Have you ever met a “non-responder”? Are they real?

Usually has to do with diet(typical with a lot of endurance atheltes they emphasize carbs too much and not enough protien enough), over training, not peaking right and or sleep.

Usually has to do with diet and or sleep. wrote:

Usually has to do with diet(typical with a lot of endurance atheltes they emphasize carbs too much and not enough protien enough), over training, not peaking right and or sleep.

There are lots of runners with crappy diet who drink loads who are still fast, I know a couple.

One of my coworker is a non responder

I followed him on strava and saw his training and races over the years and he hasn’t improved much if any. Started off with just over 1hr for 10k and now he can run it in 50mins.

Weird, the thing is he is not overweight

The process of stress and adaptation is so basic to pretty much all biology that I don't think a true non-responder is possible in an otherwise healthy human being who is not in rapid physical decline due to age. Plenty of people start off with relative low ability levels and low response rates to aerobic stimulus, but that's different.

Over training?

dr santa bby wrote:

One of my coworker is a non responder

I followed him on strava and saw his training and races over the years and he hasn’t improved much if any. Started off with just over 1hr for 10k and now he can run it in 50mins.

Weird, the thing is he is not overweight

10 minute improvement seems like a lot. I was an adult on-set runner to lose weight. I ran my first 10K in about 45 minutes at age 25. My lifetime PR is 37:30 set at age 48 (I significantly upped my training in my mid 40s). I’m 50 now.

I’d be surprised if there are many folks here whose 10K PR is more than 10 minutes faster than their first 10K (unless their first 10K was as a child)

Running potential is genetic. Some individuals have extremely limited ability.

Paul2432 wrote:

dr santa bby wrote:

One of my coworker is a non responder

I followed him on strava and saw his training and races over the years and he hasn’t improved much if any. Started off with just over 1hr for 10k and now he can run it in 50mins.

Weird, the thing is he is not overweight

10 minute improvement seems like a lot. I was an adult on-set runner to lose weight. I ran my first 10K in about 45 minutes at age 25. My lifetime PR is 37:30 set at age 48 (I significantly upped my training in my mid 40s). I’m 50 now.

I’d be surprised if there are many folks here whose 10K PR is more than 10 minutes faster than their first 10K (unless their first 10K was as a child)

As a percentage, your improvements are the same. Percentage improvement makes more sense to compare.

I agree that both examples are a decent amount of improvement.

There's no such thing as a 'non responder'. Theres talented people and untalented people. That's it.

ThatAverageRunner wrote:

There's no such thing as a 'non responder'. Theres talented people and untalented people. That's it.

Yes I’d have to agree with this. Everybpdy benefits from exercise, everybody. No matter what. BUT the upper end of everybody’s limit is determinded by, I don’t want to say genetics, but physiological factors that we have limited control over like cellular response and also body type.

iflyboats wrote:

Running potential is genetic. Some individuals have extremely limited ability.

Total BS. Running is 1% genetics. Anyone that says it's more is a sad sack of shizit looking for excuses.

ThatAverageRunner wrote:

There's no such thing as a 'non responder'. Theres talented people and untalented people. That's it.

Define "talent".

I think it was Deena Kastor who finished last in her first race she ever ran. Using this idea, you would tell her to stop running because she had no talent.

So...no!

In studies a non-responder in a study is one who does not improve from the training done during the study.

But that person might well respond if the training were continued so maybe they respond if the study were 6 weeks longer.

My take is most high school coaches give everyone the same training. Some kids thrive; others never come close. Take those latter kids to another coach with different training and maybe they thrive. There is a lot of variation in adaptation.

Enjoy being stupid. That's genetic too.

There are people who put the same level of work into breaking 5 min mile as others breaking 6 min mile. 7 and 8 alike.Part of life. Others gottit, others don’t. Simple.

Paul2432 wrote:

I’d be surprised if there are many folks here whose 10K PR is more than 10 minutes faster than their first 10K (unless their first 10K was as a child)

I no longer know what my first 10K was, but it was run in my mid-20s and I'm pretty sure it was more than 10 minutes slower than my PR. My first marathon (age 25) was more than an hour slower than my marathon PR (age 33).

amkelley wrote:

Paul2432 wrote:

I’d be surprised if there are many folks here whose 10K PR is more than 10 minutes faster than their first 10K (unless their first 10K was as a child)

I no longer know what my first 10K was, but it was run in my mid-20s and I'm pretty sure it was more than 10 minutes slower than my PR. My first marathon (age 25) was more than an hour slower than my marathon PR (age 33).

Ran a 10k in either 3rd or 4th grade off of no training in like 54 or 57 minutes, last summer did a 10k in 35 minutes.

Luv2Run wrote:

ThatAverageRunner wrote:

There's no such thing as a 'non responder'. Theres talented people and untalented people. That's it.

Define "talent".

I think it was Deena Kastor who finished last in her first race she ever ran. Using this idea, you would tell her to stop running because she had no talent.

So...no!

In studies a non-responder in a study is one who does not improve from the training done during the study.

But that person might well respond if the training were continued so maybe they respond if the study were 6 weeks longer.

My take is most high school coaches give everyone the same training. Some kids thrive; others never come close. Take those latter kids to another coach with different training and maybe they thrive. There is a lot of variation in adaptation.

I’d never say someone has no talent based off their first race. Most people would assume someone who runs 1:52 in the 800 has at least ‘some’ talent. Obviously not as much as pros, but certainly way better than average. My first 800m was like 2:45 and even 2 years before I ran 1:52 I was running 2:05 in college off specific 800m training. It can take a lot of training to realize potential. Everyone ‘responds’. Some people at different rates and that’s usually based on talent and not doing enough/proper training.

Some people have to train for a couple of years to reach 2:45. Not being funny.

Sub 5 mile and even I know this wrote:

ThatAverageRunner wrote:

I’d never say someone has no talent based off their first race. Most people would assume someone who runs 1:52 in the 800 has at least ‘some’ talent. Obviously not as much as pros, but certainly way better than average. My first 800m was like 2:45 and even 2 years before I ran 1:52 I was running 2:05 in college off specific 800m training. It can take a lot of training to realize potential. Everyone ‘responds’. Some people at different rates and that’s usually based on talent and not doing enough/proper training.

Some people have to train for a couple of years to reach 2:45. Not being funny.

And your point is what? I think you're in the wrong thread.