Cited by 160Cardiovascular and exercise physiologyGenetics and Physical PerformancePhysical Activity and Health

Exercise training response heterogeneity: physiological and molecular insights.

Open access
Sparks, Lauren M.·2017·Diabetologia

Abstract

The overall beneficial effects of exercise are well studied, but why some people do not respond favourably to exercise is less understood. The National Institutes of Health Common Fund has recently launched the large-scale discovery project 'Molecular Transducers of Physical Activity in Humans' to examine the physiological and molecular (i.e. genetic, epigenetic, lipidomic, metabolomic, proteomic, etc.) responses to exercise training. A nationwide, multicentre clinical trial such as this one also provides a unique opportunity to robustly investigate the non-response to exercise in thousands of individuals that have undergone supervised aerobic- and resistance-based exercise training interventions. The term 'non-responder' is used here to address the lack of a response (to an exercise intervention) in an outcome specified a priori. Cardiorespiratory fitness ([Formula: see text]) as an exercise response variable was recently reviewed; thus, this review focuses on metabolic aspects of the non-response to exercise training. Integrated -omics platforms are discussed as an approach to disentangle the complicated relationships between endogenous and exogenous factors that drive the lack of a response to exercise in some individuals. Harnessing the power of combined -omics platforms with deep clinical phenotyping of human study participants will advance the field of exercise metabolism and shift the paradigm, allowing exercise interventions to be targeted at those most likely to benefit and identifying novel approaches to treat those who do not.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00125-017-4461-6

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 51 · Cited by 160

Authors
Sparks, L. M.
Affiliations
Sanford Burnham Prebys Medical Discovery Institute (US)
Corresponding author
Sparks, Lauren M.
Venue
Diabetologia
Published
2017-10-14
Volume
60
Issue
12
Pages
2329-2336
ISSN
  • 0012-186X (ISSN-L)
  • 1432-0428
OpenAlex
W2762240305
Cited by
160
References
51
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 28 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 1
FWCI
2.74
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Diabetologia (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
American Diabetes Association (7-13-JF-53)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Complementary and alternative medicine › Cardiovascular and exercise physiology
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetics and Physical Performance
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Physical Activity and Health
Keywords
exercise metabolism, cardiorespiratory fitness, epigenetics, metabolomics, lipidomics, proteomics, multi-omics integration
MeSH terms
Animals, Humans, Phenotype, Physical Fitness, Exercise, Muscle, Skeletal, Proteomics

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review