In recent years, the popularity of resistance training (RE) has increased, especially among women.
Resistance training is indeed considered “the” gold standard for building muscle mass., through its role in:
– preservation and maintenance of bone mineral density
– treatment of sarcopenia
– reduction of blood pressure
– the treatment and reduction of the risks of multiple chronic diseases (metabolic syndrome, fibromyalgia or rheumatoid arthritis).
Currently, the idea that women are able to perform RE programs almost identical to those of men faces an emerging body of evidence that calls it into question.. Among the notable differences between the sexes in response to RE, we can for example note disparities in:
– muscle fatigue
– muscle perfusion
– recovery time
– the size and composition of muscle fibers
In fine, we suspect that these disparities could influence the design of RE programs and the resulting adaptations of the organization.
Currently, the majority of studies undertaken on RE have been conducted on only male samples, or mixed (in which the data are unfortunately averaged). To the knowledge of the authors of this study, no studies had therefore been undertaken only in women.
Shortly before the publication of this study, two large reviews on the effectiveness of RE in young girls (8-18 years) already revealed that the extent of their adaptation to RE was half as low. to that observed in young men. Which fed the idea that, depending on gender, differences may indeed be present in adaptations to RE in a larger population.
However, when a large female population was indeed targeted, the study looked at clinical outcomes such as breast cancer-related lymphedema or bone mineral density.
In this context, in order to clarify the vagueness of the difference between men and women in response to RE, the present study (published in December 2019) brought together all the protocols which included:
– only women, or otherwise female data presented separately from men
– participants with no known medical condition or injury
– participants aged 18 to 50
– a Control group without exercise
– interventions lasting ≥4 weeks
In the end, these are 912 women from 24 protocols that were considered in the study (565 aged 18-30, 347 aged> 30-50)
From this meta-analysis on RE in women, the following main effects can be noted:
– Muscle strength gains of ~ 25% (range 4-40%) in the upper body and ~ 27% (range 6.5-54%) in the lower body.
– Average gains in lean mass were 3.3%, or ~ 1.45 kg (range 0.4 to 3.3 kg), following a full body program.
– These adaptations occurred following participation in programs of an average duration of 15 weeks, typically comprising 3 sessions per week, themselves including 3 sets of each exercise for ten repetitions at 70% of 1RM on average. .
Other results presented by the study:
– For the upper body, the analysis indicates that women should perform 3-4 sets per exercise, 2-4 days per week in order to achieve the best strength gains.
– In addition, this volume can be worked over the whole range of training loads (light and heavy weights) and work methods (sets with or without failure), as none of these variables moderated the magnitude of the strength gains.
– For the lower body, the results indicate that women should exercise 2-4 times per week, with the goal of accumulating more than 250 repetitions for the best strength gains.
– The effect of intensity was greater in trained people. In other words, the more you are trained, the more likely you are to benefit from an increase in training intensity.
– These results may challenge historical notions relating to muscle hypertrophy (i.e., the 8-10 repetition zone), as they indicate that hypertrophy can indeed be achieved by a variety of ranges of ‘exercises (different intensities, different volumes per week, different frequencies per week).
Despite these results, the analysis reveals that a vagueness still persists in the identification of differences in male-female adaptations to RE. Indeed, in the light of current knowledge, the two sexes seem to present broad convergences in the adaptations to the RE, without clear distinction on the interest of differentiating the training methods. According to the authors, the main reason for this finding is undoubtedly the lack of current studies specifically targeting the female population.
Added to this, the authors decided to include in the analysis only healthy women (18-50 years) with a view to reducing the risk factors related to hormonal changes and loss of muscle mass that occurs during menopause and aging. This further reduced the field of investigation.
The theme of the specificity of women in RE is therefore now launched. New data should soon fill in the gaps in order, potentially, to orient the types of RE in men and women towards more efficiency. As is starting to be the case in endurance racing.
Source: Hagstrom et al., Sports Medicine, 2019
– .
