RightRep EN · PT Open the app
BLOG

Can You Train With IBS? The Gut-Brain Barbell Audit: Where the Swedish RCT Randomized 102 Patients and Moved IBS Severity a Median 51 Points Against 5 in Untrained Controls at P=0.003 With Only the Control Arm Deteriorating, the Benefits Still Standing 5.2 Years Later at IBS-SSS 276→218 While Weekly Activity Rose From 3.2 to 5.2 Hours of Walking, Aerobics and Cycling, Yoga Stood Level With the Low-FODMAP Diet in a Head-to-Head Randomized Trial With Both Arms Improving at P<0.001 and No Between-Group Difference at 12 or 24 Weeks, the Global File Reads 11.2% of the World Pooled Across 260,960 Subjects With Women at OR 1.67 and the Under-50s at Higher Risk, Over 40% of the Planet Meets Criteria for a Disorder of Gut-Brain Interaction Across 73,076 Respondents in 33 Countries, 10.1% of Gastroenteritis Patients Are Still Symptomatic a Year Later at 4.2-Fold Risk, and the ACG Monograph Signs the Permission — Train the Muscle, the Alarm Is the Gastroenterologist's

By RightRep AI Assistant · · 24 min read

Irritable bowel syndrome is the condition this library has already opened from the treatment side — does exercise help IBS is the general file, and does exercise improve gut health covers the microbiome angle. This file answers the diagnosed lifter's version: what happens to a training program when the gut-brain axis runs hot — a condition whose global file reads 11.2% of the world's population, pooled across 260,960 subjects in 80 study populations, with women at OR 1.67 and people under 50 at higher risk than over [1], and whose burden file reads over 40% of humankind meeting criteria for at least one disorder of gut-brain interaction across 73,076 respondents in 33 countries on 6 continents [2]. That is the gym's own demographic — young, more often female, diagnosed for decades — standing in front of a barbell with a bathroom-mapped floor plan nobody talks about. The default scripts fail in opposite directions. The scared script reads "flare" as a do-not-load sign — training is quit "until the gut settles," and the deconditioning spiral proceeds unopposed, in a condition where the untreated control arm of the founding trial deteriorated while the active arm improved [4]. The reckless script treats the diagnosis as a fiber footnote — trains through any flare at any intensity, ignores the urgency clock on hard endurance sessions, and never learns the dose fence the athlete-side literature prices in full [12]. The reframe that carries the whole file is one line: the alarm is the gastroenterologist's, the muscle is yours — IBS is a disorder of gut-brain interaction, not a destroyed bowel: the signaling is hypersensitive, the structure is intact, and strength, engine and symptom severity answer to training in this population with the same dose-response honesty they show in anyone else [2][4][5]. Which puts the fences in order. First: the gastroenterologist names it. This file assumes IBS diagnosed by a gastroenterologist with the alarm features excluded — the American College of Gastroenterology monograph is the guideline spine for both the diagnosis and the management shelf [3]. Second: red flags are medical events, not training questions. Blood in the stool, unintended weight loss, anemia, being woken from sleep by symptoms, fever, new onset after 50, a family history of colorectal cancer or IBD — those go to the gastroenterology team the same day; the gym pauses and re-enters through the sick rules this library already teaches [3]. Third: the diet and drug shelf is the prescriber's. No session, set or "gut-health protocol" edits a low-FODMAP plan mid-reintroduction or an antispasmodic chart — the program runs with the treatment plan, never instead of it [3][10]. With the fences standing, the operational file is unusually complete for a condition the gym reduces to a joke: the permission question has its own randomized controlled trial whose conclusion sentence reads "physical activity should be used as a primary treatment modality in IBS" [4]; the persistence question has a 5.2-year follow-up of the same cohort [5]; the diet-competition question has a head-to-head randomized trial of yoga versus the low-FODMAP diet [9]; and the onset question — why an apparently healthy gut started alarming in the first place — has a 45-study meta-analysis of the gastroenteritis door [11].

The short answer: yes — and it is not a stretch of generic advice

Strip the file to its spine. The founding trial is a barbell-adjacent RCT, not an observational wink: 102 patients randomized to a physiotherapist-instructed increase in everyday moderate physical activity or to unchanged lifestyle; on the IBS Severity Scoring System — the 0–500 ruler validated for exactly this job [7] — the active arm improved a median 51 points against 5 in controls (P=0.003), and the proportion of patients whose symptoms deteriorated was significantly larger in the control arm [4]. Read that asymmetry twice: in the Swedish trial, improvement lived in the exercise arm and deterioration lived in the sedentary one [4]. The persistence tail: a median 5.2 years later (range 3.8–6.2), the followed cohort still scored better than baseline — IBS-SSS 276 (169–360) down to 218 (82–328), P=0.001 — with disease-specific quality of life, fatigue, depression and anxiety mostly improved alongside, while self-reported weekly activity had risen from 3.2 to 5.2 hours of the most ordinary modalities there are: walking, aerobics, cycling [5]. The replication file, priced honestly: a second randomized trial of a 12-week exercise consultation against usual care moved constipation symptoms significantly (mean difference 10.9, 95% CI −20.1 to −1.6) and raised measured exercise participation (mean difference 21.6, 95% CI 9.4–33.8) — but found no quality-of-life difference at follow-up, with the trial authors' own read being that the signal concentrates in constipation-predominant patients [6]. The diet competition, priced honestly: in the head-to-head trial, 59 patients randomized to twice-weekly yoga or a low-FODMAP diet for 12 weeks — both arms improved within themselves at 12 and 24 weeks (all P<0.001), with no statistically significant difference between the arms at either time point (Δ=31.80, 95% CI −11.90 to 75.50, P=.151 at 12 weeks; Δ=33.41, 95% CI −4.21 to 71.04, P=.081 at 24) [9]. What the file does not promise: training does not cure the hypersensitive axis, the effect sizes are moderate not magical, and the yoga reviewers' own verdict — feasible, safe, but not yet recommendable as routine care because of study-quality flaws — is carried here rather than laundered [8]. The honest split, named: the gastroenterologist owns the diagnosis, the red-flag door and the diet-drug shelf; the program owns the dose, the engine, the strength column and the flare calendar [3][4][5].

The reframe: the alarm is the gastroenterologist's, the muscle is yours

Everything operational in this file hangs on one honest division of labor. IBS is the flagship of what the Rome Foundation renamed disorders of gut-brain interaction — the bowel and the brain in a hypersensitive, hypervigilant loop: pain, distension, altered bowel habit, and a real symptom burden riding on intact structure [2]. That alarm system is the gastroenterologist's to diagnose and manage — the ACG monograph exists precisely because the management shelf (fiber, elimination diets, antispasmodics, neuromodulators, the red-flag door) is a medical shelf [3]. But almost everything the gym measures lives downstream of the alarm, and that is where the file's evidence lands: moderate physical activity moved the severity ruler the field validates [4][7], the improvement survived 5.2 years on walking and cycling alone [5], and the movement column stood level with the most talked-about diet in gastroenterology [9]. What training does: it moves symptom severity beyond what untreated waiting does — the control arm's trajectory is the counterfactual [4]; it carries psychological columns (quality of life, fatigue, depression, anxiety) along with the gut [5]; and it does all this at moderate doses of the least glamorous modalities in sport [5]. What training does not do: it does not switch the alarm off at the source — that is the gut-brain axis's to decide; it does not replace the diet shelf, which carries its own randomized numbers [10]; and it does not license the all-out session on a flaring gut — the endurance literature's exercise-induced gastrointestinal syndrome is the athlete-side fence [12]. The two scripts must be carried together, because each alone produces a broken program. The lifter who believes the diagnosis forbids effort quits the gym "to settle the gut" — and hands the body to the same deterioration curve the Swedish control arm rode [4]. The lifter who believes the diagnosis changes nothing programs a hard endurance session into a flare week and calls the aftermath "a bad reaction" — when the feeding-challenge literature had priced that outcome in advance [12]. The reframe also settles the identity of the program: IBS is a chronic, relapsing, decades-long condition — the program is built flare-tolerant, the way this library builds around deloads and a frequency that survives a lost month: sustainable weekly set budgets, loads climbed by progressive overload as the flare recedes — because the 5.2-year tail was built on ordinary consistency, not heroic blocks [5].

The mechanism file: why moving the body calms the loop

The honest mechanistic sentence first: nobody has closed the causal chain from a barbell to the enteric nervous system, and this file will not pretend otherwise. What the literature does hold is a map of the loop itself. The Rome Foundation Global Study — 73,076 adults, 33 countries, 6 continents — put the prevalence of any disorder of gut-brain interaction at 40.3% (95% CI 39.9–40.7) among internet respondents and 20.7% (20.2–21.3) among household respondents, with women at OR 1.7 and the burden tracking with lower quality of life and more frequent doctor visits [2]; IBS itself pooled at 11.2% (9.8–12.8) across 260,960 subjects in the global meta-analysis, higher in women (OR 1.67) and in the under-50s (OR 0.75 for over 50) [1]. The onset file completes the map: after infectious enteritis, IBS pooled at 10.1% at 12 months (7.2–14.1) with risk 4.2-fold (3.1–5.7) versus no enteritis — and the risk multipliers were psychophysiological: anxiety OR 2.0, depression OR 1.5, somatization OR 4.1, neuroticism OR 3.3, women OR 2.2 [11]. That is the gut-brain door the rename encodes: a gut insult plus a vigilant nervous system, and the alarm outlives the infection. Into that loop walks the most ordinary intervention in medicine — regular moderate movement — and the severity ruler moves [4], the psychological columns move with it [5], and a mind-body practice (yoga, the reviewed column: 6 RCTs, 273 patients, bowel symptoms, severity and anxiety down, quality of life up) moves the same ruler [8]. The plausibility is not mystical: gut motility, visceral sensitivity, stress-axis tuning and physical activity share neural and endocrine wiring, which is exactly why a disorder of gut-brain interaction is the kind of condition where a body-level lever can move a gut-level outcome [2][4][8]. The lever works on the loop, not despite it.

The barbell file: the Swedish RCT and its 5.2-year tail

Now the sentence this library exists to write: for the lifter with IBS, the permission has its own randomized controlled trial — and its conclusion sentence is quotable. The Johannesson trial: 102 IBS patients, randomized to a physiotherapist-instructed increase in everyday moderate physical activity or to maintained lifestyle over the study period; the primary endpoint was the change on the IBS Severity Scoring System [4]. The result: a median improvement of 51 points (interquartile range −130 to 49) versus 5 points (−101 to 118) in controls, P=0.003 — and the secondary sentence that deserves to be in every gym conversation about this condition: a significantly larger proportion of control patients increased their symptom severity during the study [4]. The trial's own closing line: "physical activity should be used as a primary treatment modality in IBS" [4]. The tail: 5.2 years later (median; range 3.8–6.2), 39 of the original cohort returned for questionnaires and a submaximal cycle test — IBS-SSS still improved over baseline (276 (169–360) → 218 (82–328), P=0.001), the psychological dimensions mostly improved, and weekly reported activity had climbed from 3.2 (0.0–10.0) to 5.2 (0.0–15.0) hours, P=0.019 — built on walking, aerobics and cycling, with oxygen uptake statistically unchanged [5]. That last detail is the file's quiet lesson: the benefit persisted without the cohort becoming athletes — the lever was consistency, not intensity [5]. The translation for the diagnosed lifter: this is not a lift-heavy-or-nothing file. It is a move-regularly-and-lift-anyway file — the barbell keeps the muscle and the metabolism, the moderate aerobic base keeps the gut column, and the two share a program the way this library has always taught them to [4][5].

The ruler: IBS-SSS, the instrument the trials moved

Every number above rides one instrument, and it pays to know what it is. The Irritable Bowel Severity Scoring System, validated in 141 patients and 40 controls, scores pain, distension, bowel dysfunction and quality of life into a single 0–500 scale, with the severity bands set at remission below 75, mild 75–175, moderate 175–300, severe above 300 — controls scoring under 75, and a change of 50 points reliably indicating improvement [7]. That "50 points" sentence is the bridge between the literature and your log: the Swedish exercise arm's median improvement was 51 points [4] — one reliable-change unit; the 5.2-year follow-up left the median patient 58 points under baseline [5]; the low-FODMAP arm of the diet trial sat 51 points under the sham arm at 4 weeks (173±95 versus 224±89, P=.001) [10]. Three different shelves — exercise, diet, time — each moving the ruler by about the unit the instrument itself defines as real [4][5][7][10]. For the reader, the ruler is also the self-monitoring discipline: severity is a score you track, not a mood you recall — which is why the practical file below pairs the training log with a symptom column, and why the RightRep section closes the loop with dated evidence. And one honesty note the Rome survey forces: the prevalence of IBS depends on which ruler defines it — Rome IV criteria halved the internet-survey estimate relative to Rome III (4.1% versus 10.1%; household 1.5% versus 3.5%) [2] — the condition is real, but its borders are a criteria conversation, which is the gastroenterologist's fence again, not the gym's.

The diet competition: the gym versus the low-FODMAP shelf

The crown of this file is a trial design almost nobody expects to exist: movement versus diet, head to head, in the same condition. The Schumann trial: 59 IBS patients, single-blind (assessors blinded to allocation), randomized to yoga — two sessions weekly — or a low-FODMAP diet delivered across three nutritional-counselling sessions, for 12 weeks, with outcomes at 12 and 24 weeks [9]. The result in one breath: both arms improved, and the arms did not differ — within-group IBS-SSS improvements at both time points (all P<0.001), between-group difference Δ=31.80 (95% CI −11.90 to 75.50, P=.151) at 12 weeks and Δ=33.41 (−4.21 to 71.04, P=.081) at 24, with comparable within-group movement on quality of life, perceived stress and body-awareness measures, and one serious adverse event in each arm [9]. The trial stands on its systematic-review base: 6 RCTs and 273 patients showing yoga against conventional treatment reduced bowel symptoms, IBS severity and anxiety, with quality of life and physical functioning improving against no-treatment controls, and no adverse events in the two trials reporting safety — under the reviewers' honest cap: feasible and safe, but not recommendable as routine care until the study quality rises [8]. And the diet side is priced, not dismissed: Staudacher's 2×2 factorial — 104 Rome III patients, low-FODMAP versus a matched sham diet — delivered IBS-SSS 173±95 versus 224±89 (P=.001), adequate relief in 61% versus 39% per-protocol (P=.042; intention-to-treat 57% versus 38%, P=.051), with the probiotic arm restoring the Bifidobacterium the diet depleted without changing symptoms [10]. Read the two trials together and the operational sentence falls out: the movement column belongs in the first line of the plan, not the appendix — it stood level with the most famous elimination diet in gastroenterology [9], it costs no micronutrient-restriction vigilance, and in a flare-tolerant program it never needs a reintroduction phase [4][5][9]. The diet remains the gastroenterology team's tool when it is the right tool [3][10] — this file's claim is only that the gym is a co-equal column, priced by the same ruler.

The onset file: the gastroenteritis that never fully left

The question every IBS patient eventually asks — "why me?" — has a literature, and it is the gut-brain reframe's origin story. The Klem meta-analysis: 45 studies, 21,421 individuals with enteritis, followed 3 months to 10 years [11]. The pooled numbers: IBS present in 10.1% (7.2–14.1) at 12 months after infectious enteritis and 14.5% (7.7–25.5) beyond 12 months, with risk 4.2-fold (3.1–5.7) versus unexposed individuals in the first year and still 2.3-fold (1.8–3.0) after it [11]. The dose-of-insult column: protozoal or parasitic enteritis converted at 41.9% versus 13.8% after bacterial infection [11]. And the host column — the part the rename encodes: risk was multiplied by anxiety (OR 2.0), depression (OR 1.5), somatization (OR 4.1), neuroticism (OR 3.3), female sex (OR 2.2) and antibiotic exposure during the enteritis (OR 1.7), alongside clinical severity markers [11]. Two honest readings, both carried. The first: IBS is not imaginary — it follows a physical insult at measurable, dose-dependent rates. The second: the nervous system is a co-author — the same vigilance columns that predict post-infectious onset are the ones the movement literature moves (the 5.2-year tail improved fatigue, depression and anxiety alongside the gut scores) [5][11]. For the diagnosed lifter, the onset file settles the identity question the gym keeps getting wrong: this is a real condition with a real entry door, running on a loop that body-level levers reach — not a discipline failure, and not a barbell contra-indication [2][4][11].

The intensity fence: the athlete end of the dose curve

The dose fence is real on both ends, and the athlete end has its own literature. Exercise-induced gastrointestinal syndrome — the splanchnic-perfusion-and-feeding load of hard endurance work — makes gastrointestinal symptoms a routine occupant of the endurance peloton, and the Sports Medicine systematic review of gut-training exists because athletes must feed workloads their untrained guts reject: 304 records screened to 8 studies, carbohydrate-based feeding-challenge and gut-training protocols over 4–28 days [12]. The pooled verdict: a 2-week repetitive carbohydrate-feeding protocol reduced gut discomfort by an average of 47% (two studies), repeated fluid ingestion cut it 26% (one study), carbohydrate malabsorption fell 45–54% (two studies), and total, upper and lower GI symptom scores improved significantly in two studies with four unclear — gastric emptying and injury markers unmoved [12]. Two translations, both honest. For the endurance athlete with IBS: the gut is trainable for feeding, deliberately and progressively — which is a dietitian-supervised project, not a race-week improvisation [12]. For the general lifter with IBS: the dose fence on the far end is about hard, long, hot, fed-endurance work on a flaring system — the moderate doses that carried the Swedish trial and its 5.2-year tail sit nowhere near it [4][5][12]. The program's job is to know which end of the curve today's session lives on.

The Brazil anchors, honestly labeled

The pt-BR lane's reader holds a specific position in this condition, and this file ships bilingually for the same reason every condition file in this library does — with one honesty label the others didn't need. Brazil lacks a pinned national general-population IBS prevalence in the PubMed-indexed literature — the implementing search for this file ran five formulations against NCBI E-utilities and confirmed the gap; the closest indexed hit is a one-page 2005 letter on a single Amazon community, with no data in its PubMed record [14] — so the Brazilian file stands on two labeled fallbacks rather than a national number. The first: a Brazilian urban-community cohort — 330 adult volunteers examined under Rome III criteria, 52 with IBS, the condition skewing female in the sample and overlapping with primary headache as the functional-somatic cluster it is — a clinical-cohort anchor, labeled as such, not a prevalence survey [13]. The second: the Rome Foundation Global Study's continental span — 33 countries on 6 continents including Latin American sites, with the regional strata living in the study's supplement and the abstract certifying the span and the female skew (OR 1.7) [2] — and the global meta's honest range of 1.1% to 45.0% prevalence by country and criteria [1], which is the band any national Brazilian number will eventually land inside. What is not missing is the reader: SII — síndrome do intestino irritável — is among the most prevalent functional GI diagnoses in Brazilian outpatient clinics and a mainstream identity in Brazilian fitness culture, and the two scripts Brazilian gym culture runs on "intestino sensível" are the same two this file retires: "melhor não forçar" from the scared side and "é só ansiedade, treina normal" from the dismissive side. The priced line the pt-BR twin delivers instead: o alarme é do gastroenterologista, o músculo é seu — um ensaio randomizado sueco chama atividade física moderada de modalidade de tratamento primária [4], o benefício sobreviveu 5,2 anos a pé e de bicicleta [5], e a coluna de movimento empatou com a dieta low-FODMAP na mesma régua [9].

So what do you actually do? The practical file

Six rules, every one sourced from the files above:

  1. Dose moderate activity like a prescription, because the trial did. Everyday moderate movement — walking, cycling, the aerobic base this library's zone 2 file teaches — moved IBS-SSS 51 points against 5 in controls, and the conclusion sentence says "primary treatment modality" [4]. The 5.2-year tail was built on 3.2→5.2 hours a week of it [5].
  2. Keep the barbell, keep it boring. The evidence file is a moderate-dose file: ordinary frequency, sustainable set budgets, loads climbing by progressive overload — machines welcome where a flare day makes machines vs free weights an easy call, rest between sets generous, warm-up unhurried [4][5].
  3. Treat the flare as a dose question, not an identity question. Scale the session, split it, or bank a deload — the program re-enters the way it always does; what it never does again is disappear for a season over a flare the control-arm data says waiting worsens [4][5].
  4. Price the diet shelf honestly and leave it prescribed. Low-FODMAP carries real numbers (IBS-SSS 173 vs 224 [10]) and reintroduction phases that belong to the dietitian and gastroenterologist [3] — while the movement column stood level with it head-to-head and costs no elimination vigilance [9].
  5. Know which end of the intensity fence today is. Hard, long, fed endurance work on a flaring gut is the athlete-end fence [12]; moderate base work and the barbell are the middle where the evidence lives [4][5]. If you are the endurance athlete, gut-training is a planned, supervised project — never a race-week improvisation [12].
  6. The red-flag list outranks every training decision. Blood in the stool, unintended weight loss, anemia, nocturnal symptoms, fever, new onset after 50, family history of colorectal cancer or IBD — same-day gastroenterology, program paused without apology, re-entry through the sick rules [3].

How RightRep fits into this

The IBS program runs on one currency this app counts better than any notebook — the dated, dosed, camera-verified session:

  • The severity ledger needs dated evidence, not memory. The IBS-SSS ruler defines 50 points as a reliable change [7], and the exercise arm moved it 51 [4] — a visible, session-by-session log is how a 51-point improvement becomes visible to the person living inside it.
  • The flare calendar, kept honestly. The 5.2-year tail was consistency, not heroics [5] — pauses logged rather than hidden, streaks that bend without breaking, the cheapest continuity device in this file.
  • The supervision column, in software. A camera that counts every rep of every set is a counting instrument that never cancels on a flare-uncertain Tuesday.
  • Progressive overload honesty at moderate entry doses. The file says build — but only if the load actually climbs [4]; the camera keeps the climb honest without the guesswork, at exactly the moderate dose the trial used.
  • The gastroenterology-visit artifact. "What have you been able to do since the last visit?" — the question every IBS consult asks is answered by the camera-counted log you hand over [3][13].

The bottom line

  • The permission file: the Swedish RCT — 102 patients, moderate physical activity improving IBS-SSS a median 51 points versus 5 in controls at P=0.003, deterioration concentrated in the untreated arm, under the trial's own sentence: "physical activity should be used as a primary treatment modality in IBS" [4].
  • The persistence file: 5.2 years later, IBS-SSS 276→218 (P=0.001) with quality of life, fatigue, depression and anxiety mostly improved, on 3.2→5.2 weekly hours of walking, aerobics and cycling [5].
  • The replication file, priced honestly: the Daley trial moved constipation symptoms (mean difference 10.9) and exercise participation, with quality of life null — the signal concentrates in constipation-predominant patients [6].
  • The diet competition: yoga versus low-FODMAP head-to-head — both arms improving at P<0.001, no between-group difference at 12 (P=.151) or 24 weeks (P=.081) [9], on the yoga review base of 6 RCTs and 273 patients [8]; the diet side carrying IBS-SSS 173 versus 224 (P=.001) [10].
  • The scale file: 11.2% global prevalence across 260,960 subjects, women OR 1.67, under-50s at higher risk [1]; 40.3% of internet respondents meeting criteria for a disorder of gut-brain interaction across 73,076 people in 33 countries [2].
  • The onset file: 10.1% of enteritis patients symptomatic at a year, 4.2-fold risk, multiplied by anxiety (OR 2.0), depression (OR 1.5) and somatization (OR 4.1) [11] — with the athlete-end dose fence priced by the gut-training review (47% discomfort reduction) [12].
  • The Brazil file, honestly labeled: no pinned national prevalence; a 330-volunteer urban cohort with 52 Rome III IBS cases [13] and the Rome survey's 33-country, 6-continent span with women at OR 1.7 [2].

Train the muscle — the alarm is the gastroenterologist's, the flare is a dose question, and the modality the trial used is the one you already own: your legs, at rightrep.app.

This post was written by the RightRep AI Assistant — the same AI that counts and scores your reps at rightrep.app.

Sources

  1. Lovell RM, Ford AC. Global prevalence of and risk factors for irritable bowel syndrome: a meta-analysis. Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, 2012;10(7):712–721.e4. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
  2. Sperber AD, Bangdiwala SI, Drossman DA, et al. Worldwide Prevalence and Burden of Functional Gastrointestinal Disorders, Results of Rome Foundation Global Study. Gastroenterology, 2021;160(1):99–114.e3. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
  3. Ford AC, Moayyedi P, Chey WD, et al. American College of Gastroenterology Monograph on Management of Irritable Bowel Syndrome. American Journal of Gastroenterology, 2018;113(Suppl 2):1–18. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
  4. Johannesson E, Simrén M, Strid H, Bajor A, Sadik R. Physical activity improves symptoms in irritable bowel syndrome: a randomized controlled trial. American Journal of Gastroenterology, 2011;106(5):915–922. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
  5. Johannesson E, Ringström G, Abrahamsson H, Sadik R. Intervention to increase physical activity in irritable bowel syndrome shows long-term positive effects. World Journal of Gastroenterology, 2015;21(2):600–608. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
  6. Daley AJ, Grimmett C, Roberts L, et al. The effects of exercise upon symptoms and quality of life in patients diagnosed with irritable bowel syndrome: a randomised controlled trial. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 2008;29(9):778–782. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
  7. Francis CY, Morris J, Whorwell PJ. The irritable bowel severity scoring system: a simple method of monitoring irritable bowel syndrome and its progress. Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics, 1997;11(2):395–402. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
  8. Schumann D, Anheyer D, Lauche R, Dobos G, Langhorst J, Cramer H. Effect of Yoga in the Therapy of Irritable Bowel Syndrome: A Systematic Review. Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, 2016;14(12):1720–1731. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
  9. Schumann D, Langhorst J, Dobos G, Cramer H. Randomised clinical trial: yoga vs a low-FODMAP diet in patients with irritable bowel syndrome. Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics, 2018;47(2):203–211. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
  10. Staudacher HM, Lomer MCE, Farquharson FM, et al. A Diet Low in FODMAPs Reduces Symptoms in Patients With Irritable Bowel Syndrome and A Probiotic Restores Bifidobacterium Species: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Gastroenterology, 2017;153(4):936–947. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
  11. Klem F, Wadhwa A, Prokop LJ, et al. Prevalence, Risk Factors, and Outcomes of Irritable Bowel Syndrome After Infectious Enteritis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Gastroenterology, 2017;152(5):1042–1054.e1. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
  12. Martinez IG, Mika AS, Biesiekierski JR, Costa RJS. The Effect of Gut-Training and Feeding-Challenge on Markers of Gastrointestinal Status in Response to Endurance Exercise: A Systematic Literature Review. Sports Medicine, 2023;53(6):1175–1200. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
  13. Soares RL, Moreira-Filho PF, Maneschy CP, et al. The prevalence and clinical characteristics of primary headache in irritable bowel syndrome: a subgroup of the functional somatic syndromes. Arquivos de Gastroenterologia, 2013;50(4):281–284. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
  14. Soares RL, dos Santos JM, Rocha VR. Prevalence of irritable bowel syndrome in a Brazilian Amazon community. Neurogastroenterology & Motility, 2005;17(6):883. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov