“If there is a lesson to be gleaned from this branch of exercise genetics, it’s that there is no one-size-fits-all training plan. If you suspect that you aren’t responding as well to a particular training stimulus as your training partner, you might be right. Rather than giving up, try something different.”–David Epstein, The Sports Gene
A key principle of exercise training and adaptation is individuality. Exercise is not a one-size-fits-all exercise prescription. Though the WOD-approach (i.e., workout of the day) is gaining increasing popularity in the fitness industry, it is not necessarily the best approach. The greatest benefit of a WOD-approach is the community it builds—and a sense of community and belonging contributes to exercise adherence and motivation (just look at the success of CrossFit). Likewise, generic exercise prescriptions are not always the best approach either. There are basic guidelines for exercise that define the “minimum effective volumes” for adaptations—many are aware of the “F.I.T.T. Principle” (frequency, intensity, type, and time)—but these provide, at best, a starting point for exercise. Look at what bodybuilders, powerlifters, Olympic weight lifters, and athletes of all types do for training, and you will begin to see the diversity of effective training methods. Even within sport-specific training there are unique individual needs that defy a one-size-fits-all program.
The understanding of genetics is quite new. The unlocking of the genetic code has prompted the search for the genes that make athletes successful. No athlete is going to be great at everything. Nor is there any training methodology that is going to make anyone good at everything. If a program works for one “athlete”, it is because it works for that athlete.
I find it fascinating that we look to the most fit person in the gym for our example. We neglect to understand that that person is likely where they are because they have “superior” genes in that particular training. So, when your workout partner is seeing better results than you on a specific training program, it is you. You probably don’t need to try harder. You probably need to try different. You may require more or less volume or different intensities. You may require different recovery strategies. As well, you might need different goals.
A good training program, executed properly, will produce results—just not for you, per se. There is increasing evidence of responders and non-responders to specific exercise. If you find yourself to be in the “non-responder” category (and you are putting in a real effort), you need to change what you are doing. If you have “tried every program under the sun”, maybe you are pursuing the wrong goals—or pursuing the right goals but expecting the wrong results. Sometimes we just have to accept who we are and pursue the best we can be. Accept your limitations, but don’t use these as an excuse to do nothing.
Other than a bald head, I am never going to be built like Dwayne Johnson. I have tried countless training programs over the years with pretty similar results. I am okay with this. As a 55-year-old, I am fine with seeing continued strength gains and maintaining what little muscle mass I have. I was not born with six-pack abs. I don’t expect to die with them. Genetically, I am probably more inclined to aerobic performance, but I neither enjoy endurance training (e.g., for marathons or triathlons) nor wish to look like a runner (no offense to runners). So, weights are a priority and cardio is to maintain my heart health and somewhat manage my body fat. Others, certainly, have different priorities.
If you want to be successful exercising, look for the person most like you who has had success and emulate their training—modifying accordingly. Personally, I find the trainers who have overcome their own limited genetics to be in the best shape they can be to have an advantage over the trainers who do just about anything and succeed. Not that such people can’t be great trainers. Just, sometimes, they don’t fully understand the battle. I have respect for trainers like Drew Manning (“Fit-to-Fat-to-Fit”) who gained a significant amount of weight so he could lose it to better understand the plight of his clients. Certainly, setpoint theory would suggest that his short-term gain (and genetics) would make it easier for him to lose the fat again and to maintain the physique he again has, but some understanding is better than none. I, likewise, admire the people who overcome years of obesity and “poor genes” to get into great shape. I also have respect for the likes of Richard Simmons (yes, I do) who will never have looked like Drew Manning or others and fights an ongoing battle with his body composition. Perhaps, he could have benefited from more weight training and less “Sweating to the Oldies”, but he did what worked for him.
The bottom line is: do what works for you and what helps bring you closer to your goals. Do this, and you will succeed.
Be your best today; be better tomorrow.
Carpe momento!