Can gene test determine what training best suits a runner?

The GLP aggregated and excerpted this blog/article to reflect the diversity of news, opinion and analysis.

For the past few weeks, I’ve been discussing and debating with friends and colleagues a recent study on the genetics of training. The study in question was published in the journal Biology of Sport by researchers affiliated with a British company called DNAFit, and I wrote about it in my latest column in the Globe and Mail.

Before I get into the details, I should start with something that everyone agrees on: Your genes influence how you respond to training. Starting with Claude Bouchard’s Heritage study several decades ago, evidence has piled up that if you give identical training programs to different people, they’ll respond differently—and those responses tend to run in families.

The next leap is to say, if my genes dictate which type of training is best for me, let’s test my genes and figure out what genes I’ve got and what type of training I should do.

That is, in fact, what at least 39 different companies offer to do now, according to a consensus statement published in the British Journal of Sports Medicine, which concluded that such testing is, at this point, basically useless for prescribing training. That’s because so many genes influence training response that knowing one (or 15) of them doesn’t tell you much.

Read full, original post: The Genetics of Training

{{ reviewsTotal }}{{ options.labels.singularReviewCountLabel }}
{{ reviewsTotal }}{{ options.labels.pluralReviewCountLabel }}
{{ options.labels.newReviewButton }}
{{ userData.canReview.message }}

Related Articles

Infographic: Global regulatory and health research agencies on whether glyphosate causes cancer

Infographic: Global regulatory and health research agencies on whether glyphosate causes cancer

Does glyphosate—the world's most heavily-used herbicide—pose serious harm to humans? Is it carcinogenic? Those issues are of both legal and ...

Most Popular

Screenshot-2026-03-13-at-12.14.04-PM
The FDA wants to make many popular prescription drugs OTC—a great idea. Here’s why it’s unlikely to happen
Screenshot 2026-05-06 at 2.56
Singularity crisis ahead? Can super babies save us from rogue AI geniuses?
Screenshot-2026-05-04-at-12.54.32-PM
How Utah became the country’s supplement capital  — and a haven for unregulated, ineffective and fake products
Screenshot-2026-04-20-at-2.26.27-PM
Viewpoint — Food-fear world: The latest activist scientists campaign: Cancer-causing additives
Screenshot-PM-24
Viewpoint: The herbicide glyphosate isn’t perfect. Banning it would be far worse.
images
The never-ending GMO debate: Pros and cons
Screenshot-2026-05-01-at-11.56.24-AM
‘Science moves forward when people are willing to think differently’: Memories of DNA maverick Craig Venter
Screenshot-2026-04-30-at-2.19.37-PM
5 myths about summer dehydration that could damage your health — or even kill you
Screenshot-2026-04-03-at-11.15.51-AM
Paraben panic: How a flawed study, media hype, and chemophobia convinced the public of the danger of one of the safest classes of preservatives
79d03212-2508-45d0-b427-8e9743ff6432
Viewpoint: The Casey Means hustle—Wellness woo opportunism dressed up as medical wisdom
ChatGPT-Image-May-1-2026-02_20_13-PM
How RFK, Jr.’s false vaccine claims are holding up $600 million to fight diseases in poor countries
glp menu logo outlined

Get news on human & agricultural genetics and biotechnology delivered to your inbox.