Lay opinion vs evidence: Sportgene Basis

Lay opinion often claims that specific 'sport genes' (e.g., ACE rs4341 for endurance) determine athletic potential. The evidence is far weaker: single variants explain <1 % of performance variance. GWAS and meta-analyses show small, inconsistent effects. Training, nutrition, recovery, and psychology are the dominant factors. Commercial tests exploit these weak associations to sell 'sport gene' panels. While some variants (ACE I/D, ACTN3 R577X) show population-level trends, they are not predictive for individuals. The scientific consensus is that polygenic scores and lifestyle matter far more. The evidence level is human-moderate/GWAS, not clinical. Consumers should be skeptical of deterministic claims.