Cited by 165Cardiovascular and exercise physiologyPhysical Activity and HealthSports Performance and Training

Do Non-Responders to Exercise Exist—and If So, What Should We Do About Them?

Open access
Pickering, Craig, Kiely, John·2019·Sports Medicine

Abstract

It is well established that exercise is an important component in the maintenance of good health, and yet recent studies have demonstrated that a sub-section of individuals experience no significant improvements following an exercise training intervention. Such individuals are commonly termed "non-responders". However, recently a number of researchers have taken a skeptical view as to whether exercise non-response either exists, or is clinically relevant. Here, we explore the research underpinning exercise response, to determine whether non-response to exercise actually exists. We discuss the impact of measurement error and assessment type on the identification of "non-responders", and whether such non-response is global- or modality-specific. Additionally, we discuss whether, if non-response to an exercise intervention is meaningful and relevant, certain additional interventions-in the form of increasing exercise intensity, volume, or duration-could be made in order to enhance training adaptations. Consequently, based on our interpretations of the available evidence, we suggest that it is unlikely that global non-responders to exercise exist. Furthermore, we suggest this realization effectively counters the perception that some individuals will not positively respond to exercise, and that in turn, this insight serves to encourage health professionals to create more nuanced, efficacious, and individually-focused exercise prescriptions designed to circumvent and overcome apparent non-responsiveness. Adopting a more individually-adaptive approach to exercise prescription could, subsequently, prove a powerful tool in promoting population health.

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/s40279-018-01041-1

Cites

65 of 65 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

  • In non-invasive brain stimulation and other intervention studies, non-responders are routinely excluded or treated differently.

    “in non-invasive brain stimulation studies84,85 or other intervention studies, such as those focusing on physical exercise or nutrition86–89, ‘non-responders’ are routinely excluded from data analyses or treated differently.”

    From Near transfer to an unrelated N-back task mediates the effect of N-back working memory training on matrix reasoning (2022) · cites this paper as [89]

    The “Did Not Respond”—Potential Interventions section describes exercise non-responders receiving a modified training intervention, so it supports the possibility of treating them differently. It does not say that non-responders are routinely excluded from data analyses or routinely treated differently in intervention studies. This source addresses exercise, not the brain-stimulation studies cited separately in the sentence. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 67 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Pickering, C., & Kiely, J.
Affiliations
University of Lancashire (GB)
Corresponding author
Pickering, Craig
Venue
Sports Medicine
Published
2018-12-17
Volume
49
Issue
1
Pages
1-7
ISSN
  • 0112-1642 (ISSN-L)
  • 1179-2035
OpenAlex
W2904417441
Cited by
165
References
67
Citations by year
2026: 21 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 32 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 1
FWCI
23.68
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Sports Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • CLOK (University of Central Lancashire) (acceptedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • Nova Science Publishers (Nova Science Publishers, Inc.) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • University of Limerick Institutional Repository (University of Limerick) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • University of Limerick Institutional Repository (University of Limerick)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Complementary and alternative medicine › Cardiovascular and exercise physiology
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Physical Activity and Health
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Orthopedics and Sports Medicine › Sports Performance and Training
Keywords
exercise response, exercise training intervention, measurement error, exercise prescription, individualized exercise prescription, exercise intensity, training effects, population health
MeSH terms
Biological Variation, Individual, Adaptation, Physiological, Exercise Therapy, Humans, Exercise, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Treatment Failure

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