https://www.nytimes.com/2002/02/12/health/why-some-people-won-t-be-fit-despite-exercise.html?pagewanted=2&src=pm
I always wondered why my dad, 52, was more physically fit than me even when I'm half his age and we have the exact same sedentary lifestyle. I've never improved with exercise, tried couch to 5k like 10 times and never got anywhere with it, never built much muscle when I tried strength training.
How convenient that basedence now gives you an excuse to be a fat lazy frick.
*Soience
Frick
Shit, the Aussies are awake
>fat lazy frick
it's not about weight loss/gain it's about overall fitness level
Subsequent studies have already shown that the proportion of non-responders is probably lower than the initial studies on the subject suggest, because 1) when the duration of training inflicted on participants is extended, the number of non-responders decreases 2) when training is changed, some non-responders become responders and vice versa. This tends to prove that for some, it will indeed take longer than for others, if only to find the type of training that will make them receptive, but everyone can make progress.
IST just needs to stop this obsession with speed and this tendency to lump everyone together. Reading all day long that "anyone can get a good body in X years" (replace X with a number less than 3) is simply not true, and the studies already show it. Especially since the concept of "good body" is never clearly defined.
Word people think that they can get shredded within 3 months of lifting, when in reality it takes at least a year before it gets clearly noticeable.
No, people just tend to think that what worked for them (or more generally, what happened for them during their lifting journey) is applicable to others. This is sometimes well-intentioned and can be useful (when people say "try this, it worked for me"), but it can also create major deleterious and toxic biases (when people judge someone who hasn't had the same results as them at the same time as lazy, when people judge the program adopted by some because they don't do it for reasons that are no doubt relevant to them but not to everyone else, etc.).
And no, you could very well have been doing bodybuilding for 1 year and have seen little physical change. You just need to be someone who has come a long way with no sporting past and average or even poor genetics.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6349783/
>“True” exercise non-response is potentially exaggerated by choice of measurement.
>Exercise non-response appears to be mitigated by the changing of training variables, including increases in training volume, duration, and intensity.
>As a result, it seems unlikely that an individual would exhibit no positive effects from exercise.
I'm the guy who posted the other long message above, not sure if you posted this to show you disagreement, but we actually both agree with each other
Fair, I get your point now.
My buddy looks jacked from just lifting the big 3 inconsistently (like once or twice a week) while doing little to no isolation. I'm doing much more than that but I look like a molten candle, while our strength numbers are similar. I did gain a lot of strength, it's just not very visible from my looks.
With so little information I obviously can't make a definitive diagnosis, but right now I'd just say that your training isn't adapted to your case. What's your routine? Is it really a bodybuilding-oriented routine and not powerlifting (or just "strength increase" in general, with very few reps per set) one? There's also the question of how to recruit your muscles on the exercises, some recruit them spontaneously better than others. Do you feel the muscles targeted by the exercises when you train? I know that sensation is a subject on which there's no consensus (some say it's not important to feel your muscles, others say it's crucial) but I think that, if you don't feel them at all, it could be a possible way of improvement.
how many animals do you see that happen to be significantly weaker than their average specimen?
>Overeating Shit
>being surprised when exercise cant save you
>After 20 weeks of a training program, in which the subjects worked up to exercising for 50 minutes a day, four days a week, at 85 percent of their maximum heart rates, the results were clear.
>''We had large differences in respiration, in maximum oxygen uptake, in the results of muscle and adipose tissue biopsies,'' Dr. Bouchard said, referring to changes in endurance and ability to exercise at a high intensity as well as changes in body fat and in the sizes of different types of muscle fibers. ''Some did not gain in fitness,'' he added. ''Others improved by 50 percent, 60 percent. But they were all compliant.''
>He did the studies again with pairs of identical twins, finding that if one twin responded well to training, so did the other; if one did not respond, neither did the other.
brutal... some people are just fricked
are 10% of people also super responders then?
Training response is a bell curve so yeah
Yes
Kek, my gym crush has been going to the gym for a minimum of 7 months and she has made zero progress, shes still skinny fat with zero ass and not even a hit of muscle. I would marry and impregnate her in missionary position anyways.
>cats sleep 20 hours a day on average and remain at top physical fitness
>bears hibernate for months and can hunt just hours after waking up
If you laid in bed for 1-2 weeks you'd become too weak to raise your arms above your head.
This is because humans evolved to survive with the minimum amount of muscle and fat possible. Your body is always trying to remove all your muscle and fat at all times. Some people not growing much from exercise is just a consequence of our evolution.
>nytimes
Post an actual source you fricking lazy shithead. Stop looking for excuses.
Already I bet it doesn't control for sleep and nutrition
moronic title anyways
>non-responders
not a real medical condition
this defies the law of thermodynamics, utter pseudo-science/ israelite-science