[petejh]

Occasionally I find myself thinking that certain people I meet and/or read on here might be poor responders to training stimulus.. naming no names!

So as per the title - who's had a genetic test for training responsiveness, who wants one and what are people's views?

I sent one off about 3 years ago but they lost it (XR Genomics). They sent me a replacement kit but I didn't ever get around bothering to re-do it.

The one I did tested to predict responsiveness to aerobic endurance only. More recently a climbing friend took a test which predicted responsiveness training endurance and power (which I find interesting); natural VO2 max, recovery potential - based on ability to clear free radicals, predisposition to injury, specific nutrition needs. I have his results pdf and it details results for the 27 different genes they test for and what training effect they may have.

I say 'predicted', I'm aware it's far from undisputed how powerful a predictor of training responsiveness genetic testing actually is. Here's a good paper on the subject, and it's conclusion (Think I recognise the 'H. Wackeridge' from winter climbing..?):

http://pilarmartinescudero.es/2017%20en-mar/Genetic%20testing%20for%20sport%20perfomance.%20Practical%20and%20ethical%20considerations.pdf

The focus of this paper has been on the potential use of genetic tests to predict performance and/or the risk of exercise-related injury or illness. The knowledge base is expected to develop so that the prescription of training, nutrition and competition load, and the management of injury risk, can be conducted in a more individualized manner than is currently possible to improve both performance and athlete welfare. Consequently, various people may wish to conduct a sport-related genetic test on themselves, or on another person, for a variety of reasons. An individual may seek personal genetic information to assist him/her with their own sporting participation and career, by identifying the most suitable type of sport. A sports coach may wish to test the members of a youth team to assist in selection for a professional career or to individualize training. A physician may want to predict the risk of injury or illness in an athlete and advise a coach regarding selection or preventative measures. An insurance company may seek to estimate the risk of career-threatening injury or illness to an athlete based partly on genetic information. However, despite the commercial availability of genetic tests today, the evidence available at present suggests that few, and probably none, of these or similar scenarios are scientifically justified – the genetic tests available at the moment are not powerful enough to provide valid data on which to base important decisions in sport.

[Ru]

My gut instinct is that there are a lot of genetic factors affecting performance and that there is unlikely to be any consensus (or even real knowledge) on which ones are the most important. There is a confounding factor in that genetic testing can only tell you what genes you have, it cannot tell you anything about epigenetics - i.e. the degree of functionality of those genes. Similarly many genes code for many different things at once and there is a degree of overlapping functionality so just knowing whether or not someone has a certain gene doesn't necessarily mean you know whether (or to what degree) they are advantaged/disadvantaged.

Disclaimer: my wife is a doctor and uses genetic testing, mostly looking at metabolic issues that lead to chronic disease, hence I know virtually nothing about this, but just enough to be able to sound like I do to others that also don't know much about it.

[Doylo]

You been reading Luke's power club?

[slackline]

There are an estimated ~30,000 genes in the human genome and a lot of other regulatory regions that control their expression (much of which hasn't yet been identified).  To date science has identified many genes for monogenic disorders (single gene, e.g. Cystic Fibrosis, Huntingtons Disease, Phenylketoneuria) and some with large effects in multifactorial diseases (e.g. BRCA1 and BRCA2 which increase risk of breast cancer).  There is variable penetrance for each mutation (the degree to which a given phenotype is manifested based on genotype) and many of these things interact with complex environmental factors to result in your current physiological state and its 'responsiveness' to training.

A quick scan of the paper suggests around 20 genes have been shown to be associated with responsiveness and are tested for in commercial kits.  Some of those I recognise as part of the immune systems response (e.g. IL6 which is an Interleukin and TNF which is Tumor Necrosis Factor).  Each of these has lots of variants in it, and not all will have been tested for association, rather reference frameworks of Single Nucelotide Polymorphisms (SNPs) are tested and typed on Illumina or Affymetrix genotyping arrays and some will be virtue of linkage disequilibrium show association but not be the causual variant itself.

All in all I'd say Science^TM is a long way off being able to give a genetic profile for anything but a relatively small handful of diseases and a long way off something as complicated as repsonsiveness to training, but people are working on it.  You can browse tons of information about the effect of variants at Online Mendelian Inherithance in Man and the more promising studies are things like the UK Biobank and 1000 Genomes projects.

Thats not to say there isn't an underlying genetic component involved which interacts with the environment and is manifest in the variation you see around you, just that we're a long way off being able to "test" for it, so I agree with the papers conclusion.


Disclaimer : Studied Genetic Epidemiology all about mapping disease genes and worked for +10 years as Genetics Statistician on identifying genes in complex human diseases such as Rheumatoid Arthritis, Lupus, macular degeneration, kidney disease in children and breast cancer.

[alx]

You should look to your ideal wine pairing for performance enhancement.

https://www.vinome.com

[jwi]

You should look to your ideal wine pairing for performance enhancement.

https://www.vinome.com

Hahaha. Duly wadded.

[TobyD]

Isn't it more likely that limitations are exposed through simply not doing the right training for the individual and their specific goal, or a deficiency in skills?

[Luke Owens]

Occasionally I find myself thinking that Luke might be a poor responder to training stimulus..

FTFY, I have an idea; Can everyone crowd fund me to do a lattice assessment and get a training plan from Tom which I'll follow to prove it's impossible for me to improve? 

Then, If everyone can pay for me to get a genetic test done we can all ponder over the results.

You been reading Luke's power club?

 

[Tommy]

The "poor responders" concept is a really interesting one. I've come across a number of climbers over the years who seem to have really terrible response to training and they fit in this box where I think "damn, why did they never fulfil their potential that they had on paper?".

In the early years I put it down to crap training plans, wrong conclusions or training methodology not being suited to the individual. However over time, I've come to think the following are often are more likely:

1. The person's weight fluctuates too heavily through the year

2. They do the training, BUT they also do way too much other stuff (more climbing, running, cycling, DIY)

3. They don't recognise how stressful and energy draining their life is (hard jobs, family, sleep cycles, partying)

4. They convince themselves they're either "naturally weak" or "naturally strong" and then pigeon hole their training sessions to suit this. It's like a self-fulfilling prophecy. They're weak, so actually they avoid a lot of the truly hard stuff in training as it makes them feel rubbish... or likewise the opposite for strong, unfit climbers. I'm massively guilty of this. 

5. Their balance of indoor (training) vs outdoor (performance) is really out of kilter with their skill set. It's damn hard to get right, but it's a massive effect.

I bet if any coach worth their salt spend 10 one-on-one sessions with Luke he'd see an improvement. It's just a shame that it costs money or can't persuade a mate to do that!

[mrjonathanr]

The "poor responders" concept is a really interesting one. I've come across a number of climbers over the years who seem to have really terrible response to training and they fit in this box where I think "damn, why did they never fulfil their potential that they had on paper?".

3. They don't recognise how stressful and energy draining their life is (hard jobs, family, sleep cycles, partying)

That covers most of the middle aged dads on here.

[Nutty]

The "poor responders" concept is a really interesting one. I've come across a number of climbers over the years who seem to have really terrible response to training and they fit in this box where I think "damn, why did they never fulfil their potential that they had on paper?".

3. They don't recognise how stressful and energy draining their life is (hard jobs, family, sleep cycles, partying)

That covers most of the middle aged dads on here.

Except the partying!

[slackline]

Seen in local Oxfam at lunch today...




£2.99, let me know if you're interested in it petejh

Its worth remembering that its possible to demonstrate that something is heritable (i.e. has a genetic component) without knowing anything about the genes involved.  The original and classic example is the hereditary nature of pea flowers and pea shapes demonstrated by the monk Gregor Mendel long before it was even known that DNA (rather than the proteins that they encode) was the heritable material, and even further before the structure of DNA and the molecular biology revolution that ensued.  Mendels theory of particulate inherithance was nicely reconciled with the continuous nature of characteristics by RA Fisher, JBS Haldane and Sewall Wright to form the foundation of the current neo-Darwinist theory of evolution.  RA Fishers The Genetical Theory of Nautral Selection is well worth a read if so inclined.

[DAVETHOMAS90]

Are you trying to break it to him gently, Slackline? 

(or indeed, the rest of us)

[bigironhorse]

There is a confounding factor in that genetic testing can only tell you what genes you have, it cannot tell you anything about epigenetics - i.e. the degree of functionality of those genes.

You can test for some epigenetic marks, for example DNA methylation by bisulphite sequencing. The usefulness of this would probably  be even less than than that of the a basic genetic test as the effects of epigenetic changes on specific genes are generally poorly understood.

[Oldmanmatt]

The one I did tested to predict responsiveness to aerobic endurance only. More recently a climbing friend took a test which predicted responsiveness training endurance and power (which I find interesting); natural VO2 max, recovery potential - based on ability to clear free radicals, predisposition to injury, specific nutrition needs.

Coming from someone as large and strong as you, I find this painfully ironic.
Today, someone described you as “Hardly ever goes near a campus board, then gets up off the couch and 1-5-8’s like it’s easy”.

[Oldmanmatt]

The "poor responders" concept is a really interesting one. I've come across a number of climbers over the years who seem to have really terrible response to training and they fit in this box where I think "damn, why did they never fulfil their potential that they had on paper?".

In the early years I put it down to crap training plans, wrong conclusions or training methodology not being suited to the individual. However over time, I've come to think the following are often are more likely:

1. The person's weight fluctuates too heavily through the year

2. They do the training, BUT they also do way too much other stuff (more climbing, running, cycling, DIY)

3. They don't recognise how stressful and energy draining their life is (hard jobs, family, sleep cycles, partying)

4. They convince themselves they're either "naturally weak" or "naturally strong" and then pigeon hole their training sessions to suit this. It's like a self-fulfilling prophecy. They're weak, so actually they avoid a lot of the truly hard stuff in training as it makes them feel rubbish... or likewise the opposite for strong, unfit climbers. I'm massively guilty of this. 

5. Their balance of indoor (training) vs outdoor (performance) is really out of kilter with their skill set. It's damn hard to get right, but it's a massive effect.

I bet if any coach worth their salt spend 10 one-on-one sessions with Luke he'd see an improvement. It's just a shame that it costs money or can't persuade a mate to do that!

Damn, but if this isn’t the exact conversation I had with Toby this morning...

Weird.

He agrees with you, btw.

[Oldmanmatt]

The "poor responders" concept is a really interesting one. I've come across a number of climbers over the years who seem to have really terrible response to training and they fit in this box where I think "damn, why did they never fulfil their potential that they had on paper?".

3. They don't recognise how stressful and energy draining their life is (hard jobs, family, sleep cycles, partying)

That covers most of the middle aged dads on here.

Except the partying!

Oh I party almost every weekend.

I took my 8 year old to on last Saturday, it’s my other 8 (now 9) year olds birthday party tonight and I’m driving the 12 year old to a party/sleep over this Friday.
I’m a God-Damned-Partying-Tyranosaurous-frigging-Rex mate!

[slackline]

The "poor responders" concept is a really interesting one. I've come across a number of climbers over the years who seem to have really terrible response to training and they fit in this box where I think "damn, why did they never fulfil their potential that they had on paper?".

In the early years I put it down to crap training plans, wrong conclusions or training methodology not being suited to the individual. However over time, I've come to think the following are often are more likely:

1. The person's weight fluctuates too heavily through the year

2. They do the training, BUT they also do way too much other stuff (more climbing, running, cycling, DIY)

3. They don't recognise how stressful and energy draining their life is (hard jobs, family, sleep cycles, partying)

4. They convince themselves they're either "naturally weak" or "naturally strong" and then pigeon hole their training sessions to suit this. It's like a self-fulfilling prophecy. They're weak, so actually they avoid a lot of the truly hard stuff in training as it makes them feel rubbish... or likewise the opposite for strong, unfit climbers. I'm massively guilty of this. 

5. Their balance of indoor (training) vs outdoor (performance) is really out of kilter with their skill set. It's damn hard to get right, but it's a massive effect.

I bet if any coach worth their salt spend 10 one-on-one sessions with Luke he'd see an improvement. It's just a shame that it costs money or can't persuade a mate to do that!

This reads to me as though some people are poor at adherence to a training plan rather than being poor responders.

Its one of the reasons clinical trials will often employ two forms of analyses, Intention To Treat and Per-Protocol (entries on Wikipedia explain the difference for those interested).

[petejh]

Coming from someone as large and strong as you, I find this painfully ironic.
Today, someone described you as “Hardly ever goes near a campus board, then gets up off the couch and 1-5-8’s like it’s easy”.

You are joking, I assume?! 147 on smalls is my standard, never done 158 

[petejh]

Luke you're not the only one - there's a certain individual with a passing resemblance to housewives favourite telly doc, Michael Mosley, who I also wonder about...

[nai]

I reckon certain individual could adapt but doesn't give him, or her, self chance to and might be guilty of 3,4 or 5 of Tommy's loist

[slackline]

What should pop up in my Twitter stream this morning which is bang on topic for you petejh...


Genome-wide association study of habitual physical activity in over 277,000 UK Biobank participants identifies multiple variants including CADM2 and APOE

Physical activity (PA) protects against a wide range of diseases. Engagement in habitual PA has been shown to be heritable, motivating the search for specific genetic variants that may ultimately inform efforts to promote PA and target the best type of PA for each individual. We used data from the UK Biobank to perform the largest genome-wide association study of PA to date, using three measures based on self-report (n=277,656) and two measures based on wrist-worn accelerometry data (n=67,808). We examined genetic correlations of PA with other traits and diseases, as well as tissue-specific gene expression patterns. With data from the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC; n=8,556) study, we performed a meta-analysis of our top hits for moderate-to-vigorous PA (MVPA). We identified 26 genome-wide loci across the five PA measures examined. Upon meta-analysis of the top hits for MVPA with results from the ARIC study, 8 of 10 remained significant at p<5x10-8. Interestingly, among these, the rs429358 variant in the APOE gene was the most strongly associated with MVPA. Variants in CADM2, a gene recently implicated in risk-taking behavior and other personality and cognitive traits, were found to be associated with regular engagement in strenuous sports or other exercises. We also identified thirteen loci consistently associated (p<0.005) with each of the five PA measures. We find genetic correlations of PA with educational attainment traits, chronotype, psychiatric traits, and obesity-related traits. Tissue enrichment analyses implicate the brain and pituitary gland as locations where PA-associated loci may exert their actions. These results provide new insight into the genetic basis of habitual PA, and the genetic links connecting PA with other traits and diseases.

[TobyD]

Coming from someone as large and strong as you, I find this painfully ironic.
Today, someone described you as “Hardly ever goes near a campus board, then gets up off the couch and 1-5-8’s like it’s easy”.

You are joking, I assume?! 147 on smalls is my standard, never done 158 

  I actually claimed 159 for you initially, Pete, but I did then correct myself to 147 IIRC. Either way, you do have some enviable off the couch power. I'm not saying this isn't as a result of hard work over a long period of time, but I'm jealous anyway.

Tommy, I totally agree with you as Matt says. Loads of people assume running etc won't really tire them out for climbing, or avoid having to look shit at the wall by working their strengths. Fortunately, only Matt can see me at the Bunker, and he already knows how shit I am, so I can happily struggle up 1-2-3...

[petejh]

Hmm.. I wonder if your relative lack of power is something to do with your genes. And if it is, whether there's a reliable test for this?
 

[slackline]

Hmm.. I wonder if your relative lack of power is something to do with your genes. And if it is, whether there's a reliable test for this?
 

No there isn't a reliable test, and there won't be for a very long time.  People don't even know the complete set of genes involved, let alone quantifying all of the variation that exists within them throughout the human population which would then allow such tests to be performed.

The BioBank paper above is how to go about tackling the first step.  You won't ever get a sufficiently large sample size of climbers in which to conduct such a study specific to climbing.