Resistance Training Reshapes the Gut Microbiome for Better Health

Resistance Training Reshapes the Gut Microbiome for Better Health | bioRxiv /* */ /* */ <!-- <!-- /*! * yepnope1.5.4 * (c) WTFPL, GPLv2 */ (function(a,b,c){function d(a){return"[object Function]"==o.call(a)}function e(a){return"string"==typeof a}function f(){}function g(a){return!a||"loaded"==a||"complete"==a||"uninitialized"==a}function h(){var a=p.shift();q=1,a?a.t?m(function(){("c"==a.t?B.injectCss:B.injectJs)(a.s,0,a.a,a.x,a.e,1)},0):(a(),h()):q=0}function i(a,c,d,e,f,i,j){function k(b){if(!o&&g(l.readyState)&&(u.r=o=1,!q&&h(),l.onload=l.onreadystatechange=null,b)){"img"!=a&&m(function(){t.removeChild(l)},50);for(var d in y[c])y[c].hasOwnProperty(d)&&y[c][d].onload()}}var j=j||B.errorTimeout,l=b.createElement(a),o=0,r=0,u={t:d,s:c,e:f,a:i,x:j};1===y[c]&&(r=1,y[c]=[]),"object"==a?l.data=c:(l.src=c,l.type=a),l.width=l.height="0",l.onerror=l.onload=l.onreadystatechange=function(){k.call(this,r)},p.splice(e,0,u),"img"!=a&&(r||2===y[c]?(t.insertBefore(l,s?null:n),m(k,j)):y[c].push(l))}function j(a,b,c,d,f){return q=0,b=b||"j",e(a)?i("c"==b?v:u,a,b,this.i++,c,d,f):(p.splice(this.i++,0,a),1==p.length&&h()),this}function k(){var a=B;return a.loader={load:j,i:0},a}var l=b.documentElement,m=a.setTimeout,n=b.getElementsByTagName("script")[0],o={}.toString,p=[],q=0,r="MozAppearance"in l.style,s=r&&!!b.createRange().compareNode,t=s?l:n.parentNode,l=a.opera&&"[object Opera]"==o.call(a.opera),l=!!b.attachEvent&&!l,u=r?"object":l?"script":"img",v=l?"script":u,w=Array.isArray||function(a){return"[object Array]"==o.call(a)},x=[],y={},z={timeout:function(a,b){return b.length&&(a.timeout=b[0]),a}},A,B;B=function(a){function b(a){var a=a.split("!"),b=x.length,c=a.pop(),d=a.length,c={url:c,origUrl:c,prefixes:a},e,f,g;for(f=0;f<d;f++)g=a[f].split("="),(e=z[g.shift()])&&(c=e(c,g));for(f=0;f<b;f++)c=x[f](c);return c}function g(a,e,f,g,h){var i=b(a),j=i.autoCallback;i.url.split(".").pop().split("?").shift(),i.bypass||(e&&(e=d(e)?e:e[a]||e[g]||e[a.split("/").pop().split("?")[0]]),i.instead?i.instead(a,e,f,g,h):(y[i.url]?i.noexec=!0:y[i.url]=1,f.load(i.url,i.forceCSS||!i.forceJS&&"css"==i.url.split(".").pop().split("?").shift()?"c":c,i.noexec,i.attrs,i.timeout),(d(e)||d(j))&&f.load(function(){k(),e&&e(i.origUrl,h,g),j&&j(i.origUrl,h,g),y[i.url]=2})))}function h(a,b){function c(a,c){if(a){if(e(a))c||(j=function(){var a=[].slice.call(arguments);k.apply(this,a),l()}),g(a,j,b,0,h);else if(Object(a)===a)for(n in m=function(){var b=0,c;for(c in a)a.hasOwnProperty(c)&&b++;return b}(),a)a.hasOwnProperty(n)&&(!c&&!--m&&(d(j)?j=function(){var a=[].slice.call(arguments);k.apply(this,a),l()}:j[n]=function(a){return function(){var b=[].slice.call(arguments);a&&a.apply(this,b),l()}}(k[n])),g(a[n],j,b,n,h))}else!c&&l()}var h=!!a.test,i=a.load||a.both,j=a.callback||f,k=j,l=a.complete||f,m,n;c(h?a.yep:a.nope,!!i),i&&c(i)}var i,j,l=this.yepnope.loader;if(e(a))g(a,0,l,0);else if(w(a))for(i=0;i (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];var j=d.createElement(s);var dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.src='//www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;j.type='text/javascript';j.async=true;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-M677548'); Skip to main content Home About Submit ALERTS / RSS Search for this keyword Advanced Search New Results Resistance Training Reshapes the Gut Microbiome for Better Health View ORCID Profile Daniel Straub , View ORCID Profile Till Englert , Antonia Beller , View ORCID Profile Josua Stadelmaier , Mark Stahl , View ORCID Profile Joachim Kilian , Jens Borzym , Carola Rotermund , View ORCID Profile Tanja Akbuga-Schön , View ORCID Profile Sabrina Krakau , View ORCID Profile Stefan Czemmel , Sabine Weiler , Marc Pettenkofer , Jörg Pettenkofer , Ulli Maser , View ORCID Profile Sascha Dammeier , View ORCID Profile Andreas M. Nieß , Markus D Enderle , View ORCID Profile Sven Nahnsen doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.08.13.670057 Daniel Straub 1 Quantitative Biology Center (QBiC), University of Tübingen , Germany 2 M3 Research Center, Medical Faculty, University of Tübingen , Germany Find this author on Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for this author on this site ORCID record for Daniel Straub Till Englert 1 Quantitative Biology Center (QBiC), University of Tübingen , Germany 2 M3 Research Center, Medical Faculty, University of Tübingen , Germany Find this author on Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for this author on this site ORCID record for Till Englert Antonia Beller 1 Quantitative Biology Center (QBiC), University of Tübingen , Germany Find this author on Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for this author on this site Josua Stadelmaier 1 Quantitative Biology Center (QBiC), University of Tübingen , Germany 2 M3 Research Center, Medical Faculty, University of Tübingen , Germany Find this author on Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for this author on this site ORCID record for Josua Stadelmaier Mark Stahl 3 Zentrum für Molekularbiologie der Pflanzen (ZMBP), University of Tübingen , Germany Find this author on Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for this author on this site Joachim Kilian 3 Zentrum für Molekularbiologie der Pflanzen (ZMBP), University of Tübingen , Germany Find this author on Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for this author on this site ORCID record for Joachim Kilian Jens Borzym 4 Fitness-Park Mapet GmbH , Tübingen, Germany Find this author on Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for this author on this site Carola Rotermund 5 Erbe Elektromedizin GmbH , Tübingen, Germany Find this author on Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for this author on this site Tanja Akbuga-Schön 5 Erbe Elektromedizin GmbH , Tübingen, Germany Find this author on Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for this author on this site ORCID record for Tanja Akbuga-Schön Sabrina Krakau 1 Quantitative Biology Center (QBiC), University of Tübingen , Germany 2 M3 Research Center, Medical Faculty, University of Tübingen , Germany Find this author on Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for this author on this site ORCID record for Sabrina Krakau Stefan Czemmel 1 Quantitative Biology Center (QBiC), University of Tübingen , Germany 2 M3 Research Center, Medical Faculty, University of Tübingen , Germany Find this author on Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for this author on this site ORCID record for Stefan Czemmel Sabine Weiler 5 Erbe Elektromedizin GmbH , Tübingen, Germany Find this author on Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for this author on this site Marc Pettenkofer 4 Fitness-Park Mapet GmbH , Tübingen, Germany Find this author on Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for this author on this site Jörg Pettenkofer 4 Fitness-Park Mapet GmbH , Tübingen, Germany Find this author on Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for this author on this site Ulli Maser 4 Fitness-Park Mapet GmbH , Tübingen, Germany Find this author on Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for this author on this site Sascha Dammeier 5 Erbe Elektromedizin GmbH , Tübingen, Germany Find this author on Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for this author on this site ORCID record for Sascha Dammeier Andreas M. Nieß 6 Department of Sports Medicine, University Hospital Tübingen , 72076 Tübingen, Germany 7 Interfaculty Research Institute for Sport and Physical Activity, Eberhard Karls University Tübingen , Tübingen, Germany Find this author on Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for this author on this site ORCID record for Andreas M. Nieß Markus D Enderle 5 Erbe Elektromedizin GmbH , Tübingen, Germany Find this author on Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for this author on this site Sven Nahnsen 1 Quantitative Biology Center (QBiC), University of Tübingen , Germany 2 M3 Research Center, Medical Faculty, University of Tübingen , Germany 8 FBI/IBMI - Biomedical Data Science, University of Tübingen , Germany Find this author on Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for this author on this site ORCID record for Sven Nahnsen For correspondence: sven.nahnsen{at}qbic.uni-tuebingen.de Abstract Full Text Info/History Metrics Supplementary material Preview PDF ABSTRACT Objectives The gut microbiome plays a critical role in metabolism, immunity, and aging. While endurance training has been shown to beneficially modulate the microbiome, the effects of resistance training remain less clear, with some studies reporting minimal changes. This project aims to investigate whether structured resistance training elicits significant changes in gut microbiome composition and diversity in sedentary, healthy adults. Methods 150 participants completed an 8-week supervised resistance training program. Session-level training data, including weights and repetitions, were recorded alongside metrics like load and compliance. Fecal samples were collected throughout the study period at designated timepoints for 16S rRNA gene amplicon sequencing to assess microbiome composition and for metabolomics analyses to evaluate microbial metabolic activity. Results No differences in microbial diversity were observed, and there were no significant changes in microbial community composition or fecal metabolomics across all participants post-training. However, within-individual microbial community changes significantly correlated with strength improvement, and significantly stronger shifts in beta diversity were observed in participants with high average strength gains compared to those with smaller gains. In these high responders, differential abundance analysis revealed time-dependent microbial changes, with more taxa enriched or depleted by week 8 of training. Notably, Faecalibacterium and Roseburia hominis —both associated with a healthier, anti-inflammatory microbiome—were significantly enriched. Many differentially abundant taxa belonged to the Lachnospiraceae family. Conclusion Resistance training drives significant, time-dependent gut microbiome changes, particularly in those demonstrating greater improvements in strength. These shifts mirror endurance training effects and may reflect improved overall health. Summary While endurance training has been consistently shown to enhance gut microbiome composition, the effects of resistance training remain less well defined, with findings to date being variable. Our results indicate that resistance training can induce meaningful, time-dependent shifts in the gut microbiome, particularly among sedentary individuals who experience substantial strength gains. Notably, we observed enrichment of key health-associated taxa, including Faecalibacterium and Roseburia hominis , both linked to anti-inflammatory effects and improved gut function. These findings suggest that resistance training may contribute to gut health in conjunction with physical fitness, supporting its broader application in health promotion strategies and future microbiome-focused research. INTRODUCTION The human gut microbiome, comprising trillions of microorganisms, plays a central role in digestion, metabolism, immune function, and overall health [ 1 ]. While diet and lifestyle are well-established modulators, growing evidence points to physical activity as a significant influence on gut microbial diversity and composition. Exercise affects key physiological processes such as inflammation and energy metabolism, which are closely linked to the gut microbiome and broader outcomes like physical fitness and aging [ 2 ]. The microbiome is increasingly recognized as a marker not only of overall health but also of aging [ 3 , 4 ]. Age-related declines in microbial diversity and beneficial taxa are associated with inflammation, immune dysfunction, and metabolic deterioration [ 4 ]. In contrast, a microbiome enriched in bacteria such as Faecalibacterium, Akkermansia , and Roseburia , known for producing short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs) like butyrate, is linked to improved gut integrity, reduced inflammation, and healthier aging [ 5 ]. Endurance training has been consistently shown to promote such a microbial profile, increasing alpha diversity, SCFA production, and gut barrier function [ 2 ]. In contrast, the effects of resistance training on the gut microbiome are far less understood. Resistance exercise induces distinct physiological changes, including muscle hypertrophy, increased protein turnover, glycemic control [ 6 ] and hormonal adaptations [ 7 ]. However, current research offers conflicting findings: while some studies report microbiome shifts correlated with strength performance, others find only minimal or no changes [ 8 , 9 ]. Given the inconsistent findings to date, larger and more detailed studies are needed to determine whether resistance training alone can induce measurable changes in the gut microbiome—particularly changes resembling the health-associated patterns seen with endurance training. To address this gap, we investigated microbiome shifts in a large cohort of previously inactive, healthy adults undergoing a structured resistance training program. Uniquely, we captured detailed session-level data (weights lifted, repetitions performed) to objectively assess training load and adherence. By linking these metrics with longitudinal microbiome and fitness data, this study offers the most comprehensive analysis to date of how resistance training may influence gut microbial diversity and taxa associated with metabolic and immune health. MATERIAL AND METHODS Training protocol and exclusion criteria The intervention took place from May 2022 to July 2023 at two “Fitness-und Gesundheitsclub Mapet” locations in Tübingen and Rottenburg, Germany. Sedentary individuals (≥1 year) were screened and enrolled after completing a demographic questionnaire. Participants completed a baseline fitness assessment comprising anthropometric measurements (body weight, body mass index, and body fat percentage assessed via bioelectrical impedance analysis), cardiorespiratory evaluation (VO 2 max testing), and cardiovascular variables (resting blood pressure and heart rate). Subsequently, participants engaged in an 8-week supervised resistance training intervention (2–3 sessions per week). Follow-up fitness assessments were conducted at weeks 4 and 8. Participants completed pre-test questionnaires covering dietary and fluid intake, medication use and other relevant factors, and were instructed to maintain their usual dietary and fluid intake patterns throughout the study period. Training was conducted on seven EGYM Smart Strength machines (Seated row, Lat Pull, Chest press, Back trainer, Abdominal trainer, Leg curl, and Leg press) using one of two resistance training programs: a resistance training program aimed at improving general fitness, or muscle-building ( Table 1 ). The equipment enabled standardized training through automated control of range of motion, movement speed, and digitally programmed resistance profiles, including eccentric overload phases and adaptive load adjustments based on user performance. These algorithm-driven protocols provided progressive, individualized stimuli not feasible with conventional gym equipment. Training machines not only guided each session in real time but also automatically recorded detailed exercise data (machine used, program, weight, repetitions, max strength, date) for every workout. View this table: View inline View popup Table 1: Training protocol with EGYM resistance exercise machines and training algorithms. Of the 205 enrolled participants, 43 did not complete the full 8-week training protocol and were excluded from analysis. Six additional participants were excluded from the analysis due to data quality concerns (antibiotic use or improper stool sample storage). Another six participants were excluded as their samples were used for internal validation of sequencing and metabolomics workflows. Strength and Training Metrics Average strength gains were assessed by calculating the average log 2 fold change in maximum strength across all exercise machines between two time points. BioAge Strength is an EGYM metric that estimates the biological age of muscular fitness based on a non-linear model of the typical relationship between age and strength. It uses a large dataset from approximately one million probands including chronological age, sex, and strength relative to body weight to determine whether an individual’s strength is above (younger BioAge) or below average (older BioAge) for their chronological age. The final score is calculated as the average across all exercise machines and can be improved by increasing strength or reducing body weight—but not below the minimum of 21 years. Activity Points, another EGYM metric, were used to estimate the metabolic equivalent (MET) expended per session. This measure integrates training intensity, excess post-exercise oxygen consumption (EPOC), the mechanical work of each set, and an individualized estimate of the participant’s resting metabolic rate, providing a comprehensive representation of training load. Training compliance was quantified as the percentage of targeted repetitions actually performed across all sessions, offering an objective measure of adherence to the training protocol. Stool sample processing Stool samples were self-collected by participants using two OMNIgene®-GUT kits (OM-200 for 16S rRNA gene amplicon sequencing and ME-200 for targeted metabolomics) and stored at 4°C before transport at ambient temperature and long-term storage at −80°C. DNA was extracted using the DNeasy 96 PowerSoil Pro Kit and 16S rRNA V4 regions were amplified using primers 515F/806R. Sequencing was performed on the Illumina MiSeq platform (2 × 250 bp, 69k reads/sample on average). Data processing employed the nf-core/ampliseq pipeline (v2.7.0) [ 10 ] as detailed in the supplement. For metabolomics, samples were prepared, analyzed and quantified via internal standards and dry weight normalization via LC-MS and GC-MS as detailed in the supplement. Statistical Analysis Non-parametric tests (Friedman, Conover post hoc) were used to assess fitness changes over time. Longitudinal trends between training groups were analyzed with nparLD in R. Subsets of lowest 20% responders were compared to the highest responders (n=30 each) - based on either maximum strength gain in the leg press, or average strength gain for all 7 exercises, or average decrease of BioAge strength - either using Kruskal-Wallis rank sum test followed by pairwise comparisons using Wilcoxon rank sum test with continuity correction or Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests for distributions. Multiple testing correction was done with the Benjamini-Hochberg method. Significance threshold was set at p<0.05 if not otherwise indicated. Differential microbial abundance was assessed with ANCOM-BC2 [ 11 ] using Dunnett’s test [ 12 ] with Holm’s family-wise error rate correction [ 13 ] based on phyloseq [ 14 ] objects from nf-core/ampliseq, modeling time point as a categorical variable. Extended information is available in the supplement. Equity, diversity, and inclusion statement Our study includes similar numbers of sedetary women and men in the vincinity of Tübingen, Germany. We did not purposefully recruit people from marginalized communities. Our author team included five women and fourteen men, at the time all living in Germany. Author disciplines included bioinformatics, biology, sport management, sports medicine, internal medicine, and we included three junior scholars. We did not examine the effects of race/ethnicity or socioeconomic status. We discussed gender specific limitations on our findings in the discussion. Patient involvement Participants and the public were not and will not be involved. RESULTS Resistance training rapidly enhances muscle strength Of the 205 participants initially enrolled, 150 were included in the final analysis ( Figure 1A ). Table 2 summarizes the demographic and baseline characteristics of the final study cohort. View this table: View inline View popup Download powerpoint Table 2: Demographic data of participants. Values as percent or mean ± SD. Download figure Open in new tab Figure 1: (A) Study overview with number of participants enrolled in the study, with three fitness tests, three gut microbiome samples and two gut metabolome samples per participant. (B) Comparison of activity points (metabolic equivalents minutes) of regular resistance training (RRT) and muscle-building resistance training (MBRT). (C) Maximum strength of leg press over time. (D) Average strength gain over seven exercises. (E) Calculated BioAge Strength over time. log 2 FC: log 2 fold change, W0: week 0, W4: week 4, W8: week 8. Letters denote p<0.05. Participants were randomly assigned to one of two training regimens: regular resistance training (higher repetitions, lower weights) or muscle-building resistance training (higher weights, fewer repetitions) ( Table 2 ). The study initially aimed to compare fitness and microbiome responses between the two approaches. Despite differences in training style, both programs were similar in total weight moved and activity points (metabolic equivalent minutes) ( Figure 1B ). Further, no significant differences in fitness improvements were observed between the groups. As a result, participants were pooled for all subsequent analyses to maximize statistical power. Strength gains were evaluated using three metrics: (1) maximum strength leg press (kg), (2) average strength gain (average log 2 fold change across all machines), and (3) BioAge Strength (years). All measures showed substantial improvement within the first four weeks, followed by a smaller increase in the second half of the program. On average, leg press strength rose from 154 ± 54 kg to 217 ± 65 kg ( Figure 1C ), average strength increased by 24 ± 16% ( Figure 1D ), and BioAge Strength decreased from 45.8 ± 14.7 to 29.6 ± 9.6 years ( Figure 1E ). Beyond strength, participants also experienced statistically significant, though small, reductions in diastolic blood pressure (from 108 ± 17 to 105 ± 17 mmHg) and body fat percentage (from 29.72 ± 8.01% to 29.34 ± 8.30%). However, BMI, resting heart rate, and systolic blood pressure remained unchanged (Suppl. Fig. 1). Changes in the Microbial Community is associated with Strength Gain Resistance training did not significantly alter gut microbial alpha diversity, neither across all participants ( Figure 2A ) nor within groups stratified by strength metrics. Similarly, no notable changes were observed in beta diversity across these groups, and stool metabolomic profiles remained unchanged (Suppl. Fig. 2). Longitudinal within-subject analyses demonstrated that shifts in microbial community composition were modestly, yet significantly, associated with improvements in strength performance—most notably with average strength gains ( Figure 2B ). Download figure Open in new tab Figure 2: (A) Microbial diversity over the course of the training (p>0.1 for Friedman test followed by pairwise Friedman-Conover test). (B) Pearson correlation between changes of the microbial community and changes in fitness (average strength gain) over 8 weeks. (C) Subsetting participants in low, medium and high responders based on change in average strength: Low responders had less than 12.2% strength gain, high responders more than 33%. (D) Number of training days per participant stratified by responder type (average strength). (E) Microbial community changes (Bray-Curtis distance) within participants stratified by responder type (average strength). log 2 FC: log 2 fold change, W0: week 0, W4: week 4, W8: week 8. Letters denote p<0.05. Based on this correlation, participants were stratified into high-responder (HR, top 20%) and low-responders (LR, bottom 20%) across three strength metrics ( Fig. 2C ), yielding three partially overlapping subsets (Suppl. Fig. 3). Among these, the average strength gain subset showed the least demographic bias, while the BioAge Strength subset showed the most (Suppl. Fig. 4). Dietary changes did not differ significantly between HR and LR groups in any subset (Suppl. Fig. 5). Download figure Open in new tab Figure 3: Heatmap of significantly different Amplicon Sequence Variants (ASVs) with taxonomies within high responders (average strength gain) over time. The q-value indicates Benjamini-Hochberg corrected p-values that ASVs were found by chance (permutation test with 100 random subsets of non-high responder participants). For each ASV, class and family are indicated as colours, and the lowest reported informative taxonomic level is indicated as K: Kingdom, O: order, F: family, G: Genus, S: Species, Se: Species with exact sequence match. W0: week 0, W4: week 4, W8: week 8. ANCOM-BC2 (formula: asv ∼ timepoint + (1|participant), dunnet test) with p≤0.05 and log 2 fold change ≤-1 or log 2 fold change ≥1. *: p≤0.05, **: p≤0.001, ***: p≤0.00001. The number of training days differed significantly between HR and LR only in the average strength gain subset (20.7 vs. 19.1 sessions; Figure 2D ), while training compliance was similar across all groups. A Random Forest model using baseline fitness- and metadata identified strength measures as the strongest predictors of training response; microbial and metabolomic data were not predictive (Suppl. Fig. 6). Finally, within-individual beta diversity distances differed significantly between HR and LR in the average strength gain subset ( Figure 2E ), but not in the other two strength-based groupings. Differential Microbiome Changes in High-Responder As the correlation of longitudinal within-subject shifts in microbial community composition with strength performance was most pronounced in the average strength gain group, this subset was selected for further differential abundance analysis (DAA), focusing on HR. To ensure robustness, a permutation-based approach was used: random subsets of non-high responders (not classified as high responders by any metric) were also subjected to DAA and microbial changes in HR with a q-value < 0.05 were considered unlikely to be due to chance. DAA revealed distinct microbial shifts in HRs following resistance training. After four weeks, nine Amplicon Sequence Variants (ASVs) were significantly enriched and four were depleted compared to control subsets. By week eight, these differences became more pronounced, with sixteen ASV increased and eleven decreased in abundance. Notably, a large proportion of differentially abundant sequences belonged to the Lachnospiraceae family. However, no consistent phylogenetic pattern emerged, as both increases and decreases occurred across diverse microbial lineages. Several ASVs were consistently and significantly enriched at both time points, including ASVs that were associated to Faecalibacterium, Bacteroides massiliensis, Lachnospiraceae , and the Prevotellaceae family. Conversely, consistently and significantly depleted ASVs included Lachnoclostridium , along with sequences from the Oscillospiraceae (NK4A214 group) and Ruminococcaceae families. Notably, an ASV classified as Roseburia hominis showed the most significant increase, while Agathobacter and Butyricicoccus were the most significantly depleted, changes that reached significance only at week eight ( Figure 3 ). DISCUSSION This study provides evidence that structured resistance training can induce significant and reproducible shifts in gut microbiome composition, particularly in individuals exhibiting pronounced adaptations in muscle strength. By utilizing a large cohort of 150 previously inactive but otherwise healthy adults and integrating digitally controlled resistance training protocols, individual strength trajectories were objectively linked to microbial dynamics. A key methodological strength was the use of digitally controlled resistance training equipment, which enabled individualized and progressively adjusted training stimuli. These standardized protocols likely enhanced the precision and consistency of training across participants, potentially contributing to the observed association between strength development across all exercises and microbial changes. Participants with lower baseline strength demonstrated the greatest relative improvements, consistent with the principle of diminishing returns in resistance training [ 15 , 16 ]. These findings support the potential of resistance training, particularly when delivered through adaptive modalities, as a modulator of host–microbe interactions. The absence of significant changes in alpha diversity following resistance training contrasts with findings from endurance-based exercise interventions, where increases in microbial richness and evenness are commonly reported [ 2 , 17 – 19 ]. This suggests that alpha diversity may be less responsive to resistance training stimuli [ 9 ]. However, shifts in beta diversity among participants with greater strength gains indicate that compositional remodeling does occur and may depend on surpassing a physiological threshold, consistent with a dose– response relationship [ 20 ]. The enrichment of taxa such as Faecalibacterium and Roseburia hominis , both producers of SCFAs with anti-inflammatory properties, suggests that resistance training may foster a gut microbial profile conducive to metabolic health and immune regulation [ 5 ]. SCFAs have been implicated in maintaining gut barrier integrity, regulating glucose homeostasis [ 6 ], and exerting systemic anti-inflammatory effects [ 2 ]. These findings are consistent with those reported by Cullen et al. [ 8 ], who observed increased abundance of Roseburia and a non-significant trend toward higher levels of Faecalibacterium prausnitzii following a 6-week resistance training program in young adults with overweight and obesity. Their results further support the potential of resistance training to promote SCFA-producing taxa, with possible implications for improved insulin sensitivity [ 6 ] and cardiometabolic health [ 8 ]. Notably, similar microbial adaptations, including increases in SCFA-producing genera such as Roseburia , have been documented in response to endurance training, highlighting that despite differing exercise modalities, both resistance and endurance training may converge on shared microbiome-mediated pathways that enhance host metabolic and immune function [ 2 , 21 ]. The modulation of Lachnospiraceae , a diverse bacterial family with both beneficial and potentially pathogenic members, illustrates their complex, context-dependent role in microbiome adaptation to physical activity. While some murine studies link certain strains to reduced endurance, others report performance-enhancing effects from taxa like Coprococcus eutactus [e.g. 22 – 24 ]. Importantly, all observed shifts in microbial composition—including the enrichment of Faecalibacterium and Roseburia hominis , as well as changes within the Lachnospiraceae family—occurred in the absence of dietary modification, indicating that resistance training alone may act as an independent driver of gut ecosystem remodeling. Several mechanisms have been proposed to explain how these microbial shifts may influence muscular adaptations to resistance training. SCFAs—particularly butyrate, produced via bacterial fermentation of dietary fiber—have demonstrated beneficial effects on muscle metabolism and function [ 25 ]. The gut microbiota also play a key role in amino acid biosynthesis and metabolism, which are essential for muscle protein synthesis [ 26 , 27 ], as well as in regulating energy homeostasis, which can impact muscle anabolism and recovery [ 28 ]. These interconnected pathways suggest that the gut microbiome may contribute to the physiological adaptations induced by resistance training, although further mechanistic studies are warranted to clarify these relationships. Despite these compositional changes in the microbiome, no significant alterations were detected in the stool metabolomic profile, an observation that contrasts with previous reports demonstrating a correlation between gut microbiome composition and metabolomic output [ 29 ]. This discrepancy may reflect subtle or localized functional changes, limitations of the targeted metabolomics approach, or functional redundancy within the microbiome. It is also possible that transient metabolic responses were missed due to the exclusive use of long-term sampling; short-term assessments may reveal dynamic shifts not captured in this study. It is also important to consider that stool metabolomics predominantly reflect luminal microbial activity and may not fully capture host–microbe metabolic interactions occurring at the mucosal interface or systemically. Resistance training may influence host metabolism through pathways not reflected in fecal metabolites, including muscle-derived signaling molecules, systemic inflammation, or shifts in energy substrate utilization. Taken together, these findings emphasize the need for future investigations to integrate multi-omics approaches, such as plasma metabolomics and metatranscriptomics, to more comprehensively characterize the functional impact of exercise-induced microbiome alterations. From a translational perspective, these findings carry important implications for public health and clinical practice. Resistance training is already recommended for musculoskeletal health and metabolic disease prevention; our results suggest it may also serve as a non-pharmacological strategy to enhance gut health. This opens avenues for integrating resistance training into holistic health promotion programs, particularly for populations at risk of chronic inflammation, metabolic syndrome, or age-related decline in gut function. Despite its strengths, this study has limitations. The lack of a non-exercising control group precludes definitive causal inference, and the generalizability of findings to clinical populations or older adults remains to be established. Additionally, while taxonomic shifts were identified, complementary functional analyses may be needed to fully elucidate the metabolic pathways involved and their relevance to host physiology. Furthermore, although diet logs were collected, the reliance on self-reported data posed a significant limitation to the accuracy of our dietary analysis. Finally, biological variability, including factors such as menstrual cycle phase - which was not controlled for despite its known influence on the gut microbiome - may also have contributed to inter-individual differences and obscured subtle effects. Conclusion This study shows that resistance training can beneficially shape the gut microbiome, especially in individuals with marked strength gains. The enrichment of health-promoting taxa like Faecalibacterium and Roseburia hominis suggests potential anti-inflammatory and metabolic effects. However, these microbial shifts were not mirrored in the stool metabolome, indicating that functional outcomes may be subtle, localized, or require longer adaptation. Together with previous findings on endurance training, our results highlight physical activity—regardless of modality—as a promising, non-pharmacological approach to support metabolic and immune health. The consistent rise in SCFA-producing microbes across exercise types points to a shared mechanism, underscoring the value of multi-omics approaches in unraveling the complex interplay between exercise, the microbiome, and host physiology. Acknowledgments NGS sequencing was performed with the support of the DFG-funded NGS Competence Center Tübingen (INST 37/1049-1) and the Institute for Medical Microbiology and Hygiene, University Hospital Tübingen. Data management and storage of raw data for this project were supported by the Quantitative Biology Center (QBiC), University of Tübingen, Germany. We are grateful to all study participants for their interest and effort as well as trainers for their enthusiasm to support and guide the study participants. Funder Information Declared Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Klimaschutz (BMWK), Berlin, DE , 16KN069459 Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft , 390838134 , INST 37/696-1 FUGG Carl Zeiss Foundation , Certification and Foundations of Safe Machine Learning Systems in Healthcare Footnotes Conflicts of interest: JB, MP, JP, UM are financially involved with Fitness-Park Mapet GmbH. CR, TAS, SW and MDE are employed by Erbe Elektromedizin GmbH. Ethics approval: Ethics commission Tübingen - 517/2021BO1 Funding. This study was mostly funded by Zentrales Innovationsprogramm Mittelstand (ZIM), Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Klimaschutz (BMWK), 16KN069459 to UM, SN. SN also acknowledges funding by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) under Germany’s Excellence Strategy – EXC 2124 – 390838134 and from the Carl Zeiss Foundation, project “Certification and Foundations of Safe Machine Learning Systems in Healthcare”. Metabolite analytics were funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research foundation) – Projektnummer INST 37/696-1 FUGG. We acknowledge support from the Open Access Publication Fund of the University of Tübingen. REFERENCES ↵ Lloyd-Price J , Abu-Ali G , Huttenhower C. The healthy human microbiome . Genome Med . 2016 ; 8 . doi: 10.1186/s13073-016-0307-y OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed ↵ Varghese S , Rao S , Khattak A , et al. Physical Exercise and the Gut Microbiome: A Bidirectional Relationship Influencing Health and Performance . Nutrients . 2024 ; 16 : 3663 . doi: 10.3390/nu16213663 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed ↵ Wilmanski T , Diener C , Rappaport N , et al. Gut microbiome pattern reflects healthy ageing and predicts survival in humans . Nat Metab . 2021 ; 3 : 274 – 86 . doi: 10.1038/s42255-021-00348-0 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed ↵ N V K, M S . Aging through the lens of the gut microbiome: Challenges and therapeutic opportunities . Arch Gerontol Geriatr Plus . 2025 ; 2 : 100142 . doi: 10.1016/j.aggp.2025.100142 OpenUrl CrossRef ↵ Ragonnaud E , Biragyn A. Gut microbiota as the key controllers of “healthy” aging of elderly people . Immun Ageing . 2021 ; 18 . doi: 10.1186/s12979-020-00213-w OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed ↵ Jansson AK , Chan LX , Lubans DR , et al. Effect of resistance training on HbA1c in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus and the moderating effect of changes in muscular strength: a systematic review and meta-analysis . BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care . 2022 ; 10 : e002595 . doi: 10.1136/bmjdrc-2021-002595 OpenUrl Abstract / FREE Full Text ↵ Lim C , Nunes EA , Currier BS , et al. An Evidence-Based Narrative Review of Mechanisms of Resistance Exercise–Induced Human Skeletal Muscle Hypertrophy . Med Sci Sports Exerc . 2022 ; 54 : 1546 – 59 . doi: 10.1249/mss.0000000000002929 OpenUrl CrossRef ↵ Cullen JMA , Shahzad S , Kanaley JA , et al. The effects of 6 wk of resistance training on the gut microbiome and cardiometabolic health in young adults with overweight and obesity . J Appl Physiol . 2024 ; 136 : 349 – 61 . doi: 10.1152/japplphysiol.00350.2023 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed ↵ Wagner A , Kapounková K , Struhár I. The relationship between the gut microbiome and resistance training: a rapid review . BMC Sports Sci Med Rehabil . 2024 ; 16 . doi: 10.1186/s13102-023-00791-4 OpenUrl CrossRef ↵ Straub D , Blackwell N , Langarica-Fuentes A , et al. Interpretations of Environmental Microbial Community Studies Are Biased by the Selected 16S rRNA (Gene) Amplicon Sequencing Pipeline . Front Microbiol . 2020 ; 11 . doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2020.550420 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed ↵ Lin H , Peddada SD . Multigroup analysis of compositions of microbiomes with covariate adjustments and repeated measures . Nat Methods . 2024 ; 21 : 83 – 91 . doi: 10.1038/s41592-023-02092-7 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed ↵ Dunnett CW . New Tables for Multiple Comparisons with a Control . Biometrics . 1964 ; 20 : 482 . doi: 10.2307/2528490 OpenUrl CrossRef Web of Science ↵ Holm S. A Simple Sequentially Rejective Multiple Test Procedure . Scand J Stat . 1979 ; 6 : 65 – 70 . OpenUrl Web of Science ↵ McMurdie PJ , Holmes S. phyloseq: An R Package for Reproducible Interactive Analysis and Graphics of Microbiome Census Data . PLoS ONE . 2013 ; 8 : e61217 . doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0061217 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed ↵ Mangine GT , Gonzalez AM , Townsend JR , et al. Influence Of Baseline Muscle Strength And Size Measures On Training Adaptations In Resistance-Trained Men . Int J Exerc Sci . 2018 ; 11 : 198 – 213 . doi: 10.70252/ugmj3157 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed ↵ Lopez P , Radaelli R , Taaffe DR , et al. Resistance Training Load Effects on Muscle Hypertrophy and Strength Gain: Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis . Med Sci Sports Exerc . 2021 ; 53 : 1206 – 16 . doi: 10.1249/mss.0000000000002585 OpenUrl CrossRef ↵ Karl JP , Margolis LM , Madslien EH , et al. Changes in intestinal microbiota composition and metabolism coincide with increased intestinal permeability in young adults under prolonged physiological stress . Am J Physiol-Gastrointest Liver Physiol . 2017 ; 312 : G559 – 71 . doi: 10.1152/ajpgi.00066.2017 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed Liu Z , Liu H-Y , Zhou H , et al. Moderate-Intensity Exercise Affects Gut Microbiome Composition and Influences Cardiac Function in Myocardial Infarction Mice . Front Microbiol . 2017 ; 8 . doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2017.01687 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed ↵ Clarke SF , Murphy EF , O’Sullivan O , et al. Exercise and associated dietary extremes impact on gut microbial diversity . Gut . 2014 ; 63 : 1913 – 20 . doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2013-306541 OpenUrl Abstract / FREE Full Text ↵ Egan B , Sharples AP . Molecular responses to acute exercise and their relevance for adaptations in skeletal muscle to exercise training . Physiol Rev . 2023 ; 103 : 2057 – 170 . doi: 10.1152/physrev.00054.2021 OpenUrl CrossRef ↵ Cullen JMA , Shahzad S , Dhillon J. A systematic review on the effects of exercise on gut microbial diversity, taxonomic composition, and microbial metabolites: identifying research gaps and future directions . Front Physiol . 2023 ; 14 . doi: 10.3389/fphys.2023.1292673 OpenUrl CrossRef ↵ Anhê FF , Zlitni S , Barra NG , et al. Life-long exercise training and inherited aerobic endurance capacity produce converging gut microbiome signatures in rodents . Physiol Rep . 2022 ; 10 . doi: 10.14814/phy2.15215 OpenUrl CrossRef Fernández J , Fernández-Sanjurjo M , Iglesias-Gutiérrez E , et al. Resistance and Endurance Exercise Training Induce Differential Changes in Gut Microbiota Composition in Murine Models . Front Physiol . 2021 ; 12 . doi: 10.3389/fphys.2021.748854 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed ↵ Dohnalová L , Lundgren P , Carty JRE , et al. A microbiome-dependent gut–brain pathway regulates motivation for exercise . Nature . 2022 ; 612 : 739 – 47 . doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-05525-z OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed ↵ Chew W , Lim YP , Lim WS , et al. Gut-muscle crosstalk. A perspective on influence of microbes on muscle function . Front Med . 2023 ; 9 . doi: 10.3389/fmed.2022.1065365 OpenUrl CrossRef ↵ Humińska-Lisowska K , Zielińska K , Mieszkowski J , et al. Microbiome features associated with performance measures in athletic and non-athletic individuals: A case-control study . PLOS ONE . 2024 ; 19 : e0297858 . doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0297858 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed ↵ Ni Lochlainn M , Bowyer RCE , Moll JM , et al. Effect of gut microbiome modulation on muscle function and cognition: the PROMOTe randomised controlled trial . Nat Commun . 2024 ; 15 . doi: 10.1038/s41467-024-46116-y OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed ↵ Mailing LJ , Allen JM , Buford TW , et al. Exercise and the Gut Microbiome: A Review of the Evidence, Potential Mechanisms, and Implications for Human Health . Exerc Sport Sci Rev . 2019 ; 47 : 75 – 85 . doi: 10.1249/jes.0000000000000183 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed ↵ Zierer J , Jackson MA , Kastenmüller G , et al. The fecal metabolome as a functional readout of the gut microbiome . Nat Genet . 2018 ; 50 : 790 – 5 . doi: 10.1038/s41588-018-0135-7 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed View the discussion thread. Back to top Previous Next Posted August 13, 2025. Download PDF Supplementary Material Email Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about bioRxiv. NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article. Your Email * Your Name * Send To * Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas. You are going to email the following Resistance Training Reshapes the Gut Microbiome for Better Health Message Subject (Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from bioRxiv Message Body (Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the bioRxiv website. Your Personal Message CAPTCHA This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions. Share Resistance Training Reshapes the Gut Microbiome for Better Health Daniel Straub , Till Englert , Antonia Beller , Josua Stadelmaier , Mark Stahl , Joachim Kilian , Jens Borzym , Carola Rotermund , Tanja Akbuga-Schön , Sabrina Krakau , Stefan Czemmel , Sabine Weiler , Marc Pettenkofer , Jörg Pettenkofer , Ulli Maser , Sascha Dammeier , Andreas M. Nieß , Markus D Enderle , Sven Nahnsen bioRxiv 2025.08.13.670057; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.08.13.670057 Share This Article: Copy Citation Tools Resistance Training Reshapes the Gut Microbiome for Better Health Daniel Straub , Till Englert , Antonia Beller , Josua Stadelmaier , Mark Stahl , Joachim Kilian , Jens Borzym , Carola Rotermund , Tanja Akbuga-Schön , Sabrina Krakau , Stefan Czemmel , Sabine Weiler , Marc Pettenkofer , Jörg Pettenkofer , Ulli Maser , Sascha Dammeier , Andreas M. Nieß , Markus D Enderle , Sven Nahnsen bioRxiv 2025.08.13.670057; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.08.13.670057 Citation Manager Formats BibTeX Bookends EasyBib EndNote (tagged) EndNote 8 (xml) Medlars Mendeley Papers RefWorks Tagged Ref Manager RIS Zotero Tweet Widget Facebook Like Google Plus One Subject Area Microbiology Subject Areas All Articles Animal Behavior and Cognition (7635) Biochemistry (17690) Bioengineering (13892) Bioinformatics (41936) Biophysics (21451) Cancer Biology (18588) Cell Biology (25499) Clinical Trials (138) Developmental Biology (13378) Ecology (19899) Epidemiology (2067) Evolutionary Biology (24320) Genetics (15609) Genomics (22506) Immunology (17736) Microbiology (40394) Molecular Biology (17181) Neuroscience (88603) Paleontology (666) Pathology (2832) Pharmacology and Toxicology (4824) Physiology (7641) Plant Biology (15152) Scientific Communication and Education (2045) Synthetic Biology (4294) Systems Biology (9825) Zoology (2271)