# Strength Training For Women Vs. Men - Setting the Record Straight.



## 66983 (May 30, 2016)

*
https://www.strongerbyscience.com/strength-training-women/
*

*
This is quite a long read, but I'll try and summarize as briefly as possible. 
*

The first half of the article is essentially a meta-analysis comparing relative strength gains and muscle growth (% increases from starting point) in men and women. Men are, on average, clearly more muscular and stronger than women pre-training, and gain a larger absolute amount of muscle and strength. However:

1) In the short term, women seem to gain more relative strength than men. This is primarily the case for upper body strength, and for younger women.

For lower body strength and older people, proportional strength gains seem to be the same between sexes.

2) Relative increases in muscle seem to be the same between sexes.

This is true for both direct measures of muscle growth, and indirect measures.

3) Long-term, relative strength gains and muscle growth seem to be similar between sexes.

However, when looking at competitive athletes, you can make the case that relative gains may be slightly larger in women across an entire training career.

However, even though proportional gains in strength and muscle mass seem to be most similar between sexes, there are other differences to consider. Women seem to be a bit less acutely fatigable than men, and seem to recover from training a bit faster.

Furthermore, for women not on birth control, rates of recovery and responsiveness to training vary based on menstrual cycle phase as well (women recover faster, and gain more strength and muscle during their follicular phase than their luteal phase).

*
Strength Training For Women: Setting the Record Straight
*

*
What you're getting yourself into:
*

5000 words, 17-35 minute read time

*
Key points:
*

1) While men start with more muscle mass and strength, relative strength gains actually tend to be larger in women, at least in the short term. This is especially true for younger women and upper body strength gains.

2) Long-term, relative rates of muscle growth and strength gains are probably roughly equal for men and women, though women may make slightly larger gains, relative to their starting point, across their entire training career.

3) Women are not just "little men." While relative muscle and strength gains may be similar, there are key differences between men and women that impact training and recovery.

There are a lot of misconceptions about strength training for women, and there are a lot of reasons for those misconceptions. Women are less likely to be represented in exercise research, women are less likely to take part in strength training or compete in strength sports, and there are still a lot of societal biases against women lifting (heavy) weights.

With that in mind, there are two general camps when it comes to strength training for women:



The first camp says women and men are _very_ different, respond to training _very_ differently, and therefore women should ignore general strength training advice and only focus on advice specifically marketed as being "for women." This camp is divided into two sub-camps.


Some people claim that men will respond _way_ better to training and that women's results will be quite meager in comparison. This is a pretty standard "bro" position.


Other people argue that bad things will happen to women if they lift heavy. They'll either get hurt or get "too bulky," so lifting heavy weights should be left to the men. This is a pretty standard position in a lot of women's fitness magazines.



As a semi-reactionary response to the first camp, a second camp contends that men and women are basically the same, respond to training in basically the same ways, and that training programs or expected training outcomes shouldn't be at all influenced by sex.


Both groups, incidentally, tend to be heavy on narrative and light on research. What I want to do in this article is present the research comparing and contrasting male and female strength training. My goals with this article are to:



Inform people (women specifically, but also coaches of both sexes) about the similarities and differences between men and women when it comes to strength training responses since there's _so much_ misinformation on the topic.


Encourage more women to lift weights. Lifting is beneficial for damn near everyone, but for women especially, lifting weights can improve self-esteem and self-efficacy and can help dramatically with decreasing osteoporosis risk later in life.


With that out of the way, this article is going to start with a review of the research comparing strength and muscle growth in men and women. After that, I'll focus just on the research using participants with prior training experience, and then I'll review the inferences we can draw from sex differences in strength sports. At the end, I'll discuss some other sex differences and female-specific considerations beyond rates of strength gains and muscle growth.

One final note before diving in: I'll be speaking on this topic in a bit more depth at The Fitness Summit this year. If you're in the fitness industry, I hope I'll see you in Kansas City in a few weeks.

*
Comparison of strength gains and muscle growth
*

Men are, in the vast majority of cases, both stronger and more muscular than women. They also gain both strength and muscle mass at a higher _absolute_ rate. That much is obvious. However, relative rates of muscle growth and strength gains are, I think, the more interesting comparison since we largely tend to compare our progress to our own starting points. If a man gets 10% stronger in response to training, can a woman also expect to get 10% stronger after training, or should she instead expect to gain strength at a faster or slower relative rate?

Most of the time, there are meta-analyses to answer questions like this. A meta-analysis is essentially a "study of studies," pooling the results from many different (smaller) research projects to make some sort of comparison. Meta-analyses are useful because individual studies may have skewed results, and a single study can't possibly hope to answer every facet of a general research question like "how do relative gains in strength and muscle mass differ between men and women?" (What if they used different exercises? What if they used different training programs? What if they manipulated diet differently? What if they used people in a different age range? What if the study lasted twice as long? etc.)

Strangely, however, I couldn't find a meta-analysis comparing strength gains and muscle growth in men and women. I say "strangely" because there are meta-analyses covering damn near every facet of strength training under the sun. Typically, once there are around a dozen studies on a given topic, someone's going to do a meta-analysis. However, there have been 70+ studies comparing strength gains and muscle growth in men and women over the past 44 years, and no meta-analyses.

So&#8230;I did one. If you're interested in the technical notes, you can find them here. If you're interested in getting a similar published in a journal, shoot me a message on Facebook; I know a few other people who are interested, and I'll put everyone in touch. In the results below, a positive number in a comparison means larger gains for women, while a negative number means larger gains for men.

*
Studies included in the analysis
*



Author

Title

Abe

Time course for strength and muscle thickness changes following upper and lower body resistance training in men and women.

Ahtiainen

Heterogeneity in resistance training-induced muscle strength and mass responses in men and women of different ages

Alway

Effects of resistance training on elbow flexors of highly competitive bodybuilders.

Arnarson

Insulin-like growth factor-1 and resistance exercise in community dwelling old adults

Bamman

Gender Differences in Resistance-Training-Induced Myofiber Hypertrophy Among Older Adults

Bellew

The Initial Effects of Low-Volume Strength Training on Balance in Untrained Older Men and Women

Bemben

Dose-response effect of 40 weeks of resistance training on bone mineral density in older adults

Beneka

Resistance training effects on muscular strength of elderly are related to intensity and gender

Capodaglio

Muscle function and functional ability improves more in community-dwelling older women with a mixed-strength training programme

Carlsson

The effects of strength training versus ski-ergometer training on double-poling capacity of elite junior cross-country skiers

Charbonneau

ACE Genotype and the Muscle Hypertrophic and Strength Responses to Strength Training

Colliander

Responses to eccentric and concentric resistance training in females and males.

Cureton

Muscle Hypertrophy in men and women

Da Boit

Sex differences in the response to resistance exercise training in older people

Daniels

The effect of two years training on aerobic power and muscle strength in male and female cadets

Delmonico

Effects of moderate-velocity strength training on peak muscle power and movement velocity: do women respond differently than men?

Delmonico

Alpha-Actinin-3 (ACTN3) R577X Polymorphism Influences Knee Extensor Peak Power Response to Strength Training in Older Men and Women

Dias

Impact of an eight-week weight training program on the muscular strength of men and women

Donges

Effects of resistance or aerobic exercise training on total and regional body composition in sedentary overweight middle-aged adults

Dorgo

Comparison of Lower Body Specific Resistance Training on the Hamstring to Quadriceps Strength Ratios in Men and Women

Fernandez-Gonzalo

Muscle damage responses and adaptations to eccentric-overload resistance exercise in men and women

Garthe

Effect of two different weight-loss rates on body composition and strength and power-related performance in elite athletes.

Geirsdottir

Gender, Success, and Drop-Out during a Resistance Exercise Program in Community Dwelling Old Adults

Gentil

Comparison of upper body strength gains between men and women after 10 weeks of resistance training

Guadalupe-Grau

Strength training combined with plyometric jumps in adults: sex differences in fat-bone axis adaptations

Gudlaugsson

The effects of 6 months' multimodal training on functional performance, strength, endurance, and body mass index of older individuals. Are the benefits of training similar among women and men?

Häkkinen

Serum hormones and strength development during strength training in middle-aged and elderly males and females.

Häkkinen

Neuromuscular adaptations during bilateral versus unilateral strength training in middle-aged and elderly men and women.

Häkkinen

Changes in agonist-antagonist EMG, muscle CSA, and force during strength training in middle-aged and older people.

Häkkinen

Basal concentrations and acute responses of serum hormones and strength development during heavy resistance training in middle-aged and elderly men and women.

Häkkinen

Changes in electromyographic activity, muscle fibre and force production characteristics during heavy resistance/power strength training in middle-aged and older men and women.

Häkkinen

Effects of Heavy Resistance/Power Training on Maximal Strength, Muscle Morphology, and Hormonal Response Patterns in 60-75-Year-Old Men and Women

Hand

Influence of promoter region variants of insulin-like growth factor pathway genes on the strength-training response of muscle phenotypes in older adults

Holviala

Effects of prolonged and maintenance strength training on force production, walking, and balance in aging women and men

Hostler

The Effectiveness of 0.5-lb Increments in Progressive Resistance Exercise

Hubal

Variability in muscle size and strength gain after unilateral resistance training

Hulya

Factors affecting the benefits of a six-month supervised exercise program on community-dwelling older adults: interactions among age, gender, and participation

Hunter

Resistance training and intra-abdominal adipose tissue in older men and women

Hurlbut

Does age, sex, or ACE genotype affect glucose and insulin responses to strength training?

Ivey

Effects of age, gender, and myostatin genotype on the hypertrophic response to heavy resistance strength training.

Ivey

Effects of strength training and detraining on muscle quality: age and gender comparisons.

Jozsi

Changes in power with resistance training in older and younger men and women

Kell

The influence of periodized resistance training on strength changes in men and women.

Kosek

Efficacy of 3 days/wk resistance training on myofiber hypertrophy and myogenic mechanisms in young vs. older adults

Lemmer

Effect of strength training on resting metabolic rate and physical activity: age and gender comparisons.

Lemmer

Age and sex differentially affect regional changes in one repetition maximum strength.

Lemmer

Age and gender responses to strength training and detraining.

Lexell

Heavy-resistance training in older Scandinavian men and women: short- and long-term effects on arm and leg muscles.

Liu

Skeletal muscle gene expression in response to resistance exercise: sex specific regulation

Maddalozzo

High Intensity Resistance Training: Effects on Bone in Older Men and Women

Martel

Age and sex affect human muscle fibre adaptations to heavy-resistance strength training.

Martin Ginis

Mind over muscle?: Sex differences in the relationship between body image change and subjective and objective physical changes following a 12-week strength-training program

McCartney

Long-term Resistance Training in the Elderly: Effects on Dynamic Strength, Exercise Capacity, Muscle, and Bone

McCartney

A longitudinal trial of weight training in the elderly: continued improvements in year 2

Melnyk

Effects of strength training and detraining on regional muscle in young and older men and women.

O'Hagan

Response to resistance training in young women and men.

O'Hagan

Comparative effectiveness of accommodating and weight resistance training modes

Peterson

Progression of volume load and muscular adaptation during resistance exercise.

Raue

Transcriptome signature of resistance exercise adaptations: mixed muscle and fiber type specific profiles in young and old adults.

Reichman

Steroid sulfatase gene variation and DHEA responsiveness to resistance exercise in MERET

Ribeiro

Effect of 16 Weeks of Resistance Training on Fatigue Resistance in Men and Women

Ribeiro

Analysis of the training load during a hypertrophy-type resistance training programme in men and women

Ribeiro

Hypertrophy-type Resistance Training Improves Phase Angle in Young Adult Men and Women

Roth

Muscle size responses to strength training in young and older men and women

Rutherford

The role of learning and coordination in strength training

Salvador

Effect of eight weeks of strength training on fatigue resistance in men and women

Schmidt

The effect of high-intensity circuit training on physical fitness

Sherk

Effects of Resistance Training Duration on Muscular Strength Retention 6-Month Post-training in Older Men and Women

Spurway

The effect of strength training on the apparent inhibition of eccentric force production in voluntarily activated human quadriceps

Staron

Skeletal muscle adaptations during early phase of heavy-resistance training in men and women.

Stock

Sex comparisons of strength and coactivation following ten weeks of deadlift training.

Tracy

A More Efficient Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Based Strategy for Measuring Quadriceps Muscle Volume

Tracy

Muscle quality. II. Effects Of strength training in 65- to 75-yr-old men and women.

Walts

Do Sex or Race Differences Influence Strength Training Effects on Muscle or Fat?

Washburn

One set resistance training: effect on body composition in overweight young adults

Weiss

Effects of heavy-resistance triceps surae muscle training on strength and muscularity of men and women.

Williamson

Reduction in hybrid single muscle fiber proportions with resistance training in humans

Wilmore

Alterations in strength, body composition and anthropometric measurements consequent to a 10-week weight training program.

*
Findings
*








Positive values mean larger relative gains for women, while negative values mean larger relative gains for men. Diamonds = Effect size 95% CI. Black = not significant. Red = significant difference. The white region represents trivial effects, light blue is small effects, darker blue is medium effects, and darkest blue is large effects.

*Overall strength gains*

There were 63 comparisons of strength gains, encompassing 3,332 subjects. In these studies, men got 29.41% stronger, on average, while women got 37.42% stronger. The average difference was 8.01%, with a 95% confidence interval from 4.59-11.43%. This was a significant difference (p<0.0001) and would be considered a _small effect_ (d=0.34; 95% CI: 0.19-0.48). On average, strength increased about 27% faster in women.

*Strength gains in young (<35 years old) people*

There were 32 comparisons of strength gains in young people, encompassing 1,745 subjects. In these studies, men got 30.87% stronger, on average, while women got 45.71% stronger. The average difference was 14.84%, with a 95% confidence interval from 10.26-19.42%. This was a significant difference (p<0.0001) and would be considered a _medium effect_ (d=0.56; 95% CI: 0.39-0.74). On average, strength increased about 48% faster in young women.



*Strength gains in older people*

There were 31 comparisons of strength gains in older people, encompassing 1,587 subjects. In these studies, men got 27.80% stronger, on average, while women got 28.30% stronger. The average difference was 0.50%, with a 95% confidence interval from -3.11-4.11%. This was _not a significant difference_ (p=0.79).

*Upper body strength gains*

There were 27 comparisons of upper body strength gains, encompassing 1,599 subjects. In these studies, men got 34.92% stronger, on average, while women got 47.51% stronger. The average difference was 12.59%, with a 95% confidence interval from 6.45-18.73%. This was a significant difference (p=0.0002) and would be considered a _medium effect_ (d=0.66; 95% CI: 0.34-0.98). On average, upper body strength increased about 36% faster in women.

*Lower body strength gains*

There were 53 comparisons of lower body strength gains, encompassing 2,287 subjects. In these studies, men got 28.47% stronger, on average, while women got 30.64% stronger. The average difference was 2.17%, with a 95% confidence interval from -0.92-5.26%. This was nearly a significant difference (p=0.087), but probably isn't practically relevant and would be considered a _trivial effect_ (d=0.08; 95% CI: -0.03-0.19).

*Strength gains in studies lasting 20+ weeks*

There were 20 comparisons of strength gains in studies lasting 20+ weeks, encompassing 927 subjects. In these studies, men got 28.91% stronger, on average, while women got 29.91% stronger. The average difference was 1.00%, with a 95% confidence interval from -5.04-7.03%. This was _not a significant difference_(p=0.75).

*Indirect measures of muscle growth*

There were 28 comparisons of indirect measures of muscle growth (i.e. lean body mass), encompassing 1,607 subjects. In these studies, men increased measures of lean mass by 2.03%, on average, while women increased measures of lean mass by 1.92%. The average difference was -0.11%, with a 95% confidence interval from -0.40-0.19%. This was _not a significant difference_ (p=0.47).

*Direct measures of muscle growth*

There were 25 comparisons of direct measures of muscle growth, encompassing 1,664 subjects. In these studies, men's muscles grew 13.21%, on average, while women's grew 12.24%. The average difference was -0.97%, with a 95% confidence interval from -3.02-1.08%. This was _not a significant difference_ (p=0.36).



It wasn't worth splitting apart the young and older subjects to do formal subgroup analyses for hypertrophy outcomes (I like having at least 20 studies to pool), but just looking at simple averages, it seems that men and women gain muscle at a similar rate regardless of age. In the studies on young participants (N=8), the men increased muscle size by 13.1%, while the women increased muscle size by 14.1%. Similarly, in the studies on older participants (N=17), the men increased muscle size by 11.9%, while the women increased muscle size by 11.8%. Both of these differences are clearly trivial.

*
Limitations
*

The main limitation of this analysis was that most of these studies were performed on untrained participants. In fact, only 5 of these studies were done on trained subjects. There aren't enough studies on trained subjects to meta-analyze, but we can examine them individually below.

Another limitation is that, in studies on untrained subjects, we can't necessarily assume that their backgrounds are identical prior to the start of a study. In other words, it's possible that the "untrained" men in these studies had previously undertaken more activities outside the gym that required high levels of muscular exertion than the "untrained" women. If that were the case, you'd expect women to have faster initial relative strength gains simply from catching up with the male baseline.

That's why I included the analysis of studies lasting 20+ weeks, to specifically look at studies where that sort of effect wouldn't influence the results as much. That's also why I separated upper body and lower body strength gains, as I'd expect this type of effect would be more prevalent for upper body strength than lower body strength. In support of the hypothesis that "untrained" women may be more untrained than "untrained" men - especially when it comes to upper body strength - women gained strength faster than men in shorter studies but not longer studies, and in measures of upper body strength but not lower body strength.

*
Trained subjects
*

Here are the main results from the five studies on trained subjects:










As such, we basically have no good research telling us about rates of muscle growth in trained men and women. My hunch is that relative rates of muscle growth will continue to be similar, but we'll have to wait on further research to say for sure.As you can see, only one of these studies (Alway et al.) reported a direct measure of hypertrophy, and only one (Garthe et al.) reported an indirect measure of hypertrophy. Alway et al. is hampered by a very small sample, while Garthe et al. has a couple other confounding factors - 1) the main purpose of the study was to compare different rates of weight loss, so while the groups with differing rates of weight loss had similar numbers of men and women, it's possible that group allocation affected results and 2) the study included athletes from many different sporting backgrounds, so while all of them did have prior training experience, it's possible that the women were somewhat less trained than the men.

However, it's clear from these studies that relative rates of strength gains seem to be somewhat higher in trained women than trained men. One study reported no significant differences, while the other four reported at least one significant difference in favor of women, and none in favor of men.

With that being said, it's certainly possible that there were differences in real-world training status that are basically impossible for a study to account for. For example, if the men tended to train like hardcore powerlifters or bodybuilders, and the women tended to do the sort of lighter, higher-rep "toning" workouts that are often recommended to women, it would make sense that the women would gain strength faster. In other words, "research tends to indicate that trained women still gain strength quicker than trained men, but I'm concerned those studies are hampered by methodological limitations, so I'll continue to assume the null (similar relative rates of strength gains) until research on a more representative population is conducted" is also a very defensible position.

To go a little deeper, we can look at powerlifting meet results to see how the gap between men and women shifts when comparing less competitive lifters to more competitive lifters. As mentioned in a previous article, women lift about 67% as much as men in the squat, 56% in the bench, and 71% in the deadlift, on average (using allometric scaling to correct for differences in body mass). However, those gaps are larger when looking at less successful lifters (those in the 10th percentile of relative strength) and smaller when looking at more successful lifters (those in the 90th percentile of relative strength). A 5th percentile woman has about 62% as much relative strength as a 5th percentile man in the squat, 53% in the bench, and 67% in the deadlift. On the other hand, a 95th percentile woman has about 71% as much relative strength as a 95th percentile man in the squat, 60% in the bench, and 75% in the deadlift. An analysis of weightlifting results in CrossFitters had similar findings (though they didn't correct for differences in body mass): larger sex gaps in snatch and clean & jerk performance in lower-level lifters and smaller gaps in higher-level lifters.








Notice how the relative gap is smaller in lifters at higher strength percentiles.

The narrowing of the gap as competitiveness increases suggests that women may truly continue gaining strength at a _slightly_ faster relative rate across their training careers. Similarly, a 2014 study of elite athletes in a variety of sports found that the women had about 85% as much lean body mass as men; before training, women tend to have ~60-70% as much lean body mass as men, suggesting that women may actually gain relatively more muscle than men long-term (though, for all of these comparisons, you can't assume causation from cross-sectional analyses).

So, just to wrap up this section, here are the big takeaways:



Relative rates of muscle growth in men and women are virtually identical.


Relative rates of strength gains are _at least_ equal between sexes, though possibly faster in women.

Especially during the first few months of training, relative rates of upper body strength gains are probably considerably higher in women than in men.


Long-term, relative rates of strength gains _may_ be _slightly_ higher in women. However, if a difference exists, it's likely very small.


*
Discussion
*

I'm sure there are some people in a state of mild disbelief as this point. After all, men have more testosterone, and testosterone is anabolic; therefore, men should be at a huge advantage when it comes to building muscle and gaining strength, right? An implication of this analysis is that, assuming a given woman and a given man start with similar amounts of muscle mass and strength, they'd be likely to gain the same amount of muscle and strength if they both started lifting. That just doesn't sit right with some people.

However, the role of testosterone may be overstated. My friend James Kreiger recently published a _super_ thorough analysis (note: paywall, but totally worth it) on all things testosterone and muscle growth, including analyses of cross-sectional research on people with different testosterone levels, studies comparing men and women, studies where people are given exogenous testosterone, and even studies where people were put on drugs to totally suppress testosterone production. The main takeaway was that testosterone levels can dramatically affect the amount of muscle you start with, but they don't really impact relative rates of muscle growth.

To quote James, "*Variations in your blood levels of testosterone impact your 'base' level of muscle, but have minimal impact on your relative (%) gains*. Thus, having higher testosterone levels means having a higher base level of muscle. While the relative gains will be mostly similar, the absolute gains will be higher due to the higher baseline."

That's very much in line with this analysis: Men start off with more muscle and more strength, largely due to higher testosterone levels, and absolute muscle and strength gains are larger because they started with a higher baseline. However, relative muscle gains are identical between sexes, and relative strength gains are likely similar long-term.

Also note, testosterone isn't the only relevant sex difference here. There are sex differences in gene expression, sex differences in other anabolic hormones like IGF-1 (which may play a bigger role in women than men), and, obviously, sex differences in estrogen (which, contrary to popular belief, exerts anabolic effects in muscle tissue). Testosterone is only one piece of a much larger picture that only gets more confusing and convoluted the more you look at it. At the end of the day, it's best to just remember the messiness of physiology and understand that outcomes (similar relative muscle growth and strength gains, supported by heaps of research) trump mechanisms (differences in testosterone levels) every time.

*
Other female-specific considerations
*

If you'll harken back to the beginning of this article, you'll recall the two camps I mentioned: 1) people who claim that the process and outcomes of strength training for men and women are really dissimilar, and 2) people who claim that the process and outcomes of strength training for men and women are basically identical. As I'm sure you've figured out by now, I think that the people in the second camp are closer to the truth than the people in the first camp. However, I think they miss the mark to some degree as well, since there _are_ sex differences that extend beyond average results.

For starters, women tend to be less acutely fatigable than men, meaning they can generally do more reps per set at a given percentage of 1RM, do more sets with a fixed number of reps at a given percentage of 1RM, or both. There are several factors underpinning this difference, but the two most important seem to be a) women tend to have a higher proportion of type I muscle fibers, which are more fatigue-resistant and B) women tend to have less muscle mass, so they don't occlude blood vessels quite as quickly when lifting, meaning they can more efficiently deliver oxygen and clear metabolic waste products from their muscles. (However, I'll note that this isn't a unanimous finding).

Second, women may recover from training a bit faster than men (one, two, three). When I've mentioned this in the past, the counterargument I typically hear is that women don't create as much force, so of course their muscles won't sustain as much damage, and will therefore recover faster. However, that doesn't make much sense when you think about it. For starters, I'm not aware of any evidence showing that people who are stronger or more muscular at baseline experience more muscle damage, more soreness, or larger/longer performance decrements than people who are weaker or less muscular, all else being equal. More importantly, what each of your muscle fibers "feel" is the tension on that specific fiber; the contractile force of the entire muscle shouldn't matter, as long as each fiber is being recruited to a similar degree and experiencing a similar amount of tension. I think the more likely explanation is that estrogen may exert a protective effect on muscle, limiting damage and potentially accelerating repair.

Third, men and women may respond differently to low-load training. At this point, there's a tremendous amount of evidence showing that low-load training (i.e. sets of 20+ reps) can build muscle just as effectively as heavier training (though just because you _can_ build muscle effectively with low-load training, that doesn't mean you _should_). However, only one of the studies comparing high-load and low-load training was done with women. It found that women training with higher loads (6-10RM loads) gained _way_ more muscle than women training with lower loads (20-30RM loads). This stands in stark contrast to similar studies performed on men, suggesting that women may respond to normal, heavy-ish training the same way men do (mostly doing sets of 5-15 reps), but may not respond as well to low-load training.

Finally, women also have to deal with the menstrual cycle (women taking hormonal contraceptives can probably ignore this paragraph). There's some evidence that women's response to training varies based on menstrual cycle phase. For starters, it takes women longer to recover from training during the luteal phase (last half) of the menstrual cycle. Building on that, several studies (one, two, three) show that concentrating your training during the follicular phase (first half of the cycle) can lead to larger strength gains and more muscle growth than concentrating your training during the luteal phase or evenly dispersing it across the entire month. On a more practical level, it's probably not wise to use an extreme program like the ones used in those studies (for example, training 3-5 times per week during the follicular phase, and only once per week during the luteal phase), but it's possible that you can increase your progress in the gym while minimizing overtraining risk by adding an extra workout or two per week during the follicular phase. For example, if you normally train three times per week, every week, you could probably keep training three times per week during the luteal phase, but increase your frequency to four or five times per week during the follicular phase. This would help you take advantage of faster recovery rates and reap the benefits of the larger strength gains and enhanced muscle growth that occur during the follicular phase.








Faster strength recovery during the follicular phase of the menstrual cycle. From Markofski et al., 2014.

*
Closing words
*

I hope you can take something away from this article. If you're a woman, I hope it was illuminating and empowering. If you train women, I hope it was informative. Men and women are more alike than different when it comes to training responses, but similar doesn't mean identical. Women are not just smaller versions of men, though they _should_ expect the same relative rate of progress a man would.

If you got something out of this article, I'd really appreciate it if you'd share it with your friends, your gym buddies, and anyone else who you think might benefit. Since women are so underrepresented in strength training research, I find that this is a topic with _so_ much misinformation swirling around. I hope this article can serve as a small beacon of sanity.


----------



## britishboy (Apr 20, 2018)

good post


----------

