Exercise and Genetics: The Interplay of Innate Talent and Training — Heritability, Responders, and the Science and Myths of Genetic Testing

Starting with Two Athletes: Same Plan, Two Different Fates

In all my years of coaching, one of the most memorable moments came when I took on two athletes with very similar profiles at the same time. Let’s call them A-Jhe and A-Kai. Both were in their early thirties, weighed around 70 kilograms, both worked desk jobs, and neither had any real exercise habits before they started cycling. I gave them nearly identical twelve-week base endurance plans: four to five sessions per week, mostly in the aerobic zone, with one to two threshold interval sessions each week.

Three months later, when we retested, A-Jhe’s Functional Threshold Power (FTP) had jumped from about 180 watts to 230 watts, and he couldn’t hide the smile on his face. A-Kai, on the other hand—equally diligent, never slacked off, and his training log was actually cleaner than A-Jhe’s—saw his FTP crawl from 175 watts to just 190 watts. That day, A-Kai asked me a question I still remember: “Coach, is it just that I wasn’t built for this?”

That question touches on a topic in exercise science that is both fascinating and often misunderstood—how innate genetics and training actually interact. In this long-form article, I want to walk you through the literature I’ve read over the past decade-plus, combined with my practical observations from coaching athletes. Let me give you the conclusion first: A-Kai wasn’t lacking effort, and he wasn’t someone who should “give up because he lacks talent.” Rather, he needed a training strategy specifically tailored to his physiology.

Foundational Concept (1): What “Heritability” Really Means—It’s Not What You Think

When many people hear that “the heritability of VO2max is 50%,” they instinctively interpret it as “half of my fitness is determined at birth, and no matter how hard I train, I can only change the other half.” This is the most common—and most damaging—misunderstanding.

Heritability describes the source of variation within a population, not the allocation of an individual’s fate. In other words, when we say a trait has a heritability of 50%, it means that, within an entire group, about half of the differences between people on that trait can be explained by genetic differences, while the other half comes from environment, training, nutrition, lifestyle, and so on. It describes “why people differ from one another,” not “where your personal ceiling is locked in.”

This distinction is crucial. Here’s a relatable example: height has high heritability, yet the average height of Taiwanese people has been increasing over the past century, driven by improvements in nutrition and environment—high heritability doesn’t mean the entire population can’t be lifted by environmental factors. The same logic applies to athletic ability.

Static Capacity vs. Training Response: Two Different Heritabilities

Here’s an even more critical distinction that many people (including quite a few coaches) fail to make:

• Your current aerobic capacity (baseline VO2max) has its own heritability.
• Your degree of response to training (trainability) has a separate heritability.

These are two different things. Some people are born with a great foundation but see limited gains from training; others have an average foundation but improve rapidly once they start. According to meta-analyses of twin and sibling studies, the weighted heritability estimate for VO2max expressed in milliliters per minute is about 59%, and when corrected for body weight (milliliters per kilogram per minute), it ranges from about 64% to 72%. That’s for “static capacity.”

As for “training response,” the most classic data comes from the famous HERITAGE Family Study: they had 481 previously sedentary adults undergo 20 weeks of rigorously controlled endurance training, and the maximal heritability estimate for the VO2max response was about 47%. In other words, “whether you respond to training or not” is itself substantially influenced by genetics.

The table below helps you clearly separate these two easily confused concepts:

Concept	Plain-Language Explanation	Approximate Heritability Range (Population Level)	Practical Implication for Coaches
Static VO2max (current value)	Your aerobic engine’s displacement today	About 50%–70%	Determines your “starting point,” but can be raised by long-term training
Training response (trainability)	How much progress you can extract from the same plan	About 40%–50%	Determines your “rate of progress under the same plan”; requires individualization
Environment and training (controllable part)	Sleep, nutrition, plan, consistency	The remaining large portion	This is where you and I can actually make a difference

Once you understand this table, you’ll realize: even if genetics account for part of it, the remaining large portion of “controllable variables” is where the real battle for how far you can go is fought.

Foundational Concept (2): Responders, Low Responders, and “Non-Responders”

Back to A-Jhe and A-Kai. Exercise science has a very realistic phenomenon called individual response variability. In rigorous studies like HERITAGE, when everyone follows the same training program, the average VO2max improvement is about 400 milliliters per minute, but the individual variation is staggering: some people barely improve, while others improve by more than 1,000 milliliters per minute—a difference of several-fold. In these studies, roughly 10% to 20% of people show quite limited responses to this standardized plan.

The scientific community often roughly categorizes people into three types:

• High responders: Show clear improvement as soon as they train, like A-Jhe.
• Average responders: Improve steadily but not dramatically; these are the majority.
• Low / near non-responders: Show very little response to this particular plan, like A-Kai.

The Term “Non-Responder” Has a Trap

This is something I especially want to clarify for my athletes, and it’s a point exercise science has increasingly emphasized in recent years: so-called “non-responders” are mostly “non-responsive to one specific stimulus,” not “non-responsive to all training.”

One line of research made a very illuminating observation: when people who didn’t respond to a certain training volume were switched to increased volume or a different training modality (for example, from steady-state aerobic work to high-intensity intervals), many of the “non-responders” began to respond. In other words, an insufficient response is often a case of “the stimulus doesn’t match the person”—switch the key, and the lock opens.

This is exactly what I did with A-Kai later—I didn’t tell him to give up; I completely rewrote his plan. I’ll detail this practical adjustment in the application section below.

Foundational Concept (3): How Do Genes Influence Athletic Performance? There Is No “Single Talent Gene”

The media loves to hype headlines about “finding the athletic talent gene.” The two most frequently named are:

• ACTN3: Related to a protein in fast-twitch muscle fibers, often dubbed the “speed gene.” One variant (commonly called the R type) is found at higher frequencies in many elite power athletes.
• ACE: Related to the blood pressure regulation system; one variant is often linked to endurance performance.

But here I need to say something blunt and careful: athletic performance is a complex, polygenic trait involving hundreds or thousands of genes, each with a very small individual effect. No single gene determines whether you’ll become a great athlete. Think of it as a symphony orchestra rather than a soloist—ACTN3 is at most one of the violins, not the conductor, and certainly not the whole orchestra.

So when you see a product claiming “testing ACTN3 tells you whether you’re suited for power or endurance,” treat it as entertainment, not as a training commandment. What truly separates A-Jhe and A-Kai is the combined effect of countless genes interacting with their respective life environments—not any single “celebrity gene.”

Foundational Concept (4): Nature and Nurture Multiply, They Don’t Just Add

My favorite analogy for explaining the relationship between genes and training to athletes is this: Genes determine the chassis your car comes with from the factory; training determines how you tune it and drive it. A great chassis that’s never maintained and driven recklessly won’t be fast; an average chassis that’s properly tuned and skillfully driven can still embarrass a fancy car on a mountain road.

This is what exercise science calls the gene-environment interaction. Talent and effort aren’t an either/or, and they don’t simply add together—they’re closer to “multiplying”:

• High talent × proper training = world-class athlete
• High talent × barely any training = buried raw gem
• Average talent × proper training = strong, healthy, able to enjoy the sport, and constantly setting personal bests—that’s you and me
• Average talent × poor training or no training = stagnation and injury

For 99% of riders (myself included), we haven’t even come close to the ceiling set by our genes. The ceiling is far off in the distance, yet we often give up halfway up. So the thought “maybe I just wasn’t born for this” is, for the vast majority of recreational athletes, a false question.

Practical Application: How to Turn “Response Variability” into Your Training Strategy

Now that the concepts are covered, let’s get to something you can actually use. I’m not going to tell you to get genetic testing; I’m going to teach you to use your body’s own response as the most honest genetic test there is. How you respond to training is the truest output of your gene-environment interaction.

Step 1: Establish Your Personal Response Baseline

To know which response type you are, you need data. I require my athletes to track at least the following metrics and compare them every 6 to 8 weeks:

Metric	How to Measure	Signs of a Good Response	Local Taiwan Reminder
FTP (Functional Threshold Power)	20-minute power test × 0.95	Steady increase of a few watts to over ten watts every 6–8 weeks	Summer heat and humidity will depress numbers; indoor trainer testing is more accurate
Resting heart rate	Measure every morning upon waking; take the weekly average	Slowly declines as fitness improves	Late nights and heavy salty restaurant meals can temporarily raise it; don’t over-interpret a single day
Heart rate at the same power	Ride at a fixed wattage and watch heart rate	Heart rate at the same wattage gets progressively lower	This is one of the most sensitive aerobic improvement indicators
Subjective fatigue and sleep	Self-rated 1–10	Can still recover even as the plan gets harder	With Taiwan’s long working hours, recovery is often the most neglected variable

The key point: compare against “yesterday’s you,” not against A-Jhe. Everyone’s response slope is different; using someone else’s rate of progress to whip yourself will only lead to injury and burnout.

Step 2: If You’re a “Low Responder,” Change the Stimulus First—Don’t Just Add More Volume

This was the core adjustment I made for A-Kai. When someone shows a flat response to a certain plan, here’s my order of operations:

1. First, rule out inadequate recovery: Get sleep, nutrition, and life stress in order first. Many “non-responders” are actually “people who haven’t recovered properly for a long time” in disguise—especially among Taiwanese office workers.
2. Change the type of stimulus: If they’ve been doing steady-state aerobic work with no response, I shift the focus to high-intensity intervals (e.g., 4 minutes near maximal effort, 4 minutes rest, repeated several times). Conversely, if they’ve been stuck doing high-intensity work, I add substantial low-intensity, long-duration riding to build the aerobic base.
3. Only consider adding volume last: Only after confirming the stimulus type is right and the body can recover do we gradually increase training volume.

A-Kai’s example: I switched him from “primarily steady-state aerobic” to “two high-intensity interval sessions per week + one long, low-intensity ride,” with recovery in between. Three months later, his FTP went from a stuck 190 watts up to 218 watts. He wasn’t a non-responder; he’d just been handed the wrong key.

To help you understand more concretely how “changing the stimulus” works, here’s a side-by-side comparison of A-Kai’s weekly plan framework before and after the adjustment. Please note: this is his plan for that phase, not a universal prescription. Copying it directly may not suit you:

Day	Before Adjustment (Flat Response)	After Adjustment (Unlocked)
Monday	Rest	Rest
Tuesday	Steady aerobic 60 min	High-intensity intervals (4 min near max × 4–5 sets)
Wednesday	Steady aerobic 60 min	Recovery ride 40 min (very easy)
Thursday	Threshold 2×20 min	High-intensity intervals (4 min × 4–5 sets)
Friday	Steady aerobic 60 min	Rest or easy rollers
Saturday	Long ride 90 min	Long, low-intensity ride 120 min
Sunday	Rest	Recovery ride or rest

The core difference isn’t “training more”—the total volume was actually similar. The key was that the type of stimulus changed, and recovery was built in. This is a real-world example of using “response variability” as training intelligence.

An Easily Overlooked Point: Your Response Can Change Over Time

One more thing I want to remind you: your response type today is not a lifelong verdict. As your training base thickens and your body becomes better at using oxygen, your sensitivity to certain stimuli will also change. A-Kai later hit another plateau, and that time he broke through by going back to adding large amounts of low-intensity aerobic work. Training is a continuous cycle of “experiment—feedback—adjust.” There’s no one-size-fits-all plan that works forever. This is why I keep emphasizing “track your data”—your body is always talking; you need to keep listening.

Step 3: Reference Plan Frameworks for Different Response Types

The table below is a rough starting point I commonly use. Treat it as a direction, not a precise prescription—actual adjustments depend on individual circumstances:

Response Type	Main Problem	Adjustment Direction	Weekly Training Composition Reference
High responder	Progresses too fast and risks overtraining	Control intensity, prioritize recovery	3–4 sessions as the core, interspersed with complete rest days
Average responder	Progresses steadily but prone to plateaus	Periodize, regularly change stimuli	Aerobic base + 1–2 intensity sessions per week
Low responder (to volume)	Adding volume doesn’t work	Switch to high-intensity intervals	High intensity 2× + long ride 1× + recovery
Low responder (to intensity)	Stuck doing intensity with no progress	Build up low-intensity aerobic base	Low intensity 3–4× + high intensity 1×

Going Deeper: Muscle Fiber Types, Mitochondria, and “Factory Configuration”

Some athletes ask me: “Coach, where exactly in the body do these innate differences show up?” That’s a good question. Although athletic performance is polygenic, we can understand why people’s “factory configurations” differ through several physiological layers.

First, the ratio of muscle fiber types. Human skeletal muscle can be broadly divided into slow-twitch fibers (better for endurance, fatigue-resistant) and fast-twitch fibers (better for power, strong but easily fatigued). Everyone is born with a different ratio of these two fiber types, and this ratio is substantially influenced by genetics. People born with a higher proportion of slow-twitch fibers often have an advantage in long-distance endurance; those with more fast-twitch fibers have an edge in sprinting and explosive efforts. However, I should note: training can significantly change the “metabolic characteristics and functional performance” of fibers. Even if your innate ratio is fixed, you can still train your existing fibers to use oxygen more efficiently and become more fatigue-resistant.

Second, mitochondria. Mitochondria are the “power plants” of cells, and endurance performance depends heavily on the quantity and quality of mitochondria in your muscles. The good news is—this is one of the areas training can change most dramatically. Regular endurance training promotes mitochondrial biogenesis and functional improvement, which is why someone with an average foundation can keep growing their aerobic engine simply by riding consistently. There’s a very interesting clue from the HERITAGE study: the training response showed a higher proportion of “maternal inheritance,” leading researchers to speculate that mitochondrial DNA passed down from the mother may be related to individual differences in training response. This is still an exploratory hypothesis, but it reminds us: innate configurations exist, and so does the capacity for training-induced change.

Third, the cardiovascular system. Heart size, stroke volume, vascular elasticity, and the blood’s oxygen-carrying capacity all affect your aerobic ceiling and all have innate components. But likewise, nearly every one of these can be shifted in a positive direction through long-term training.

See the common thread? Next to every “innate configuration” stands a “space that training can change.” This is the true picture of nature and nurture—not a fight to the death, but a dance.

Epigenetics: Why “Genes Are Not Destiny” Now Has a Scientific Foundation

The area of exercise science that has excited me most in recent years is epigenetics. Simply put, your DNA sequence itself (that string of A, T, C, G) barely changes over your lifetime, but which genes are turned on, which are turned off, and how strongly is influenced by your lifestyle—including exercise, nutrition, sleep, and stress.

This gives “genes are not destiny” a solid scientific anchor: even if you can’t change your DNA sequence, your daily training and lifestyle choices are actively regulating the expression levels of these genes. That ride you did today isn’t just burning a few hundred calories; it’s also sending signals at the cellular level that adjust the activity of genes related to mitochondrial biogenesis, fat metabolism, and inflammation control.

I often tell my athletes: rather than spending time worrying about “is my DNA good,” put your energy into “what signals am I feeding my genes every day.” The former you can’t change; the latter you can act on every single day.

Genes, Nutrition, and Recovery: Practical Reminders for the Taiwanese Context

When discussing gene-environment interactions, we can’t talk only about training, because nutrition and recovery are also part of the “environment”—and they’re the parts you and I can fully control. Here are some reminders tailored to life in Taiwan:

• Protein intake is often insufficient: Eating out is convenient in Taiwan, but many athletes get a huge pile of carbs per meal with pitifully little protein. For anyone looking to improve training response, putting a clear protein source in every meal (soy milk, chicken breast, eggs, fish, tofu—all fine) is foundational. Actual needs vary by body weight and training load, so individual assessment is recommended.
• Iron and female riders: Aerobic performance is tied to the blood’s oxygen-carrying capacity, and iron is a key raw material. Some female endurance athletes are prone to iron deficiency. If you have chronic fatigue or unexplained performance decline, see a doctor for a blood test—don’t self-supplement with iron pills. Over-supplementing can be harmful, and this should be judged by a physician based on test results.
• Sleep is the most underrated “gene regulator”: Taiwan’s long working hours and commutes mean sleep is often the first thing sacrificed. But inadequate recovery directly discounts your training response. Rather than adding more training volume, fixing your sleep first often leads to faster progress.
• Hydration and electrolytes: Taiwan’s summers are hot and humid. Long rides produce massive sweat loss. If you don’t manage water and salt intake properly, both performance and recovery suffer, and you may misjudge your own “training response.”

The table below lays out the division of labor between “genes (innate)” and “what you can control (acquired).” Stick it in front of your trainer as a reminder:

Aspect	Innate (Genes Have Influence)	Acquired (You Can Act On)
Aerobic engine	Heart size, fiber ratio, starting VO2max	Mitochondrial biogenesis, training volume and intensity planning
Rate of progress	Trainability plasticity	Finding the right stimulus type, ensuring recovery
Nutritional metabolism	Some metabolic tendencies	Protein intake, iron, overall diet quality
Recovery capacity	Individual differences exist	Sleep, stress management, training load control
Consistency and enjoyment	Nearly impossible to measure, yet has the biggest impact	Entirely up to you

Commercial Genetic Testing: Does It Hold Up Scientifically?

In recent years, many athletes have brought me commercial sports genetic testing reports and asked: “Coach, it says I’m suited for endurance—should I focus on climbing?” I usually take a deep breath and then honestly tell them a few things.

Their Three Major Scientific Limitations

1. The complexity of polygenic traits is oversimplified: As mentioned, athletic performance involves a huge number of genes. Commercial tests typically look at only a few to a few dozen loci, covering a tiny fraction—so predictive power is naturally limited. The current scientific consensus is: no genetic test can reliably predict a person’s athletic potential or optimal sport.
2. They can’t replace actual performance testing: Rather than spending money to guess what you might be suited for, just go test it directly. Your power curve and your training response data are far closer to the truth than any saliva test. Genes are probabilities; performance is fact.
3. Reports are easily over-interpreted and can even mislead decisions: I’ve seen parents use genetic test reports to decide whether a child “should pursue a certain sport,” and that’s dangerous. An underestimating report can snuff out a child’s interest and potential; and interest and consistency are precisely the things no gene test can measure, yet they are the biggest determinants of long-term achievement.

So Is Genetic Testing Completely Useless?

Not entirely—there’s no need to dismiss it wholesale. In a proper medical context, certain genetic information has value—for example, screening for hereditary conditions related to cardiovascular risk that exercise might trigger. That falls under the medical domain and should be evaluated by a physician. But that’s a completely different matter from “spit in a tube and we’ll tell you if you’re better at sprinting or marathons.”

My position is simple: Take the money you’d spend on a genetic test and buy a good power meter, or have a coach do a full fitness assessment. The return on investment is far higher.

Common Mistakes and Corrections

Over the years of coaching, I’ve seen too many people held hostage by the concept of “genes.” Here are the most common mistakes and how I help athletes correct them:

• Mistake 1: “I wasn’t born with it, so training is useless.” Correction: For the vast majority of recreational athletes, you’re still far from your genetic ceiling. Plateaus are almost always a training plan, recovery, or consistency problem—not a genetic one.
• Mistake 2: Using someone else’s rate of progress to invalidate yourself. Correction: Response slopes vary from person to person. The only person you should compare yourself to is your past self.
• Mistake 3: Declaring yourself a non-responder because one plan didn’t work. Correction: Check recovery first, then change the stimulus type, and only then talk about adding volume.
• Mistake 4: Treating a genetic testing report as a training bible. Correction: Actual performance data always outranks probabilistic genetic predictions.
• Mistake 5: Assuming high responders can’t overtrain. Correction: People who progress quickly are actually more prone to pushing too hard and need to schedule recovery proactively.
• Mistake 6: Ignoring “the controllable half.” Correction: Sleep, nutrition, periodization, and consistency are variables not constrained by genes—and they’re where you can make the biggest impact.

A Special Caution About Children and “Talent Selection”

This section is specifically for parents of children who play sports. In recent years, I’ve occasionally heard talk of “using genetic testing to choose a sport for your child.” I want to say this directly: with current science, doing so is irresponsible.

There are three reasons. First, athletic performance is a complex polygenic trait, and any commercial test covers only a tiny fraction of the picture—predictive power is weak. Second, children are still growing and developing; their current physical condition may be vastly different from adulthood, so using a single test to “decide their fate” makes no sense. Third, and most importantly—what determines whether a child stays with a sport long-term is interest, enjoyment, and consistency, and no genetic test can measure any of those. A careless “you’re not suited” report could personally extinguish a flame that would have burned brightly.

My advice is simple: let children try many things, find a sport they genuinely love, and focus on “enjoying the process, building habits, and avoiding injury.” Talent will reveal itself naturally through sustained engagement—no tube of saliva is needed to decide their life for them.

Actionable Advice for Readers at Different Levels

If You’re a Beginner Rider

Don’t worry about genes yet. Your biggest “talent” right now is “having enormous room for improvement.” Focus on three things: ride consistently, sleep and eat well, and progress gradually without getting injured. Within six months, you’ll improve so much you’ll surprise yourself—and that has little to do with genes. It’s simply your body’s natural response to regular stimulus.

If You’re an Intermediate Rider Making Progress

Start tracking data (FTP, heart rate at the same power, resting heart rate) and build your personal response profile. Learn periodized training, and review every 8 to 12 weeks: if you plateau, ask about recovery first, then stimulus type, and only then training volume. You’re in the golden exploration phase of “finding the stimulus that suits you best.”

If You’re an Advanced Rider Chasing Limits

You may be getting closer to your talent zone, and this is where “individualization” delivers the most value. Carefully identify which stimuli your body is most sensitive to and how long recovery takes, and make every bit of training count. Also, be more honest about recovery—the closer you get to your ceiling, the more recovery and injury management become the deciding factors.

If You Have Chronic Conditions or Health Concerns

If you have high blood pressure, diabetes, a history of heart disease, or other chronic conditions, consult a physician for an individualized assessment before starting or significantly increasing training. Taiwan’s National Health Insurance makes medical access easy; using a cardiology or sports medicine clinic for a pre-exercise evaluation is a worthwhile investment. Exercise often helps manage chronic conditions, but intensity and modality must be individualized—never blindly copy a plan from the internet or someone else.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Q: Can genetic testing help me choose the right sport?
A: Current science cannot reliably predict this. Trying things directly and choosing based on actual performance and enjoyment is far more reliable than a genetic report.

Q: Does 50% heritability mean my effort can only change half of it?
A: No. Heritability describes “the source of variation in a population,” not “your personal capacity ceiling.” The controllable half is more than enough to transform you.

Q: I’ve trained for three months with almost no progress. Am I a non-responder?
A: Don’t rush to label yourself. In nine out of ten cases, it’s inadequate recovery or the wrong stimulus. Switch up the training modality and fix your sleep and nutrition, and many people “unlock.”

Q: Taiwan’s summers are so hot—does that affect how I judge my training response?
A: Yes. High heat and humidity depress power and raise heart rate. I recommend doing key tests on an indoor trainer or in the cooler early morning hours, and using “long-term trends in heart rate at the same power” rather than single-day data for interpretation.

Q: I’m older now—does that mean my training response is gone?
A: The response may slow down, but it doesn’t disappear. Many middle-aged and older riders show clear improvements in fitness and health markers with regular training. The key is to schedule recovery more generously, increase intensity more gradually, and get a medical evaluation before making changes. Age is a variable, not a period at the end of the sentence.

Q: Since genes have limited influence, do I not need to think about talent at all?
A: You could say that. For recreational athletes, you’re still far from your genetic ceiling. Put your energy into “the controllable half”—training, nutrition, recovery, consistency—and that’s enough to transform you. Worry about talent when you’re actually knocking on the door of world-class performance.

Q: Should I care about “celebrity genes” like ACTN3 and ACE?
A: Treat them as fun trivia. A single gene has a very small effect on athletic performance; athletic ability is the result of hundreds or thousands of genes plus environmental factors working together. Rather than caring about a specific genotype, go measure your actual power and training response—that’s the real truth.

Conclusion: Genes Deal the Cards; How You Play Them Is Up to You

Back to A-Kai’s question at the start: “Am I just not built for this?” After more than a decade of coaching, my answer has only grown more certain: for the vast majority of us, the hand genes dealt is far better than we think; what truly determines the outcome is how we play it.

Heritability tells us people are born with differences—that’s a fact, and there’s no need to avoid it. But it never tells you “you can’t become stronger, healthier, or enjoy riding more.” Research on response variability gives us even more hope—a lack of response often just means the right stimulus hasn’t been found yet.

So stop agonizing over whether you have talent. Go ride, track how your body responds, get your sleep, nutrition, and recovery in order, and find the key that fits you best. That climb is yours alone, and so is the view. See you on the mountain.

One last thing I often tell my athletes: the decision you made today to get on the bike already puts you ahead of everyone still anxious about their genes while never leaving the house. No matter how far training science advances or how deep genetic research goes, what ultimately carries you up Wuling and across the finish line is always the you who shows up consistently, recovers properly, and tries a different approach when you hit a plateau. No genetic report can give you that—only you can. Start with the smallest step next week, and let your body answer that question for you.

---

This article is educational content and does not replace individualized diagnosis or treatment advice from a physician, physical therapist, or nutritionist. If you have chronic conditions or health concerns, please consult a qualified medical professional before starting or adjusting a training program.

References

• Twin-sibling study and meta-analysis on the heritability of maximal oxygen consumption: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4773888/
• Familial aggregation of VO2max response to exercise training: results from the HERITAGE Family Study: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10484570/
• Understanding the variation in exercise responses to guide personalized physical activity prescriptions: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S155041312300476X

Related Reading

• Individual Differences in Training Adaptation: Genetic Factors in Performance Changes Under the Same Plan
• The Trainability of Endurance Talent: The HERITAGE Study, Responder Variability, and a Pragmatic Mindset
• Individual Variability and Responders: The Lie of the Average—Why an “Effective Plan” May Not Work for You
• Precision Sports Medicine: Personalized Training Plans Guided by Genomics