Advertisement

A Method to Stop Analyzing Random Error and Start Analyzing Differential Responders to Exercise

Abstract

It is commonly stated that individuals respond differently to exercise even when the same exercise intervention is performed. This has led many researchers to conduct exercise interventions and subsequently categorize individuals into different responder categories to determine what causes individuals to respond differently. Some methods by which differential responders are categorized include percentile ranks, standard deviations from the mean, and cluster analyses. Notably, each of these methods will result in the presence of differential responders even in the absence of an exercise intervention, indicating that individuals may be categorized based on the presence of random error as opposed to true differences in the exercise response. Here we propose a method by which differential responders can be classified after accounting for the presence of random error that is quantified from a time-matched control group. Individuals who exceed random error from the mean response of the intervention group can be confidently labelled as high and low responders. Importantly, the number of differential responders will be proportional to the ratio of variance in the exercise and control groups. We provide easy-to-follow steps and examples to demonstrate how this technique can identify differential responders to exercise. We also detail the flaws in other classification methods by demonstrating the number of differential responders who would have been classified using the same data set. Our hope is that this method will help to avoid misclassifying individuals based on random error and, in turn, increase the replicability of differential responder studies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant unlimited access to the full article PDF.

US$ 49.95

Price includes VAT for USA

Subscribe to journal

Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.

US$ 199

This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

References

  1. 1.

    American College of Sports Medicine. American College of Sports Medicine position stand. Progression models in resistance training for healthy adults. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2009;41:687–708.

  2. 2.

    Mersy DJ. Health benefits of aerobic exercise. Postgrad Med. 1991;90(103–7):110–2.

  3. 3.

    Dankel SJ, Loenneke JP, Loprinzi PD. Participation in muscle-strengthening activities as an alternative method for the prevention of multimorbidity. Prev Med. 2015;81:54–7.

  4. 4.

    Dankel SJ, Loenneke JP, Loprinzi PD. Determining the importance of meeting muscle-strengthening activity guidelines: is the behavior or the outcome of the behavior (strength) a more important determinant of all-cause mortality? Mayo Clin Proc. 2016;91:166–74.

  5. 5.

    Bouchard C, Rankinen T. Individual differences in response to regular physical activity. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2001;33:S446–51 (453).

  6. 6.

    Hubal MJ, Gordish-Dressman H, Thompson PD, Price TB, Hoffman EP, Angelopoulos TJ, et al. Variability in muscle size and strength gain after unilateral resistance training. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2005;37:964–72.

  7. 7.

    Buford TW, Pahor M. Making preventive medicine more personalized: implications for exercise-related research. Prev Med. 2012;55:34–6.

  8. 8.

    Visscher PM, Brown MA, McCarthy MI, Yang J. Five years of GWAS discovery. Am J Hum Genet. 2012;90:7–24.

  9. 9.

    Atkinson G, Batterham AM. True and false interindividual differences in the physiological response to an intervention. Exp Physiol. 2015;100:577–88.

  10. 10.

    Hecksteden A, Kraushaar J, Scharhag-Rosenberger F, Theisen D, Senn S, Meyer T. Individual response to exercise training—a statistical perspective. J Appl Physiol. 2015. https://doi.org/10.1152/japplphysiol.00714.2014.

  11. 11.

    Voisin S, Jacques M, Lucia A, Bishop DJ, Eynon N. Statistical considerations for exercise protocols aimed at measuring trainability. Exerc Sport Sci Rev. 2019;47:37–45.

  12. 12.

    Fatouros I, Kambas A, Katrabasas I, Nikolaidis K, Chatzinikolaou A, Leontsini D, et al. Strength training and detraining effects on muscular strength, anaerobic power, and mobility of inactive older men are intensity dependent. Br J Sports Med. 2005;39:776–80.

  13. 13.

    Williamson PJ, Atkinson G, Batterham AM. Inter-individual responses of maximal oxygen uptake to exercise training: a critical review. Sports Med. 2017;47:1501–13.

  14. 14.

    Morton RW, Sato K, Gallaugher MPB, Oikawa SY, McNicholas PD, Fujita S, et al. Muscle androgen receptor content but not systemic hormones is associated with resistance training-induced skeletal muscle hypertrophy in healthy, young men. Front Physiol [Internet]. 2018. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fphys.2018.01373/full. Accessed 20 Feb 2019.

  15. 15.

    Davidsen PK, Gallagher IJ, Hartman JW, Tarnopolsky MA, Dela F, Helge JW, et al. High responders to resistance exercise training demonstrate differential regulation of skeletal muscle microRNA expression. J Appl Physiol. 1985;2011(110):309–17.

  16. 16.

    Erskine RM, Jones DA, Williams AG, Stewart CE, Degens H. Inter-individual variability in the adaptation of human muscle specific tension to progressive resistance training. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2010;110:1117–25.

  17. 17.

    Ahtiainen JP, Walker S, Peltonen H, Holviala J, Sillanpää E, Karavirta L, et al. Heterogeneity in resistance training-induced muscle strength and mass responses in men and women of different ages. Age (Dordr). 2016;38:10.

  18. 18.

    Bamman MM, Petrella JK, Kim J, Mayhew DL, Cross JM. Cluster analysis tests the importance of myogenic gene expression during myofiber hypertrophy in humans. J Appl Physiol. 2007;102:2232–9.

  19. 19.

    Haun CT, Vann CG, Mobley CB, Osburn SC, Mumford PW, Roberson PA, et al. Pre-training skeletal muscle fiber size and predominant fiber type best predict hypertrophic responses to 6 weeks of resistance training in previously trained young men. Front Physiol [Internet]. 2019. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fphys.2019.00297/full. Accessed 28 Mar 2019.

  20. 20.

    Kim J-S, Petrella JK, Cross JM, Bamman MM. Load-mediated downregulation of myostatin mRNA is not sufficient to promote myofiber hypertrophy in humans: a cluster analysis. J Appl Physiol. 1985;2007(103):1488–95.

  21. 21.

    Petrella JK, Kim J-S, Mayhew DL, Cross JM, Bamman MM. Potent myofiber hypertrophy during resistance training in humans is associated with satellite cell-mediated myonuclear addition: a cluster analysis. J Appl Physiol. 1985;2008(104):1736–42.

  22. 22.

    Roberts MD, Romero MA, Mobley CB, Mumford PW, Roberson PA, Haun CT, et al. Skeletal muscle mitochondrial volume and myozenin-1 protein differences exist between high versus low anabolic responders to resistance training. PeerJ. 2018;6:e5338.

  23. 23.

    Thalacker-Mercer A, Stec M, Cui X, Cross J, Windham S, Bamman M. Cluster analysis reveals differential transcript profiles associated with resistance training-induced human skeletal muscle hypertrophy. Physiol Genomics. 2013;45:499–507.

  24. 24.

    Thalacker-Mercer AE, Petrella JK, Bamman MM. Does habitual dietary intake influence myofiber hypertrophy in response to resistance training? a cluster analysis. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab. 2009;34:632–9.

  25. 25.

    Dankel SJ, Bell ZW, Spitz RW, Wong V, Viana RB, Chatakondi RN, et al. Are there differential responders to resistance exercise after accounting for random error? Sports Med (submitted for consideration).

  26. 26.

    Munn J, Herbert RD, Gandevia SC. Contralateral effects of unilateral resistance training: a meta-analysis. J Appl Physiol. 1985;2004(96):1861–6.

  27. 27.

    Bouchard C, Blair SN, Church TS, Earnest CP, Hagberg JM, Häkkinen K, et al. Adverse metabolic response to regular exercise: is it a rare or common occurrence? PloS One. 2012;7:e37887.

  28. 28.

    Montero D, Lundby C. Refuting the myth of non-response to exercise training: “non-responders” do respond to higher dose of training. J Physiol. 2017;595:3377–87.

  29. 29.

    Atkinson G, Nevill AM. Statistical methods for assessing measurement error (reliability) in variables relevant to sports medicine. Sports Med. 1998;26:217–38.

  30. 30.

    Atkinson G, Williamson P, Batterham AM. Issues in the determination of “responders” and “non-responders” in physiological research. Exp Physiol. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1113/ep087712.

  31. 31.

    Mobley CB, Haun CT, Roberson PA, Mumford PW, Kephart WC, Romero MA, et al. Biomarkers associated with low, moderate, and high vastus lateralis muscle hypertrophy following 12 weeks of resistance training. PloS One. 2018;13:e0195203.

  32. 32.

    Senn S, Rolfe K, Julious SA. Investigating variability in patient response to treatment—a case study from a replicate cross-over study. Stat Methods Med Res. 2011;20:657–66.

Download references

Author information

Correspondence to Jeremy P. Loenneke.

Ethics declarations

Funding

No sources of funding were used to assist in the preparation of this article.

Conflict of interest

Scott Dankel and Jeremy Loenneke have no conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to the content of this article.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dankel, S.J., Loenneke, J.P. A Method to Stop Analyzing Random Error and Start Analyzing Differential Responders to Exercise. Sports Med (2019) doi:10.1007/s40279-019-01147-0

Download citation