I’ve read quite a lot of posts on this forum since I decided to have a go at C25K some months ago. It is very clear that there is an enormous variation in achievement over the program. Some say at W5R3 that they were so energised that they completed 5K there and then. Others report that W9R3 was just 2.5K. C25K encourages inclusivity but I have seen no discussion of the issue of exercise non-responsiveness. For those of you unfamiliar with this I can explain? If you take 100 healthy but sedentary people off the couch and give them structured and supervised training the majority will show an improvement in fitness. A lucky 5% will improve massively, but a sad 10-15% will show no improvement. This is associated with a specific profile on DNA testing. When this achieved widespread knowledge it was attacked viciously by fitness trainers (I wonder why?), but also by running sites, especially in the US, with one promising gang rape for anyone who perpetuated this “myth”. Mainstream running sites cackled with pride when further research showed that “non-responders” could improve if they did FIVE HOURS of training a week. This may be true but the reality is that ordinary people are not going to commit to this.
So where does this leave us when we have just struggled through C25K? I “graduated” over a month ago. I have been jogging (I won’t call it running) 3x a week, but my distance/time is the same. I do my best, but I’m a feeble non-responder. All the research I’ve done suggests effort not attainment matters for health. So I’ll continue, but I would be interested in the views of others.
Written by
Oldman51
Graduate
To view profiles and participate in discussions please or .
Have you a diagnosis? I read what you said and I understand the theory, but I’m struggling with putting that in my head and taking someone through C25K... with no improvement how would one get through 9 weeks of this?
I have to agree with UFN, it's impossible for anyone not to have bettered their health with 9 weeks of running/walking training. Surely just getting off the couch and walking the five minute warm up is an achievement in itself. Perhaps the problem is that people are expecting to run 5k at the end of 9 weeks but managing less? I would label each and every person a winner that has got through week 1 let alone 9 weeks. The first run is the hardest and most determined run. I don't think I'll be running 5k by the end but I'm sure going to try and keep with 3 x 30 minute runs once I've graduated. Believe me, I couldn't run for more than ten steps before but I'm running now, 5k or less so be it. There's no science behind that for me, it's about keeping my personal objectives real and attainable.
I agree with keeping things real, I myself love to do HM,s but my heart rate hates constant running over 30min and just keep Increasing until I hit maximum. With the doctors advice I have devised a way to train for A HM with a walk run method. This keeps my heart rate at a level that helps me continue, may be if I did a specific test I might be a non responder. I do know that what I do is find a way that works for me, it might not be conventional but I enjoy it and have fun with my running.
On the This forum for One You C25K we are not technical. Public health for England have give us an app to help us look after our health and a safe way to progress. We don’t go that much into technical detail and suggest that if any one has the sort of issues that could arise then they talk it over with a GP. As issues with not progressing can be down to a multitude of reasons, vitamin D, iron etc, etc, and the such all need looking at with the correct amount of thought which we as forum administrators and readers do not have the experience to access. That is not saying I don’t agree with you it is just saying it is not up to us to make that diagnosis.
You describe yourself as a non responder..........does that mean you were capable of jogging for thirty minutes at the outset of Week 1? Surely not, or there would have been little point in going through the process, if that were the case. So I will assume that you are now capable of jogging for thirty minutes........... which surely means that you responded to the training plan.............??
As a new runner perhaps you were expecting something magical to happen to your performance and capabilities once you had graduate written after your name on this site........ I am afraid it doesn't work like that. Continued regular training will slowly build fitness in most people and frankly, self diagnosing yourself as a non responder is hardly likely to help you identify any progress that you may have made, unlike the average C25ker who feels empowered and proud of every little positive change in their physical and mental ability, that can be attributed to the effort they have put in.
Whether the condition exists or not is immaterial to us on this forum, as we try to offer support and advice in general terms and, where we feel qualified, in more specific detail appropriate for individuals. Where you end up at graduation has far more to do with your physical condition on W1R1 than the effort put in during the programme.
C25K apparently works miracles for many, but apparently not for all, however, in over five years on this forum, I have never read a post from anyone who did not manage to make some progress.
Thank you. I don't know. I found week 1 easy after which it became increasingly nasty. Have I really improved by doing W9? I think it's learning to bear more pain, Nevertheless I think that repeated vigorous exercise is good and I'll be around to counter perceived opinion in the future.
In my book the ability to jog for thirty minutes is a measure of specific fitness and if you progressed to that point over the course of the programme then I don't understand how you can classify yourself as a non responder.
OK. Fair enough. I don't actually like the term NON responder either! Will you accept the terms poor responder/good responder? If not how do you explain away the fact that so people scamper through C25K (and other exercise) while others plod their way (just!). There has been a tendency over many years to label poor responders as lazy. Those of us who struggle with exercise (but still do it) resent this.
As I said previously, the attainment at graduation has more to do with the level of fitness held at the outset than some kind of magic conferred on certain individuals by their exertion during C25K. I am perfectly willing to accept that some bodies will respond differently to a training plan than others and if research has shown that some people are non responders, then so be it.
Identifying yourself as a non responder, without a formal diagnosis, does seem like a very negative approach to me, which militates against accepting small positive changes that may come about and can possibly be attributed to the exercise.
I believe you are in your sixties, as am I, and it is accepted wisdom that the body goes into physical decline in this age range (one of the reasons that I started running aged 57) and physiological improvement, driven by exercise, is likely to be diminished compared to the younger population. Because of hormone treatment for prostate cancer my progress is zero at present and I have not had a pb for well over two years and accept grudgingly that I may never do so again. Natural changes in the body can have a similar effect to my treatment.
I am so grateful that I can run, but please don't believe that it is all easy and pain free for every other runner you see...........it certainly is not so for me, but running in beautiful natural environments continues to provide me life affirming experiences and all the medical professionals responsible for my cancer treatment state that my response and lack of major side effects is down to my above average physical fitness............oh, and a positive outlook.
Well, I have a little theory on this, or rather, two. The first is the psychological one. It goes like this: when embarking upon a new endeavour such as this we often assume we are at the bottom of a mountain. At the top we see people who are running the magical Thirty minutes and assume that as they appear to be happy with this, (most of have niggles with this, both the time and distance) and should we complete the program, we too shall achieve THE HAPPINESS. The problem is, when we graduate... Nothing has changed. Except we can run for a while.
What these people don't realise is that improvement over this time needs to be continued on the same rate to be maintained: improvements in strength and stamina is incremental. It's also harder to make gains, the better you get at something. Essentially, it's the law of diminishing returns. So, the people who want to get better at something, do. Because they keep at it. Essentially, it's a marathon. Not a sprint. And the people who feel great subconsciously recognise this. I'll be honest, there were runs that made me feel great, and runs I HATED and felt like chucking it all in during. But, I'm a stubborn thing and here I am with a shiny badge that only means I've been at it longer than some others.
The physical ones... Oh, the physical ones. These... Wow. Yes, research may say that 10-15 percent of test subject cannot improve no matter what. I've gotta call bullsh*t. We, as a species are simply meat machines. We all as standard improve in the same way, if we put in the same effort, at the same exersizes. Within a small margin of variation. The simple fact is, the bottom ten to fifteen went for a run, and though "oooh, after that I deserve a treat! I've earned it!" They essentially nullified any gain they meant with self rewarding behaviour. But more than that, they let negative thinking destroy any gains and let low self esteem take the steering wheel. It's not a case of that people can't do things. It's that they won't.
Apparently my earlier reply to you was deemed discourteous, and was deleted. I apologise for this. Nevertheless I can't accept academic research being dismissed as "bullsh*t" if you haven't even read it. Below in this thread UnfitNoMore reports having read the research and makes some critical comments. Fair enough. The "simple fact" in this research was that the subjects were given SUPERVISED exercise and they responded differently. The "non-responders" did not go for a run then gave up. Why do you say they exhibited "self rewarding behaviour"?
I can’t help thinking that calling yourself a “feeble non responder” is rather harsh on yourself. We humans - even the toughies - benefit from being built up, not bashed down.
You have obviously persevered - good for you. 😃 I suspect if you keep on going, that you might prove yourself wrong! 😉
Oldman51 - I haven’t posted here before but some of the tones of response have caused me to. I watched a BBC programme a few years ago on this very thing. Non-responders are very real ! Biochemistry did not improve for non-responders after a supervised exercise programme - it was not that they failed to exercise or that they psychologically expected too much. I have a feeling also that heart rate and lung capacity did not change either. I’d still go with moving has to be better than not, but, sadly yes, it seems this isn’t a miracle programme for everyone
Thank you meboo. It's good that someone else is on the same wavelength. This is the only forum from which I have ever had a post removed, apparently for not bowing to party lines. I can't see how promoting physical activity for all while acknowledging that athletic attainment will differ for biological reasons can be seen as offensive.
I think you answered your own question though. You did say that it’s effort not attainment that has the health benefit. The purpose of this programme is to promote regular exercise, not to develop high-performance athletes. You said you would persevere because it’s good for your health even if your athletic performance doesn’t improve. That’s your answer: that’s why the programme is promoted by a public health body. Because it has health benefits even in ‘non-responders’.
I’m just starting the programme (W1R3 today), and have a question for you. Could you honestly have completed Week 9 Run 3 on Week 1? If not then surely you have responded to the exercise? Maybe not in such a massive way as some, but we are all different. I am thinking that maybe running in itself just isn’t for you if you really don’t enjoy it? I hate all forms of exercise with a passion but am hoping for a breakthrough with running.
A very good question. I hope my reply is not censored. Your question requires us to think what happens in C25K. There is a combination of physical and mental adjustment. I don't like personalising these things, but I think it helps here. I was already "off the couch" with some regular moderate activity but wished to include some vigorous activity. I found W1 pretty easy and W2 only a mild challenge. It then started to get harder, Weeks 7-9 became increasingly awful and it was only a combination of saying in one's head that this is only 30 minutes and realising that I could always slow down ( the mantra on this site) saw me through to "graduation". I'm still jogging (I can't call it running) as some weekly vigorous activity is good. I hope you enjoy running. I really don't.
I'm the same - I am really slow, 2 years after starting. I still have to make myself get out the door. I think that while we may not all become super-fit, it is helpful just to keep ourselves moving regularly. The benefits may not always be apparent but it's better than doing nothing.
HI Oldman - I have just had a quick look on t'internet for further information about non-responders. It seems that certain studies showed that some people saw much less improvement than others (or even felt worse) on a particular exercise regime, and had to do much more exercise to see any benefit. Once this had been passed through the fun house mirrors of the media, though, this came out as "exercise doesn't work for some people".
On the opposite side, of course, there are some of the super-defensive responses to this idea from runners' magazines, describing the whole concept as a "myth" that has been "debunked".
This study describes how non-response to endurance training can be overcome if people are prepared to do several hours of exercise per week: ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/281...
The take-home message seems to be that yes, some people may see little or no benefit from a particular exercise regime - but they might do much better with another form of exercise. The studies suggested that there is no such thing as someone who doesn't respond to any exercise. If running doesn't work, you might benefit from weight training, or HIIT, or swimming.
Just as a last point from me, when I was training for my half marathon last year (I got round in one piece, albeit quite slowly), I did a run-walk programme which really worked for me. The HM training app I used included days of weight/resistance training as well, because you need different techniques in order to build up your overall fitness.
Perhaps it might help you to intersperse your runs with weight training. It can be helpful and satisfying to have clear, easily achievable goals such as "10 squats with kettlebell", and it will help you become stronger so running becomes easier. Good luck!
I read lots on this last night... both the original and the debunk research are flawed. I do think some people are genetically gifted for any given sport, so the opposite must also be true. The original research gave a +/- 4% improvement error... so all at 4% improvement were assumed to be non-responsive. Of course sone at 4% were actually 8% and so not non-responsive. The figures as percentage of population were, therefore a wet finger in the air job. Likewise, the debunk focused on taking those “non-responders” and increasing exercise... it didn’t also take those above the threshold and test them again... some of them were within the error margin. I’d like to see some proper research done without the mistakes. I believe it is a reality.., I don’t believe it’s anywhere near 15% of the population though, or the coaches and trainers would have seen it long before the research.
If you were diagnosed as a non-responder, what would that mean for you? What would it change?
It sounds like you don't like running, are there other forms of exercise you enjoy more?
I mean, if you aren't getting out of running what you'd hoped to... maybe it's time to try something else. Perhaps keep running on the table but scale it back while you gear up with something else, to keep your base level of fitness up. It's ok to have given it a proper go and decide "I don't like this".... running isn't everyone's top pick for exercise. Perhaps something else better suits you.
But I don't think disliking it makes you a "non-responder". Do you think you're looking for a reason to feel ok about quitting running?
Partially right - and then very wrong! Correct - I don't like running. But like millions of people I don't like ANY exercise. Unlike many I have walked and swum my way to be 67. I have completed C25K and I intend to continue to do a bit of jogging. For me "running" means doing 2 miles in 30 minutes. There will be no PBs and NEVER parkrun!
Your post today has made me revisit this very interesting thread... so I’ve just seen your comment here.
There are PBs... a PB is your best, and your best may be 3.2k in 30 minutes... when you run 3.3k, 31 minutes and maybe both, they’re PBs. They’re every bit as celebration worthy on a personal level as kipchoge breaking 2 hours for the marathon. He’s amazing, so am I, so are you... we don’t need a world record to be amazing, neither does he. The day before he smashed the world record, amongst all the hype about the prospect of him doing so, he tweeted that he was going for his PB... because that’s what’s important to him, and to me, and hopefully to you. If we all gave up because we couldn’t compete then he’d be running alone next April... but I think he’s gonna have 40,000 people of all abilities just behind him on that start-line, and he loves marathon because of that.
I am curious about many aspects of this discussion. One question I would like to put to you is regarding what you say about not getting faster - may I ask what you do to try increasing your speed? Just running isn't usually 'enough' after a point, I understand from here that techniques like fartleks/intervals are important for getting speed up, and also running slower but for longer (helps you increase pace over shorter runs). Sorry if you have mentioned it.
I am though personally (and professionally!) interested in individual variation and I have glanced at the papers kindly linked by
Katie204 . Very interesting. In my view, it's important to look at (measured and measurable) variation between individuals but also to note that we might not be measuring all the markers necessary to note "improvement".
It's also important to acknowledge that not every activity is going to suit everyone and even that that may change over time - I used to swim, but in my 20s lost all interest and consequently was not going to improve as i went less frequently and less enthusiastically. Started again recently - no idea why i enjoy it again now!
So yes, individuals certainly vary on many levels. It is interesting that people have issues in considering the many dimensions this might cover. Food for thought.
Thank you. I don't want to improve - only commenting to counter those who say "you will be amazed how your pace/distance improves in your consolidation runs." Not for everone though!
Aaah i see! Yes. You are certainly not obliged to go faster and further!
I feel it would be more inclusive to caveat when people say that, that not everyone "responds" in the same way but I can also see how it might be tricky to say that without it sounding to people that it might not be worth it. And you do start to get into issues of defining response. But on the basic issue of speed honestly my impression (from here) had been that most people say "might improve" with regards to pace, rather than definitely, and that for real pace increase you have to do specific work. But I don't take quantified stock of every post on here! Distance - most people can extend their distance simply by running further, which may require a slower pace, but also doesn't mean it will automatically improve - you have to run further to run further
I remain intrigued by the discussion and am glad some others have the time to check the actual research out as I really don't beyond a glance!
Content on HealthUnlocked does not replace the relationship between you and doctors or other healthcare professionals nor the advice you receive from them.
Never delay seeking advice or dialling emergency services because of something that you have read on HealthUnlocked.
20 minutes non-stop and in the wind!
Week 4 non starter :(
I ran 5km non-stop for the first time ever 
Alternative exercise on rest days?
My first 10K non-stop ever!!!
