Precision Nutrition has been gaining ground in clinical practice, especially with the growing popularity of nutrigenetic testing. One of the arguments most frequently associated with this tool is that, by receiving information based on their own DNA, patients tend to engage more with the recommendations provided by healthcare professionals.
But does science actually support this hypothesis about nutrigenetic testing?
A review published in 2024 in Clinical Nutrition ESPEN (doi: 10.1016/j.clnesp.2024.10.149) analyzed the available studies on lifestyle interventions guided by nutrigenetic data, with a primary focus on weight management.
What do the studies show?
Randomized clinical trials included in the review demonstrated that participants who received personalized recommendations based on their genotype showed:
Greater reduction in body fat percentage
Better adherence to dietary recommendations over time
Reduced intake of total fat and saturated fat
Consistent changes in habits and in the perception of eating behavior
These findings suggest that genetic information may act as a motivational reinforcement. When patients perceive that the recommendation is specifically tailored to them, it tends to carry greater relevance.
Additionally, studies that analyzed multiple genetic variants—rather than focusing on a single gene—showed more consistent results, reinforcing the complexity of human metabolism and the polygenic nature of metabolic responses.
Why can nutrigenetic testing impact adherence?
Despite its limitations, some mechanisms help explain the observed results. The genetic information provided by nutrigenetic testing may:
Increase the perception of personalized risk, making recommendations more relevant
Strengthen the sense of individualized care
Enhance perceived behavioral control, especially when integrated with structured behavior change models
Practical implications of nutrigenetic testing
Nutrigenetic testing has the potential to improve adherence to treatments focused on diet and lifestyle, particularly in medium- and long-term interventions.
This effect is not universal. Genetic information alone does not replace structured follow-up or well-conducted multidisciplinary strategies.
From an ethical standpoint, it is essential to avoid deterministic claims. Genetics does not “determine” behavior; it helps guide it through individualized knowledge.
Conclusion
Genetics is not a sentence—it is a tool: when properly interpreted and integrated into clinical practice, it can transform information into personalization and conscious adherence.
