DNAFit

RobertKK

https://training.dnafit.com/index.asp
https://www.dnafit.com/

Has anyone else tried this out, and if you have what do you think?

I got the reduced rate as I had a DNA test that I could use from 23andme, but the extra information given was very interesting from what type of exercise i should do, to injury risk, what the body needs to recover, diet - it said going on my DNA I should be on a low carb diet.
It does up a diet plan too but everything in this costs...

I signed up to the training program - the 100 day muscle builder plan, the alternative is the 100 day fat burner plan.

I like it, the training plan gives a gym plan and if you can't make the gym, you can do it at home once you have dumbbells.

I think it is on the expensive side, but knowing what type of muscle you have and the ratio is interesting - I am pretty balanced with 54% power (high intensity) and 46% endurance.
It does give a lot of information one would not know about one's own body, and for me knowing more about oneself and one own's make up is something one can use for their own advantage.

They have some sports people who use it, like in soccer and Olympians.
It is good for knowing what diet one should be on, and the type of exercise one should do for example -
if one was biased towards more power in their muscles, then if lifting weights for example, one would use heavier weights but less reps.
If endurance was weighted more favourably - then less weight but more reps.
It gives a lot of other information like injury risk, recovery speed, your body's vitamin, Omega 3 needs and so on.
I just like having this knowledge about my body.

I am curious if anyone else has tried it.

Zillah

RobertKK wrote: »

I am pretty balanced with 54% power (high intensity) and 46% endurance.

lol what the fuck is that even supposed to mean?

Aside from exceptions like mobility or injury the same methods work for everyone.

RobertKK wrote: »

I think it is on the expensive side, but knowing what type of muscle you have

Human. The type of muscle you have is human.

I'd put this stuff up there with homeopathy and designer water.

EDIT:
I can't find anything on their website that says a single word about what actual DNA analysis they do. What genes they track, what evidence they have that shows those genes are connected to certain traits, that those traits can be meaningful manipulated to tailor a workout that is uniquely effective to that person. This place screams pseudo-scientific cash in to me.

RobertKK

Zillah wrote: »

lol what the fuck is that even supposed to mean?

Aside from exceptions like mobility or injury the same methods work for everyone.



Human. The type of muscle you have is human.

I'd put this stuff up there with homeopathy and designer water.

EDIT:
I can't find anything on their website that says a single word about what actual DNA analysis they do. What genes they track, what evidence they have that shows those genes are connected to certain traits, that those traits can be meaningful manipulated to tailor a workout that is uniquely effective to that person. This place screams pseudo-scientific cash in to me.

All muscle is not the same. Unless you think Usain Bolt is suited to do a marathon compared to sprinting.

http://www.mensfitness.com/weight-loss/burn-fat-fast/what-dna-test-taught-me-about-diet-and-exercise

Then the NHS in the UK are using DNAFit under a pilot scheme.
https://www.google.ie/search?q=dnafit++british+science&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b&gws_rd=cr&ei=VHijWMC1MYjVgAbry5aIAQ

[ Last year, a study of 191 obese people by the University of Trieste in Italy found those using a DNA-matched diet lost 33 per cent more weight than those who were simply counting calories.
The research monitored 87 obese patients on the DNA diet for two years, as well as 104 who were on standard diets, in which they simply ate 600 fewer calories a day.
Their Body Mass Index, or BMI, was also recorded. Those on DNA diets saw their BMI go down by an average of 1.8 points, while the other group saw it decrease by 1.3 points. Patients on a DNA diet also gained more muscle, the study found.
/QUOTE]

Using DNA knowledge is not pseudo science.
For muscle they look at the following genes:
ACE
•
AGT
-
ACTN3
•
TRHR
-
PPARA
••
VDR
•
IL6
-
ADRB2 (Gln27Glu)
-
ADRB2 (Arg16Gly)
-
BDKRB2
•
COL5A1
-
PPARGC1A
••
CRP
They show what your genes are and what these genes do.

I will give two example.
ACE gene:
Angiotensin Converting Enzyme

Angiotensin I-converting enzyme is a small enzyme that plays an important role in blood pressure regulation and electrolyte balance. Its activity leads to blood vessel constriction and increased blood pressure. The variation tested is the Insertion (I)/Deletion (D) variation in which a piece of DNA is either present or deleted from the gene. – the I allele is associated with lower ACE activity. This is the most researched gene in relation to sporting performance.


My result was ID: Mixture of power and endurance based training recommended.





ACTN3

Alpha Actinin 3

Associated with major structural component of the fast twitch fibres of skeletal muscles. Only present in fast twitch muscle fibres.


My result: CT (RX)
Expected to be good at strength, speed and power activities, but less so than RR.

---

http://www.independent.ie/regionals/kerryman/news/cuttingedge-dna-profiling-helping-get-health-on-right-track-35395294.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/how-dna-reveals-perfect-workout-fitness-health-test-olmpic-athletes-gene-markers-a7534526.html

This technology is the next step in the personalised fitness dominated by Fitbits and other tracking devices. It is science that Olympic athletes including Greg Rutherford premier league football teams are said to swear by.
Most recently, health firm DNAFit rolled out its Elevate software, which enables clients to access workouts built around their genetic coding on their smartphones and other devices.
To fetch this data, clients swab the inside of their mouths, and post off the cotton bud to the DNAFit lab. There, technicians test for sensitivity to fats, lactose, gluten, carbohydrates, salt, alcohol and caffeine, among others things. A week or so later, a 25-page diet report and 15-page fitness rundown is sent back.
As well as determining whether a person is particularly sensitive and prone to putting on weight after eating certain food groups, DNA markers can pinpoint if a person is more predisposed to training for endurance - such as cycling or running - or power - including weight lifting, high intensity resistance training and sprinting. Even details like the number of reps per exercise and recovery times are said to be lurking in our DNA. Trainers use this data to tailor efficient workouts and diets to help their client maximise their health.

http://www.sporttechie.com/2017/01/30/sports/soccer/egyptian-football-association-to-use-dnafits-dna-testing-to-improve-player-performance/

The Egyptian Football Association would be the latest in the sport to test DNAFit. It was also reported that two English Premier League clubs signed a partnership with DNAFit to provide profiles for both senior and academy players. To date, a variety of sports stars including British long jump Olympic champion Greg Rutherford and rugby star Bryan Habana have used DNAFit’s genetic testing.

I have changed to a low carb diet, most of my carbs come in the morning from the porridge I eat.

You say the type of muscle one has is human, but it is like saying every human has eyes, while ignoring genes affect the colur of the eyes, just like red hair is a genetic based, or being lactose tolerant is genetic, despite every person having the same organs outside of being male or female.
It is all far from pseudo science.

Needs Must

Don't waste your money on this, con and scam spring to mind.

RobertKK

Needs Must wrote: »

Don't waste your money on this, con and scam spring to mind.

Would you care to elaborate?

Are you saying genetics are a con and a scam? It is common knowledge in genetics for example - east Africans athletes have the endurance genes, while the west Africans who are the ones with the quick twitch genes associated with sprinting.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/muscles-genes-cheats-2012-olympics-london/

The human body produces two types of skeletal muscle fibers—slow-twitch (type 1) and fast-twitch (type 2). The fast-twitch fibers contract many times faster and with more force than the slow-twitch ones do, but they also fatigue more quickly. Each of these muscle types can be further broken down into subcategories, depending on contractile speed, force and fatigue resistance. Type 2B fast-twitch fibers, for example, have a faster contraction time than type 2A.

Muscles can be converted from one subcategory to another but cannot be converted from one type to another. This means that endurance training can give type 2B muscle some of the fatigue-resistant characteristics of type 2A muscle and that weight training can give type 2A muscle some of strength characteristics of type 2B muscle. Endurance training, however, will not convert type 2 muscle to type 1 nor will strength training convert slow-twitch muscle to fast. Endurance athletes have a greater proportion of slow-twitch fibers, whereas sprinters and jumpers have more of the fast-twitch variety.

Just as we can alter our muscle mix only to a certain degree, muscle growth is also carefully regulated in the body. One difference between muscle composition and size, however, is that the latter can more easily be manipulated. Insulinlike growth factor 1 (IGF-1) is both a gene and the protein it expresses that plays an important role during childhood growth and stimulates anabolic effects—such as muscle building—when those children become adults. IGF-1 controls muscle growth with help from the myostatin (MSTN) gene, which produces the myostatin protein.

More than a decade ago H. Lee Sweeney, a molecular physiologist at the University of Pennsylvania, led a team of researchers who used genetic manipulation to create the muscle-bound "Schwarzenegger mice". Mice injected with an extra copy of the IGF-1 gene added muscle and became as much as 30 percent stronger. Sweeney concluded that it is very likely that differences in a person's IGF-1 and MSTN protein levels determine his or her ability to put on muscle when exercising, although he admits this scenario has not been studied widely.

Slow-fiber muscle growth and endurance can likewise be controlled through gene manipulation. In August 2004 a team of researchers that included the Salk Institute for Biological Study's Ronald Evans reported that they altered a gene called PPAR-Delta to enhance its activity in mice, helping nurture fatigue-resistant slow-twitch muscles. These so-called "marathon mice" could run twice as far and for nearly twice as long as their unmodified counterparts.

Zillah

RobertKK wrote: »

All muscle is not the same. Unless you think Usain Bolt is suited to do a marathon compared to sprinting.

Of course there is genetic variation, but I find it extremely hard to believe that there is any useable information coming from this process. The genetic markers might suggest someone is inclined towards having an advantage in athletic performance, but I find it extremely hard to believe anything to do with specific set lengths being more effective etc.

This is a classic case of someone taking science in its infancy and turning it into a commercial product. Do they have studies showing the effectiveness of their methods?

As for sports professionals: doesn't mean anything in the slightest. There were a raft of sports professionals wearing hologram bracelets a few years ago insisting that they hormonised their energies to improve performance, because of "energy fields" programmed into them "based on Eastern philosophy".

As for that Trieste study: intriguing result, but unfortunately the author (Paolo Gasparini) is running one of these sports DNA companies himself so would have a huge vested interest in showing that it works, I'm not sure how much weight we can put in his results. It's like a tobacco company doing a study that shows no link between smoking and cancer. Was it peer reviewed? Were the DNA-diets just more interesting that the calorie-counting diets? I can't find any actual source for the study itself.

Total side point: I looked into 23andMe out of sheer curiosity a while back and I was scared off by the fact that their terms of service apparently give them the right to store your DNA and pass it on to third parties. There was an article that argued that this was their long term plan for their business: to build up a large database of DNA that could be used for many different purposes. Scared me right off.

Alf Veedersane

The vast majority of people have a relatively even split of fast twitch and slow twitch muscle fibres. There may be outliers but I'm not sure how valid the testing is in determining that anyway.

But yes, Haile Gebreselassie and Usain Bolt have different genetics but part of that is that Gebreselassie grew up in Ethiopia, at altitude and was probably predisposited to distance running because of his environment because he trained that way.

There may be a physiological difference but I don't really see how it benefits the majority of people, even assuming the test is accurate.

For weight based training, rla range of training intensities and reps is generally recommended anyway. Nor is it really known how different muscle fibres are directly targeted by different training.

If you're an average Joe and not looking for that 1% to get an Olympic medal, train across a range of rep ranges.

Needs Must

Ah don't over complicate things. Unless you are a high performance athlete who is cared for by a special dedicated team, from diets to work out programme's.

This however is a con and just another lot of padding but ultimately they want your money.

RobertKK

Needs Must wrote: »

Ah don't over complicate things. Unless you are a high performance athlete who is cared for by a special dedicated team, from diets to work out programme's.

This however is a con and just another lot of padding but ultimately they want your money.

Everyone wants your money, one doesn't need to go to the gym to get fit, but people pay for gym membership.
Just because they want your money, as they are a business and not a charity, it does not mean they are a con or scam.
You still have not shown why the NHS would use DNAFit in a pilot scheme for people who have obesity issues, if this is a scam, or why an Olympic gold medalist or the Egyptian national football would use it.

Alf Veedersane

RobertKK wrote: »

Everyone wants your money, one doesn't need to go to the gym to get fit, but people pay for gym membership.
Just because they want your money, as they are a business and not a charity, it does not mean they are a con or scam.
You still have not shown why the NHS would use DNAFit in a pilot scheme for people who have obesity issues, if this is a scam, or why an Olympic gold medalist or the Egyptian national football would use it.

Plenty of opposition to the NHS using it amongst dieticians.

But it's possibly moot. I'd wonder why you're going down that route, that's all.

COH

Like with most things that start with science and end with celebrity endorsements I'd be inclined to file it away under 'not in a million f*cking years' pile...

Am I missing something or did it cost the guts of 500 quid to be told in as complicated manner possible to mix strength training and aerobic work and eliminate carbs?

Needs Must

Ah I leave you at it so, you seem to be into it.
I can't say for certain but I would guess that people are being paid to endorse and push it. However you can be certain that their success is not solely based on this concept.

RobertKK

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

Plenty of opposition to the NHS using it amongst dieticians.

But it's possibly moot. I'd wonder why you're going down that route, that's all.

I already had the 23andme test done for health and ancestry, I am curious for all the information I get on my own DNA.
I do a lot of exercise and eat healthily, but not entirely happy with the results, I looked for extra knowledge so used my 23andme data to get more data from DNAFit, given they had diet information and more on fitness.
Now I feel I have a full wide range of information that I can use to my advantage from my initial test with 23andme and DNAFit.
Some people are nosey when it comes to other people, I am nosey when it comes to discovering what I don't know about myself, I want to see how it works out.
The future is DNA and genetics ever since the human genome program was completed.
I think people like dieticians might feel a bit threatened that their careers are under threat if a DNA test can do the job instead.

RobertKK

Needs Must wrote: »

Ah I leave you at it so, you seem to be into it.
I can't say for certain but I would guess that people are being paid to endorse and push it. However you can be certain that their success is not solely based on this concept.

One has to put the work in as with any program, at the end of the day it comes down to exercise and what you put in your body, and there is science in that, but DNA just gives extra science to work with.
That is how I see it.

RobertKK

COH wrote: »

Like with most things that start with science and end with celebrity endorsements I'd be inclined to file it away under 'not in a million f*cking years' pile...

Am I missing something or did it cost the guts of 500 quid to be told in as complicated manner possible to mix strength training and aerobic work and eliminate carbs?

I have done this over a few years so I was not forking out all at once and I can't remember what I paid for all of it.
23andme - 2015.
DNAFit - 2016
DNAFit training program - 2017

From all that I found out lots.
Health wise I should live to be very old as I have a low risk for cancer apart from skin cancer, I have a good heart genes, average risk for Alzheimers and Parkinsons disease.
I have genes that were found to be associated with longevity going on studies in Japan.
I have information on traits, how my body reacts to various medications, fitness, diet, caffeine, alcohol, salt, fat amount of vitamins and minerals needed which is higher than what is normally recommended for some of them.
Yes it could have been worrying when I took the initial test if the results showed I would be at risk for early onset Alzheimers or if I carried a gene associated with a high risk of cancer.
For me this is all one off stuff that I will know for the rest of my life and barring an accident or something bad happening to me, I hope to live to be very old, my father for example is in his 90s.
I want to live to be very old, but I want to be healthy when I am old.
So that means doing the right things now, and one thing this got me doing is exercises that I had avoided like weight training whether using my own weight or other weights. I do a lot of walking, but avoided other types of exercise, and I think getting pushed into this really helped, like joining a gym, you want to get your money's worth by using something one has spent their money on.
One can argue that I spent a lot on finding out what diet is best for me and what type of exercise is best, but for me this is once off and I hope it is something I can use for decades ahead, and has pushed me in the right direction as I never have or will go to the gym.
We all spend our money on things that interest us, the hidden information in our DNA interests me.

I guess no one has tried this :pac:

bilbot79

Op got an unreasonably hard time for this. In a couple of years we won't even be driving our cars but DNA bias in training and weight loss is crackpot? 50 years ago outlandish things tended to be outlandish but in 2017 ideas like this are quite credible. The science is probably too deep to even explain to the common man just like it is with things like satellites, mri scans, nanotechnology and other 'fads' like that.

Let's not be too closed minded the minute we don't understand specialist stuff

Needs Must

bilbot79 wrote:

Op got an unreasonably hard time for this. In a couple of years we won't even be driving our cars but DNA bias in training and weight loss is crackpot? 50 years ago outlandish things tended to be outlandish but in 2017 ideas like this are quite credible. The science is probably too deep to even explain to the common man just like it is with things like satellites, mri scans, nanotechnology and other 'fads' like that.

I disagree, I don't believe the op got that much of a hard time. I know I was sceptical of the merits and still am to an extent.
I still believe it's pricey and the majority of the information garnered from it is readily available from a gp by means of blood tests etc.
That said, as I stated earlier each to their own and if it works for you great, no harm done.

Mellor

Zillah wrote: »

lol what the fuck is that even supposed to mean?

Aside from exceptions like mobility or injury the same methods work for everyone.

Human. The type of muscle you have is human.

Fast twitch verses slow twitch muscle fibres. The relevant gene is ACTN3 apparently (had to google that).
I'm a bit surprised at your first post. I'd have thought it's fairly common knowledge that the types of muscle exist.
Whether the ratio is worth knowing for the average joe is another thing entirely of course.

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

The vast majority of people have a relatively even split of fast twitch and slow twitch muscle fibres. There may be outliers but I'm not sure how valid the testing is in determining that anyway.

DNA testing is probably the best way to estimate it. A muscle biospsy would only give you details of that biopsy.

But yes, Haile Gebreselassie and Usain Bolt have different genetics but part of that is that Gebreselassie grew up in Ethiopia, at altitude and was probably predisposited to distance running because of his environment because he trained that way.

Training makes a difference of course, and can probably bias fibre types. But genetics is a much larger decided. The world champions are the outliers.
If Usain Bolt was adopted by the Gebreselassies as a baby, he'd never have been a endurance runner. He's genetically a sprinter.

There may be a physiological difference but I don't really see how it benefits the majority of people, even assuming the test is accurate.

I've no idea what test the OP had done. But the DNA profiling is able to determine it.

I'm not convinced that it affects the structure of your training. The way company in the OP are selling it.
If you a middle distance runner, and your profile comes back as 65% fast twitch. Then your just out of luck, biasing strength training might get you more of the gym, but its not going to help your sport.

In sports where there's different styles and positions it might help I guess.
But realistically, if you had world class genetics, you'd probably figure it out on your own.

Alf Veedersane

Mellor wrote: »

Fast twitch verses slow twitch muscle fibres.
I'm actually really surprised that you hadn't heard of the types. It's fairly common knowledge that the two types exsit.
The relevant gene is ACTN3 apparently (had to google that).

Whether the ratio is worth knowing for the average joe is another thing of course.

DNA testing is probably the best way to estimate it. A muscle biospsy would only give you details of that biopsy.

Training makes a difference of course, and can probably bias fibre types. But genetics is a much larger decided. The world champions are the outliers.
If Usain Bolt was adopted by the Gebreselassies as a baby, he'd never have been a endurance runner. He's genetically a sprinter.


I've no idea what test the OP had done. But the DNA profiling is able to determine it.

I'm not convinced that it affects the structure of your training. The way company in the OP are selling it.
If you a middle distance runner, and your profile comes back as 65% fast twitch. Then your just out of luck, biasing strength training might get you more of the gym, but its not going to help your sport.

In sports where there's different styles and positions it might help I guess.
But realistically, if you had world class genetics, you'd probably figure it out on your own.

I'm not saying any different. The training was just another factor. If Gebreselassie was born next door to Bolt, he wouldn't be a sprinter.

I've no issue with the genetics and being pre-disposed to different sports. But for the majority of people, it won't make any difference to what they train to be. If I did the test tomorrow and found out I wasn't genetically kitted out for a career in distance running, I wouldn't be looking to switch to sprint training. I don't see how it influences anyone's training if you're not tending towards the elite end of things.

Mellor

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

I'm not saying any different. The training was just another factor. If Gebreselassie was born next door to Bolt, he wouldn't be a sprinter.

I was talking about the a part where you said he was probably predisposed due to environment. It's sounded like you were suggesting that environment was a the main factor. But maybe that's not what you meant.

I've no issue with the genetics and being pre-disposed to different sports. But for the majority of people, it won't make any difference to what they train to be. If I did the test tomorrow and found out I wasn't genetically kitted out for a career in distance running, I wouldn't be looking to switch to sprint training. I don't see how it influences anyone's training if you're not tending towards the elite end of things.

As I alluded to above, if people don't know they are good at something by the time they are adults, then its too late.

This kind of testing has more usable benefit in children imo. However I'm not sure I agree with pushing kids in one direction because they are genetically predisposed rather than what they want to do.
But realistically, that's probably what's happen for years in countries with more institutional sports programs.

Zillah

RobertKK wrote: »

Health wise I should live to be very old as I have a low risk for cancer apart from skin cancer, I have a good heart genes, average risk for Alzheimers and Parkinsons disease.
I have genes that were found to be associated with longevity going on studies in Japan.
I have information on traits, how my body reacts to various medications, fitness, diet, caffeine, alcohol, salt, fat amount of vitamins and minerals needed which is higher than what is normally recommended for some of them.
Yes it could have been worrying when I took the initial test if the results showed I would be at risk for early onset Alzheimers or if I carried a gene associated with a high risk of cancer.
For me this is all one off stuff that I will know for the rest of my life and barring an accident or something bad happening to me, I hope to live to be very old, my father for example is in his 90s.

All of this stuff is awesome and it is the reason I was tempted to get a profile done with 23andme, but just because the science of genetics is real doesn't mean that designing training programmes inspired by your genes will do a damn thing. So it turns out that you have balanced fast and slow fibres - great, you are totally normal. We've designed this totally normal workout routine designed just for you? And you should reduce your carb intake? Like every human being in the developed world?

I am sold on genetics just not training programmes based on genetics.

(EDIT: Also I just remembered that you said the workout can be done at home with some dumbbells? Screams "we don't want to scare anyone off with this gym talk" to me. If you're not using barbells or any other specialist equipment for anything in these workouts I feel even more sceptical.)

Zillah

Mellor wrote: »

Fast twitch verses slow twitch muscle fibres. The relevant gene is ACTN3 apparently (had to google that).
I'm a bit surprised at your first post. I'd have thought it's fairly common knowledge that the types of muscle exist.
Whether the ratio is worth knowing for the average joe is another thing entirely of course.

Yeah I have heard of the different muscle types, I didn't realise this is what OP's percentages were referring to. I thought it was some abstract overall performance metric dubiously derived from various genetic factors.

ford2600

OP you are not getting good results despite eating well and exercising well?

How much do you sit, 21,000 post in 4 years I guess quite a bit?

How is your sleep? Last active at 2.50am?

Low hanging fruit, when you have that picked start looking higher up the tree?


As an aside, a relatively young family member needed to get DNA testing done in Crumlin last year after cancer treatment; it was free to us because of cancer (HSE isn't as bad as people make out). Test was to check for two particular genes which caused breast cancer; the real cost of this "simple" test was a couple of thousand euros and in took a long time, maybe 6 weeks or so. We were told in took a lot of lab hours.

Not sure what specific you would get for a couple of hundred euro but I could be wrong of course

Alf Veedersane

Mellor wrote: »

I was talking about the a part where you said he was probably predisposed due to environment. It's sounded like you were suggesting that environment was a the main factor. But maybe that's not what you meant.


As I alluded to above, if people don't know they are good at something by the time they are adults, then its too late.

This kind of testing has more usable benefit in children imo. However I'm not sure I agree with pushing kids in one direction because they are genetically predisposed rather than what they want to do.
But realistically, that's probably what's happen for years in countries with more institutional sports programs.

No, I just meant that training was a factor. Not a dominant factor but one nonetheless but I said, as did you, that the likes of Bolt and Gegreselassie were special. Outliers.

I have no truck with the science, just with the application of it for the vast majority of people in terms of training and nutrition, especially as outlined in the OP.

Mellor

ford2600 wrote: »

Test was to check for two particular genes which caused breast cancer; the real cost of this "simple" test was a couple of thousand euros and in took a long time, maybe 6 weeks or so. We were told in took a lot of lab hours.

The price of a test is not necessarily what it actually costs. They have factor in set up costs, profit margins, etc. Generally how popular/obscure it is plays a huge part. Doing multiple test would be significantly cheaper than single tests.

The test you are talking about used to cost €1500+ but apparently it's now dropped to €600 due to more going for it.

Mellor

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

I have no truck with the science, just with the application of it for the vast majority of people in terms of training and nutrition, especially as outlined in the OP.

Yeah same here. I just can't see how it affects the rep ranges for specific goals.


That said, in my sport, power or endurance are both valid separate approaches. In that case it might tell me to cut out the weight and focus on a faster cardio based gameplan.
But I don't know it I want to know that

RobertKK

Zillah wrote: »

All of this stuff is awesome and it is the reason I was tempted to get a profile done with 23andme, but just because the science of genetics is real doesn't mean that designing training programmes inspired by your genes will do a damn thing. So it turns out that you have balanced fast and slow fibres - great, you are totally normal. We've designed this totally normal workout routine designed just for you? And you should reduce your carb intake? Like every human being in the developed world?

I am sold on genetics just not training programmes based on genetics.

(EDIT: Also I just remembered that you said the workout can be done at home with some dumbbells? Screams "we don't want to scare anyone off with this gym talk" to me. If you're not using barbells or any other specialist equipment for anything in these workouts I feel even more sceptical.)

In the beginning they had all gym work, they looked for feedback, I was asked but gave none at the time, they said their feedback had people wanting an alternative workout to gym workouts, so in the past two weeks, when one goes to the training program, you can choose to do either the gym or the home workout plan for that day.

I don't believe one has to go to the gym to get fit, lose weight, build muscle or whatever one wants to use a gym for. People can have home gyms. I am slowly building up a home gym, as I don't want to go to the gym as I never went to a gym, and maybe I simply feel a little intimidated by the thought of going to a gym.
I think a lot of people have various gym type equipment at home. You don't need to go to the gym to get to use a barbell, and that is just one piece, the important thing is the quality of the resistance one does, not what equipment one uses, one's own body weight is a great piece of equipment.

RobertKK

ford2600 wrote: »

OP you are not getting good results despite eating well and exercising well?

How much do you sit, 21,000 post in 4 years I guess quite a bit?

How is your sleep? Last active at 2.50am?

Low hanging fruit, when you have that picked start looking higher up the tree?


As an aside, a relatively young family member needed to get DNA testing done in Crumlin last year after cancer treatment; it was free to us because of cancer (HSE isn't as bad as people make out). Test was to check for two particular genes which caused breast cancer; the real cost of this "simple" test was a couple of thousand euros and in took a long time, maybe 6 weeks or so. We were told in took a lot of lab hours.

Not sure what specific you would get for a couple of hundred euro but I could be wrong of course

I will give some of my details:
180cm/5'11"
72kg/159lbs I put on about 6lbs/2.7kg since I started using weights.
BMI 22
Age: 40
I never had a weight issue and for most of my adult years I have been under 11 stone/around 67kg, now I am over that.
I got over 9 hours sleep last night - it was a long day and I was tired, and according to my fitbit:
My average is around 7 and half to 8 hours, and I have no problem sleeping.
Most of my work is physical, and I can post a lot in a short period of time and not always sitting down, currently I am working and posting in rest breaks as I work alone, and it is nice to interact even if only online, plus I live alone in the countryside, that is the main reason I have so many posts, it helps my sanity.
I am pretty fit, but despite doing work that is physical I found my upper body strength and core was not where I wanted it.
I sit a lot in the evening times, especially with the long nights, but as they get shorter, I will be out more, though I do take night walks now and again.
My sister's children and both the parents had to be tested for a very rare heart condition in Crumlin, I don't know the cost but all I know is it was not from my side of the family, so being selfish, that was good for me, and at least my nephews who had the condition could be treated, and it was only by pure luck they found out, rather than simply dropping dead while playing sport.
I used DNAFit, mainly because I was curious for the information, wasn't looking for that extra 1% or whatever, just wanted the info, and the training program to see if it works.
The basic science for getting fit or staying fit or improving one's strength has always being the same science of exercise and diet.

Zillah

RobertKK wrote: »

maybe I simply feel a little intimidated by the thought of going to a gym.

This is the problem right here, though. Instead of giving you the best workout possible they are condescending to you and your insecurities. They're not giving you the best workout, they're giving you an excuse and a song, for the low low price of 500 quid or whatever was quoted earlier.

One can of course have a home gym, but you specifically said you can do their workouts at home once you have some dumbbells. There is a reason gyms exist and it's because a well rounded workout plan uses a wide variety of equipment that would never fit in a normal home to challenge the body in many different ways.

Body weight work can be very beneficial but it is by no means the best workout.

Limited workout with supposed genetic guidance vs thorough workout at a gym without genetic guidance - which do you imagine would be more productive? If you value the opinion of professional organisations and athletes then I'd suggest you consider how many of them do their workouts with a pair of dumbbells on their bedroom floor.

You're paying through the nose for genetic counselling to design the most supremely optimal workout but you're not even willing to go to a gym to do it. The more I hear about this the more it sounds like yet another way to make people feel like they're doing something to reach their fitness goals except precisely what they should be doing.

What exactly are they telling you to do that is any different from any other resistance training programme? Do they claim certain set lengths will suit you especially?

Needs Must

Zillah wrote:

This is the problem right here, though. Instead of giving you the best workout possible they are condescending to you and your insecurities. They're not giving you the best workout, they're giving you an excuse and a song, for the low low price of 500 quid or whatever was quoted earlier.

Fully agree, as I said if it works for you and you are happy with it, then go for it.

However it's expensive padding and waffle that is not for everyone.

RobertKK

Zillah wrote: »

This is the problem right here, though. Instead of giving you the best workout possible they are condescending to you and your insecurities. They're not giving you the best workout, they're giving you an excuse and a song, for the low low price of 500 quid or whatever was quoted earlier.

One can of course have a home gym, but you specifically said you can do their workouts at home once you have some dumbbells. There is a reason gyms exist and it's because a well rounded workout plan uses a wide variety of equipment that would never fit in a normal home to challenge the body in many different ways.

Body weight work can be very beneficial but it is by no means the best workout.

Limited workout with supposed genetic guidance vs thorough workout at a gym without genetic guidance - which do you imagine would be more productive? If you value the opinion of professional organisations and athletes then I'd suggest you consider how many of them do their workouts with a pair of dumbbells on their bedroom floor.

You're paying through the nose for genetic counselling to design the most supremely optimal workout but you're not even willing to go to a gym to do it. The more I hear about this the more it sounds like yet another way to make people feel like they're doing something to reach their fitness goals except precisely what they should be doing.

What exactly are they telling you to do that is any different from any other resistance training programme? Do they claim certain set lengths will suit you especially?

I paid for once off stuff, and that is it. It is not something that will be a recurring payment. btw I didn't pay 500 euro.
My nearest gyms are 7 miles away, it is not appealing to me, maybe if I lived in an urban centre I would feel different but I don't feel the need to go to a gym. I am quite happy with my figure, I am not fat or thin. I just need to stay fit and that is it.

People have different interests, some want bulging muscles, some want to lose weight, some want to be fit, and I want to stay fit, but I also have an interest in DNA, and my interest in fitness is about living longer and healthier - which is what everyone who works to be fit wants, there are the basics one know about health and fitness as in diet and exercise.
But I like learning new stuff whether it is relevant or not is another story.
Today for example I read that if one lives on a diet that is balanced nutritionally so you get the required nutrition, but the diet is at a calorific deficit, science shows one lives much longer, as there is less chemical reactions going on in the body, and this has been shown to lead to a longer life.
So exercise, balanced diet, and a calorie deficit diet. I guess I am lucky so, I now and again put what I eat onto 'myfitnesspal', I near always seem to be in calorie deficit, when compared to what my fitbit says was my calories burned.
I simply like having information, one can argue how beneficial or not it is, but I think the more you know, whether relevant or not, one can decide which it is, one can then decide what to do with the information, but the goal is for one's own health and that is down to every individual (once they are not impaired in any way that makes it impossible to be responsible for one's own health) to look after themselves and be fit or get fit.
People are living longer and I think one has to put the work in throughout one's life, so as we age we can do our best to live healthier for longer.
For me it is not about going to a gym, I have nothing against anyone who goes to a gym, do what works for you, but in the end we all have the same goal I believe, and that is to be healthy and live healthier for longer.
The unfortunate/fortunate thing is DNA means everyone is different, and with no DNA tests we can still get an idea from our parents/grandparents and their health issues and how long they lived, what we may be at risk from.
I know some think I wasted my money, but in the end it comes down to what value the buyer puts on it.

ford2600

RobertKK wrote: »

Today for example I read that if one lives on a diet that is balanced nutritionally so you get the required nutrition, but the diet is at a calorific deficit, science shows one lives much longer, as there is less chemical reactions going on in the body, and this has been shown to lead to a longer life.

https://sigmanutrition.com/episode92/

That's an interesting podcast. Most of the previous work had been on animal models or obese humans. Study discussed here is two year study with calorie restriction on healthy non obese subjects. Most stuck to diet after study ended because they FELT better.

Best advice I've ever got, for all areas of life is listen to your body.

As an aside your are going to struggle to optimize strength gains just working out with dumbells, whether that'll will make an iota of difference to longevity and health as long as you have some element of resistance training I doubt it.

EDIT: If health is your primary goal this is great
http://sigmanutrition.com/episode149/