same physiology, different results

[asooneyeonig]

the idea that everyone responds differently from the same workout has been an interest/hobby of mine for years. especially if we follow the idea that we all have the same anatomy and physiology.

to define physiology:
1. the branch of biology dealing with the functions and activities of living organisms and their parts, including all physical and chemical processes.

2. the organic processes or functions in an organism or in any of its parts.


if we follow the idea that all homo sapiens have the same physiology then by studying one set we understand them all. so why then do we seemingly vary in our response to the same workouts among a group of people. over the last few years i have formed an opinion, i guess you could say a hypothesis. i am curious what others have thought, if at all on this topic and what their ideas are. i will post mine. i am posting this at work and will detail it out when i have more time.

 

[JudoJosh]

(thinking outloud here)

We all have different makeups. The physiology is all the same, we are just all different. Being different =|= physiological differences. The easiest example would be muscle compensition. The adaptations are the same for everyone but some of different makeups so respond differently to specific stimuli. Physiologicaly the response is the same

 

[Driven2lift]

We vary vastly one person to the next...

Metabolisms greatly impact growth potential and nutrient utilization for building muscle or losing fat

Hormone level differences

Number of muscle fibres and also the ratio of fast and slow twitch within this.

Size differences in terms of height and limb length can make certain movement ranges more or less effective

Etc etc etc

 

[PaulBlack]

Personally, I think if you keep the major bullets points in line...

Use loads in the range of 70%-85% of 1RM
Use multi sets and reps
Use the biggest compound exercises to train the largest structures
Use some form of intensity and overload and cycling for CNS recovery
Eat enough
Rest enough

The other stuff (specific set/rep #'s, time between W/O's, routine programming etc. etc.) is kinda more a matter of choice or what we get our heads into IMO.
I am also of the opinion that one can slowly adapt to higher work output and more volume/frequency/capacity (at least for a stint anyway) and often think of a guy named Mark M. (a charge of Dr Ken's from Iron Island gym 25 years ago or so) who could not, no matter what they tried on him, gain some strength in some basic lifts. They eventually resorted to a very basic squat, BP, then 2nd day deadlift, press (or something) only lifting 2x per week. Sure it took some tweaking to get him to gain, but the major caveats seemed to hold and also agree with Ken, that he was not the average trainee or even the average hardgainer, but eventually the basic big exercises and adding weight was the crux of his gains.
Also, most trainers, as far as I know, use their basic approaches to train people. (I did anyway when I trained a few) and they gained on what I gave them and what worked for me, not the other way around.
I also think of the fad we went thru in the 90's with all the big ball and balance training. That seems to have gone by the way side, but wasn't at the time, trainers and trainees swearing by it? Maybe a lot of this stuff, is what we convince ourselves to believe in!?!? I dunno

 

[herderdude]

Opinion only:

A lot of someone's results with any program are going to come from motivation and level of effort. So regardless of genetic makeup, fiber type, leverages, et cetera, people will get the best results doing what they enjoy doing, because that program/method/philosophy will get their full attention, and their full attrition, over a longer period of time.

I suspect a lot of people will say "X worked for me while Y didn't" because they went harder and more consistently, not through any fault of their own or physiological difference, just because it agreed with the way they like to train.

 

[ZiR RED]

I was pondering this a little the other day as well.

Anthropometrics, such as muscle length and muscle insertion sites, play a role in strength development and the strength ceiling. With that in mind, fiber type makeup also plays a role. So although we all have over 600 muscles, and for the most part we all have the same muscles, we are not born with identical pecs, quads, glutes, etc. Additionally, environment will play a role on muscular development and motor pattern development. Children who are not put in walkers and are left to crawl appear to have better motor control and locomotion than those who are put in walkers or strollers, at least over the course of the first 5-10 years of life. The same could be said for nutrition, and epigenetics, such as the mothers nutrition.

For a phenotype to be represented (i.e.: blue eyes) the gene must also be present. Its more advanced than that though, as the expression of that gene is required to manifest in a phenotypical muscle adaptation. Sure, testosterone leads to anabolic processes and protein synthesis, but the ability of one to express mTOR over another are different based upon the complex congruence of an interplay of other genes, both their expression and what was handed down.

If you really want to dig into it, this is an incredible review paper:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cphy.c130009/full