Jump to content

Sorry!

This site is in read-only mode right now. You can browse all our old topics (and there's a lot of them) but you won't be able to add to them.

Unfit? Just blame your genes.


Pseudonym

Recommended Posts

Turns out a new test developed by a UK university shows that some people can't get fit, no matter how hard they try.

Approximately one in six of the general population are "high responders" - following the NHS guidelines, for example, will spark a marked increase in fitness levels, of about 25-50 per cent. One in three are "medium responders", who'll enjoy a 15 to 25 per cent boost in aerobic fitness. Another one in three are "medium-low responders", who'll only see a 5 to 15 per cent increase. But, shockingly, another one in six are "low responders", who, at the very most, will only see a 5 per cent rise in their fitness levels.Most of these will see no improvement whatsoever - no matter how much time they spend sweating on a cross-trainer, they will never be fitter. Worse still, about a sixth of the low responders - 3 per cent of the general population - will actually become less fit. In other words, 1.8 million Britons are effectively allergic to exercise.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/news/article.cfm?c_id=6&objectid=11133921

 

I totally get that people respond to exercise differently. Much like anything to do with humans, it sounds like a bell curve - most people respond averagely, a few lucky ones do really well, and a few unlucky ones draw the genetic short straw.

But really, for some to actually go backwards? Wow, I struggle to understand that one. How did these people evolve in the first place, if every time they exert themselves, they get less fit? Seems a bit strange to me!

Interesting, though...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah seems vaguely legit. 

Some of the bottom categories might have been better responders to strength training than endurance - and also respond differently to a different program (say intervals compared to just a more steady state program, or vice versa). I do think at the "molecular level" these things are pretty different... 

Also, wouldn't it depend on diet also, stress, and many other factors - did they control for confounders and effect modification? would like to see the whole study. 

Just seems like a bit of a nihilistic conclusion. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The cynic in me says that the only people who take the test will be those who already think they don't have the genes for fitness - and therefore exercise is pointless for them. Which is good, because they've always hated exercise.

So it's a clever way to make $390 to tell someone something they think they already know, but want to hear anyway.

:P

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Popular Contributors

    Nobody has received reputation this week.

×
×
  • Create New...