NY times article on science behind the talent of improving with training

You mean *blog*.

This liberal rag is just trying to blame science for why they are so wimpy.

Why are they always Norwegian rats?

Pathologic characterization of brown Norway rats with relation to age

Evidence for glutamate as a neurotransmitter in the corticofugal fibres to the dorsal lateral geniculate body and the superior colliculus in rats

geniculate body and the superior colliculus in rats.

Shiga toxin‐producing Escherichia coli O157 in feed lot cattle and Norwegian rats from a large‐scale farm

Glutamate immunoreactivity in terminals of the retinohypothalamic tract of the brown Norwegian rat

Social enhancement of food preferences in Norway rats: A brief review.

BG Galef Jr - 1996 - psycnet.apa.org

Evidence for widespread infection of hepatitis E virus among wild rats in Japan

and so on

Behavioral differences between outbred Wistar, inbred Fischer 344, brown Norway, and hybrid Fischer 344× brown Norway rats

Exploratory Behavior in Norway Rats (Rattus Norvegicus):

Bone marrow as a potential source of hepatic oval cells

Because their Viking heritage makes them more durable in tests.

So some people respond more to training than others...we knew that already. It's called "trainability" or "talent."

What WOULD be interesting would be taking the rats bred for untrainability and then expose them to either very high volume training or low volume training. (2-3x or 0.25-0.5x the training regimen of the first batch of mice). This would tell use whether poor response to training means that you require a larger stimulus to adapt, or whether you require more recovery to improve. Or neither.

didn't even click wrote:

You mean *blog*.

Thank you for illustrating how to be annoying on the internet.

The "blog" is discussing scientific articles on the variations in response to training. Not sure exactly why you find it so important to point out the difference between a blog and an article. Hopefully you feel smarter.

adsfadsfasfd wrote:

So some people respond more to training than others...we knew that already. It's called "trainability" or "talent."

What WOULD be interesting would be taking the rats bred for untrainability and then expose them to either very high volume training or low volume training. (2-3x or 0.25-0.5x the training regimen of the first batch of mice). This would tell use whether poor response to training means that you require a larger stimulus to adapt, or whether you require more recovery to improve. Or neither.

I don't think that anyone is claiming that we don't already know that some people respond to training better than others. The discussion is on why this occurs. I found this interesting.

adsfadsfasfd wrote:

So some people respond more to training than others...we knew that already. It's called "trainability" or "talent."

What WOULD be interesting would be taking the rats bred for untrainability and then expose them to either very high volume training or low volume training. (2-3x or 0.25-0.5x the training regimen of the first batch of mice). This would tell use whether poor response to training means that you require a larger stimulus to adapt, or whether you require more recovery to improve. Or neither.

The rats that showed low response were going backwards in ability. How the heck are they going to magically do more distance if their condition is deteriorating?

Davey Gravy wrote:

Not sure exactly why you find it so important to point out the difference between a blog and an article.

You obviously haven't got a clue about what kind of proof reading and background checking that's going into a regular NYT article or news outlets of similar standards.

The study confirmed some things I've noticed in the past years. Some people respond very quickly to training, others don't respond much at all. Likewise some people put on muscle easily (myself) but don't respond quickly to aerobic training (myself), while others are the complete opposite (see every African in the 5000m on the DL circuit).

adjshfkjsf wrote:

The study confirmed some things I've noticed in the past years. Some people respond very quickly to training, others don't respond much at all. Likewise some people put on muscle easily (myself) but don't respond quickly to aerobic training (myself), while others are the complete opposite (see every African in the 5000m on the DL circuit).

What about non-Africans in the 5000m on the DL circuit?

stick to your blogs, moran wrote:

Davey Gravy wrote:

Not sure exactly why you find it so important to point out the difference between a blog and an article.

You obviously haven't got a clue about what kind of proof reading and background checking that's going into a regular NYT article or news outlets of similar standards.

Everybody knows that this liberal blog is wrong even through it discusses studies by The Journal of the American College of Cardiology and University of Michigan in Ann Arbor.

NY Trash wrote:

stick to your blogs, moran wrote:

You obviously haven't got a clue about what kind of proof reading and background checking that's going into a regular NYT article or news outlets of similar standards.

Everybody knows that this liberal blog is wrong even through it discusses studies by The Journal of the American College of Cardiology and University of Michigan in Ann Arbor.

Everybody with a scientific background knows that research studies can be selected to prove exactly the results you wish.

your a moran too wrote:

NY Trash wrote:

Everybody knows that this liberal blog is wrong even through it discusses studies by The Journal of the American College of Cardiology and University of Michigan in Ann Arbor.

Everybody with a scientific background knows that research studies can be selected to prove exactly the results you wish.

Yes and by logical extension this cannot possibly happen in a print newspaper. Classic lib.

your a moran too wrote:

NY Trash wrote:

Everybody knows that this liberal blog is wrong even through it discusses studies by The Journal of the American College of Cardiology and University of Michigan in Ann Arbor.

Everybody with a scientific background knows that research studies can be selected to prove exactly the results you wish.

Your comments would be relevant if anyone here or in the article claimed the quoted studies proved anything or claimed to be a systematic review on the topic. As this is not the case, your posts seem more like the product of an intentionally contrary jackass trying to look smart on an anonymous message board. Congratulations if that is your intention.

NY Trash wrote:

your a moran too wrote:

Everybody with a scientific background knows that research studies can be selected to prove exactly the results you wish.

Yes and by logical extension this cannot possibly happen in a print newspaper. Classic lib.

Go buy Sports Gene by David Epstein. Some people can lift weights and not get stronger. Run and not get fitter. That would suck.

Here's our review of the book:

Randy Oldman wrote:

adjshfkjsf wrote:

The study confirmed some things I've noticed in the past years. Some people respond very quickly to training, others don't respond much at all. Likewise some people put on muscle easily (myself) but don't respond quickly to aerobic training (myself), while others are the complete opposite (see every African in the 5000m on the DL circuit).

What about non-Africans in the 5000m on the DL circuit?

What about him?

Another enlightening piece selling science from the Times. What have we learned from this article? That scientists showed some animals don't respond to training, whereas others respond dramatically. Their "explanation" is that sets of dozens of genes are different. In other words, they are saying that some animals don't respond to training, whereas others respond dramatically, because some animals have genes that don't respond to training (aerobic training), whereas other animals have genes that respond dramatically to training (aerobic). But we already knew from much, much better evidence that humans, about whom we and they really want to know, respond differently to training.

In college, I lifted three days a week, light reps as per distance runner dogma at the time, and gained some functional strength but never gained any significant amount of muscle, whereas some guys in my dorm (not distance runners) gained dozens of lbs of muscle within a couple years. I always improve from harder distance training but nothing dramatic at all. After fifteen years out with an injury, I ran 20:30 off 10-15 mpw and a few years later 16:04 off 100 mpw.

50 years ago, Nautilus founder Arthur Jones published "The Nautilus Bulletin," his manifesto on exercise. In the first chapter he stressed that genetics is the main determinant of the results of exercise and the importance of not assuming that someone's impressive physique or performance is the result of sound training. He even identified one of the specific limiting factors, a gross anatomical trait that a trained eye can easily observe externally. As obvious as it is that genetics determine all of your physical attributes, a fact that can be validated without studies, it's insane that anyone could entertain the slightest doubt about their importance. Yet here we are in 2015 and most people, including coaches, still look at the patterns of elite athletes to inform their views on training and dismiss gebetics as an "excuse." The "scientists" are treating this revelation as some amazing breakthrough while hysterically still remaining completely oblivious to the aforementioned anatomical trait Jones pointed out as they search for a gene to explain the results of their rat experiments. The world is retarded when it comes to exercise.