Exercise response variability: Random error or true differences in exercise response?

Implementation of multiple statistical methods to estimate variability and individual response to training

HIGHLIGHTS

What are the findings? We implemented five statistical methods in a single study to estimate the magnitude of within-subject variability and quantify responses to exercise training at the individual level.The various proposed methods used to estimate individual responses to training provide different types of information and rely on different assumptions that are difficult to test.Within-subject variability is often large in magnitude, and as such, should be systematically evaluated and carefully considered in future studies to successfully estimate individual responses to training. How might it impact on clinical practice in the future? Within-subject variability in response to exercise training is a key factor that must be considered in order to obtain a reproducible measurement of individual response to exercise training. This is akin to ensuring data is reproducible for each subject.Our findings provide guidelines for future exercise training studies to ensure results are reproducible within participants and to minimize wasting precious research resources.By implementing five suggested methods to estimate individual response to training, we highlight their feasibility, strengths, weaknesses, and costs, for researchers to make the best decision on how to accurately measure individual responses to exercise training.

Individual Participant Data Meta-Analysis Provides No Evidence of Intervention Response Variation in Individuals Supplementing With Beta-Alanine

Currently, little is known about the extent of interindividual variability in response to beta-alanine (BA) supplementation, nor what proportion of said variability can be attributed to external factors or to the intervention itself (intervention response). To investigate this, individual participant data on the effect of BA supplementation on a high-intensity cycling capacity test (CCT110%) were meta-analyzed. Changes in time to exhaustion (TTE) and muscle carnosine were the primary and secondary outcomes. Multilevel distributional Bayesian models were used to estimate the mean and SD of BA and placebo group change scores. The relative sizes of group SDs were used to infer whether observed variation in change scores were due to intervention or non-intervention-related effects. Six eligible studies were identified, and individual data were obtained from four of these. Analyses showed a group effect of BA supplementation on TTE (7.7, 95% credible interval [CrI] [1.3, 14.3] s) and muscle carnosine (18.1, 95% CrI [14.5, 21.9] mmol/kg DM). A large intervention response variation was identified for muscle carnosine (σIR = 5.8, 95% CrI [4.2, 7.4] mmol/kg DM) while equivalent change score SDs were shown for TTE in both the placebo (16.1, 95% CrI [13.0, 21.3] s) and BA (15.9, 95% CrI [13.0, 20.0] s) conditions, with the probability that SD was greater in placebo being 0.64. In conclusion, the similarity in observed change score SDs between groups for TTE indicates the source of variation is common to both groups, and therefore unrelated to the supplement itself, likely originating instead from external factors such as nutritional intake, sleep patterns, or training status.

Examining interindividual differences in select muscle and whole-body adaptations to continuous endurance training

NEW FINDINGS

What is the central question of the study? Do interindividual differences in trainability exist for morphological and molecular skeletal muscle responses to aerobic exercise training? What is the main finding and its importance? Interindividual differences in trainability were present for some, but not all, morphological and molecular outcomes included in our study. Our findings suggest that is inappropriate, and perhaps erroneous, to assume that variability in observed responses reflects interindividual differences in trainability in skeletal muscle responses to aerobic exercise training.

ABSTRACT

Studies have interpreted a wide range of morphological and molecular changes in human skeletal muscle as evidence of interindividual differences in trainability. However, these interpretations fail to account for the influence of random measurement error and within-subject variability. The purpose of the present study was to use the standard deviation of individual response (SD_IR ) statistic to test the hypothesis that interindividual differences in trainability are present for some but not all skeletal muscle outcomes. Twenty-nine recreationally-active males (age: 21±2 years; BMI: 24±3; VO₂ peak: 45±7 mL/kg/min) completed four weeks of continuous training (REL; n = 14) or control (CTRL; n = 15). Maximal enzyme activities (citrate synthase and β-HAD), capillary density, fibre type composition, fibre-specific SDH activity and substrate storage (IMTG and glycogen), and markers of mitophagy (BNIP3, NIX, PRKN, and PINK1) were measured in vastus lateralis samples collected before and after the intervention. We also calculated SD_IR values for VO₂ peak, peak work rate, and the onset of blood lactate accumulation for REL and a separate group that exercised at the negative talk test (TT) stage. Although positive SD_IR values - indicating interindividual differences in trainability - were obtained for aerobic capacity outcomes, maximal enzyme activities, capillary density, all fibre-specific outcomes, and BNIP3 protein content, the remaining outcomes produced negative SD_IR values indicating a large degree of random measurement error and/or within-subject variability. Our findings question the interpretation of heterogeneity in observed responses as evidence of interindividual differences in trainability and highlight the importance of including control groups when analyzing individual skeletal muscle response to exercise training. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.