Recommends resistance training for older people, recommends taking reasonable care. No mention of the possibility that some people just don’t benefit from exercise.
Most surprising detail: There can be loss of fast-twitch muscles in the sense that the innervation for fast twitch dies, but may be replaced with slow-twitch.
My hypothesis: this may relate to the risk of falling since keeping a potential fall (a slip or going off-balance) from turning into an actual fall requires the sudden use of strength.
No mention of the possibility that some people just don’t benefit from exercise.
Exercise science is a notoriously poorly executed field, so I’d take any studies done with a decently sized grain of salt. This study gets referenced very frequently as evidence for exercise non-responders. However, anyone with even a surface level knowledge of fitness knows that diet and training must work in synergy to achieve a goal, and this study did not consider diet, calories, or nutrition. If you are not eating enough food to recover from exercise, your strength and fitness will go down (along with your weight). Minimizing muscle loss is the reason why 1-2lb is the recommended rate for losing weight. This chart is pulled from the study, and it shows that a combination of strength endurance training is beneficial for the vast majority of the study population (older adults). The small groups that are negative or non-responders were likely just not eating enough to recover from exercise, rather than some group which mysteriously doesn’t benefit from exercise at all.
This article is cited by the video you’ve posted, and also does not mention diet, nutrition, calories, etc. I checked the studies analyzed for dietary controls, and only the STRRIDE mentioned bodyweight and nutrition controls. The meta-analysis seems to exclude non-endurance training, and the risk factors it identifies are related to disease, not fitness. At best it can claim that endurance exercise doesn’t improve disease markers in a tiny subset of the population. With so many factors not being controlled for, to me the probability that hypothesis “Some people don’t respond to exercise” is true is much lower than the hypothesis “Exercise alone isn’t sufficient to reverse negative health markers caused by unhealthy diet and weight in a small population.”
I believe that they don’t mention exercise non-responders because it’s unlikely that that is even real for normal population. Unless you have muscular dystrophy or some similar disease, you will gain strength, muscle mass, and bone density by weight training and eating a caloric surplus. People with weak bones, muscles, and connective tissue are more fragile and prone to injury, and as you get progressively weaker, the injuries become more devastating. By becoming stronger, you become more resilient to injury.
Has anybody looked into sarcopenia and resistance training can slow it’s progression?
Yes.
http://www.unm.edu/~lkravitz/Article%20folder/sarcopenia.html
Recommends resistance training for older people, recommends taking reasonable care. No mention of the possibility that some people just don’t benefit from exercise.
Most surprising detail: There can be loss of fast-twitch muscles in the sense that the innervation for fast twitch dies, but may be replaced with slow-twitch.
My hypothesis: this may relate to the risk of falling since keeping a potential fall (a slip or going off-balance) from turning into an actual fall requires the sudden use of strength.
Exercise science is a notoriously poorly executed field, so I’d take any studies done with a decently sized grain of salt. This study gets referenced very frequently as evidence for exercise non-responders. However, anyone with even a surface level knowledge of fitness knows that diet and training must work in synergy to achieve a goal, and this study did not consider diet, calories, or nutrition. If you are not eating enough food to recover from exercise, your strength and fitness will go down (along with your weight). Minimizing muscle loss is the reason why 1-2lb is the recommended rate for losing weight. This chart is pulled from the study, and it shows that a combination of strength endurance training is beneficial for the vast majority of the study population (older adults). The small groups that are negative or non-responders were likely just not eating enough to recover from exercise, rather than some group which mysteriously doesn’t benefit from exercise at all.
This article is cited by the video you’ve posted, and also does not mention diet, nutrition, calories, etc. I checked the studies analyzed for dietary controls, and only the STRRIDE mentioned bodyweight and nutrition controls. The meta-analysis seems to exclude non-endurance training, and the risk factors it identifies are related to disease, not fitness. At best it can claim that endurance exercise doesn’t improve disease markers in a tiny subset of the population. With so many factors not being controlled for, to me the probability that hypothesis “Some people don’t respond to exercise” is true is much lower than the hypothesis “Exercise alone isn’t sufficient to reverse negative health markers caused by unhealthy diet and weight in a small population.”
I believe that they don’t mention exercise non-responders because it’s unlikely that that is even real for normal population. Unless you have muscular dystrophy or some similar disease, you will gain strength, muscle mass, and bone density by weight training and eating a caloric surplus. People with weak bones, muscles, and connective tissue are more fragile and prone to injury, and as you get progressively weaker, the injuries become more devastating. By becoming stronger, you become more resilient to injury.
You’ve got a plausible hypothesis there, but it doesn’t seem to have been tested.
I notice that you go from probability of hypothesis to strongly phrased advice.