We Have to Start Somewhere
Evidence-based research for women is lacking but it’s all we have right now
A few years ago, I came across the idea of follicular-based strength training.
This suggests that prioritising our strength training during the follicular phase (the first half of our menstrual cycle) can improve strength more than training during the luteal phase (the second half) or following a traditional, linear training pattern.
In other words, it’s ‘better’ to strength train in the first half of our menstrual cycle.
And when I came across this – I loved the idea. This possibility that we could periodise our training around our menstrual cycle.
After all, I had sort of been doing this for years. Without even realising it.
But when I dug deeper into the research? It gutted me.
It was inconsistent. Invalid. Confusing. And conflicting.
And to be honest, it’s not just the research around fitness. Most female-based research, across the board, is flawed.
The messy truth of the evidence
As Colenso-Semple et al. (2023) pointed out - it’s premature to conclude that reproductive hormones influence - well, anything.
Exercise performance. Strength. Relationships. Work. Lifestyle.
It’s all still up in the air.
And that realisation? It hit me so hard!
As a result, I slipped into a kind of writing paralysis. Full-on writer’s block.
I didn’t want to share what I was finding in female-based research because I was so afraid of being called out for sharing poor-quality studies.
But here’s the thing – right now, poor-quality studies are all we, as women, have to go on.
They’re all flawed1. Every single one of them. And until things change – until more, better, female-focused research gets conducted – that’s our reality.
So what do we do with that?
Do we:
Ignore all evidence-based research altogether?
Disregard the (flawed) research on women and continue applying male-based research to ourselves?
Take the poor-quality research on women with a pinch of salt, let it be a starting point, and stay curious?
The first two options? Obviously, they don’t make sense.
We need research. That’s a no-brainer.
But applying male-based research to women? Pointless. We know that too.
Which leaves us with option three.
The approach I’m taking
After a mini HUGE meltdown about sharing what’s out there (and maybe a dramatic overthinking spiral), I’ve come to a conclusion... I’m going to lean into the third option.
I’m going to take the research that exists on women – and rather than disregarding it completely because it’s flawed – I’m going to approach it. With curiosity.
At the same time, I’m going to observe and own my biases. Plenty of which I know exist.
I’m going to use the research as a starting point. To create a personalised approach - for myself, and for the women I work with.
Because the fact is – a personalised approach is what we need.
We are all unique.
So even when the research does improve – even when it’s finally valid – we can’t forget, we’re human! Everything we do needs to be tailored to us. As individuals.
Consider this post a caveat
When you read the research I share, that anyone shares, use it as a starting point. Ask yourself – Does this apply to me?
Be aware of your own biases. My biases. Other people’s biases. And be aware of the challenges (and flaws) baked into female-based research.
As Bruce Lee famously said:
Absorb what is useful.
Discard what is not.
Add what is uniquely your own.
Until we have more evidence – until research actually focuses on us as women, our hormones, our lived realities – we’ve got to work with what we’ve got.
It’s not perfect.
But surely – it’s got to be better than blindly following the research conducted on men. Right?
Sources
Colenso-Semple, L.M. et al. (2023) Current evidence shows no influence of women’s menstrual cycle phase on acute strength performance or adaptations to resistance exercise training..
Sung, E. et al. (2014) Effects of follicular versus luteal phase-based strength training in young women.
I wrote about this more here → Why We Still Don’t Have Reliable Exercise Guidelines for Women After 150 Years of Research