Pescatello · Medicine and science in sports and exercise 2006 · prospective interventional cohort study · n=631

ACE ID genotype and the muscle strength and size response to unilateral resistance training.

Cited 114 times in the scientific literature.

Level 3 - non-randomized controlled study

Prospective cohort / non-randomized intervention trial evaluating genetic association

PubMed 16775548 · doi:10.1249/01.mss.0000222835.28273.80 · record verified 2026-08-26

What was done

631 young adult men (42%) and women (58%; 80% white; mean age 24.2 years) completed a 12-week (2 sessions/week) unilateral upper-arm resistance training program in their non-dominant arm, with the dominant arm serving as an untrained control. Participants were genotyped for the ACE insertion/deletion (I/D) polymorphism (23.1% II, 46.1% ID, 30.8% DD). Pre- and post-training peak elbow flexor isometric strength (MVC), one-repetition maximum (1RM), and biceps muscle cross-sectional area (CSA via MRI) were evaluated across genotypes using ANCOVA models.

What was found

Baseline muscle size and strength did not differ significantly by ACE genotype. In the trained arm, MVC gains were larger in II/ID carriers compared to DD carriers (22% vs. 17%, P < 0.05), whereas 1RM gains (51%) and CSA gains (19%) did not differ by genotype (P >= 0.05). In the untrained contralateral arm, MVC increased in II/ID (7%, P < 0.001) but not in DD (2%, P >= 0.05), whereas 1RM and CSA gains were higher in DD/ID than II carriers (1RM: 11% vs. 7%; CSA: 2% vs. -0.1%, P < 0.05). Overall, ACE genotype accounted for approximately 1% of the MVC response in the trained arm, and 2% of MVC, 2% of 1RM, and 4% of CSA response in the untrained arm.

Why it matters

This study shows that while the ACE I/D polymorphism is statistically associated with training responses and contralateral strength transfer, its practical impact is very small, explaining only 1–4% of the phenotypic variance.

Limits

The study was conducted primarily in young, predominantly white (80%) individuals, limiting generalizability to older or ethnically diverse populations. The abstract provides no data on nutritional control, adherence rates, or potential candidate gene interactions, and the observed genetic variance explained is too minor to guide personalized exercise prescription.

Cited by