Unsuccessful with Your Exercise Routine? Science – Backed Solutions Await

Introduction

Is your exercise program failing to yield the desired results? This article delves into evidence – based strategies to address this concern. It’s crucial to understand that a one – size – fits – all approach to exercise is a fallacy. Even when two individuals engage in identical workouts, the outcomes can vary significantly. For instance, one person might toil in the gym for months with minimal progress, while their training partner experiences enhanced strength with each session.

The Concept of Non – Responders in Exercise Research

Exercise research has a term for those who don’t achieve the anticipated results from a particular exercise type: non – responders. Multiple studies have shown that within the same exercise program, some participants experience substantial improvements, while others show no improvement at all.

Example of Individual Variation in Response to an Exercise Program

A study involving 121 adults participating in a 24 – week walking program, exercising five times a week, illustrates this point. Prior to the study’s commencement, the participants were randomly divided into three groups:
– Low – amount, low – intensity group (Low group): They walked for an average of 31 minutes per session at a moderate intensity as per exercise guidelines.
– High – amount, low – intensity group (Medium group): Walking at the same intensity as the low group, they spent approximately double the time per session, averaging 58 minutes.
– High – amount, high – intensity group (High group): These participants walked for about 40 minutes per session at a vigorous intensity.

Throughout the study, cardio fitness was measured several times. After six months, the results were as follows:
– In the low group, 62% of participants improved their fitness.
– In the medium group, 82% experienced fitness improvements.
– In the high group, 100% of participants saw an improvement in their fitness.

Moreover, upon closer inspection, there was a wide range of fitness changes even within each group. For example:
– In the low group, the fitness response ranged from an 8% decrease to a 30% improvement.
– The medium group had a range from a 10% loss to a 43% improvement.
– In the high group, the least responsive participant improved by 7%, while the top responder had a remarkable 118% improvement.

This study focused on endurance – type exercise for cardiovascular fitness, but similar variations occur in other exercise studies, including interval training and strength training. In a strength training study, a 12 – week program led to strength changes ranging from no improvement to a 250% increase among different individuals. Muscle growth also varied significantly, with one person experiencing a 2% decrease in muscle size and the most responsive person a 59% increase.

This phenomenon is not limited to exercise; it also appears in nutrition science. People following the same diet can experience diverse weight – loss outcomes, and in some cases, even weight gain.

Reasons for These Differences

The factors contributing to these differences are complex. While elements such as sleep, stress, nutrition, and incidental physical activity can influence an individual’s response to an exercise program, researchers attempt to control these variables by having participants follow a standardized diet or wear activity trackers outside the lab. However, complete control is unattainable. Genetic factors also play a substantial role, with research indicating that approximately 50% of the response to cardio exercise is due to genetic differences.

Lessons Learned from the Research

Consistency in Exercise Is Paramount

The most effective exercise program is the one you will adhere to regularly. In the walking study, the researchers only reported fitness improvements for those who attended at least 90% of the exercise sessions over six months. When those who attended at least 70% of the sessions were included, the percentage of people with improved fitness dropped. While 70% attendance is still relatively consistent (equating to an average of 3.5 sessions per week for six months), more consistency is better. Those who attended 4.5 sessions per week (90% of the total) were more likely to improve. Consistency is likely the most critical factor in reaping the benefits of exercise. Set small, achievable goals and develop sustainable exercise habits if consistency is a challenge.

Ensure a Holistic Healthy Lifestyle

Adequate sleep, proper hydration, a nutritious diet, regular movement throughout the day, and effective stress management are essential. Without these aspects under control, it’s impossible to determine whether it’s the exercise program or other lifestyle factors hindering progress.

If One Approach Fails, Try Another

If you have healthy lifestyle habits and have been consistent with your exercise for months with disappointing results, consider the following:
– Adjust intensity or duration: In the walking study, some participants who didn’t improve with moderate – intensity exercise saw improvements when the intensity was increased or the duration was doubled.
– Increase the number of sessions: In a cycling study, those who cycled 1 – 2 times per week didn’t all improve, but those who cycled 4 – 5 times per week did. Adding more sessions also led to improvements for those who initially didn’t respond.
– Switch to a different type of training: A study with a three – week endurance cycling program and a three – week interval training program in random order showed that some people who didn’t improve with one program did so with the other. For strength training, different set and rep protocols may be effective for different individuals. If the traditional four sets of 8 – 12 reps don’t work for increasing muscle mass, try heavier weights with fewer reps or lighter weights with more reps.

Treat Your Training as a Scientific Experiment

Exercise offers numerous vital benefits, including improved body composition, reduced disease risk, enhanced performance, brain function, and mood. Even if you don’t observe the specific results you expect, consistent exercise will improve your health and fitness in some way. For example, in a one – year cardio program, while individual responses varied, every participant showed improvement in at least one aspect of their fitness.

To track your progress effectively:
– Identify important benefits: Make a list of the exercise benefits that matter to you.
– Choose relevant metrics:
– For health, track resting heart rate, blood pressure, or blood sugar.
– For body composition, monitor body fat percentage or measurements.
– For fitness and performance, record the time to cover a certain distance, the weight lifted, or the number of push – ups/pull – ups.
– For more intangible benefits like mood, use a 1 – 10 scale to assess your daily feelings.
– Log your data: Use a notebook, spreadsheet, or your phone to record this information. Follow a program for a few weeks or months, evaluate your response, and make adjustments as needed.

Avoid Comparing Yourself to Others

It’s clear that just because your friend achieved great results with a particular program doesn’t mean you will. Focus on your own progress.

Conclusion

If you don’t see the desired results, keep persevering. If the situation persists, try a different approach. Remember, scientific evidence shows that everyone responds to exercise. Consistent effort will lead to meaningful benefits.

References

1. Pickering, Craig, and John Kiely. “Do Non – Responders to Exercise Exist—and if so, What Should We Do About Them?.” Sports Medicine 49, no. 1 (2019):1 – 7.
2. Ross, Robert, Louise de Lannoy, and Paula J. Stotz. “Separate Effects of Intensity and Amount of Exercise on Interindividual Cardiorespiratory Fitness Response.” Mayo Clinic, Proceedings 90, no. 11, (2015): 1506 – 1514.
3. Gurd, Brendon J., Matthew D. Giles, Jacob T. Bonafiglia, James P. Raleigh, John C. Boyd, Jasmin K. Ma, Jason GE Zelt, and Trisha D. Scribbans. “Incidence of nonresponse and individual patterns of response following sprint interval training.” Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism 41, no. 3 (2016): 229 – 234.
4. Hubal, Monica J., Heather Gordish – Dressman, Paul D. Thompson, Thomas B. Price, Eric P. Hoffman, Theodore J. Angelopoulos, Paul M. Gordon, et al. “Variability in muscle size and strength gain after unilateral resistance training.” Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise 37, no. 6 (2005): 964 – 972.
5. Gardner, Christopher D., John F. Trepanowski, Liana C. Del Gobbo, Michelle E. Hauser, Joseph Rigdon, John PA Ioannidis, Manisha Desai, and Abby C. King. “Effect of Low – Fat vs Low – Carbohydrate Diet on 12 – Month Weight Loss in Overweight Adults and the Association With Genotype Pattern or Insulin Secretion: The DIETFITS Randomized Clinical Trial.” Jama, 319, no. 7 (2018): 667 – 679.
6. Ross, Robert, Bret H. Goodpaster, Lauren G. Koch, Mark A. Sarzynski, Wendy M. Kohrt, Neil M. Johannsen, James S. Skinner, et al. “Precision exercise medicine: understanding exercise response variability.” British Journal of Sports Medicine 53, no. 18 (2019): 1141 – 1153.
7. Montero, David, and Carsten Lundby. “Refuting the myth of non – response to exercise training: ‘non – responders’ do respond to higher dose of training.” The Journal of Physiology 595, no. 11 (2017): 3377 – 3387.
8. Bonafiglia, Jacob T., Mario P. Rotundo, Jonathan P. Whittall, Trisha D. Scribbans, Ryan B. Graham, and Brendon J. Gurd. “Inter – Individual Variability in the Adaptive Responses to Endurance and Sprint Interval Training: a Randomized Crossover Study.” PloS one 11, no. 12, (2016).
9. Beaven, C. Martyn, Christian J. Cook, and Nicholas D. Gill. “Significant Strength Gains Observed in Rugby Players After Specific Resistance Exercise Protocols Based on Individual Salivary Testosterone Responses.” The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 22, no. 2 (2008): 419 – 425.
10. Scharhag – Rosenberger, Friederike, Susanne Walitzek, Wilfried Kindermann, and Tim Meyer. “Differences in adaptations to 1 year of aerobic endurance training: individual patterns of nonresponse.” Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports 22, no. 1 (2012): 113 – 118.