Genetic test can reveal those best able to run marathons

[Deleted]

Anyone seen this? As a slow runner I found it a bit depressing

But does this really matter: A new DNA test developed by the researchers behind the study could now help tell anyone hoping to achieve a decent marathon finishing time whether their efforts will be worthwhile.

I mean what is a decent marathon finishing time? if we talk a half, mine would be under 3 hrs, for many of you it would be under 2, for some it would be less than 1.5, but does that mean we should't bother? Or am I being too sensitive? 

www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/9992221/Born-to-run-genetic-test-can-reveal-those-best-able-to-run-marathons.html

If months of marathon training fails to deliver the kind of finishing times you were hoping for this year, there is no need to beat yourself up - you were not born to do it.

Scientists have discovered that to run a marathon in a good time requires the right combination of genes and that nearly a fifth of the population lack this special mix.

For runners with the right genes, it means their bodies can quickly adapt to carry large amounts of oxygen to their muscles, allowing them to run faster and for longer.

Those who lack these genes, however, will never improve, no matter how much they train, and their performance may even get worse the harder they push themselves.
It may help to explain why some overweight runners can go streaking past other apparently fitter competitors.
Related Articles
Radcliffe wants world record to last 12 Apr 2013
The new front line of genetics 05 Jan 2013

A new DNA test developed by the researchers behind the study could now help tell anyone hoping to achieve a decent marathon finishing time whether their efforts will be worthwhile.

Professor Jamie Timmons, head of systems biology at Loughborough University, has found more than 100 genes responsible for determining how the human body responds to stamina training.

He and his colleagues have found they can use 30 of these key genes to predict whether someone is capable of running a marathon well.

Professor Timmons said: “If someone’s ambition is to do a marathon in a decent manner, we can tell them if they can based on their baseline fitness and their potential for responding to training.

“From our work, we know that 20 per cent of people do not respond at all to training and in fact can get worse. They push themselves as hard as everyone else, but their muscles do not extract the same amount of oxygen.

“About 15 per cent have the genes that mean they will respond highly to training. But of that number, only those with a good inherited baseline fitness and good resistance to injury will ever become elite marathon runners, so that is an even smaller percentage.”

The test works by looking at genes that are responsible for remodelling muscle fibres to allow small blood vessels to grow in between. These help to carry as much oxygen as possible to the muscles during exercise.

Those that have the right mix of these genes can grow new blood vessels and remodel their muscles effectively in response to regular intense aerobic exercise such as long distance running.

Roughly 20 per cent of the population have genes that do not do this remodelling effectively under the kind of regular high intensity training runners use to prepare for marathons and it can even reduce their body’s ability to get oxygen to their muscles effectively, resulting in a reduction in performance.

Anyone falling into this category would be better tto give up on their dream of completing a marathon and turning their attention to a different sport, said Professor Timmons.

He said: “It is plausible that by pushing it though training, they get a maladaptation. What is clear is that there is no one recipe that fits all.

“These low aerobic responders would be better going to the gym to build up their strength and muscle tissue or taking up other competitive sports like martial arts or strength related sports.”

The findings may come too late for those who have signed up to this year’s marathons, with the season already under way and the country’s biggest, the London Marathon, due to take place next weekend.

Hundreds of thousands of competitors take part in marathons around the country each year and Professor Timmons has now set up a company with his colleagues at Pennington Biomedical Research Centre in Louisiana and the Medical Prognosis Institute in Copenhagen to offer runners the chance to have their DNA tested.

They hope the test, called XRPredict+, will help people decide how hard to push themselves when training.

Last year one marathon runner collapsed and died less than a mile from the finish line. An inquiry later revealed she had taken a drink containing a performance enhancing stimulant as she strove to beat her personal best of four hours.

For some marathon hopefuls, the intensive training they do to prepare for the race can result in them not taking part at all. Of the 48,323, accepted applicants for this years London Marathon, just 36,000 are expected to start.

Roughly 600 of those who started the race last year did not finish while the St John’s Ambulance estimates that it helps around 4,000 runners each year before, during and after the event.

Professor Timmons also hopes to conduct new research to understand how the genes he has identified play a role in runner’s susceptibility to injury.

He said: “The genes that underpin the development of the oxygen transport system also play an important role in ligaments and tendons as well.

“There may be a link between people who respond poorly to this sort of training and susceptibility to injury, but that still needs a lot of work.

“We are still early in the life of this kind of use of genomics, but hopefully we will get better at being able to understand how genes determine people’s performance and be able to offer them advice.

“This is important not just for those involved in sport for fun, but also from a health point of view – we want to be able to tailor the exercise people are doing so it is right for them.”

[shauni27]

I feel like this is me:

Those who lack these genes, however, will never improve, no matter how much they train, and their performance may even get worse the harder they push themselves.

Which COULD be the case (and at least then I would have an excuse for why now after 3 years running seems to have gotten much more challenging...) but it is not likely.

[Wines Not Whines]

So if you train and improve, that means you must not have these genes? I'm confused.

[runaways]

I would imagine that it's a continuum and if you hit the jackpot and have the "good" allele for every gene, you have significantly higher potential for being an elite runner than someone who only has say 5% or 25% or 50% of them. It's also possible that there are multiple possible alleles per gene, so maybe there's sort of a continuum per gene in terms of how much they potentials muscle and vessel remodeling.

All that to say, the combined effect of genes on the phenotype is very complex and I can't imagine that this test captures every nuance of that.

[clseale]

I don't like statements like this,: Anyone falling into this category would be better to give up on their dream of completing a marathon and turning their attention to a different sport, said Professor Timmons. 

Other than that, I think they make some valid points. Not everyone is made to do this. Not everyone is genetically built to do well at endurance sports. It's not an insult, or meant to be discouraging, it's just a fact. I think they're just pointing out that it's not everyone's strength, so if you want to truly excel at something, there may be something you're better suited for.

I see it in my running group regularly. There are some people who improve by leaps and bounds, taking huge chunks off of their times. There are other people who train just as hard, if not harder, and it's everything they can do to take one or two minutes off. There are some people, like my husband, who's natural pace straight off of the couch is better than most. It's just how it is. Not everyone will run 3:00 marathons. If people are OK with that, then by all means, if it's something you love, keep at it!

[grk2012]

I think they use poor word choices. Good time? Decent manner? SO SUBJECTIVE. If my dream is to run a marathon, don't tell me it's not worthwhile to chase it down.

Are some people stronger, faster, more fit athletes than others? Of course! True in every sport. Are we now going to come up with a test that tells players in other sports that no matter how hard they train they're just going to suck, so go play video games instead?

[breezy8407]

Of course I agree that some people are better suited genetically to train and be great at something - whether it's a marathon or a sport like basketball.

I continue to run and run races but know I will never win them. Sure I am super competitive with myself and always want to be getting better, but knowing I will not be winning medals doesn't stop me from doing something I enjoy.

[savan]

This resonates with me as I am slow runner and have seen this in real life. I watched one of my friends decide they were going to run a half, nonchalantly train for it, and finish 30 minutes faster than me. I have to work way harder for my 11:00 - 12:00 minute miles than most people. I am improving though, even it is only a little. I have a chance to finally break 2:30 this weekend.

[thom]

I agree with the idea that some people are less genetically gifted and may have a harder time training, but I totally disagree that they shouldn't try. Many of us will never be first, but we can still work toward our individual goals and improve. It seems strange that they say 20% of people will not improve with training.

Certainly some people will not improve as fast or as much (and some are more prone to injury) but wouldn't you say everyone you know has at least improved some with training?

[runblondie26]

Isn't this just a way to formally test what exercise physiology books have said for years? People already get VO2max and blood-lactate tests to glean some of this of this info. The theory itself isn't new.

Lab confirmation certainly shouldn't deter people from running. And even if you do have the "right" DNA, and you still have to put in the proper training to get the best results.

[coconutbug]

"Those who lack these genes, however, will never improve, no matter how much they train, and their performance may even get worse the harder they push themselves." LOL - this is me. I think I've done around 5 marathons and got slower each time, even though I was in better overall shape. But it's okay; I've accepted that long distance isn't my strong suit and now stick to shorter distances, which I love (even if I'm still pretty slow at those too).

[runaways]

Apr 30, 2013 9:44:38 GMT -5 runblondie26 said:

Isn't this just a way to formally test what exercise physiology books have said for years? People already get VO2max and blood-lactate tests to glean some of this of this info. The theory itself isn't new.

Lab confirmation certainly shouldn't deter people from running. And even if you do have the "right" DNA, and you still have to put in the proper training to get the best results.

It's similar. The genetic testing is more about what your potential is to change those things with training. A straight up lab test will show you where you are right now. Regardless, I hate the way the media treats this kind of thing. There are a million other factors that go into becoming a good runner - you may have these magic genes but be born with terrible body mechanics, say, or any number of other things. Science doesn't translate well to headlines unfortunately.

[runblondie26]

Well, you can improve V02max to a certain point with training, but basically it's a genetically predetermined thing. Some people use it as a predictor of maximum performance, but doesn't take into account other factors. Sounds like this just takes it to the next level. Like you mentioned body mecahnics, etc. play a role.

[zoidberg]

Apr 30, 2013 10:01:04 GMT -5 coconutbug said:

"Those who lack these genes, however, will never improve, no matter how much they train, and their performance may even get worse the harder they push themselves." LOL - this is me. I think I've done around 5 marathons and got slower each time, even though I was in better overall shape. But it's okay; I've accepted that long distance isn't my strong suit and now stick to shorter distances, which I love (even if I'm still pretty slow at those too).

This is soooo me. I try and try and try, but never really get any better.

But I am really good at strength stuff. I used to lift with a couple of girls in grad school, and even though both of them were lifelong athletes and much faster runners than I, I was able to OWN them in squats, deadlifts, etc. Even though I was starting from nothing.

[clseale]

Apr 30, 2013 21:08:04 GMT -5 zoidberg said:

Apr 30, 2013 10:01:04 GMT -5 coconutbug said:

"Those who lack these genes, however, will never improve, no matter how much they train, and their performance may even get worse the harder they push themselves." LOL - this is me. I think I've done around 5 marathons and got slower each time, even though I was in better overall shape. But it's okay; I've accepted that long distance isn't my strong suit and now stick to shorter distances, which I love (even if I'm still pretty slow at those too).

This is soooo me. I try and try and try, but never really get any better.

But I am really good at strength stuff. I used to lift with a couple of girls in grad school, and even though both of them were lifelong athletes and much faster runners than I, I was able to OWN them in squats, deadlifts, etc. Even though I was starting from nothing.

See, I think this is the exact point of the article. I don't think it's meant to be harsh or insulting, even if some people take it that way. Your's is a perfect example. Want to be in the top 10% of competitors in something? You might try and try, but never accomplish that in a marathon, but you might kick some serious ass in a weightlifting competition that I, regardless of how much I train, might fail at. 

[zoidberg]

I've been thinking about this and I just realized that it makes complete sense out of something that has really been bothering me.

I lost about a full minute on my pace when I moved from 800 feet above sea level to 5300 above and have not been able to regain it. When I first moved here I couldn't even do a mile and have worked myself up to 10, but have not gotten a second faster. I kept thinking that it would improve as I acclimated, but I have been here for almost a year now. I think I am as acclimated as I am likely to get. And still, if I try to push my old WI pace I am gasping for air like a fish out of water after 10 minutes.

Maybe this is why. Because seriously, just that increase in mileage alone SHOULD have yielded some improvement in pace.