CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 379Genetics and Physical PerformanceCardiovascular and exercise physiologySports Performance and Training

High responders and low responders: factors associated with individual variation in response to standardized training.

Mann, Theresa N., Lamberts, Robert P., Lambert, Michael I.·2014·Sports Medicine
DOI 10.1007/s40279-014-0197-3
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The response to an exercise intervention is often described in general terms, with the assumption that the group average represents a typical response for most individuals. In reality, however, it is more common for individuals to show a wide range of responses to an intervention rather than a similar response. This phenomenon of 'high responders' and 'low responders' following a standardized training intervention may provide helpful insights into mechanisms of training adaptation and methods of training prescription. Therefore, the aim of this review was to discuss factors associated with inter-individual variation in response to standardized, endurance-type training. It is well-known that genetic influences make an important contribution to individual variation in certain training responses. The association between genotype and training response has often been supported using heritability estimates; however, recent studies have been able to link variation in some training responses to specific single nucleotide polymorphisms. It would appear that hereditary influences are often expressed through hereditary influences on the pre-training phenotype, with some parameters showing a hereditary influence in the pre-training phenotype but not in the subsequent training response. In most cases, the pre-training phenotype appears to predict only a small amount of variation in the subsequent training response of that phenotype. However, the relationship between pre-training autonomic activity and subsequent maximal oxygen uptake response appears to show relatively stronger predictive potential. Individual variation in response to standardized training that cannot be explained by genetic influences may be related to the characteristics of the training program or lifestyle factors. Although standardized programs usually involve training prescribed by relative intensity and duration, some methods of relative exercise intensity prescription may be more successful in creating an equivalent homeostatic stress between individuals than other methods. Individual variation in the homeostatic stress associated with each training session would result in individuals experiencing a different exercise 'stimulus' and contribute to individual variation in the adaptive responses incurred over the course of the training program. Furthermore, recovery between the sessions of a standardized training program may vary amongst individuals due to factors such as training status, sleep, psychological stress, and habitual physical activity. If there is an imbalance between overall stress and recovery, some individuals may develop fatigue and even maladaptation, contributing to variation in pre-post training responses. There is some evidence that training response can be modulated by the timing and composition of dietary intake, and hence nutritional factors could also potentially contribute to individual variation in training responses. Finally, a certain amount of individual variation in responses may also be attributed to measurement error, a factor that should be accounted for wherever possible in future studies. In conclusion, there are several factors that could contribute to individual variation in response to standardized training. However, more studies are required to help clarify and quantify the role of these factors. Future studies addressing such topics may aid in the early prediction of high or low training responses and provide further insight into the mechanisms of training adaptation.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s40279-014-0197-3

Cites

108 of 108 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • A comparable homeostatic stress among individuals involved in ET, as commonly prescribed, seems unlikely.

    “Collectively considered, a comparable homeostatic stress among individuals involved in ET, as commonly prescribed, seems unlikely (Mann et al., 2014).”

    From Refuting the myth of non‐response to exercise training: ‘non‐responders’ do respond to higher dose of training (2017) · cites this paper as Mann et al., 2014

  • Definitive proof that CRF non-responders may benefit from higher ET doses can only be provided by within-subject study designs.

    “Definitive proof that CRF non-responders may benefit from higher ET doses can only be provided by within-subject study designs (Mann et al., 2014;Hecksteden et al., 2015), as originally applied in the current study and discussed hereunder.”

    From Refuting the myth of non‐response to exercise training: ‘non‐responders’ do respond to higher dose of training (2017) · cites this paper as Mann et al., 2014

  • Interindividual responsiveness to physical exercises and/or physical training and, in turn, interindividual heterogeneity in outcomes are caused by several moderators, including both non-modifiable factors and modifiable factors.

    “The interindividual responsiveness to physical exercises and/or physical training and, in turn, the interindividual heterogeneity in outcomes are caused by several moderators, including both non-modifiable factors (e.g., sex or genotypes) and modifiable factors (e.g., nutrition, social or cognitive activities, exercise prescription) (Spiering et al., 2008; Bamman et al., 2014; Mann et al., 2014;”

    From Dose-Response Matters! - A Perspective on the Exercise Prescription in Exercise-Cognition Research (2019) · cites this paper as Mann et al., 2014

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Mann, T. N., Lamberts, R. P., & Lambert, M. I.
Affiliations
University of Cape Town (ZA)
Corresponding author
Mann, Theresa N.
ORCID
Venue
Sports Medicine
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2014-05-08
Volume
44
Issue
8
Pages
1113-1124
ISSN
  • 0112-1642 (ISSN-L)
  • 1179-2035
DOI
10.1007/s40279-014-0197-3
OpenAlex
W1983962926
Cited by
379
References
108
Citations by year
2026: 33 · 2025: 26 · 2024: 38 · 2023: 32 · 2022: 34 · 2021: 49 · 2020: 34 · 2019: 43 · 2018: 34 · 2017: 31 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 1
FWCI
12.04
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
Locations
  • Sports Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (publishedVersion)
Funders
Ernst and Ethel Eriksen Trust
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetics and Physical Performance
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Complementary and alternative medicine › Cardiovascular and exercise physiology
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Orthopedics and Sports Medicine › Sports Performance and Training
Keywords
endurance training, training effects, single nucleotide polymorphisms, heritability, VO2max, autonomic nervous system activity, training prescription, relative exercise intensity, fatigue, maladaptation, dietary intake, measurement error, standardized training program, training status
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Physiological, Genotype, Humans, Nutritional Status, Phenotype, Physical Education and Training, Physical Endurance, Sleep Wake Disorders, Stress, Psychological

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