1 in 5 people unable to benefit from exercise

[Amby 490]

Are you spending hours at the gym, only to find minimal results?

You may be able to blame your parents: One in five people are born with genes that can affect your ability to burn fat by exercising, London’s Daily Telegraph reported.

Researchers at London University also found that regular exercise did little to prevent some medical conditions, like heart disease or diabetes.

Dr. James Timmons of the Royal Veterinary College at the University of London, who led the study, said these people would be better off focusing on alternate ways of staying healthy, like eating right and taking medications.

The study, which is published in the "Journal of Applied Physiology," looked at more than 500 participants who underwent aerobic training for 30 minutes each, five times a week.

Twenty percent of participants found their maximum oxygen increased by less than five percent, and 30 percent of participants were unable to increase insulin sensitivity.

An analysis of muscle tissue from this group proved they had a set of 30 genes that "predicted the increase in oxygen intake." Out of the 30 genes, 11 proved to have a specific impact on how much a person would profit from exercise.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,584785,00.html

[one...two...tree 2,762]

That's pretty misleading. Everyone benefits from exercise. Some may burn more calories faster than others, but what matters most is that is conditioning your cardiovascular health.

Edited February 4, 2010 by Galt's gallstones

[Dakine 26]

Article was written by a fat lazy person looking for an excuse not to workout.

Car won't go anywhere without burning gas and your body won't go anywhere without burning something.

[lucyrich 20]

I remembered hearing news this past week about a study that showed that everyone benefits from adding more exercise -- even people who run 100 miles a week see improved health benefits from running more. So I googled "exercise study" to try and find the article, and was greeted with a plethora of studies that say all kinds of things about exercise, some of them apparently contradictory.

In other words, I'd be careful putting too much credence into a single exercise study, and be careful not to try and apply it to areas outside the specific factors being studied.

Anyway, even if that study is entirely and completely true, you'll never know if you're that one in five unless you actually go exercise! And chances are, even if that study is true, you're probably one of the 4 out of 5 who will benefit.

BTW, I finally did find that study I was looking for...

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?.../MNFC1BID8F.DTL

[Peikko 1,575]

What is misleading is 'unable to benefit from'. The study doesn't actually say that, it says that some people get less benefit than others as regards weight loss and aerobic improvements and that those people need to concentrate their efforts in other areas but I think it would be pretty wacky to suggest they give up on exercise entirely. There are other benefits from exercise aside from heart/lung improvements and weight loss. Not least, the feel good factor. That can't be stressed to highly in my opinion.

Oh, and the increased ability to sleep effectively. If you do not get out and about and exercise, sleep is one of the first things that suffers.

I'd also suggest that 30 mins isn't enough

Edited February 4, 2010 by Madame Cleo

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

4 in 5 people too lazy to attempt any exercise

[luckytxn 2,265]

The main clue is to notice that the study was done in the U.K.

[FortLaudy 10]

What is misleading is 'unable to benefit from'. The study doesn't actually say that, it says that some people get less benefit than others as regards weight loss and aerobic improvements and that those people need to concentrate their efforts in other areas but I think it would be pretty wacky to suggest they give up on exercise entirely. There are other benefits from exercise aside from heart/lung improvements and weight loss. Not least, the feel good factor. That can't be stressed to highly in my opinion.

Oh, and the increased ability to sleep effectively. If you do not get out and about and exercise, sleep is one of the first things that suffers.

I'd also suggest that 30 mins isn't enough

Off to my step class pronto!

[Jasman0717 9]

So I googled "exercise study" to try and find the article, and was greeted with a plethora of studies that say all kinds of things about exercise, some of them apparently contradictory.

Guess it depends on who sponsored the study

[Peikko 1,575]

The main clue is to notice that the study was done in the U.K.

The main clue to what? That you have drawn some dodgy ideological or bigotted conclusion from a partial reading of a media presentation of a study? Sounds about right...

Edited February 4, 2010 by Madame Cleo

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I remembered hearing news this past week about a study that showed that everyone benefits from adding more exercise -- even people who run 100 miles a week see improved health benefits from running more. So I googled "exercise study" to try and find the article, and was greeted with a plethora of studies that say all kinds of things about exercise, some of them apparently contradictory.

In other words, I'd be careful putting too much credence into a single exercise study, and be careful not to try and apply it to areas outside the specific factors being studied.

Anyway, even if that study is entirely and completely true, you'll never know if you're that one in five unless you actually go exercise! And chances are, even if that study is true, you're probably one of the 4 out of 5 who will benefit.

BTW, I finally did find that study I was looking for...

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?.../MNFC1BID8F.DTL

100 miles a week - is that even possible? That's nearly a marathon a day!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

What is misleading is 'unable to benefit from'. The study doesn't actually say that, it says that some people get less benefit than others as regards weight loss and aerobic improvements and that those people need to concentrate their efforts in other areas but I think it would be pretty wacky to suggest they give up on exercise entirely. There are other benefits from exercise aside from heart/lung improvements and weight loss. Not least, the feel good factor. That can't be stressed to highly in my opinion.

Oh, and the increased ability to sleep effectively. If you do not get out and about and exercise, sleep is one of the first things that suffers.

I'd also suggest that 30 mins isn't enough

No kidding - I'm currently training for a half-marathon and I'm up to 7.5 miles a day (roughly 2 hours door to door).

There's also a difference between types of cardiovascular exercise - low intensity Vs. high intensity. Distance running is more about burning fat than it is about improving cardio-vascular fitness (of course it does that too - just not as well), as opposed to the sort of workout you get from sprinting.

[Peikko 1,575]

This is the article that the OP article was derived from:

Link

Researchers have discovered that the health benefits of aerobic exercise are determined by our genes - and can vary substantially between individuals.

Around 20 per cent of the population do not get any significant aerobic fitness benefit from regular exercise, according to an international study led by scientists at the University of London.

Researchers say they would be better off abandoning their exercise regime and focusing on other ways of staying healthy - such as improving their diet or taking medication.

James Timmons of the Royal Veterinary College at the University of London, who led the study, said that the discovery would pave the way for more personalised treatments, with patients able to take DNA tests to find out the most effective way of keeping their own hearts healthy.

It could also be used to root out would-be recruits to the Armed Forces who will never be able to reach the required fitness standards.

Dr Timmons said the research broke new ground by using the human genome - the genetic map of the body which was decoded by scientists 10 years ago - to suggest improvements to healthcare.

"This would be one of the first examples of personalised, genomic-based medicine," he said.

As part of the research, published in the Journal of Applied Physiology, more than 500 participants in Europe and the US were asked to undergo various aerobic training programmes in line with government advice to do 30 minutes of exercise five times a week.

By the end of the 20, 12 and six week programmes the majority of people had shown a measurable improvement in how much oxygen their body consumes during exercise, a key indicator of aerobic fitness.

But 20 per cent saw their maximum oxygen increase by less than five per cent - a negligible improvement. Around 30 per cent showed no increase in insulin sensitivity, meaning that the exercise did not reduce their risk of diabetes.

A pioneering analysis of muscle tissue samples taken from the participants revealed a set of about 30 genes that predicted the increase in oxygen intake. Of these, 11 were shown to have a particular impact on how much a person could benefit from aerobic exercise.

Dr Timmons said: “We know that low maximal oxygen consumption is a strong risk factor for premature illness and death so the tendency is for public health experts to automatically prescribe aerobic exercise to increase oxygen capacity.

"Our hope is that before too long, they will be able to target that prescription just to those who may stand a greater chance of benefiting, and prescribe more effective preventive or therapeutic measures to the others.” Research published by the British Heart Foundation this week found that one third of adults do their recommended 30 minutes of physical activity a day.

At their peak seven years ago 8.7 million Britons paid to attend gyms, although memberships have fallen since the start of the recession.

The research was conducted in association with the Human Genomics Laboratory in Louisiana and the Centre for Healthy Ageing at the University of Copenhagen.

Edited February 4, 2010 by Madame Cleo

[IR5FORMUMSIE 850]

No kidding - I'm currently training for a half-marathon and I'm up to 7.5 miles a day (roughly 2 hours door to door).

There's also a difference between types of cardiovascular exercise - low intensity Vs. high intensity. Distance running is more about burning fat than it is about improving cardio-vascular fitness (of course it does that too - just not as well), as opposed to the sort of workout you get from sprinting.

Congrats, good luck to you in your quest.

We are taking about aerobic benefit which tends to take much longer to express itself. Maybe those people who did 30 minutes were fit already, maybe they need more than 30 minutes. Maybe some of the people were in such poor shape that they went anaerobic during the testing. How was the study conducted, were results under closed conditions or did people just report in.