KEY POINTS: Exercise is considered medicine; however, the individual degree of responsiveness to a standardized dose of exercise is idiosyncratic. Individual responsiveness between distinct exercise modalities and the genetic/environmental contributions to exercise response are not well understood. In this novel randomized cross-over design study, monozygotic and dizygotic twins, as pairs, underwent 3 months of resistance and endurance training, separated by a 3 month washout period, aiming to assess training responses in strength and fitness outcomes to dichotomous training modalities, as well as the genetic/environmental contributions to exercise response. Our findings indicate that (i) individual responsiveness differs between exercise modalities; (ii) low-responders to one mode may be 'rescued' by switching to an alternate mode of exercise; and (iii) genes may not play as large a role, as previously estimated from cross-sectional data, for exercise training adaptation. The present study has implications for those charged with optimizing the benefits of exercise by means of individualizing the exercise prescription. ABSTRACT: = 0.45, P = 0.02) with a mixture of unshared/shared environmental contributions. Our findings indicate that individual responsiveness differs between modalities and low-responders to one mode may be 'rescued' by switching to an alternate mode. Additionally, genes may not play as large a role as previously estimated from cross-sectional data for training adaptation, and/or cross-sectional data do not reflect longitudinal training effects. The present study has implications for optimizing the individualization of exercise prescription.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Marsh et al. (2020) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: