Are there people in this world that can never ever get fit?

Post Reply New Topic

Who are being told to "focus on something else" rather than exercising all the time, as it "only wastes their time" and maybe even "makes them unhealthier"?

And I'm not talking about people with heart conditions or other risky health issues.

I'm just talking about people with seriously poor genes, people who can't alter their look, no matter how hard they try and have always been like that.

People who are unable to build muscle for example.

I wonder if this is possible in human genetics?

I doubt it. If they're not getting results, they're doing something wrong.

You just have to find what works for you, whether that's vegan, paleo, low carb/high fat, low fat/high carb, zone, south beach, etc. Just test them for a while and see if they work and how you feel while on it. And don't be afraid of any of these diets, none of them are going to kill you in a short period of time unless you starve yourself. Go through the different ones try to get a good solid month of following it correctly on one before moving to another, and stick with it until you don't feel good or it just isn't working for you.

And yes some people will be slower than others in losing weight/getting healthier.

I always thought the strength difference gap between men and women is pretty strange. If you go to a bench-press competition most of the women are trying around 160-170 lbs. while some of the men are doing 500-600 lbs. or more.

There have some genetic studies that suggest some people won't gain benefits from aerobic exercise. There was a BBC documentary on it a while back. Although there are other ways to maintain health

i doubt there is a single person on the planet that can do exercise that won't benefit from it. like kurgan says they are not doing the right thing for them.

like everything it is a trade off, eg runners may have a slightly higher chance of joint injury but benefit massively aerobically. cyclists become inflexible but have really powerful hearts and legs

what are poor genes? i think you'd have to be exceptionally unlucky to not benefit from any exercise due to genes. i doubt such a person exists. epigenetics is more likely but even then there is such a slim chance i doubt there is anyone in that situation.

Well in a lot of cases, I feel like the naturally "fat" people they're basically built to be weightlifters and strength athletes. Maybe they'll never have a "six pack" or look like an Abercrombie model, but 70 foot shotput throws, strongman competitions, etc, aren't so bad. It depends, really, genetics wise. Goes to the whole somatotype thing. Some people are like real endomorph somatotypes, and some people are just fat. To a point, you have to do activities that suit you. For endos, running marathons might not be an athletic past time they'd see any degree of success in, likewise, you're not gonna see a skinny ectomorphic marathon runner throwing 70 feet, lifting tons of weight, etc, too often either. There's exceptions to the rule, and with enough work and perseverance and knowhow you can override your genetics, or your genetic makeup isn't a big deal, but yeah.

Obviously there's problems, ie, some people are born with thyroid problems, and of course there's like, severely disabled people. Nobody's gonna expect someone born with like, cystic fibrosis to be very fit. But, generally if you're otherwise not disabled, yeah, you should be able to get fit, whether this means look like an Abercrombie model, that's not known, but if you set yourself to a fitness goal (ie, run longer distances, lift more weight, jump higher) you should be able to work toward achieving it.

I knew a lady 6'6 over 400lbs. She was stronger then any one on our Highschool Football team. Could run a mile in under 6 minutes.

Still she was fat. Nothing she did caused her to lose weight. infact she kept getting a little fatter.

Why ?

She had a thyroid problem. But she did not let it stop her from working out. she worked out 6 days a week for at least 3-4 hours. I wish I was as fit as her.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, I met a girl who had to eat 10,000 to 15,000 calories a day to avoid losing weight. Again a Thyroid problem. She was not very fit. Thin yes but not fit. She had a hard time building muscle because her body was burning off the muscle and fat faster than she could put it on.

Just because someone is thin does not mean they are fit. They had a model on Dancing with The Stars who had to go to "boot camp" to get in good enough shape to be able to complete one dance training session.

You can be overweight and fit at the same time.

It is possible to excecise too much. Excessive exercise can cause health problems in later life, this particularly applies to professional sports people as they are trying to push their body to the extreme of performance.

Not everybody will be able to get to Olympic level fitness (although the different sports require different types of fitness) but most unfit people will be able to get fitter. The level of fitness they will be able to reach will depend on their genetics and life experience.

i've no idea where the idea that genetics plays a large role in 'general fitness' comes from.

can anyone show me a good reason to believe it? i know there are certain genetic conditions that make things harder etc but are there a large enough number of them that could explain a genetic spectrum of fitness potential?

is it all about excuses?

in my opinion developmental conditions are probably at least 100 times more important for the average person. unfortunately that is also something we cannot change that much once you have completed most of your bodies development. development is a mixture of a lot of factors including genetics, to a greater degree epigenetics and i think to an even larger degree environment.

i still think though that when looking at fitness that the the greatest variability is a result lifestyle so why bother about the other factors.

i appreciate this thread is probably purely for interests sake but i think people put far to much importance into the idea of genetics in recent years

I think "genetics" are only important at the extremes (i.e. becoming a body builder, Olympic level athlete, etc).

However, hormone levels, which can be determined by genetics, diet, disease, play a much bigger role.

Manipulation of insulin levels in the blood is what makes low-carb diets work. Sex hormones (or lack of) will determine whether or not you build muscle easily…

It’s hormones, people.

H O R M O N E S.

There is a big difference between not gaining any benefit from exercise and becoming fit.

I think it's due to the way bodies develop and naturally express themselves.

I will use myself as an example. I have been told that I have a typical build for men on my father's side (not my father and his brothers, but it was expressed in my paternal grandfather and back). It is a large build with broad shoulders (I've been told I have "big bones" from my doctor) and ends up muscular if you do a lot of manual labor (think power lifter builds). Without any effort, I maintain a bench press of at least 300 pounds and leg press at least 1000 lbs (the machine maxes at 1050 lbs) (I won't squat, not going to risk my knees). With a few weeks of minimal effort, I'm back to doing bench press sets of 400+ lbs and extended sets of 1050 lbs leg presses.

I have maternal uncles who are naturally smaller than me and have hit close to the same strength targets as me. However, they worked construction and body built as a hobby to hit them where as I work in an office and exercise sporadically to hit them.

I think it's this type of variance across people that gives people the idea that "genetics" can affect fitness.

Good genetics for weightlifting is another word for good leverage. The two words mean basically the same thing speaking strictly in weightlifting terms.

yeh that may be true. i guess people do equate total streght to fitness which is just not right. i'm 70kg and fairly fit. to me fitness is about endurance and power to weight ratio as they are the most important in my chosen sports.

i don't know either of your history but i'm guessing your size but more so your strength difference is mostly down to development

The overall strength difference is due to development, but my "baseline" strength is much higher. The more I think about it, the baseline for each person is what varies and what is usually thought as "good genes". If someone starts out with low or bad values in some characteristic, they may eventually succeed or change through hard work, where someone else would not have to exert much effort. If you start out extremely low, you may not succeed no matter how much you try.

For example, I will never hit the recommended weight range through normal diet and exercise. I can get closer through substantial diet and exercise. I could hit the normal ranges if I either used illegal drugs (crack, speed) or get a disease that causes weight loss (cancer, AIDS, uncontrolled diabetes where the pancreas stops producing insulin).