non responders are fewer and futhger between than you think.

Stick to training related posts.

Moderators: Dux, seeahill

Post Reply
Blaidd Drwg
Lifetime IGer
Posts: 19089
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 5:39 pm

non responders are fewer and futhger between than you think.

Post by Blaidd Drwg » Mon Mar 20, 2017 6:00 pm

http://www.strongerbyscience.com/non-responders/
At the end of the day, it’s crystal clear that some people simply respond way better to training than others. It’s also clear that damn near everyone gets stronger when they start training. However, muscle growth is a bit trickier, and almost every study (especially large studies) has some non-responders. Unlike aerobic training, we don’t know yet if simple programming modifications can ensure that everyone improves, though my hunch is that “true” non-response rate (i.e. people who simply cannot gain muscle in response to any sort of training) is considerably lower than the ~10-20% often seen in research.
"He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that." JS Mill

User avatar
Shafpocalypse Now
Lifetime IGer
Posts: 21105
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2005 11:26 pm

Re: non responders are fewer and futhger between than you think.

Post by Shafpocalypse Now » Tue Mar 21, 2017 2:26 am

The recent shit on non responders in assorted stuff is pretty fascinating

User avatar
SubClaw
Top
Posts: 1740
Joined: Sun Dec 25, 2011 5:01 pm

Re: non responders are fewer and futhger between than you think.

Post by SubClaw » Tue Mar 21, 2017 6:33 am

Blaidd Drwg wrote:http://www.strongerbyscience.com/non-responders/
At the end of the day, it’s crystal clear that some people simply respond way better to training than others. It’s also clear that damn near everyone gets stronger when they start training. However, muscle growth is a bit trickier, and almost every study (especially large studies) has some non-responders. Unlike aerobic training, we don’t know yet if simple programming modifications can ensure that everyone improves, though my hunch is that “true” non-response rate (i.e. people who simply cannot gain muscle in response to any sort of training) is considerably lower than the ~10-20% often seen in research.
I don't buy this. Anyone can and will improve both strength and muscularity significantly (no matter what, you're not going to become the next Ronnie Coleman or Ed Coan, but you can still get huge strength and mass gains) if a minimum of consistency is applied.

User avatar
powerlifter54
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 7934
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2005 5:46 pm
Location: TX

Re: non responders are fewer and futhger between than you think.

Post by powerlifter54 » Tue Mar 21, 2017 3:00 pm

I have never had a male client not bench 315 if they did what I showed them. My 150lb college roommate triathaloner and CFO type did it benching twice a week in a company gym in his late 40s.

It isn't hard, it is just long.
"Start slowly, then ease off". Tortuga Golden Striders Running Club, Pensacola 1984.

"But even snake wrestling beats life in the cube, for me at least. In measured doses."-Lex

Boris
Top
Posts: 1516
Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2008 1:54 am

Re: non responders are fewer and futhger between than you think.

Post by Boris » Tue Mar 21, 2017 4:26 pm

I'm glad I just kind of let the fitness and S&C stuff get away from me. I would be disgusted everyday if I had to see "non-responder" garbage....

The hard gainer stuff is just the other side of the "I can't lose weight" coin... It takes work and consistency.
powerlifter54 wrote:It isn't hard, it is just long.
Amen

User avatar
Sangoma
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 6629
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:16 pm
Contact:

Re: non responders are fewer and futhger between than you think.

Post by Sangoma » Wed Mar 22, 2017 2:35 am

True non-responders are probably very rare. But I believe hardgainers do exist. Most of the time "hard gains" is the probably doing of the trainee: too much volume, not enough recovery, not eating enough etc. You cannot deny though that the response to exercise - I am talking hypertrophy - varies considerably. It's also the constitution: some guys have large frame, and adding a few kilos of muscle makes them look considerably bigger than someone with narrow skeleton. I think it is the latter who are classified as hardgainers.

It is possible that some hardgainers are not putting in enough work, but I also think one should avoid taking a universal stance of "they are just not doing enough". In a lot of instances it just encourages the trainee to follow methodology that's not working for him. From what I read it looks like quite a few trainees would benefit by decreasing the volume; shaming them with "not doing enough" just pushes them into more volume which in turn makes things worse.

Hardgainer stuff may be "another side of cannot lose weight coin", but there is considerable hysteresis. What I mean is, when losing weight there is less emphasis on body composition compared with gaining. After all, who wants to get fat except for sumo wrestlers? So that's where the complexity becomes important: gaining mostly muscle requires optimising multiple parameters: diet, volume, intensity, frequency, recovery etc. And I am not even getting to bulking and leaning cycles, the topic which is absent from the "losing weight" side of the coin.
Image

Post Reply