DNA based fitness and diet

Sounds like gimmick........almost as silly as the blood type diet.

based on what I know about genetics and what they say on the site, I don't think the test will tell you anything useful. It's testing for various genes associated with athletic ability. But most people know if what they're naturally good at. for example I'm not naturally good at running but i am naturally strong, so I suck at running but I'm good at lifting heavy things... past and present experience tells me this. Maybe someone who's been a couch potato all their life won't know what they're naturally good at but they can find out by getting out there and trying different stuff. And even if you have crap genetics for something, doesn't mean you can't enjoy it. If someone has crap genetics for a particular sport or exercise, doesn't mean they won't enjoy it, just that they won't be an olympic champion. But most people exercise for fun, not to be an olympic champion. And good genetics only makes you a good beginner. To progress beyond that takes hard work, and hard work can trump genetics at most levels in sport... higher levels (e.g. national, international) require hard work and good genetics, but most people enjoy sport and stay fit without winning international championships.

"I have science thing. Give me money. I will give you snake oil that pretends to use that science thing."

It's actually quite a good scam, because if it works (and I'd bet the diet suggests eating fewer calories than you expend, with a bit of dressing up) you credit the product, but if it doesn't, people will tend to blame themselves for not sticking to it.

Not directly related to diet (but since they are selling reports that purport to tell you your best exercise regime based on DNA relevant) Matthew Syed's book 'Bounce', about what makes elite athletes, covers genetics and research into why certain groups or areas seem to dominate certain sports, various bits of Africa for various running events, for example. The research showed that genetics played no part; what did matter were things like opportunity, culture, mentality and luck.

That's a study on race, which isn't the same as a study on genetics, as there's a lot more within-group variation than there is variation between different ethnic groups. Genetics absolutely does affect sports performance, for example someone who's genetically predisposed to have big muscles and gain muscle mass more easily is going to have an advantage in powerlifting. Ditto someone with long legs and relatively long shins having an advantage at running. The fact that this doesn't correlate with ethnic origin doesn't mean genetics doesn't play a role in making someone good at a particular sport. It's a small role compared to the effect that working your *kitten* off has, but at higher levels in any sport, you need both good genetics and a lifetime of working your *kitten* off to win medals.

That said, I don't see the point in genetic testing for it. Someone having good genetics becomes obvious, either when someone is a good beginner, or when they become a champion at a very high level in the sport. I know I'm genetically predisposed to be good at powerlifting without any DNA tests, because I know how much I can lift, with how much training i've done, compared to other women of my weight. Any failure on my part to good at powerlifting will be purely the result of laziness. Running on the other hand, yes I suppose if I was so inclined (I'm not) to run, I could be a lot better at it than I currently am, but I have less than a snowball's chance in hell of competing at running at any high level, due to having totally the wrong limb proportions.