Personalizing training with genetic data: from report to the right dose

Reviewed by Dr. Daniel Wallerstorfer, molecular biologist and founder of Novogenia · Updated: 15 October 2026 · Reading time: 8 min

In short

People respond differently to training – but in one study, everyone ended up responding once the training dose was right. This is where genetic data help: they show tendencies toward power or endurance and toward recovery. As a trainer, you use them to decide where to set the focus, which intensity to choose, how much recovery to plan and how to increase the dose. In a first study, athletes improved more when their resistance training matched their genetic profile. Treat the report as a hypothesis and training as the test: the measured response always has the final say.

Everyone responds – some just need a different dose

Are there people for whom endurance training simply does not work? A study from Zurich put this to the test. 78 healthy adults trained for six weeks on the same endurance program – only the number of 60-minute sessions differed: one, two, three, four or five per week. Anyone whose maximal power output did not improve beyond the measurement error counted as a “non-responder.”

With one session per week, that applied to 69%; with two, 40%; with three, 29%; with four and five sessions, to no one. Then came the real twist: all non-responders trained for another six weeks, this time with two additional sessions per week. Afterward, every single one of them had improved (Montero & Lundby, Journal of Physiology, 2017).

Think of training as a volume knob. For some people, a small turn is enough to get the music playing; for others, you have to turn it up further. But everyone gets to hear it. For you as a trainer, this may be the most encouraging message of all: the question is not whether someone responds to training, but at what dose.

Where genes come into play

That people respond with varying strength to the same training dose is well documented – and part of it is genetic. This is stated in a consensus statement by international experts that explicitly addresses how training can be planned even more personally in the future (Ross et al., British Journal of Sports Medicine, 2019). Resistance training is no different: among 585 women and men, maximal strength rose by 0 to 250% after twelve weeks on an identical program (Hubal et al., Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 2005). How large the genetic share of endurance trainability is, is shown by the HERITAGE study, described in detail in Genetics in training.

Can this already be put to use? A first study is intriguing. Researchers analyzed 15 gene variants linked to power or endurance performance in two groups of male athletes – 28 athletes from various sports and 39 soccer players – and assigned each of them a power or an endurance profile. All of them then completed eight weeks of resistance training, at either high or low intensity – matched or mismatched to their profile.

The groups whose training matched their profile improved significantly in jumping power and in a three-minute endurance test on the bike. Among the soccer players, the matched group improved significantly more in both tests than the mismatched group. And of the athletes who responded little or not at all, 82% came from the mismatched groups (Jones et al., Biology of Sport, 2016). The logical conclusion: matching intensity to the genetic tendency is a sensible first step. Whether it fits the individual is shown by measurement.

Four dials that genes help turn

A performance report mainly points to four dials. Everything in the third column is a logical conclusion, not a proven recipe – which is why the last column shows how to check it:

Dial	Pointer in the report	Logical conclusion	How you check it
Focus	tendency toward power or toward endurance	a slightly larger share for the strength, without dropping the other side	strength or jump test, endurance test
Intensity	power or endurance profile	with a power tendency, high intensity more often; with an endurance tendency, lower intensity more often	comparison with the values at the start of the block
Recovery	signs of slower recovery	more time between hard sessions, take sleep seriously	how the person feels the next day, performance in the next hard session
Dose and progression	VO2max potential and overall profile	allow for patience; if progress stalls, raise the dose first instead of giving up on the goal	retest at the end of the block

The last row connects both studies: if little happens after a block, that is not a verdict on the genes but a pointer to the dose. How genes relate to recovery is described in Recovery: what genes reveal.

The report provides the hypothesis, training the test

You work best with genetic data the way a good scientist would: the report delivers an informed hypothesis, and training tests it. This is the cycle:

Measure the baseline: for example a strength, jump or endurance test, plus training history and available time.
Formulate the hypothesis: “Your genes lean toward power. We will focus on heavy, explosive sessions and keep endurance in the plan.”
Plan the block: The studies above worked with six to eight weeks – a good frame for a training block.
Retest with the same tests: only then are the values comparable.
Decide: Confirmed? Carry on. Not confirmed? The measured response wins. No progress? Adjust the dose first, then the focus.

The rule of thumb behind it: the measured response beats the predisposition. A detailed six-step process from report to plan can be found in Genetics in training.

What to record

You can only test a hypothesis if you know what happened. A simple training log is all it takes – as long as someone keeps it. These points belong in it:

Baseline values and test conditions, so the retest runs under the same conditions.
Volume and intensity per week: how many sessions, how hard?
Recovery: sleep, how the person feels the day after hard sessions, missed sessions.
Every change to the plan – and why you made it.
Which parts of the report you use, agreed with your client.

That way, a gut feeling becomes an observation you can discuss together. And for the next goal, you have a template to build on.

Bringing goal and tendency together

It gets interesting when the goal and the genetic tendency point in different directions. That is not a problem – it just changes the route:

Goal	Tendency in the report	Possible approach
Building muscle	Endurance	strength training stays at the core; allow more patience and work with different rep ranges; measure progress against personal history
Building muscle	Power	use heavy and explosive sessions as a strength; plan recovery between hard sessions deliberately
First half marathon	Power	build volume patiently; include short, fast sessions as a strength; keep strength training
First half marathon	Endurance	longer sessions often come easier; still do not neglect strength training
General fitness	Signs of slower recovery	fewer hard sessions and more easy ones; pay attention to sleep and how the person feels the next day

One message applies to every profile: genes do not decide whether training works, at most how fast. Strength training belongs in every plan – why it matters especially from midlife onward is shown in Longevity in physiotherapy.

What genetic data cannot do in training

No prediction of injuries: A genetic analysis does not predict whether someone will get injured. Increase the load gradually for all your clients. Pain and complaints belong with a physician or a physiotherapist.
No diagnosis, no promise of healing: You work in the lifestyle field – training, recovery, nutrition.
No talent selection: Do not test children and adolescents to select talent or define their training (Webborn et al., British Journal of Sports Medicine, 2015).
Switzerland: Fitness trainers may not order the analysis there; health professionals listed in Art. 40 GUMV do, and the sample is taken in their presence (Art. 34(3) GUMG). You then work in training with the results your client shares with you. More in The performance analysis.

In conversation: tendency, context, next step

How you discuss results decides whether they motivate or put people in boxes. A simple pattern works well: first the tendency, then the context, then a concrete next step – for example, “Your genes lean toward endurance. You can still build strength. We will test in eight weeks how you respond to the new plan.” A fixed rhythm helps, for example a check-in with a retest every three months – in step with the 90-day delivery of personalized supplements (more in Offering genetic analyses in gyms). You will find wording tips in Explaining a genetic report clearly; what you may and may not say as a trainer is covered in For personal trainers and coaches.

How we do it at Novogenia

How we support trainers at Novogenia:

A report with a training focus: The performance analysis shows tendencies toward power or endurance, VO2max potential and recovery, with training guidance and food ratings for a higher training load.
Honest framing: Each gene is backed by at least three independent studies; the recommendations derived from them are logical conclusions, not scientifically proven.
Access: As a partner, you decide whether you see your clients’ reports – with their written consent.
Training: The free NOVO Academy has a dedicated course on athletic performance: which genes influence athlete type and recovery capacity, and how to use the data for coaching and training planning.
Rhythm: Personalized supplements come in daily sachets for 90 days – a good occasion for a quarterly check-in with a retest.

Frequently asked questions

Does the genetic analysis replace a performance test?

No, it complements it. The performance test shows where someone stands today and how they develop. The genetic analysis shows tendencies that do not change over a lifetime. Together, they make the best starting point for a personal plan.

How long should a training block last before I retest?

The studies in this article worked with blocks of six to eight weeks. The logical conclusion: plan the retest at the end of such a block and use the same tests as at the start.

What do I do if the report and the training do not match?

Then the measured response counts. The report provides a hypothesis, not a verdict. If someone with an endurance tendency progresses well with a strength focus, you stick with it.

As a trainer, may I derive training plans from genetic data?

Yes, as lifestyle coaching: focus, intensity, recovery and progression. No diagnoses, no promises of healing, no prediction of injuries. In Switzerland, a health professional listed in Art. 40 GUMV orders the analysis; in training, you work with the results your client shares with you.

Do people with an endurance tendency not need strength training?

They do. Genes do not decide whether training works, at most how fast. Someone who leans toward endurance still builds strength – strength training belongs in every plan.

Genetic analyses for your gym or team?

Tell us about your gym, team or clients – we will show you which model fits.

Request a project →Performance analysis

Note: This guide is general information for businesses and professionals and does not replace medical or legal advice. The genetic traits determined in a genetic analysis are well documented (each gene included is backed by at least three independent studies); recommendations derived from them are logical conclusions, not scientifically proven. Regulations can change; errors and changes excepted.