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

Hardloper wrote:

Genetics R Us wrote:

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!

Here's the thing, no one cares what U think

Here's one for you...I could a fvck what you think either. ?

Are you sure? wrote:

oh yeah...... wrote:

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?

There's been a few studies looking at it as far as athletic improvement. Most of them focus on recovering from injury. If I recall one study right, it cut the rehab time in half for hamstring injury. Like that article points out, there's a doctor in Germany that many of the elite athletes go to in Germany and this is one of his main go ingredients. First developed and still is used as a substance to treat type 2 diabetes, this is where it gets interesting. Apperently the mechanism that helps diabetics, will also improve the metabolism of using sugar while exercise. As it pushes sugar into the muscle. Not used in the US, as in the US I guess the USDA requires a main ingredient and since this doesn't really have one, so it is not approved here in the US. But it is used in Europe, quite easy to get. Reason why athletes don't promote it if it works? Well, you don't want to kill the golden goose, now do you?

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.

Actually the extremely talented give credit to genetics. That's not an excuse. It's credit where it's due.

Why do sad sacks like yourself always assume people use it as an excuse?

Every person has the capability to run fast. We know this because people today do not train as well as they used to and thus we see a lot less people running fast times for non professionals. Many guys were running sub 2:30 and in running circles that was not considered a terribly impressive time back then. The fact of the matter is that running takes a tremendous amount of discipline especially working full time and putting in 100 miles a week and holding down a family. As I type this I'm procrastinating and laying in bed and that is the reason why I'm slow. It has nothing to do with genetics. Yes I may not have the genetics to reach a world or even national class time but that's not the reason why I can't run much faster than I do now. Whatever you have to do you must do it or you don't. Maybe you have to run 20 miles more a week than some other shmuck but that's the price that you must pay.

It's always those who don't want to do the work who claim that's the secret.

Aerobic potential chaser wrote:

I have never met one, but mind you, I haven’t met many runners because I prefer to train alone. What happens when a non-responder actually trains with miles, speed, intervals, strength, etc who run 55 minute 10ks untrained? Do they drop down to 54:30 after 7 years of 60 mile weeks at 10:30 pace or do they stay at 55 no matter what? I’m confused about the concept of being a non-responder. I can believe that people can be shitty responders (drop down from 55 to say 48 with a couple years moderate training) or slow responders (run for years and then break through) but a NON responder? Meaning if you did 6 hours of cardio eveery day you wouldnt see any fitness benefit? Hard to believe.

As far as the V02 max component, there are two aspects, baseline and response. They are both genetically predetermined, and you can be any combination. So you could be be the naturally fit person who gets overtaken by someone who initially show less ability, but improves more. Some unfortunates would be outliers that are both low on baseline and response.

My personal experience was that I had a decent baseline, would initially respond very quickly, but also plateau very fast.

Someone who is genetically predetermined as low responder could still improve their efficiency, lactate threshold, and reduce weight.

I wonder what an average improvement is for a runner over their career?

I haven't competitively in years but went back and looked at my times from when I was competing from age 16 (first 10k) to 22 (last competitive race) and the improvements were pretty even across the board:

400m - 6% improvement

800m - 7% improvement

1000m - 8% improvement

1500m - 10% improvement

5000m - 12% improvement

10km - 13% improvement

I got screwed on genetics wrote:

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! ☹

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2308940/Marathon-running-Its-genes-How-fifth-lack-right-make-compete-long-distances.html

Here is another article since it seems like few read the first. BTW, I have never personally met a non-responder, however, I believe that they do exist. Also, they do not have to be slow.

“From our work, we know that 20 per cent of people do not respond at all to training and in fact can get worse. They push themselves as hard as everyone else, but their muscles do not extract the same amount of oxygen. "

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

And if an athlete keeps getting injured running high mileage...then what?

Then they're probably running those miles too fast or upping their mileage too quicky.

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

Still a 15% improvement. Definitely someone who doesn't respond much, especially if you see progression in his training...but he clearly got better.

Do total "non responders" even exist? I think I've read that with regard to VO2 max no improving, but I haven't ever heard of someone training and not making any improvement. Lots of ways to improve besides VO2...fractional utilization of VO2, running economy, leaning out (maybe doesn't count), etc.

That's an asinine response as pretty much every person that has gotten to a top level has put in the work and then some.

Takinadump wrote:

Gene Summons wrote:

It's always those who don't want to do the work who claim that's the secret.

That's an asinine response as pretty much every person that has gotten to a top level has put in the work and then some.

But they are relatively fast and get faster.

You are slow and think you just need to run a lot to join them but you avoid doing that so that you can keep fooling yourself.

Gene Summons wrote:

Takinadump wrote:

That's an asinine response as pretty much every person that has gotten to a top level has put in the work and then some.

But they are relatively fast and get faster.

You are slow and think you just need to run a lot to join them but you avoid doing that so that you can keep fooling yourself.

Yep that pretty much sums it up

Yes. All the non-respondents post on a message board called let’s run. The share training tips for not improving and being bad at running.

Have these non responders tried sprinting or power/strength sports instead?

Maybe they aren't built for aerobic endurance?

ex-runner wrote:

Have these non responders tried sprinting or power/strength sports instead?

Maybe they aren't built for aerobic endurance?

I agree; some people don't respond to typical endurance training but respond to classic short middle distance type work, and can run a few reasonable longer distance races at the end of the season off it. This is in fact classical track runner behaviour.

IF people have mainly fast twitch type muscles, they will respond to faster, shorter training sessions, and longer stuff might just break them down.

Thats not to say low responders don't exist.

I knew an EMT who was real shy. He was a first non-responder. Bada bing!

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)

I started running in my 40s, and it took about a year to be able to complete a 10k non-stop. My first was a bit over an hour, I'm about 43-44 on a good day now, and will tempo a 46/7.

So for me it's about 20 mins. I think the 10k is a bit different that say shorter distances where being able to complete one isn't a challenge. I'm a true un-talented hobby jogger tho

I knew this really talented guy on my cross country team who ran a 17-min 5k when he was a freshman. He was the fastest guy on his team. But he barely improved. Senior year, he ran like only 16:30.

Other guys could barely run when the first joined the team and would run 24-minutes 5k's. Then in 2-3 years they would run the 5k in 17-18 minutes.