Variable Response to Training Stimulus

[litcrazy]

I'm a big fan of Alex Hutchinson's "Sweat Science" columns in Outside Magazine. One of the things Outside is still getting right in my opinion. He pretty much translates recent academic research in exercise physiology into lay terms, with a strong emphasis on running/endurance sports.

I found this article fascinating in terms of clever methodology and results:
https://www.outsideonline.com/health...on-responders/

In this article, he looks at a study where they compare doing one set of leg extensions vs four sets in terms of building both strength and muscle mass. What's so clever is that to limit variables, each participants did 4 sets with one leg and one set with the other. Once folks started doing this in resistance training studies, it seemed so obvious but I didn't hear about until a previous article of his in 2018.

The short answer in terms of the study is that one set general gets qll the strength gains (in terms of an increase in one set max) of four sets, and more sets build more muscle mass. In terms of cyclists, that means young performance oriented cyclists should likely do one set when lfiting, while young vane cyclists and older cyclists fighting muscle loss should do multiple sets.

The most interesting observation, however, comes at the end:

"Among those who responded to one set, only 51 percent got significantly bigger muscle-size results from four sets, and 15 percent actually did worse on four sets. Normally when I see results like that, I’d assume that those 15 percent had some other life stress going on during the four-set part of the study that tanked their results. But in this case, the one-set and four-set parts of the study were taking place simultaneously in different legs. That suggests that, while four sets are better than one for some people, they really are worse for others."

As I read arguments about shifting research/trends in training methods, crank lengths and the like, I've been thinking about this observation. It seems like there's a desire for one approach that works for everyone and a tendency to universalize one's experience. I know I like to extrapolate from my own experience.
But, in this study at least, there seems to be evidence for bit quite a bit of variation in how people respond to training and what is optimal for different individuals. Some of the research on varying response to training load discussed in _the Sports Gene_ seems to dovetail with this.

I imagine these variance might apply to training load, interval volume and crank lengths where what's beneficial for most might be counter productive for others. Maybe it's all right for me to prefer 180mm cranks to 175 while someone else experiences the shift from 175 to 165 to be a religious experience. Maybe we're both onto something.

And for now, my out-of-fashion preference means that I'm able to score some nice deals at least.

Have others found any interesting research on this topic.

[merckx]

I worked with a physiologist about thirty years ago, and the topic of variable response to training stimuli was often discussed. He stated that there is not one training method that captures the needs of every athlete. There are, however, basic training principals, and a training template that is useful for most athletes. Volume, intensity, recovery and specific focus on energy production pathways to maximize athletic development will likely be different for each individual.

[dustyrider]

Nothing to add on the topic except I really liked Alex’s book Endure Mind, Body, and the Curiously Elastic Limits of Human Performance. And now that I looked him up again, I’ll be tracking down The Explorer’s Gene.

[rockdude]

That's how it works, everyone is different and has a different genetic makeup. In most research you will see in the details that there will be responders and non responders to stimulus. As a Coach, I use the same proven principals with all my clients but I have to apply them differently to meet their unique individual physiology.

As you mentioned short cranks are the trend, I went to 165mm for a few years and was never as strong, lost about 5-7% of power at threshold. Thought it was the new position or just getting older. last year, mid season, I put the 175mm back on and my first threshold ride was up over 5%.

Another example, Caffeine is one of the most effective legal performance aids when looking at the research, but many studies find that up to 1/3 - 1/4 of the participants have no effect or worse performance after ingesting it. I see that in my clients, around 1/3 preform worse when using caffeine.

[Turkle]

Originally Posted by rockdude

Another example, Caffeine is one of the most effective legal performance aids when looking at the research, but many studies find that up to 1/3 - 1/4 of the participants have no effect or worse performance after ingesting it. I see that in my clients, around 1/3 preform worse when using caffeine.

This definitely includes me. I will have coffee before my rides, but during the ride caffeine is a complete killer for me. Instantly causes cramps and bad things. I've had to completely cut out "energy" gels and drink mixes that include caffeine during my rides.

I'm happy to enjoy a coffee with you before or after the ride, though!