhere in the middle, but I would just kind of push the whole stack of weights without feeling much resistance. Eventually the teacher asked me to stop using that machine, because the pin was only rated for 500lbs.
"Exercise" feels like an extremely personal thing to me, and one of the reasons I love cycling is that it is a system of power and momentum that lets me hit an equilibrium. You reach a sort of cruising speed where maintaining forward motion is trivial, but where adding a little bit of acceleration is possible. I always feel like I pedal only as hard as I find rewarding, instead of punishing myself for arbitrary metrics derived from someone else's experience. There's always that little bit of push I can do without shattering myself, and I find myself surprised when I stop and realise how heavily I'm breathing.
I still weigh as much as I did when I was a teen, and my clothes are about the same sizes, but consider myself active and strong. If I'd been stuck in the track-and-field mindset that I think held the Ross study back, I'd probably be far less likely to be this healthy.
posted by rum-soaked space hobo at 10:29 AM on August 15 [33 favorites]
Similarly, Ross and colleagues [43] randomly assigned obese subjects to different exercise protocols over a 24-week intervention; low-intensity, low-volume exercise (180–300 kcal per session at 50% VO2peak); low-intensity, high-volume exercise (360–600 kcal per session at 50% VO2peak); or high-volume, high-intensity exercise (360–600 kcal per session at 75% VO2peak). On average, all groups increased their aerobic fitness, although there were a number of subjects deemed to exhibit no response. Interestingly, there were no non-responders in the high-intensity training group, demonstrating that increasing exercise intensity represents a viable method of reducing exercise non-response. Additionally, in the two low-intensity training groups, the group undertaking higher total volumes had fewer non-responders (18%) compared to the group with the lower volume (39%).Ross et al. studied about a hundred people that seem to mostly be in their fifties, selected for a BMI (ugh) of around 33. They described the exercise as follows:
Participants were randomly assigned to (1) low-amount, low-intensity exercise (LALI; n=39), (2) high-amount, low-intensity exercise (HALI; n=51), or (3) high-amount, high-intensity exercise (HAHI, n=31). All participants performed primarily walking exercise on a treadmill for the time required to achieve the desired energy expenditure (kcal per session) 5 times per week at the required intensity (relative to CRF [VO2peak]) for 24 weeks.So they seem to have relied on treadmill walking as the "exercise", although the NYT article talked mainly about interval training on stationary bicycles (so-called "spin class"). These are dramatically different forms of exercise for a heavy individual for one simple reason:
on the bicycle, you're sitting down.I went to a middle/high school in the US that had mandatory PE every single semester. I was a fat teenager, and struggled to do things like "run a mile" that my peers had no trouble with. But at some point I discovered that cycling, rowing, and (to some degree) swimming were areas where I could participate at the same or greater level than the thin kids. I cycle from London to Amsterdam every year, and aside from hill climbing I am at no disadvantage to someone who isn't fat. If anything, I find that I am not exerting myself as much due to leg muscles that have been trained on tasks like standing up from the floor while weighing twice as much as other people.
Bringing this back to the nonresponder topic more specifically: I switched to weightlifting as my PE class in my senior year of high school, and found that the leg press machine simply did not have a setting high enough to actually feel like exercise to me. Other kids and even the teacher would top out somewhere in the middle, but I would just kind of push the whole stack of weights without feeling much resistance. Eventually the teacher asked me to stop using that machine, because the pin was only rated for 500lbs.
"Exercise" feels like an extremely personal thing to me, and one of the reasons I love cycling is that it is a system of power and momentum that lets me hit an equilibrium. You reach a sort of cruising speed where maintaining forward motion is trivial, but where adding a little bit of acceleration is possible. I always feel like I pedal only as hard as I find rewarding, instead of punishing myself for arbitrary metrics derived from someone else's experience. There's always that little bit of push I can do without shattering myself, and I find myself surprised when I stop and realise how heavily I'm breathing.
I still weigh as much as I did when I was a teen, and my clothes are about the same sizes, but consider myself active and strong. If I'd been stuck in the track-and-field mindset that I think held the Ross study back, I'd probably be far less likely to be this healthy.
posted by rum-soaked space hobo at 10:29 AM on August 15 [33 favorites]
_The Sports Gene_ finishes up with a description of the author and a friend getting significantly results from the same training routine.
posted by Nancy Lebovitz at 10:31 AM on August 15
posted by Nancy Lebovitz at 10:31 AM on August 15
People vary in all sorts of ways. Why would anyone expect everyone to respond the same way to the same amount of exercise?
Oh, right, because exercise is contextless evidence of virtue.
posted by Nancy Lebovitz at 10:33 AM on August 15 [22 favorites]
Oh, right, because exercise is contextless evidence of virtue.
posted by Nancy Lebovitz at 10:33 AM on August 15 [22 favorites]
I can tell you read the articles before replying.
Just to confirm, are you claiming that the first paper doesn’t say
Just to confirm, are you claiming that the first paper doesn’t say
we suggest that it is unlikely that global non-responders to exercise exist.and that it’s impossible that anything negative could result from
encourage health professionals to create more nuanced, efficacious, and individually-focused exercise prescriptions designed to circumvent and overcome apparent non-responsiveness.posted by zamboni at 10:36 AM on August 15
This is the only thing smart watches have gotten pretty good at. If the research supports heart rate dynamics as a decent predictor of whether a given exercise will be more or less effective, that seems like a good application of always on heart rate monitoring.
Am I missing why you think this is hard? Concern that the watch is imprecise?
Be careful though with over interpreting heart rate measures from watches. I had a 10bpm drop in my max heart rate last November. It coincided with a kidney stone but it turned out the real factor was that I upgraded from a garmin vivoactive 3 to a vivoactive 4.
The watch hardware and algorithms are inscrutable.
Likewise a single test of your heart rate by something like stair climbing is not very useful because it can be heavily influenced by all kinds of irrelevant factors.
posted by srboisvert at 10:40 AM on August 15
Am I missing why you think this is hard? Concern that the watch is imprecise?
Be careful though with over interpreting heart rate measures from watches. I had a 10bpm drop in my max heart rate last November. It coincided with a kidney stone but it turned out the real factor was that I upgraded from a garmin vivoactive 3 to a vivoactive 4.
The watch hardware and algorithms are inscrutable.
Likewise a single test of your heart rate by something like stair climbing is not very useful because it can be heavily influenced by all kinds of irrelevant factors.
posted by srboisvert at 10:40 AM on August 15
brook horse, I did HIIT stuff for a little while - running as fast as I could up hills - and while it was somewhat unpleasant, I loved the fact that it was over really quickly, and I had a pretty pleasant cooldown walk around the block after.
I encourage you to consider trying it for a week, see what you think. You can always stop. [grin]
posted by kristi at 10:43 AM on August 15 [2 favorites]
I encourage you to consider trying it for a week, see what you think. You can always stop. [grin]
posted by kristi at 10:43 AM on August 15 [2 favorites]
Thanks for the encouragement Kristi--part of the reason I didn't do it was because I was introduced to it by a doctor who told me "you'll feel like garbage for 3-4 months but then your POTS will be cured!"
I said, "I'm starting my PhD in two weeks. I can't afford to feel like garbage for 3-4 months. What else do you have for me?" And she shrugged and moved on. So I figured I'd keep doing the endurance stuff, which sucked but didn't make me feel like garbage, and hope I eventually got there without being knocked out of commission for the next few months. This gives me hope that it would actually help me instead of doing... that.
posted by brook horse at 10:58 AM on August 15 [3 favorites]
I said, "I'm starting my PhD in two weeks. I can't afford to feel like garbage for 3-4 months. What else do you have for me?" And she shrugged and moved on. So I figured I'd keep doing the endurance stuff, which sucked but didn't make me feel like garbage, and hope I eventually got there without being knocked out of commission for the next few months. This gives me hope that it would actually help me instead of doing... that.
posted by brook horse at 10:58 AM on August 15 [3 favorites]
Am I missing why you think this is hard? Concern that the watch is imprecise?
Even if the watch is accurate, the heart rate response to exercise is going to be pretty variable, and extremely dependent on exertion.
My heart rate monitoring watch (Garmin, had Fitbits too) shows a 30bpm variation at rest.
posted by The_Vegetables at 11:02 AM on August 15
Even if the watch is accurate, the heart rate response to exercise is going to be pretty variable, and extremely dependent on exertion.
My heart rate monitoring watch (Garmin, had Fitbits too) shows a 30bpm variation at rest.
posted by The_Vegetables at 11:02 AM on August 15
My heart rate monitoring watch (Garmin, had Fitbits too) shows a 30bpm variation at rest.
Like, if you're just sitting in a chair? 30bpm? In one session?
posted by grumpybear69 at 11:11 AM on August 15
Like, if you're just sitting in a chair? 30bpm? In one session?
posted by grumpybear69 at 11:11 AM on August 15
Interval training is really easy to explain. Call it the "run from the tiger" exercise. For twenty seconds, you run from a tiger. You know. Like your life depended on it. Then for ten seconds you catch your breath. Then you run from the tiger again, five more times. Three minutes total, running from a tiger six times, for only two minutes total running. It's not a very pleasant 3 minutes but it's only 3 minutes. Also it doesn't have to be running. It could be any exercise that you can do max effort for 20 seconds.
Do this every other day for a couple weeks. You'll be shocked how must more effective you are at running from tigers, and loads of other aerobic activities, by then.
Our bodies are actually really good at running from tigers! Did you know that humans used to have to run from tigers all the time? It's true!
(Tiger not included, available separately.)
posted by seanmpuckett at 11:11 AM on August 15 [14 favorites]
Do this every other day for a couple weeks. You'll be shocked how must more effective you are at running from tigers, and loads of other aerobic activities, by then.
Our bodies are actually really good at running from tigers! Did you know that humans used to have to run from tigers all the time? It's true!
(Tiger not included, available separately.)
posted by seanmpuckett at 11:11 AM on August 15 [14 favorites]
Do this every other day for a couple weeks. You'll be shocked how must more effective you are at running from tigers, and loads of other aerobic activities, by then.
I run three to four times a week and if I interval train more than once a week the tiger catches me because I'd be a hobbling mess of crippling injuries. HIIT is a young or already extremely fit person workout.
posted by srboisvert at 11:17 AM on August 15 [4 favorites]
I run three to four times a week and if I interval train more than once a week the tiger catches me because I'd be a hobbling mess of crippling injuries. HIIT is a young or already extremely fit person workout.
posted by srboisvert at 11:17 AM on August 15 [4 favorites]
What! I disagree! I'm 57! And only somewhat fit.
posted by seanmpuckett at 11:20 AM on August 15 [4 favorites]
posted by seanmpuckett at 11:20 AM on August 15 [4 favorites]
I know not everyone is reading this article, so let me explain it. The premise is that not everyone will respond the same way to the same types of exercise. A "non-responder" is someone whose body will not respond positively to certain types of exercise, no matter what. So if you've tried an exercise plan that did not yield results, it's not that you did something wrong, it's that the exercise is wrong for your body. Another type of exercise may yield better results for you. You're welcome
posted by kittens for breakfast at 11:20 AM on August 15 [37 favorites]
posted by kittens for breakfast at 11:20 AM on August 15 [37 favorites]
Oh I actually love this--I've never tried interval training because it sounds absolutely miserable, just the worst thing on the planet.
I'm a runner so interval training for me is either hill sprints or laps with recoveries around a track (one hard, one recovery, then repeat). The intervals suck, there's no other way around it - a friend calls them "slaying the dragon with every single step". But for building your "engine" and speed there's nothing better. Plus, over a period of time, your self-confidence really grows as you do them.
And I'm an older guy, so I don't like to do more than 1 or 2 workouts like that a week, and only for short times. 90%.of my running is easy and slow.
posted by fortitude25 at 11:21 AM on August 15 [1 favorite]
I'm a runner so interval training for me is either hill sprints or laps with recoveries around a track (one hard, one recovery, then repeat). The intervals suck, there's no other way around it - a friend calls them "slaying the dragon with every single step". But for building your "engine" and speed there's nothing better. Plus, over a period of time, your self-confidence really grows as you do them.
And I'm an older guy, so I don't like to do more than 1 or 2 workouts like that a week, and only for short times. 90%.of my running is easy and slow.
posted by fortitude25 at 11:21 AM on August 15 [1 favorite]
Like, if you're just sitting in a chair? 30bpm? In one session?
No over the course of a day, just sitting in a chair, but you can vary your heart rate by 30-50bpm at exercise by slightly changing your breathing. My point is your heart rate is not a static number at exercise and a static number at rest and you can say "well my heart rate went from 150 to 140 biking and 140 to 120 climbing stairs so climbing stairs is the exercise for me" is not necessarily correct.
posted by The_Vegetables at 11:31 AM on August 15
No over the course of a day, just sitting in a chair, but you can vary your heart rate by 30-50bpm at exercise by slightly changing your breathing. My point is your heart rate is not a static number at exercise and a static number at rest and you can say "well my heart rate went from 150 to 140 biking and 140 to 120 climbing stairs so climbing stairs is the exercise for me" is not necessarily correct.
posted by The_Vegetables at 11:31 AM on August 15
you can vary your heart rate by 30-50bpm at exercise by slightly changing your breathing
That is absolutely not my experience. When I go running, my heart follows a predictable pattern going up as I continue to run, eventually plateauing and then dropping when I stop. If I could just change up my breathing to bring my HR down, that would be some amazing magic. If my heart rate drops by 30bpm - even 10bpm - while I'm running with no clear indicator as to why, it is usually a sensor error or, worst case scenario, something is wrong with my heart. It definitely has spiked sharply at or near the end of extremely strenuous races, which is an indicator that I need to slow down.
posted by grumpybear69 at 11:44 AM on August 15
That is absolutely not my experience. When I go running, my heart follows a predictable pattern going up as I continue to run, eventually plateauing and then dropping when I stop. If I could just change up my breathing to bring my HR down, that would be some amazing magic. If my heart rate drops by 30bpm - even 10bpm - while I'm running with no clear indicator as to why, it is usually a sensor error or, worst case scenario, something is wrong with my heart. It definitely has spiked sharply at or near the end of extremely strenuous races, which is an indicator that I need to slow down.
posted by grumpybear69 at 11:44 AM on August 15
Interval training is really easy to explain. Call it the "run from the tiger" exercise. For twenty seconds, you run from a tiger. You know. Like your life depended on it. Then for ten seconds you catch your breath. Then you run from the tiger again, five more times. Three minutes total, running from a tiger six times, for only two minutes total running. It's not a very pleasant 3 minutes but it's only 3 minutes. Also it doesn't have to be running. It could be any exercise that you can do max effort for 20 seconds.
The family of Jacquilynne S is sad to announce that she had an asthma attack while HIIT. The funeral will be closed casket as, afterwards, a tiger ate her.
posted by jacquilynne at 12:01 PM on August 15 [17 favorites]
The family of Jacquilynne S is sad to announce that she had an asthma attack while HIIT. The funeral will be closed casket as, afterwards, a tiger ate her.
posted by jacquilynne at 12:01 PM on August 15 [17 favorites]
Thanks for your valuable feedback. I can tell you read the articles before replying.
I know not everyone is reading this article, so let me explain it.…You're welcome
I appreciate your sincere and non-condescending approach to this topic. You've both done a great job of engaging with a potentially emotionally fraught issue in a way that is certain to be well received.
posted by zamboni at 12:23 PM on August 15 [2 favorites]
I know not everyone is reading this article, so let me explain it.…You're welcome
I appreciate your sincere and non-condescending approach to this topic. You've both done a great job of engaging with a potentially emotionally fraught issue in a way that is certain to be well received.
posted by zamboni at 12:23 PM on August 15 [2 favorites]
Oh, right, because exercise is contextless evidence of virtue.
That's one interpretation. I prefer to look at it as a health promoting activity that I also happen to enjoy. Being strong is fun.
posted by Dark Messiah at 12:28 PM on August 15 [2 favorites]
That's one interpretation. I prefer to look at it as a health promoting activity that I also happen to enjoy. Being strong is fun.
posted by Dark Messiah at 12:28 PM on August 15 [2 favorites]
Exercise , both strength training, aerobic, and stretching is one of the very commonly recommended and prescribed (PT) medical responses to many conditions and it is assumed that the patient is failing to comply when the patient is failing to improve. And failure to comply is absolutly held against the patient and gate keeping for other more costly medical interventions. But hey, i'm obviosuly a reading-non responder too, so whatevs.
posted by No Climate - No Food, No Food - No Future. at 12:28 PM on August 15 [5 favorites]
posted by No Climate - No Food, No Food - No Future. at 12:28 PM on August 15 [5 favorites]
Also, I find the idea of a complete non-responder unlikely, but it's very clear that individual responses to training stimulus varies widely. There are people who can build cartoonish physiques seemingly just by looking at weights and there are people who can grind like mad and yield a fraction of the results. That said, everyone responds in some way. Training methods always need to be tailored to the individual; all fitness advice is general and responses are on a gradient.
The same applies to steroids. Just taking steroids won't necessarily make you look like an IFBB pro or give you record-setting strength. Genetics apply here too; being good at tolerating and responding to PEDs is another difference between the physical elite and an aggressively average dude like me.
posted by Dark Messiah at 12:32 PM on August 15 [1 favorite]
The same applies to steroids. Just taking steroids won't necessarily make you look like an IFBB pro or give you record-setting strength. Genetics apply here too; being good at tolerating and responding to PEDs is another difference between the physical elite and an aggressively average dude like me.
posted by Dark Messiah at 12:32 PM on August 15 [1 favorite]
Mod note: Two comments resulting in a temporary ban deleted. While cursing on the site is fine cursing at someone else is not okay.
posted by loup (staff) at 12:40 PM on August 15 [9 favorites]
posted by loup (staff) at 12:40 PM on August 15 [9 favorites]
I think that the main problem with this thread is that everyone is projecting positions on the topic of TFA against people who either read or did not read TFA. In particular I think that the top comment is being perceived as complaining about a position that is the opposite of TFA, but also perceived as painting TFA as having that position.
It is also possible to be frustrated when well-meaning public health measures backfire, as was covered excellently in this episode of Maintenance Phase about the medicalising of "obesity" (text transcript available via a tab on the listening page). In particular, the analysis that I think cuts to the core of this sentiment begins at this section:
posted by rum-soaked space hobo at 12:43 PM on August 15 [6 favorites]
It is also possible to be frustrated when well-meaning public health measures backfire, as was covered excellently in this episode of Maintenance Phase about the medicalising of "obesity" (text transcript available via a tab on the listening page). In particular, the analysis that I think cuts to the core of this sentiment begins at this section:
Aubrey: Well, the manufacturers of those drugs want them to sell better. The third reason is they say, “We think it's going to help reduce stigma facing fat people.” This is the William Dietz’s approach, which is like, “If we can call this a disease, then people will understand that it's really complicated, that it requires lifelong management,” and people don't actually understand that. Again, this is a place where I'm like it would have been so helpful to talk to some fat people. And that doesn't appear to have happened.So it's possible to see this research into exercise non-responders and think "Cripes... this is not going to help me the way some people expect."
posted by rum-soaked space hobo at 12:43 PM on August 15 [6 favorites]
two things about this, from my own n=1 experience of fitness (both strength and cardio training):
1. it is my understanding that it takes a while - ~6 weeks, possibly as many as 12 - to see significant changes from following an exercise regimen.
1.b. my hardest struggles with fitness have always, always been keeping up anything consistently for as long as 12 weeks, whether it was one thing at a time or switching up between different things. i'm inclined to agree with the above comment that "3 weeks is far too short to judge if an exercise routine is working or not".
conclusion: "just do something - anything - consistently" seems to me to be a far more important takeaway than whether you should stick with one exercise or try switching it up.
2. of all the factors that go into the body's response to exercise, choosing one type of exercise over another and/or switching between exercises does not seem to crop up that often as a major one. those would be:
a. getting enough food
b. getting enough rest
c. getting enough exercise (not too much or too little)
for this very small study group, i would be investigating these big three factors before attributing anything noteworthy to what type of exercise they were doing. sort of a differential diagnosis for why you might not be "responding" to such and such regimen.
which is not to say there's nothing to this article or the concept of "non-responders" at all. i strongly agree with this:
individual responses to training stimulus varies widely
however, applying a framework that focuses on individual variance before anything else seems like it would be less effective than getting your sleep/nutrition/frequency right. it's tempting to try to fine-tune and "optimize" your fitness experience with these little factors, but the big three are most likely to show outsize effects relative to effort if you tackle them first (imo).
posted by a flock of goslings at 12:59 PM on August 15
1. it is my understanding that it takes a while - ~6 weeks, possibly as many as 12 - to see significant changes from following an exercise regimen.
1.b. my hardest struggles with fitness have always, always been keeping up anything consistently for as long as 12 weeks, whether it was one thing at a time or switching up between different things. i'm inclined to agree with the above comment that "3 weeks is far too short to judge if an exercise routine is working or not".
conclusion: "just do something - anything - consistently" seems to me to be a far more important takeaway than whether you should stick with one exercise or try switching it up.
2. of all the factors that go into the body's response to exercise, choosing one type of exercise over another and/or switching between exercises does not seem to crop up that often as a major one. those would be:
a. getting enough food
b. getting enough rest
c. getting enough exercise (not too much or too little)
for this very small study group, i would be investigating these big three factors before attributing anything noteworthy to what type of exercise they were doing. sort of a differential diagnosis for why you might not be "responding" to such and such regimen.
which is not to say there's nothing to this article or the concept of "non-responders" at all. i strongly agree with this:
individual responses to training stimulus varies widely
however, applying a framework that focuses on individual variance before anything else seems like it would be less effective than getting your sleep/nutrition/frequency right. it's tempting to try to fine-tune and "optimize" your fitness experience with these little factors, but the big three are most likely to show outsize effects relative to effort if you tackle them first (imo).
posted by a flock of goslings at 12:59 PM on August 15
For me, personally, I'm good on the getting enough rest and food piece. Those are two things I have had well established for a long time and stick to religiously. But the improvement with those was much more obvious, as are the consequences of getting out of sync on those. For exercise, it hasn't really seemed to make much of a difference either way--even when I was forced to exercise consistently because of my job. It was just as awful walking across the hospital campus with a heavy bag and laptop on day 365 as it was day 1. This would explain why I've never been able to build stamina past "can walk for ten minutes without collapsing." So I think this is useful in explaining for people who are "doing everything right" why they aren't seeing any improvement.
I don't think that will help stigma because I know the medical field better than that lol, but it's at least personally validating and provides me some option other than "simply do it so you don't die of a heart attack later even if you never feel any better despite doing it consistently for a year." And apparently doing it to avoid dying of a heart attack isn't even real because if I don't feel the effects it probably is not actually helping anything. (Maybe this is an overextension of the article but it seemed to say they weren't getting the health benefits that they were "supposed" to. Maybe there were still others though.)
posted by brook horse at 1:06 PM on August 15 [5 favorites]
I don't think that will help stigma because I know the medical field better than that lol, but it's at least personally validating and provides me some option other than "simply do it so you don't die of a heart attack later even if you never feel any better despite doing it consistently for a year." And apparently doing it to avoid dying of a heart attack isn't even real because if I don't feel the effects it probably is not actually helping anything. (Maybe this is an overextension of the article but it seemed to say they weren't getting the health benefits that they were "supposed" to. Maybe there were still others though.)
posted by brook horse at 1:06 PM on August 15 [5 favorites]
I run three to four times a week and if I interval train more than once a week the tiger catches me because I'd be a hobbling mess of crippling injuries. HIIT is a young or already extremely fit person workout.
What! I disagree! I'm 57! And only somewhat fit.
LOL gosh I hope someone eventually studies why two people might have wildly different responses to one particular type of exercise. But it'll probably never happen. Certainly not in this post.
posted by We put our faith in Blast Hardcheese at 1:11 PM on August 15 [12 favorites]
What! I disagree! I'm 57! And only somewhat fit.
LOL gosh I hope someone eventually studies why two people might have wildly different responses to one particular type of exercise. But it'll probably never happen. Certainly not in this post.
posted by We put our faith in Blast Hardcheese at 1:11 PM on August 15 [12 favorites]
"Age, sex and ethnicity had not mattered, the researchers noted. Young people and old had been outliers, as had women and men, black volunteers and white."
HIIT is not a young person or old person thing, but a secret third thing. (Probably genetics.)
posted by brook horse at 1:13 PM on August 15 [3 favorites]
HIIT is not a young person or old person thing, but a secret third thing. (Probably genetics.)
posted by brook horse at 1:13 PM on August 15 [3 favorites]
@ brook horse: i believe you, and i do hope this concept is helpful for people looking for the answer to why nothing is working when you're doing everything right.
i would say, though IANAD nor a coach nor qualified to comment in any way, that
I was forced to exercise consistently because of my job. It was just as awful walking across the hospital campus with a heavy bag and laptop on day 365 as it was day 1
sounds, from the outside, like it might qualify as "too much exercise"/"too little rest". most of the fitness programs i've followed have been very clear on the importance of rest days, i.e. days without the activity you're training, to give your body time to adapt to that exercise and get better at it. i wouldn't expect someone to make serious strength or endurance gains if they had to do the same thing 5 days in a row every week without a break. (fwiw i've had and observed experiences that track with this in jobs that involved daily walking/lifting - it just makes you tired all the time, not necessarily better adapted for the work.) (although again, mileage can and does vary.)
posted by a flock of goslings at 1:19 PM on August 15 [2 favorites]
i would say, though IANAD nor a coach nor qualified to comment in any way, that
I was forced to exercise consistently because of my job. It was just as awful walking across the hospital campus with a heavy bag and laptop on day 365 as it was day 1
sounds, from the outside, like it might qualify as "too much exercise"/"too little rest". most of the fitness programs i've followed have been very clear on the importance of rest days, i.e. days without the activity you're training, to give your body time to adapt to that exercise and get better at it. i wouldn't expect someone to make serious strength or endurance gains if they had to do the same thing 5 days in a row every week without a break. (fwiw i've had and observed experiences that track with this in jobs that involved daily walking/lifting - it just makes you tired all the time, not necessarily better adapted for the work.) (although again, mileage can and does vary.)
posted by a flock of goslings at 1:19 PM on August 15 [2 favorites]
The family of Jacquilynne S is sad to announce that she had an asthma attack while HIIT. The funeral will be closed casket as, afterwards, a tiger ate her.
The only time I have had an actual, honest-to-god six pack as an adult required a lot of HIIT in addition to painstaking nutrition, though not HIIT as described: rather, 6 minutes normal pace on elliptical, then double-pace for 1 minute. Repeat 4x + 2 minute cooldown = 30min. Keeps your heartrate elevated through the normal pace sections.
Similar to the quoted comment, getting my asthmatic ass through even the less-intense form of HIIT required hitting my rescue inhaler 20 minutes in advance, every time. The stimulatory effects of which were enormously helpful in terms of actually seeing it through.
posted by Ryvar at 1:26 PM on August 15
The only time I have had an actual, honest-to-god six pack as an adult required a lot of HIIT in addition to painstaking nutrition, though not HIIT as described: rather, 6 minutes normal pace on elliptical, then double-pace for 1 minute. Repeat 4x + 2 minute cooldown = 30min. Keeps your heartrate elevated through the normal pace sections.
Similar to the quoted comment, getting my asthmatic ass through even the less-intense form of HIIT required hitting my rescue inhaler 20 minutes in advance, every time. The stimulatory effects of which were enormously helpful in terms of actually seeing it through.
posted by Ryvar at 1:26 PM on August 15
Exercise , both strength training, aerobic, and stretching is one of the very commonly recommended and prescribed (PT) medical responses to many conditions and it is assumed that the patient is failing to comply when the patient is failing to improve.
That’s why this type of research is so important, so medical professionals are made aware of this variable responsiveness and can change their treatment recommendations accordingly, in order to better serve the patient. This is the opposite of blaming the patient or disbelieving them.
posted by bq at 1:33 PM on August 15 [11 favorites]
That’s why this type of research is so important, so medical professionals are made aware of this variable responsiveness and can change their treatment recommendations accordingly, in order to better serve the patient. This is the opposite of blaming the patient or disbelieving them.
posted by bq at 1:33 PM on August 15 [11 favorites]
I think any one person's self-assessment of how fit they are is of dubious accuracy and depends heavily on who they are comparing themselves to, along with their ego. Like, I can run a half marathon in under 2 hours (with training) and managed to get my BMI under 25 and keep it there. I run 3-4 times per week and lead my run club. But the people I run with are way faster than me, have six packs and do 50+ mile ultramarathons or keep qualifying for Boston every year. Compared to them, I'm not very fit! But my watch tells me my VO2Max is 52 and, well, see above. So objectively, I'm pretty fit. But I don't have a six pack and do have love handles.
So I would classify myself, if asked, as "moderately fit" a la seanmpuckett. I could definitely start doing HIIT sessions and it would not destroy me, but only because I'm already "moderately fit." I agree with srboisvert that committing to such sessions requires a requisite level of fitness in order to avoid injury. Like anything else, start small and work up to higher intensity sessions. And, like, listen to your body - don't try and exercise through pain.
And there's a reason lots of race training plans are called "couch to 5k" - people are, on the whole, not that active! So everything needs to go slowly. If you take any random person and chuck them inside an OrangeTheory for some HIIT they're probably going to get injured and/or hate it because they're absolutely not ready and will also probably feel bad because everyone else is doing way better than them. Exercise is an intensely personal and emotional thing and that needs to be a factor in how it is approached in order to avoid flaming out due to an ego bruise.
In terms of likelihood of success (meaning adherence to the training plan over a long stretch of time) walking is probably the best exercise for people who have been otherwise inactive. There are walking groups popping up all over the place, and they are a great way to socialize.
Anyway, sorry to post so much. I think everyone should find what works for them, if they can, whatever that thing is. Just listen to your body, don't go too hard too quickly, stay hydrated and get lots of rest.
posted by grumpybear69 at 1:35 PM on August 15 [4 favorites]
So I would classify myself, if asked, as "moderately fit" a la seanmpuckett. I could definitely start doing HIIT sessions and it would not destroy me, but only because I'm already "moderately fit." I agree with srboisvert that committing to such sessions requires a requisite level of fitness in order to avoid injury. Like anything else, start small and work up to higher intensity sessions. And, like, listen to your body - don't try and exercise through pain.
And there's a reason lots of race training plans are called "couch to 5k" - people are, on the whole, not that active! So everything needs to go slowly. If you take any random person and chuck them inside an OrangeTheory for some HIIT they're probably going to get injured and/or hate it because they're absolutely not ready and will also probably feel bad because everyone else is doing way better than them. Exercise is an intensely personal and emotional thing and that needs to be a factor in how it is approached in order to avoid flaming out due to an ego bruise.
In terms of likelihood of success (meaning adherence to the training plan over a long stretch of time) walking is probably the best exercise for people who have been otherwise inactive. There are walking groups popping up all over the place, and they are a great way to socialize.
Anyway, sorry to post so much. I think everyone should find what works for them, if they can, whatever that thing is. Just listen to your body, don't go too hard too quickly, stay hydrated and get lots of rest.
posted by grumpybear69 at 1:35 PM on August 15 [4 favorites]
This is interesting. I tried jogging using the couch to 5k plan many years ago and it never really worked, I'd just get out of breath no matter how much I paced myself, and never really felt 'fitter'.
Then I tried spinning. I could feel my body changing almost day to day, and I improved very fast.
After spinning consistently for a good while, I tried jogging again. Was able to jog 5k no problem, and found myself consistently improving my speed with practice. Managed to lose 50 lbs, managed to get up to 10k without walking breaks.
So I bet you can turn from a non-responder to a responder after doing some other exercise for a while.
Of course I then stopped all exercise completely and gained all the weight back. Set point trumps all.
posted by sid at 1:35 PM on August 15 [6 favorites]
Then I tried spinning. I could feel my body changing almost day to day, and I improved very fast.
After spinning consistently for a good while, I tried jogging again. Was able to jog 5k no problem, and found myself consistently improving my speed with practice. Managed to lose 50 lbs, managed to get up to 10k without walking breaks.
So I bet you can turn from a non-responder to a responder after doing some other exercise for a while.
Of course I then stopped all exercise completely and gained all the weight back. Set point trumps all.
posted by sid at 1:35 PM on August 15 [6 favorites]
And apparently doing it to avoid dying of a heart attack isn't even real because if I don't feel the effects it probably is not actually helping anything. (Maybe this is an overextension of the article but it seemed to say they weren't getting the health benefits that they were "supposed" to. Maybe there were still others though.)
I’m not aware of any data examining whether being a ‘nonresponder’ at an exercise is correlated with lowered health benefits. But since a large portion of those benefits are tied directly to cholesterol levels, I wouldn’t make an assumption either way without seeing data on it.
posted by bq at 1:38 PM on August 15 [1 favorite]
I’m not aware of any data examining whether being a ‘nonresponder’ at an exercise is correlated with lowered health benefits. But since a large portion of those benefits are tied directly to cholesterol levels, I wouldn’t make an assumption either way without seeing data on it.
posted by bq at 1:38 PM on August 15 [1 favorite]
Yeah, unfortunately a flock of goslings it was actually set up perfectly as an exercise regime--I only had to walk across campus on Tuesdays and Thursdays for a specific meeting. Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays I didn't have to leave the building. Wednesdays were almost always office days where I intentionally rested my body, Friday and Monday would involve more moving around on-unit but they had pretty much the entire morning blocked off for seated virtual meetings and absent a crisis there would be nothing I would consider aerobically intense or that made me feel like it did when I walked across campus. Definitely not a daily labor job, though I totally know what you're talking about there. It's possible I was still getting too much exercise, but there were definitely rest days for that specific kind of exercise.
I’m not aware of any data examining whether being a ‘nonresponder’ at an exercise is correlated with lowered health benefits.
From the article: "Research and lived experience indicate that many people who begin a new exercise program see little if any improvement in their health and fitness even after weeks of studiously sticking with their new routine." But it's possible this isn't supported by the data, I'm not familiar enough with this area to say if failing to see improvements in VO2peak, lactate threshold, or submaximal HR is truly related to health outcomes.
posted by brook horse at 1:54 PM on August 15 [3 favorites]
I’m not aware of any data examining whether being a ‘nonresponder’ at an exercise is correlated with lowered health benefits.
From the article: "Research and lived experience indicate that many people who begin a new exercise program see little if any improvement in their health and fitness even after weeks of studiously sticking with their new routine." But it's possible this isn't supported by the data, I'm not familiar enough with this area to say if failing to see improvements in VO2peak, lactate threshold, or submaximal HR is truly related to health outcomes.
posted by brook horse at 1:54 PM on August 15 [3 favorites]
Sorry, I should have been more specific. I was thinking of more long-term benefits like ‘reduction in heart disease and stroke’ and I was thinking of lipid levels as a mediator.
posted by bq at 1:59 PM on August 15
posted by bq at 1:59 PM on August 15
Yeah that’s on me for pulling out heart attack as my random off the cuff health risk. Though I’ve had good cholesterol even when I’m bedbound (almost none of the things wrong with me ever show up on blood tests) so at least I don’t have to be stressed about potentially not getting those benefits. Which would be bad for my cholesterol.
posted by brook horse at 2:04 PM on August 15 [1 favorite]
posted by brook horse at 2:04 PM on August 15 [1 favorite]
IMO, 3 weeks is far too short to judge if an exercise routine is working or not (it takes like 6 weeks to show noticeable results), but the answer 'simple test' is not actually simple. The 'simple test' is to test your heart rate and see if it's gone down, and if it hasn't then switch to a different exercise routine. Measuring your active heart rate is not that simple.
Adding to the complexity, resting heart rate usually goes up the morning after an intense training day. This is why starting with a baseline resting heart rate and scaling the intensity, way, way, way back on rest days is so important.
As a diabetic, I can also say that days after high blood sugar are pure hell and days where I'm dehydrated or electrolyte imbalanced my heart is working 10% harder.
We all have natural plateaus that usually can't be cracked doing the same thing day in day out. I do a lot of cycling and I noticed both my acceleration and top speed dropped when I stopped doing weightlifting. Cyclists routinely say things like every day is leg day, but it's a different thing when you are doing sprints on the bike versus deadlifts focused on strength, 650lb leg presses etc...
posted by BrotherCaine at 2:25 PM on August 15
Adding to the complexity, resting heart rate usually goes up the morning after an intense training day. This is why starting with a baseline resting heart rate and scaling the intensity, way, way, way back on rest days is so important.
As a diabetic, I can also say that days after high blood sugar are pure hell and days where I'm dehydrated or electrolyte imbalanced my heart is working 10% harder.
We all have natural plateaus that usually can't be cracked doing the same thing day in day out. I do a lot of cycling and I noticed both my acceleration and top speed dropped when I stopped doing weightlifting. Cyclists routinely say things like every day is leg day, but it's a different thing when you are doing sprints on the bike versus deadlifts focused on strength, 650lb leg presses etc...
posted by BrotherCaine at 2:25 PM on August 15
I'm actually going to back up a few steps further than everyone else here with this question, I think.
So, the article discusses why people's bodies may not "respond" to exercise. But what does "responding" even mean in the first place? Respond how? Weight loss, increased heart rate, fat burn, muscle build, etc.?
This is a 100% sincere question, because I'm genuinely not understanding. I thought the point of exercise was to figure out what your body needs and choose an exercise regimen that would suit that. And the people whose health goals are "I want to run a marathon in two years", or "I want to be able to pick up my grandchild when I am 68," or "I want to still be able to eat an entire chocolate cake in one sitting like when I was 14" would all need different exercise. So this article just sounds like it's explaining that "if your goal is to lose weight but you're trying to do all weightlifting for your exercise, it's probably not gonna work because that's not going to address your needs so do something different," and that just strikes me as...so obvious I'm not sure why we're even talking about it.
(I literally started a cheeseball at-home cardio regimen today because I realized that not having a 30-minute daily walk as my work commute any more probably took a toll on my overall health and I should probably do something about that.)
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 2:39 PM on August 15 [2 favorites]
So, the article discusses why people's bodies may not "respond" to exercise. But what does "responding" even mean in the first place? Respond how? Weight loss, increased heart rate, fat burn, muscle build, etc.?
This is a 100% sincere question, because I'm genuinely not understanding. I thought the point of exercise was to figure out what your body needs and choose an exercise regimen that would suit that. And the people whose health goals are "I want to run a marathon in two years", or "I want to be able to pick up my grandchild when I am 68," or "I want to still be able to eat an entire chocolate cake in one sitting like when I was 14" would all need different exercise. So this article just sounds like it's explaining that "if your goal is to lose weight but you're trying to do all weightlifting for your exercise, it's probably not gonna work because that's not going to address your needs so do something different," and that just strikes me as...so obvious I'm not sure why we're even talking about it.
(I literally started a cheeseball at-home cardio regimen today because I realized that not having a 30-minute daily walk as my work commute any more probably took a toll on my overall health and I should probably do something about that.)
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 2:39 PM on August 15 [2 favorites]
There are specific measures of fitness that they looked at, which have to do with your oxygen intake, heart rate, and lactate (which is an indicator of metabolism I think?). What they observed is that some people saw improvements on these measures on endurance training, and others did not. Conversely, those who did not see improvements on these measures saw improvement on HIIT training. But not because HIIT training improves those measures and endurance does not. It's that for some people, a certain type of exercise improves those specific measures of fitness. For other people, it doesn't. But then a different type of exercise does. On the same measure/goal. This isn't intuitive--because if you have the same goals, then the same general type of fitness should work for you, even if your exercise regime looks different. It's essentially like finding out that weightlifting does reduce weight, but only for some people, and there is nothing to indicate what person would lose weight via weight loss and who wouldn't.
posted by brook horse at 2:44 PM on August 15 [3 favorites]
posted by brook horse at 2:44 PM on August 15 [3 favorites]
*Lose weight via weightlifting. Missed the edit window.
posted by brook horse at 2:49 PM on August 15
posted by brook horse at 2:49 PM on August 15
And the people whose health goals are "I want to run a marathon in two years", or "I want to be able to pick up my grandchild when I am 68," or "I want to still be able to eat an entire chocolate cake in one sitting like when I was 14" would all need different exercise.
If someone wants to grow lots of muscles, and it turns out they are a 'nonresponder' to a normal weight-training regiment, the takeaway from these articles is that they will almost certainly respond to a different training regimen (more repetitions? Fewer repetitions? More frequent, shorter workouts? Whatev) and they and their trainers should act accordingly. Same for marathons.
I don't know that I've seen any studies in competitive eating.
posted by bq at 3:30 PM on August 15 [1 favorite]
If someone wants to grow lots of muscles, and it turns out they are a 'nonresponder' to a normal weight-training regiment, the takeaway from these articles is that they will almost certainly respond to a different training regimen (more repetitions? Fewer repetitions? More frequent, shorter workouts? Whatev) and they and their trainers should act accordingly. Same for marathons.
I don't know that I've seen any studies in competitive eating.
posted by bq at 3:30 PM on August 15 [1 favorite]
The 'simple test' is to test your heart rate and see if it's gone down, and if it hasn't then switch to a different exercise routine. Measuring your active heart rate is not that simple.
I don't understand what you mean.
Since no one actually answered this question, would probably would have saved typing out all those swear worlds earlier...
The `simple test` is to see if your resting heart rate has gone down. That's (basically) what all that's happening when your watch tells you "Your Fitness Has Increased!" or whatever.
The "fitter" you become, the lower your heart rate becomes at rest, generally.
Check your heart rate right when you wake up in morning once a week. If it is going down, then (generally) the cardiovascular exercise you are doing is effective, so you should keep doing it. If it's the same or going up, trying something else.
posted by Back At It Again At Krispy Kreme at 4:04 PM on August 15
I don't understand what you mean.
Since no one actually answered this question, would probably would have saved typing out all those swear worlds earlier...
The `simple test` is to see if your resting heart rate has gone down. That's (basically) what all that's happening when your watch tells you "Your Fitness Has Increased!" or whatever.
The "fitter" you become, the lower your heart rate becomes at rest, generally.
Check your heart rate right when you wake up in morning once a week. If it is going down, then (generally) the cardiovascular exercise you are doing is effective, so you should keep doing it. If it's the same or going up, trying something else.
posted by Back At It Again At Krispy Kreme at 4:04 PM on August 15
you can vary your heart rate by 30-50bpm at exercise by slightly changing your breathing
My doctor has recently had me start measuring my blood pressure twice a day, and the blood pressure cuff also measures my heart rate.
Both my heart rate and blood pressure vary tremendously based on how many people were wrong on the internet that day, even when nothing physical has changed.
posted by Jacqueline at 7:27 PM on August 15 [8 favorites]
My doctor has recently had me start measuring my blood pressure twice a day, and the blood pressure cuff also measures my heart rate.
Both my heart rate and blood pressure vary tremendously based on how many people were wrong on the internet that day, even when nothing physical has changed.
posted by Jacqueline at 7:27 PM on August 15 [8 favorites]
I don't know that I've seen any studies in competitive eating.
Oh, no, I wasn't thinking that when I was talking about eating an entire cake - I was thinking more of a basic metabolically making up for a particular caloric intake. Kind of like how someone once told me that they only worked out so that they didn't have to give up eating junk food.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 7:34 PM on August 15
Oh, no, I wasn't thinking that when I was talking about eating an entire cake - I was thinking more of a basic metabolically making up for a particular caloric intake. Kind of like how someone once told me that they only worked out so that they didn't have to give up eating junk food.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 7:34 PM on August 15
Thanks for posting this, it's fascinating!
I tried following a Jack Daniels plan (the running guy not the whisky guy) a while ago that focused heavily on intervals with almost no sustained running, and had terrible results from it. It was only when I added more 5k to 10k runs that I saw benefits.
A lot of this research isn't that new, but the running world seems heavily based on one-size-fits-all recommendations: everyone follow this plan or this evidence for optimal development. I don't remember seeing much advice that you need to vary your training as an individual.
I think a lot of the research has come from the pro or high level athletics world, where presumably almost everyone is a high responder to everything. It could be that when this research is applied to regular people it needs to be much more personalized.
posted by TheophileEscargot at 7:35 PM on August 15
I tried following a Jack Daniels plan (the running guy not the whisky guy) a while ago that focused heavily on intervals with almost no sustained running, and had terrible results from it. It was only when I added more 5k to 10k runs that I saw benefits.
A lot of this research isn't that new, but the running world seems heavily based on one-size-fits-all recommendations: everyone follow this plan or this evidence for optimal development. I don't remember seeing much advice that you need to vary your training as an individual.
I think a lot of the research has come from the pro or high level athletics world, where presumably almost everyone is a high responder to everything. It could be that when this research is applied to regular people it needs to be much more personalized.
posted by TheophileEscargot at 7:35 PM on August 15
I think it also applies to lifting. Lately some people in have been going back to Mike Mentzer style High Intensity Training that has low volumes but very high intensity. But there's a lot of controversy over it, there doesn't seem to be much evidence for it, and it may be a much higher injury risk.
I suspect that only works for some people. I found this Mike Israetel reviewing Dorian Yates video a bit aggravating at the time: how the hell did Dorian Yates get that big by working out just 4 days a week for 45 minutes per session? I can do that and get nowhere. You may need specific genes to get really big with that kind of training.
posted by TheophileEscargot at 7:46 PM on August 15
I suspect that only works for some people. I found this Mike Israetel reviewing Dorian Yates video a bit aggravating at the time: how the hell did Dorian Yates get that big by working out just 4 days a week for 45 minutes per session? I can do that and get nowhere. You may need specific genes to get really big with that kind of training.
posted by TheophileEscargot at 7:46 PM on August 15
At 21 years old, after being a gangling six foot, 135 pounds since age 16, I dedicated myself to lifting and exercise. I had always played sports, but for once, I was going to see those gains that my friends had been getting. For three months, I lifted four times a week, biked, played racquetball, and ate everything in site. After three months, I weighed... 133 pounds. No type of exercise had made any difference, ever. In the terms of the article, I was a universal non-responder.
Fast forward to age 39 and 145 pounds with a little belly fat, my latent vitamin B12 deficiency became severe enough to try to kill me. Within 6 months of treatment, I had gained 40lbs of muscle and fat with literally only the slightest effort.
I'll never be strong. I've missed too much of the development time that most younger folks get, and my aged back won't tolerate it. But damn, it's nice to see some positive response when I train.
posted by SunSnork at 8:23 PM on August 15
Fast forward to age 39 and 145 pounds with a little belly fat, my latent vitamin B12 deficiency became severe enough to try to kill me. Within 6 months of treatment, I had gained 40lbs of muscle and fat with literally only the slightest effort.
I'll never be strong. I've missed too much of the development time that most younger folks get, and my aged back won't tolerate it. But damn, it's nice to see some positive response when I train.
posted by SunSnork at 8:23 PM on August 15
It's pretty standard advice in powerlifting that you should basically pick a tried and true program that appeals to you and then keep doing that until it stops working. Then try something different. Over time as athletes gain experience and knowledge they figure out a bit more about what works for them specifically in terms of volume vs. intensity, movement selection, frequency, diet, etc. Some people do really well with low intensity/high volume style programs, others do well keep intensity relatively high and volume low. Some people respond to anything. Some people are pretty dumb about training and manage to be elite competitors anyways.
It totally makes sense to me that a formal study would find that people that don't respond to one style of trying find that they respond better to something very different. I mean, you can't just add 5lbs every week for ever. People adapt to getting the same stimulus over and over again so progression has to be periodized to mitigate that effect.
It's a bit of a meme that the most cardio powerlifters do is the two steps walking a squat out from the rack or that we consider cardio anything over five rep sets! But really because we do such intense lifting or so much volume that it really helps to be in good cardiovascular shape. There are some direct strength benefits and it helps shorten rest times between set.
It turns out that I really like working myself up to a heart rate of 155bpm and keep it there for an hour or more. I started out with a concept2 rower and it's insane how closely effort correlates with effort. I had my phone showing my HR in front of my and the rowing info on the rower. Like, going from a 2:15/500m split to a 2:10 split will require going from 150 to 155bpm and it'll stay within 1bpm of that.
I'm a little surprised to see that people like HIIT. That sounds like torture to me! I much prefer steady state. More recently I added a mid-drive motor to my bike to turn it into an e-bike and, once I'm not forced to flog myself up a hill just because it happens to be in front of me, I really really like it. I liked cycling before just hated that the terrain determined when I had to push myself.
I didn't even start exercising, like, at all, until I was 35. I'm 43 now and I'm in better shape now that I have been ever by a long ways. But it's taken me a lot of time spinning my wheels doing things that don't work well for me to get to this point and I've still got a long ways to go to really be in the shape I'd like but at this point I don't care if I never make those goals. I'm healthy as hell and I have the bloodwork to prove it.
The website Stronger-by-Science" (who also sent me an e-mail about their article coving this study) often uses the phrase "for most people, most of the time" when it comes to fitness advice and I like to apply that to all these kinds of studies. It's a hard thing to study well because doing thing like two different protocols on two opposite legs aren't totally independent of each other. Studies often use "untrained individuals" (read: undergrads) that tend to respond well to any damn thing so the differences aren't always very meaningful. Plus I'm anything but untrained so it's not clear that any of these results even apply to me.
posted by VTX at 8:25 PM on August 15
It totally makes sense to me that a formal study would find that people that don't respond to one style of trying find that they respond better to something very different. I mean, you can't just add 5lbs every week for ever. People adapt to getting the same stimulus over and over again so progression has to be periodized to mitigate that effect.
It's a bit of a meme that the most cardio powerlifters do is the two steps walking a squat out from the rack or that we consider cardio anything over five rep sets! But really because we do such intense lifting or so much volume that it really helps to be in good cardiovascular shape. There are some direct strength benefits and it helps shorten rest times between set.
It turns out that I really like working myself up to a heart rate of 155bpm and keep it there for an hour or more. I started out with a concept2 rower and it's insane how closely effort correlates with effort. I had my phone showing my HR in front of my and the rowing info on the rower. Like, going from a 2:15/500m split to a 2:10 split will require going from 150 to 155bpm and it'll stay within 1bpm of that.
I'm a little surprised to see that people like HIIT. That sounds like torture to me! I much prefer steady state. More recently I added a mid-drive motor to my bike to turn it into an e-bike and, once I'm not forced to flog myself up a hill just because it happens to be in front of me, I really really like it. I liked cycling before just hated that the terrain determined when I had to push myself.
I didn't even start exercising, like, at all, until I was 35. I'm 43 now and I'm in better shape now that I have been ever by a long ways. But it's taken me a lot of time spinning my wheels doing things that don't work well for me to get to this point and I've still got a long ways to go to really be in the shape I'd like but at this point I don't care if I never make those goals. I'm healthy as hell and I have the bloodwork to prove it.
The website Stronger-by-Science" (who also sent me an e-mail about their article coving this study) often uses the phrase "for most people, most of the time" when it comes to fitness advice and I like to apply that to all these kinds of studies. It's a hard thing to study well because doing thing like two different protocols on two opposite legs aren't totally independent of each other. Studies often use "untrained individuals" (read: undergrads) that tend to respond well to any damn thing so the differences aren't always very meaningful. Plus I'm anything but untrained so it's not clear that any of these results even apply to me.
posted by VTX at 8:25 PM on August 15
FWIW since catching Long Covid about 1.5 years ago most any kind of vigorous exercise pretty much kills me. Like about a month ago I did a couple of sets of 10 really easy bench presses and that has pretty much ruined me for the past four weeks. Not kidding - it is really bizarre, and nothing like what I have ever experienced before.
Previously most any kind of exercise would have made me feel better and stronger, and never led to (for example) several weeks of brain fog and overall systemic pain and disfunction. Not to mention several days of extremely painful and out-of-proportion muscle soreness.
So this is very, very confusing to deal with and the literal polar opposite of my previous 60 years' experience in life.
This is very common in the Long Covid community - people who were previously very active athletes of various stripes and now just can't tolerate anything vigorous (the exact threshold varies per person). It's not exclusively young strong former athletes, but that group does seem to be somewhat overrepresented.
Of course, people with various forms of ME/CFS - which in many cases is suspected to be some kind of post-viral syndrome - have been experiencing the same for many years.
Just pointing this out, because it is a LARGE subgroup of the population that not only gets no gains from exercise but is positively harmed. Yet for some reason they never show up in these studies, which (even in this particular case) blithely conclude that one form of exercise or another is going to be good for absolutely everyone.
No.
posted by flug at 9:49 PM on August 15 [6 favorites]
Previously most any kind of exercise would have made me feel better and stronger, and never led to (for example) several weeks of brain fog and overall systemic pain and disfunction. Not to mention several days of extremely painful and out-of-proportion muscle soreness.
So this is very, very confusing to deal with and the literal polar opposite of my previous 60 years' experience in life.
This is very common in the Long Covid community - people who were previously very active athletes of various stripes and now just can't tolerate anything vigorous (the exact threshold varies per person). It's not exclusively young strong former athletes, but that group does seem to be somewhat overrepresented.
Of course, people with various forms of ME/CFS - which in many cases is suspected to be some kind of post-viral syndrome - have been experiencing the same for many years.
Just pointing this out, because it is a LARGE subgroup of the population that not only gets no gains from exercise but is positively harmed. Yet for some reason they never show up in these studies, which (even in this particular case) blithely conclude that one form of exercise or another is going to be good for absolutely everyone.
No.
posted by flug at 9:49 PM on August 15 [6 favorites]
The thing is that the studies look at actual physical data, e.g. from the resistance training paper they're literally measuring the muscle size:
Depending of the methods selected at that time, different methodologies were used over the years to determine the changes in leg muscle size (see Supporting Information 1, Table 1). Only the data of the changes in m.quadriceps femoris muscle cross-sectional area (CSA) (by ultrasound (US) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)), m.vastus lateralis (VL) muscle thickness (by US) or leg lean mass (by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA)) were included in the analyses. All measurements were preceded by at least 2 days of rest from physical activity.posted by TheophileEscargot at 11:30 PM on August 15
I'm glad to see someone mentioning non-floaters. After nearly 50 years I've finally convinced my wife that I just don't float. She on the other hand just bobs in the surface without doing anything. I'd love to do swimming but only recently and much much too late have I made any progress. My VO2 collapsed during covid (as measured by Apple Watch on walking) and nothing I do seems to get it back up. I have an expensive spin bike which I enjoy a lot and the work does not seem to alter my walking VO2 at all, yet i get a measure for cycling VO2 from a Garmin that suggests my fitness age is 10 years less than my actual age. So I have no idea. I'm long, thin and never been muscled. Maybe if I'd started a lot of years ago....
posted by bifurcated at 12:14 AM on August 16
posted by bifurcated at 12:14 AM on August 16
This is interesting. Anecdotally I have observed a "swimmers vs. runners" split with people who otherwise have similar health and activity levels. I have been terrible at running my whole life and don't enjoy it (probably because I am bad at it) but I am a very good swimmer. One year a group of friends decided to sign up for a 5K run together. 5K is not that far and the humiliation of mandatory running tests in PE class was long behind me, so I agreed to give it a try. In addition to swimming I also did weight-lifting and moderate difficulty hikes pretty often so I'd say I was in decent shape.
I dutifully loaded up the "Couch to 5K" app and started training at a very gentle pace well in advance. It was such a slog. Any progress at all was slow and painful. I did finally get to the point where I could run 5K without falling over at the end so I did the race and... ugh. It was not fun. At the end I said to myself "Glad I tried it, now I never have to do this again." My runner friends were bouncing around all smiling and chipper, of course!
Some months later I invited the same group to do a 1 mile ocean swimming race. At the time, that distance was a longer than my usual lap swim workout and I thought an open-water swim sounded fun. The difference in response was pretty funny. Most people refused to try it at all, they thought the idea was crazy. A couple others started training for it and later dropped out.
Meanwhile I just started steadily adding distance and intervals to my lap swims plus some separate open-water practice (which took some getting used to, it feels pretty different from the pool!) and I could see clear, steady improvements the whole time. I did the race and really enjoyed the experience. I felt energized and would be glad to try it again.
Both running and swimming challenge cardio fitness and so it seems like they should "translate", but no. Also humans are supposed to be good at running, right? And I notice that some people are indeed competent at both (e.g., triathletes) while others are not. I'm curious what explains this. At this point I accept that the tiger will catch me if I try to run away... but maybe I can escape a shark?
posted by 4rtemis at 2:22 AM on August 16 [1 favorite]
I dutifully loaded up the "Couch to 5K" app and started training at a very gentle pace well in advance. It was such a slog. Any progress at all was slow and painful. I did finally get to the point where I could run 5K without falling over at the end so I did the race and... ugh. It was not fun. At the end I said to myself "Glad I tried it, now I never have to do this again." My runner friends were bouncing around all smiling and chipper, of course!
Some months later I invited the same group to do a 1 mile ocean swimming race. At the time, that distance was a longer than my usual lap swim workout and I thought an open-water swim sounded fun. The difference in response was pretty funny. Most people refused to try it at all, they thought the idea was crazy. A couple others started training for it and later dropped out.
Meanwhile I just started steadily adding distance and intervals to my lap swims plus some separate open-water practice (which took some getting used to, it feels pretty different from the pool!) and I could see clear, steady improvements the whole time. I did the race and really enjoyed the experience. I felt energized and would be glad to try it again.
Both running and swimming challenge cardio fitness and so it seems like they should "translate", but no. Also humans are supposed to be good at running, right? And I notice that some people are indeed competent at both (e.g., triathletes) while others are not. I'm curious what explains this. At this point I accept that the tiger will catch me if I try to run away... but maybe I can escape a shark?
posted by 4rtemis at 2:22 AM on August 16 [1 favorite]
Running and swimming are dramatically different! I was never particularly hydrodynamic, but I had powerful legs and a reasonable reach and in my younger years I was flexible enough to approximate good form. I would never have competed, but I enjoyed it more than running for one simple reason:
But then the PE teacher would mark me down for not "running". I wasn't pushing my whole body off the ground. I was never in the air. The zoetrope would show my disobedience, etc.
So I said how about a mile run where everyone else had to do it with another classmate piggy-back, to even the field. I was scolded for "attitude" and marked down even further.
posted by rum-soaked space hobo at 2:34 AM on August 16 [2 favorites]
running is actually one-legged jumping, repeated, and the water carried my weight through buoyancy.If you find that the task of pushing your body up into the air repeatedly is enjoyable, then the chances are that you have a very particular kind of body. You're going to find those of us built like elephants simply unable to get a sustainable run outside of very short sprints. I discovered at one point in high school that if I did a straight-backed long-stride "power walk" (hey, it was the early 90s), then I could get one third the times at the finish than if I tried running for 200m, stopped to catch my breath, staggered forward, and kept doing the try-to-run/gasp-and-stagger cycle for the rest of the mile.
But then the PE teacher would mark me down for not "running". I wasn't pushing my whole body off the ground. I was never in the air. The zoetrope would show my disobedience, etc.
So I said how about a mile run where everyone else had to do it with another classmate piggy-back, to even the field. I was scolded for "attitude" and marked down even further.
posted by rum-soaked space hobo at 2:34 AM on August 16 [2 favorites]
At non-competitive levels, swimming is very technique based. If you look at average swimmers in a pool, a lot of people have their bodies at about 45 degrees in the water: they have to overcome many times the water resistance of people who have their bodies flat in the water. If you've been trained in good technique, you can swim faster using much less energy.
Running is much more instinctive. The usual advice is to not try to change your form, just try to run and your body will naturally fall into a near ideal gait for it.
posted by TheophileEscargot at 2:38 AM on August 16
Running is much more instinctive. The usual advice is to not try to change your form, just try to run and your body will naturally fall into a near ideal gait for it.
posted by TheophileEscargot at 2:38 AM on August 16
« Older Vibes are this press corps’ forte, not fact and... | Because We The People Means All The People Newer »
posted by No Climate - No Food, No Food - No Future. at 8:41 AM on August 15 [11 favorites]