Member
'Non-responders'
A little while ago there was a documentary on the BBC called "The Truth about Exercise". Among other things it claimed there were some people (~20% of the population apparently) who show minimal or no response to exercise. The context was aerobics and generally came across as an advert for HIIT, but just recently I had a look at some of the scientific literature on this and it seems similar claims are made for weight training.
So I'm curious: in your professional experience, have you ever encountered someone who 'did the program' (or at least enough of it you'd expect some response) and yet failed to gain much strength or lean mass?
TMPHBITEU
No, I have not. Everyone who is still alive has the ability to adapt to stress, if the stress is appropriate and adequate, and recovery is facilitated. Most peer-reviewed studies do not use exercise protocols that meet these criteria, and might therefore show no net improvements.
As a general observation, anything presented by the BBC as "The Truth" should be met with skepticism.
Member
That programme was one of the worst I've seen in a while, a shocking piece of journalism by the guy who seems to be the BBC's go-to man for medical science. His 'non-responders' claim was specifically related to VO2 max and no doubt gave the British public yet another reason not to bother training. But if they did fancy getting off their backsides then they were told 3 minutes on a bike was all they needed to do. Brilliant. And not one mention of weight training as I recall.
Member
"No, I have not. Everyone who is still alive has the ability to adapt to stress, if the stress is appropriate and adequate, and recovery is facilitated."
First of all, I watched the programme and it was a bunch of crap. The 'doctor' (Michael Mosley) could not generate the intensity on the exercise bike. He was just flailing about like a demented fish out of water. You could see the assistant looking at the screen shaking his head that the required intensity was not reached. It was 'the truth about exercise' and they failed to mention resistance training of any form. I was actually watching this crap they need to get Rip on this programme.
The bit I have bolded above I believe is the most important; and crucially is not adequately explored in SSBBT3 outside of the specific population described i.e. fit 18-35 year olds in a growth phase. In fact a lot of the 30-35 year olds probably shouldn't follow the programme as written.
So people do follow the programme and don't get bigger and stronger <B>because they get very sore and/or injured in the process</B>. As a 45 year old (today!) I find I can only (approximately) follow the programme for 4-6 weeks, then I need to back off and only do 1 session a week for 4 weeks to recovery and allow my joints and tendons to recover. If you can squat 3 times a week at heavy loads and recover you will get stronger. Many people cannot do this.
✓ Member
At 44 years old...I could...until I got my squat to about about 300lbs, then I had to change it up for recovery, but nothing like what you are describing. LP is the answer for novices, recovery must be monitored, and Rip has said many times that older guys like us may need to have a recovery day in the middle. I had to eat proper food at adequate amounts to facilitate recovery however. Rip's statement remains valid.Originally Posted by mikeinmadrid
But then I am only n=1, as are you. If you require 4-6 weeks of recovery with only one training session per week, I suspect there are other factors beyond LP that are involved. What are the specifics of your program, diet, rest, and other activities, illnesses, etc.if stress is appropriate and adequate, and recovery is facilitated.
Member
Can someone from WF publish a real study on "exercise"?
Member
If you require 4-6 weeks of recovery with only one training session per week, I suspect there are other factors beyond LP that are involved. What are the specifics of your program, diet, rest, and other activities, illnesses, etc.
I'm at the novice stage, 6 months in. weight 180lbs. Squat 100kg, press 50kg, DL 115kg. Diet is good, no junk food. Sleep is crap, not a lot I can do about that. Fitness levels pretty good before programme, running - 2 marathons, 4 HMs, multiple 10ks. Very little running in past six months. Past knee ACL operation. Perhaps I could go faster on the programme, but if I get injured it will take a lot longer. I will feel like a right fool if I injure myself deadlifting. There is no way I could squat 3 times a week on a linear progression from 100kg without taking breaks. Perhaps at a push I could do twice a week.
We are all different but the approach here seems to be - If you are not achieving a linear progression as a novice you are not doing the programme. This may be true in many cases but it is still a bullshit argument. It smacks of a fanatic religion. Non-believers are not welcome in this church to the one true God.
TMPHBITEU
Just anybody from the city of Wichita Falls?
Then just have fun with your training. You don't have to do anything you don't want to do. You don't even have to ask us for advice. Hell, mix in some Pilates for added muscle length.
Member
"Diet is good, no junk food."
What do you eat, specifically.
"Sleep is crap, not a lot I can do about that"
Why not? What is the issue with your sleep?
"Very little running in past six months"
What is very little?
"If you are not achieving a linear progression as a novice you are not doing the programme"
Yeah, pretty much.
Member
I continue to be baffled by these things.
It's reasonably well known that some people have a naturally higher VO2 max (just as some people are simply more explosive, etc). You cannot expect these people to have any adaptation if you train them like you would a person with a naturally lower VO2 max, as they require higher intensity to induce enough stress. This is not rocket surgery.
Posting Permissions
