muscle building and genetics, special snow flake?

the link doesn't go to an article - just a contents index.

"Recent research shows that some individuals respond very well to strength training, some barely respond, and some don't respond at all. You read that correctly. Some people don't show any noticeable results. Researchers created the term "non-responders" for these individuals."

Ok...that last part is rather terrifying.

Ah, ok...there's the controversial part...

The suggestion that working hard at lifting may produce no tangible results and can even lead to loss of lean mass is not going to sit well with a very common MFP meme! :laugh:

as far as I can tell the study didnt regulate diet... if I eat like crap and do too much volume of lifting i'll lose muscle mass... pretty much anyone and everyone will.... even with a proper diet, too much volume combined with too little recovery will result in a net loss..

first hit on google scholar for 'hubal hypertrophy' gives you a pdf of this 2005 study. it is well designed, and there were sensible dietary controls in the sample, designed to control for factors relevant to the study's aims.

There was no dietary control.

"Subjects were instructed to maintain their habitual dietary
intake and physical activity levels (with the exception of the
addition of the unilateral arm training) over the course of the
study so that significant weight loss or gain was avoided.
Individuals who had supplemented their diet with additional
protein or taken any dietary supplement reported to build
muscle or to cause weight gain (dietary supplements containing
protein, creatine, or androgenic precursors) were not included.
Data for subjects who lost a significant amount of body weight
were excluded from analysis. As slight weight gain would be
expected with the addition of muscle volume, those that in-
creased body weight were included in the analysis."

They just told them to eat normally. Thats not control. The fact that they had to exclude people from the results is an even bigger indicator that they had no control of their diet.

I agree with jimmmmer's comment "The truth is, exercise science is barely a science. The variables are innumerable, the research is often third-rate."

Almost any scientific study I've ever seen has people who lay off the curve to some degree. The results draw a nice line through the data and present it along with significant margins of error.

What about the proportion of people that lay off curves (in either direction) when it comes to fat loss, improvements in VO2Max, strength increases or muscle increases?

The truth is, exercise science is barely a science. The variables are innumerable, the research is often third-rate. Any experienced trainee will know to ignore all that bullsh!t and tweak their training programme and diet to fit them, rather than some imaginary average person. For beginners, it doesn't matter because they will derive benefit following a cookie-cutter programme versus either doing nothing of doing some form of f*ckarounditis.

Physics is a science. Chemistry is a science. Taking 12 sedentary people and exposing them to an exercise programme to see how they respond is not a science. Nor is trying to derive lessons for the general population from studies done on professional athletes, who are by definition outliers.

There are such things as special snowflakes. Most people are so far from any genetic potential that they'll never know it though. That's why cookie cutter stuff works for beginners and it's always best practice to advise a beginner to do something like C25K if they want to start running or Starting Strength if they want to start lifting.