Training & Nutrition - excercise may fail

This article on the New York Times website (registration required)

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/02/12/health/fitness/12GENE.html

talks about how some people are genetically less likely than others to benefit from excercise, at least in the areas of weightloss and increased muscle mass.

I sometimes get the sneaking suspicion that I might be one of these people, but I'll still exercise. Why? Endorphines. I always feel pretty damned good after working out. So even if I never get great abs, or I never lose the layer of fat that keeps me from obtaining perfect muscle definition, I'll continue to be active.

What do you guys think? Would you keep on biking even if it had no effect on your health?

andy

Well, it's been long known that genetics has a bit to do with somebody's overall health. Heck, I used to go to the gym and lift weights three times a week, and I'd follow that up by visiting a friend and helping him remove banana trees from his backyard manually. It was never gonna turn me into Arnold Schwarznegger.

The thing is, any individual will always be better of exercising than if they don't. Sounds like it must have just been a slow news day or something.

Oh yeah, and I would keep riding whether or not it benefits my health. It's just too much fun.

Keep riding! I started for fitness, but continue it past that point for enjoyment.

Well, there have been a whole lot more studies of how exercise does help. Even if you don't respond as well to it as the next person, it's still better than nothing, right?

Keep up the exercise.

Originally posted by aturley
...some people are genetically less likely than others to benefit from excercise, at least in the areas of weightloss and increased muscle mass.
This is the problem with appearances. Many people judge a person's health and fitness by muscle mass.

Aerobic exercise builds you from the inside out. Weight lifting makes impressive muscle definition, but does little for the heart.

The reason is that weight lifting usually involves very few repetitions against high resistance. Cycling involves thousands of repetitions against slight resistance, which places a continuing
demand for oxygen upon the heart, lungs and blood vessels.

Result: endurance. (And a fantastic heart and blood supply. That doesn't impress the opposite sex, at least not at first glance.)

Cyclists have still got the sexiest legs by far. :D Erm, I mean to the opposite sex..

I'd keep riding.

A set of good lungs and a strong rebounding heart are more important than what steroids can easily give to a body builder.

I came to the realization long ago that my thighs will never look like Lances.

I have a poochie stomach that drives me crazy..But my sister says no matter how many sit-ups I do I will always have my poochie stomach. That's just the way I was designed...I have know idea if shes right though.

I remember many, many years ago there was a show on called "Battle of the network stars" I think it was. McLean Stevenson asked Lou Ferrigno how long it would take him to look like Lou. Lou says, "About six generations":D

Originally posted by Dirtgrinder
I remember many, many years ago there was a show on called "Battle of the network stars" I think it was. McLean Stevenson asked Lou Ferrigno how long it would take him to look like Lou. Lou says, "About six generations":D

I saw Lou Ferringo (aka The Incredible Hulk) on TV last nigh, in a spoof Japanese betting game show. He was racing on excercise bikes against a rabbi and a catholic priest, for the soul of a young baby (hey Im not making this up), Our Hulk won after the rabbi ran out of steam.

Think of your exercise now as a different kind of retirement account. Those healthy lungs and heart are going to be important to you in the future, even if the benefits don't show on the surface now.

Originally posted by aturley
I always feel pretty damned good after working out

It's the way I feel after a ride (and the way I feel when I don't ride) that keep me at it.

The benefits and long term effects are great, but are like a retirement account. I don't think about it and let it grow, so I'll have it when I need it. (How's my Enron stock doing today?)

Hmmm, I dunno about that one.

I believe that sprinters are born and not made. Meaning that if you don't have a lot of quick twitch fibers, you are never going to be a great sprinter.

But most people can increase their aerobic performance dramatically with training, especially if they start from couch potatodum (the condition of being a couch potato). I know a guy who weighed over 300 lbs and said he got out of breath going from the couch to the refridgerator who lost 100 lbs and was able to do centuries comfortably. Sure he was no racer, but that is one heck of an improvement. I know a retired lady, who got plumb tuckered out shopping for groceries at the supermarket and she started riding and she was able to do a century - not fast but she did it and she wasn't trashed at the end. Another huge improvement.

Of course, it is a matter of genetics just how far training will take you. One can go from thinking that a century on a bicycle is a nearly impossible goal to being able to do one without undue torment. I am pretty fit, but I am never ever going to challenge Lance Armstrong, Miguel Indurain or Gregg Lemond.

And there is the matter of looks. Cyclists can be impressively powerful without looking the part. You can have a small potbelly and ride like a locomotive. I recall a race where one guy showed up who had a big white beard and a potbelly and after the race I heard on of the riders say "I was going along and there I was getting passed by Santa Claus!". Of course, if you didn't have it, you would ride a bit stronger yet. Getting rid of that last bit of fat is a matter of being pretty strict with the caloric intake/expenditure thing afterall.