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

Not sure if there are true "non-responders." I had a high school teammate who couldn't seem to improve on his 6:20 mile even though he liked running, ran consistently for years, did all the workouts, looked fit, wasn't an idiot etc. A few years after HS he said he had gotten his mile time down to 5:30 with goofy crossfit workouts and easy running so who knows, maybe it was a mental block.

an honest assessment wrote:

Sub 5 mile and even I know this wrote:

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.

That if you can run 2:45 untrain youre naturally gifted, end of

Ho ho frickin ho wrote:

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.

I think ho ho meant ultimate running potential is genetic. If you take an overweight Carlos Lopes off the couch and match him with a slim hobby jogger with less genetic talent, give them both exactly the same training for 6 months, Carlos might run 17 minutes for 5k, the hobby jogger (same age) will be 2 or more minutes slower.

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

Did his training progress over the years? Mileage build up to 60 mpw? Did he have a couple of workouts in each week? Did he race regularly? Was he serious about running his 10ks fast? There are many hobby joggers out there who are happy to just run 10ks and not push themselves to the point where it hurts.

iflyboats wrote:

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

Yeah....and about one fifth of us are really skunked when it comes to running genetics! ☹

ThatAverageRunner wrote:

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

Those with the great genetics get all the glory.

For the rest of us with bad genetics we're just another sad story.

I train my ass off as hard as I can...but I'm still slow.

Seeing those genetically gifted guys respond so well is such a blow.

That's why I quit competitive running and just gave up on it.

And when it comes to elite running...I don't care one bit!

No, there's people who need mileage and others need high mileage and others require even high mileage. If hundred miles a week isn t working try 150 miles per week. If that doesn't work try 200+ miles per week.

Miles make championship wrote:

No, there's people who need mileage and others need high mileage and others require even high mileage. If hundred miles a week isn t working try 150 miles per week. If that doesn't work try 200+ miles per week.

Dumb post! And if an athlete keeps getting injured running high mileage...then what? High mileage is a component of good genetics!!!

Genetics isn't the only thing...it's everything! wrote:

Miles make championship wrote:

No, there's people who need mileage and others need high mileage and others require even high mileage. If hundred miles a week isn t working try 150 miles per week. If that doesn't work try 200+ miles per week.

Dumb post! And if an athlete keeps getting injured running high mileage...then what? High mileage is a component of good genetics!!!

That is where a little juice comes in, prevents the body from breaking down.

Sub 5 mile and even I know this wrote:

an honest assessment wrote:

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

That if you can run 2:45 untrain youre naturally gifted, end of

My 2:45 wasn’t untrained. I had been running junior high XC for 2 years and playing soccer for 8. Anyways, that’s irrelevant. Everyone responds, but the rate and upper limit of which they respond is based on genetics.

Genetics R Us wrote:

ThatAverageRunner wrote:

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

Those with the great genetics get all the glory.

For the rest of us with bad genetics we're just another sad story.

I train my ass off as hard as I can...but I'm still slow.

Seeing those genetically gifted guys respond so well is such a blow.

That's why I quit competitive running and just gave up on it.

And when it comes to elite running...I don't care one bit!

I train not ridiculously hard but fairly hard.

10 repeats at mile pace 60 sec rest 1x week

Long run 15 miles

Strength training

Weekly Tempo runs

Occasional Sprints (moderate effort, 2x week)

45 mpw

I am female, run 22 min for the 5k, slightly better at sprints (possibly 14 100m/sub 70 400m). I believe I have average genetics. I believe there are women running 12.5-13 100s/17-18 min 5ks off my effort of training. There are also others running 15S 100m/24-25 min.

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)

Three years ago I maxed out on a 10 k course at 160 bpm for 1:17:30, now I run same 10 k in training in 52 minutes with 148 bpm. (Just 4 kilos / 9 pounds lighter)

that is where juice comes in wrote:

Genetics isn't the only thing...it's everything! wrote:

Dumb post! And if an athlete keeps getting injured running high mileage...then what? High mileage is a component of good genetics!!!

That is where a little juice comes in, prevents the body from breaking down.

But what if you don't want to do the "little juice?" Then what?

This Is Ridiculous wrote:

that is where juice comes in wrote:

That is where a little juice comes in, prevents the body from breaking down.

But what if you don't want to do the "little juice?" Then what?

Than maybe a little HGH or Actovegin.

The 1970s and early 1980s proved that there aren't non-responders; people who run a lot of hard miles and workouts get a lot better to the point where they would win the vast majority of local races today if they trained like they were in that era.

a little HGH wrote:

This Is Ridiculous wrote:

But what if you don't want to do the "little juice?" Then what?

Than maybe a little HGH or Actovegin.

C'mon man!....HGH would be doping! I don't think Actovegin is on the banned list...but is it the real deal? Are many elites using it?

Can't Believe What I'm Hearing wrote:

a little HGH wrote:

Than maybe a little HGH or Actovegin.

C'mon man!....HGH would be doping! I don't think Actovegin is on the banned list...but is it the real deal? Are many elites using it?

Actovegin is the real deal and isn't on the banned substance list.

I don't follow your post? ?

The women's WR in the 5 is 14:11, which is alien genetics and obviously a Super Responder to training. On the all-time list the slowest time listed is #3601 @ 15:24.99. That's mind boggling to think that a female runs a 15:24 and it's only the 3,601 fastest time in the world! Women and incredible running genetics have exploded in the modern era!

oh yeah...... wrote:

Can't Believe What I'm Hearing wrote:

C'mon man!....HGH would be doping! I don't think Actovegin is on the banned list...but is it the real deal? Are many elites using it?

Actovegin is the real deal and isn't on the banned substance list.

https://academicathletics.wordpress.com/2016/07/06/actovegin-the-unfortunately-legal-performance-enhancing-drug/

Is this what a lot of the elites are using then? (If it's not banned why aren't any elites promoting it?). Any studies done with athletes that show it's effectiveness?