Skip to main content
Evidence Based Longevity (EBL)
Check what I take
Evidence Trace, complete trial record
In plain terms

In plain terms: Genetic testing to choose diet or supplements (nutrigenomic panels) has been tested in human trials aimed at the relevant outcome and did not show benefit at the doses and durations studied. The animal research may be encouraging, but it has not yet translated to humans in these trials.

Genetic testing to choose diet or supplements (nutrigenomic panels)

D Not shown: no human trial shows benefit
Route 2 — tested in humans; benefit not shown
Category Devices
Evidence One large randomized trial and a meta-analysis of 11 studies
Reviewed October 2026
PMIDs 27524815 · 36779907
The endpoint this grade is based on: self_report

The evidence as the record states it

Evidence record
PMID 27524815 PMID 36779907

Celis-Morales et al. (Int J Epidemiol, 2017; PMID 27524815), the Food4Me trial: adults in seven European countries randomized to standard dietary advice or to personalized advice based on diet alone, on diet plus blood and body measures, or on diet plus those measures plus five diet-related genetic variants, for 6 months; 1,269 completed. Personalized advice improved diet more than standard advice. Adding the blood and body measures or the genotype did not improve it further. King et al. (Nutr Rev, 2023; PMID 36779907): systematic review and meta-analysis of 11 studies comparing genotype-based diet or physical activity advice with general advice; no effect on dietary behavior (standardized mean difference 0.00, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.11) or on physical activity (-0.01, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.08). Grade D, Route 2.

PMID 27524815 PMID 36779907

Trials showing no benefit

Trial 1
PMID 27524815
Endpoint
Diet quality and health-related behavior change at 6 months, genotype-based advice against personalized advice without genotype
Population
Adults in seven European countries; 1,269 completed
No benefit shown

Moderate. One large randomized trial; endpoint is self-reported diet.

Trial 2
PMID 36779907
Endpoint
Dietary and physical activity behavior, genotype-based advice against general advice
Population
11 studies pooled; adults in the general population or at risk of cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes or obesity
No benefit shown

Moderate. Pooled analysis; endpoints are behavior measures, mostly self-reported.

Why Grade D Route 2 and not Grade C

Grade D Route 2 applies when a compound has been tested in humans and benefit was not shown. Genetic testing to choose diet or supplements (nutrigenomic panels) has been tested in 2 human trials on endpoints relevant to the claim being evaluated, and the primary endpoint was not met.

A randomized, placebo-controlled trial pre-specifying a meaningful clinical or functional endpoint and demonstrating statistically significant benefit would move this to Grade C or higher, depending on effect size, population size, and whether it is independently replicated.

What this grade covers and what it does not

Grade D on Route 2: tested, and no added benefit. The claim these panels rest on is that a gene test tells you in advance which diet changes or supplements will work for you. The largest randomized trial of that idea, Food4Me (PMID 27524815), gave people personalized nutrition advice with and without their genotype, and the genotype added nothing beyond advice based on what they already ate. A meta-analysis of 11 studies of genotype-based advice found no effect on diet or physical activity beyond general advice (King et al., 2023; PMID 36779907). No randomized trial has shown that choosing a supplement by genotype improves a health outcome. WHAT THIS GRADE DOES NOT COVER: gene testing to guide medication choice (pharmacogenomics), which is a different question with its own trial evidence, summarized on the myths page; and diagnostic genetic testing for inherited disease, which is medical care rather than a consumer panel.

What would move this grade

A randomized, placebo-controlled trial pre-specifying a clinical aging endpoint and demonstrating statistically significant benefit on that primary endpoint would be sufficient to move this to Grade C or higher, depending on effect size and population.