Variability of exercise benefits

Matthew Venhaus said:

Summary: LSU researcher Claude Bouchard found that improvements in oxygen
uptake, cardaic output, blood pressure, heart rate, and insulin resistance
varied greatly among participants in a 20-week endurance training program.
Some participants showed no benefit at all.

Has anyone seen this full study published? Comments?

I've read the original study on this issue, but don't have the exact citation
on hand (Sam?).

It's part of the Heritage Family Study series, which has been published over
time in the Journal of Applied Physiology. You can go the jap.physiology.org
and do a search. As I recall, the authors were both Claude and Thomas
Bouchard, among others. You might alternatively do a search through google
groups using me as the author for the Bouchards. I may have posted a citation
in the past.

Basically, they took a diverse group (mixed race/gender) and put them on an
aerobic training program. Some of the people improved their VO2max by 50% (no,
that's not a misprint) and some others gained NOTHING (that's not a misprint
either) from the exact same training program: There are high responders and low
responders to training, and obviously the Gebs of the world are the 50% people.

Something to keep in mind when someone tells you that a previously untrained
person can increase their aurobic capacity by some exact number like 15%.
YMMV---by a lot!

Lyndon
"Speed Kills...It kills those that don't have it!" --US Olympic Track Coach
Brooks Johnson

Ignoramus532 said:

...50 minutes three times a week at 75% of the maximum output...

That sounds more like the bare minimum for some basic fitness, not any sort
of "endurance" training.

I can only assume that the subjects were incredibly out of shape to begin
with.

Regards,
H.

Lyndon <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Matthew Venhaus said:

Summary: LSU researcher Claude Bouchard found that improvements in oxygen
uptake, cardaic output, blood pressure, heart rate, and insulin

resistance

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

varied greatly among participants in a 20-week endurance training

program.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Some participants showed no benefit at all.

Has anyone seen this full study published? Comments?

I've read the original study on this issue, but don't have the exact

citation

Quoted message said:

on hand (Sam?).

It's part of the Heritage Family Study series, which has been published

over

Quoted message said:

time in the Journal of Applied Physiology. You can go the

jap.physiology.org

Quoted message said:

and do a search. As I recall, the authors were both Claude and Thomas
Bouchard, among others. You might alternatively do a search through

google

Quoted message said:

groups using me as the author for the Bouchards. I may have posted a

citation

Quoted message said:

in the past.

Thanks for the lead. Full article in PDF is here:
http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/reprint/88/2/551.pdf

Ignoramus532 said:

On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 23:54:26 GMT, HardwareLust <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Ignoramus532 said:

...50 minutes three times a week at 75% of the maximum output...

That sounds more like the bare minimum for some basic fitness, not
any sort of "endurance" training.

You could say that. It was, still, much more than the sedentary life
that those individuals had prior to commencement of this program.

I have no doubt that's true.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I can only assume that the subjects were incredibly out of shape to
begin with.

They were, and some got into better shape, and some remained in their
original bad shape. At least, that is my reading of the reports that I
saw.

I find that very hard to believe that there were some that got no benefit at
all out of the exercise. This leads me immeadiately to two conclusions;
either they cheated on the exercise (not a stretch of the imagination by any
means), or perhaps they would have gained some benefit had the experiment
gone beyond 20 weeks.

R,
H.

I have not seen it (rarely read New Scientist, not sure why Bouchard did not
publish it in a journal like Medicine and Science in Sport and Exercise or
another similar journal), but this has been known for a while.

"Matthew Venhaus" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Seen on BBC news today:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4059695.stm

Summary: LSU researcher Claude Bouchard found that improvements in oxygen
uptake, cardaic output, blood pressure, heart rate, and insulin resistance
varied greatly among participants in a 20-week endurance training program.
Some participants showed no benefit at all.

Has anyone seen this full study published? Comments?

"HardwareLust" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:2DPrd.9376$Hk6.6243@trnddc05...

Quoted message said:

Ignoramus532 said:

On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 23:54:26 GMT, HardwareLust <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Ignoramus532 wrote:
> ...50 minutes three times a week at 75% of the maximum output...

That sounds more like the bare minimum for some basic fitness, not
any sort of "endurance" training.

You could say that. It was, still, much more than the sedentary life
that those individuals had prior to commencement of this program.

I have no doubt that's true.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I can only assume that the subjects were incredibly out of shape to
begin with.

They were, and some got into better shape, and some remained in their
original bad shape. At least, that is my reading of the reports that I
saw.

I find that very hard to believe that there were some that got no benefit
at
all out of the exercise. This leads me immeadiately to two conclusions;
either they cheated on the exercise (not a stretch of the imagination by
any
means), or perhaps they would have gained some benefit had the experiment
gone beyond 20 weeks.

You may find it hard to believe, but then again people once found it had
to believe that the Earth was not flat.

On some of those parameters, genetics will determine that no amount of
exercise will improve things like BP or lipid status.

The question about a longer training program or more volume or even more
intensity is a legit argument. More research should be done on longer
programs or programs with more volume or greater intensity.

Quoted message said:

R,
H.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi is the first place I would go.

This appears to be a study in addition to that already published and not
surprising. Some people can exercise like mad men (women) and will never
get an improvement in BP for instance.

"Lyndon" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Matthew Venhaus said:

Summary: LSU researcher Claude Bouchard found that improvements in oxygen
uptake, cardaic output, blood pressure, heart rate, and insulin resistance
varied greatly among participants in a 20-week endurance training program.
Some participants showed no benefit at all.

Has anyone seen this full study published? Comments?

I've read the original study on this issue, but don't have the exact
citation
on hand (Sam?).

It's part of the Heritage Family Study series, which has been published
over
time in the Journal of Applied Physiology. You can go the
jap.physiology.org
and do a search. As I recall, the authors were both Claude and Thomas
Bouchard, among others. You might alternatively do a search through
google
groups using me as the author for the Bouchards. I may have posted a
citation
in the past.

Basically, they took a diverse group (mixed race/gender) and put them on
an
aerobic training program. Some of the people improved their VO2max by 50%
(no,
that's not a misprint) and some others gained NOTHING (that's not a
misprint
either) from the exact same training program: There are high responders
and low
responders to training, and obviously the Gebs of the world are the 50%
people.

Something to keep in mind when someone tells you that a previously
untrained
person can increase their aurobic capacity by some exact number like 15%.
YMMV---by a lot!

Lyndon
"Speed Kills...It kills those that don't have it!" --US Olympic Track
Coach
Brooks Johnson

Sam said:

I have not seen it (rarely read New Scientist, not sure why Bouchard did not
publish it in a journal like Medicine and Science in Sport and Exercise or
another similar journal), but this has been known for a while.

Claude Bouchard publishes a rather large number of papers in the Journal of
Applied Physiology. It would surprise me if a scientist of Bouchard's stature
actually wrote something for
"New Scientist", and my understading is that he did not. They were simply
reporting on a paper he presented recently in Australia.

The subject should not be new information for scientists and coaches, but this
might be new information for the mainstream press.

Lyndon
"Speed Kills...It kills those that don't have it!" --US Olympic Track Coach
Brooks Johnson

"HardwareLust" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:2DPrd.9376$Hk6.6243@trnddc05...

Quoted message said:

I find that very hard to believe that there were some that got no benefit

at

Quoted message said:

all out of the exercise. This leads me immeadiately to two conclusions;
either they cheated on the exercise (not a stretch of the imagination by

any

Quoted message said:

means),

Actually it is. The participants were all supervised and used stationary
cycles that automatically adusted intensities to keep their heart rates at
the proper intensity.

or perhaps they would have gained some benefit had the experiment

Quoted message said:

gone beyond 20 weeks.

Perhaps. And perhaps they would have gained benefit at higher intensity.

Quoted message said:

From: [email hidden] (Jtiche)

Quoted message said:

exercise my ass, you can exercise until the cows come home and it won't
benefit>you. good health is hereditary,

Heredity has A LOT to do with it. I think how you handle stress is important
too (like whether you're a "Type A" personality or whether you're more
resilient when bad things happen).

Quoted message said:

exercise my ass, you can exercise until the cows come home and it won't
benefit
you. good health is hereditary, if your parents were healthy you probably
will
be even if you smoke like a freight train, drink like a fish and have sex
with
every scummy [censored] in town.

How's that working out for you?

So why then do some people with long living relatives die as young as
their 20's? Nothing is written in stone.

[email hidden] (Jtiche) wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

exercise my ass, you can exercise until the cows come home and it won't benefit
you. good health is hereditary, if your parents were healthy you probably will
be even if you smoke like a freight train, drink like a fish and have sex with
every scummy [censored] in town. If your parents died young, had high b/p, heart
disease you can exercise, eat right, avoid the booze and drugs and only engage
in solo sex and you'll still die young.

WRONG! Try again next week.

True, it will not inoculate you, but even someone with a poor health history
can at least increase his/her longevity.

Just as having healthy parents does not inoculate you from the ravages of
the abuse one can heap upon oneself.

"Jtiche" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

exercise my ass, you can exercise until the cows come home and it won't
benefit
you. good health is hereditary, if your parents were healthy you probably
will
be even if you smoke like a freight train, drink like a fish and have sex
with
every scummy [censored] in town. If your parents died young, had high b/p,
heart
disease you can exercise, eat right, avoid the booze and drugs and only
engage
in solo sex and you'll still die young.

I'm reminded of the "told you so" after Jim Fixx died. Almost
everyone focused on how young he was when he died, not how he
lived something like 10 years longer than most people in his family.

Quoted message said:

"Jtiche" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

exercise my ass, you can exercise until the cows come home and it won't
benefit
you. good health is hereditary, if your parents were healthy you probably
will
be even if you smoke like a freight train, drink like a fish and have sex
with
every scummy [censored] in town. If your parents died young, had high b/p,
heart
disease you can exercise, eat right, avoid the booze and drugs and only
engage
in solo sex and you'll still die young.

Quoted message said:

WRONG! Try again next week.

True, it will not inoculate you, but even someone with a poor health history
can at least increase his/her longevity.

Well one thing mr itchybutt didn't consider is, that health and fitness was
often frowned upon by our parents who smoked 2 packs a day. (Dad said "running
is for horses". Funny thing was, when I finished my first marathon, he was so
proud he sent off the newspaper clipping to everyone in the family. This from a
guy who was afraid to walk in the neighborhood for fear of what the neighbors
would say.) and therefore they did nothing to try to live longer or healthier.
The last 40 years that has all changed, and working out is considered a daily
part of life to most of us.

Quoted message said:

I'm reminded of the "told you so" after Jim Fixx died. Almost
everyone focused on how young he was when he died, not how he
lived something like 10 years longer than most people in his family.

Exactly! I still hear his name quite often when I tell people I run. If he were
still alive, I'd kill him for dieing. <G>

"Bear G" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:XmRsd.143698$V41.143313@attbi_s52...

Quoted message said:

I'm reminded of the "told you so" after Jim Fixx died. Almost
everyone focused on how young he was when he died, not how he lived
something like 10 years longer than most people in his family.

And he may have lived even longer had he not ignored the signs he was
experiencing. He was well aware of his family history but felt exercise
was a cure all. A lightly less blinded Fixx might still be alive today
albeit with bypass surgery.

-DF

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"Jtiche" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

exercise my ass, you can exercise until the cows come home and it
won't benefit
you. good health is hereditary, if your parents were healthy you
probably will
be even if you smoke like a freight train, drink like a fish and have
sex with
every scummy [censored] in town. If your parents died young, had high
b/p, heart
disease you can exercise, eat right, avoid the booze and drugs and
only engage
in solo sex and you'll still die young.

Quoted message said:

Fixx might still be alive today
albeit with bypass surgery.

Would that have saved him? I thought it was a congenital defect?

"FabulustRunner" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

WRONG! Try again next week.

True, it will not inoculate you, but even someone with a poor health
history
can at least increase his/her longevity.

Well one thing mr itchybutt didn't consider is, that health and fitness
was
often frowned upon by our parents who smoked 2 packs a day. (Dad said
"running
is for horses". Funny thing was, when I finished my first marathon, he was
so
proud he sent off the newspaper clipping to everyone in the family. This
from a
guy who was afraid to walk in the neighborhood for fear of what the
neighbors
would say.) and therefore they did nothing to try to live longer or
healthier.
The last 40 years that has all changed, and working out is considered a
daily
part of life to most of us.

If by "most of us" you mean the people on this board, then you are correct.
If you mean by the population of any country, then I would disagree. In the
US, only a relatively small number of people even meet the Surgeon General's
recommendation of 30 minutes of physical activity most days.