Gender-specific training: an essential component of good programming, or the latest fad?

A researcher debate in female exercise physiology did the rounds a little while ago — what's it about and why does it matter?

This dispute centred, in the main, on the physiological differences between men and women and how these differences can impact training responses to stimuli.

I'll kick off by saying that in reality, the majority of us are fitting exercise around life, not the other way around. Sick kids, school plays and work deadlines all crop up, usually at the most inconvenient of moments. And if that's your experience, lifting maximum loads and following a perfectly periodised program becomes a lot less relevant.

So, before we even get to the nuances of the debate, I'll just go ahead and offer my view: you can achieve meaningful benefits from strength training without training to failure.

Submaximal loading — working at challenging but manageable intensities — can build real, functional strength. The kind that helps you pick things up, carry children, maintain posture, and protect your joints. It reduces injury risk, supports the movements you do in your daily life, and it doesn't require perfection.

Now, to the actual debate: do I think women benefit from gender-specific programming?

Yes. Genuinely, yes.

Cyclical pain, energy fluctuations, hormonal variation, mental load all have a meaningful impact on the female experience of trying to maintain strength and fitness. A framework built around us, rather than adapted from one built for men, is one I think is worth advocating for. However, I don't believe that principle should be a reason to delay getting started.

Don't let perfect be the enemy of good. Some solid, reasonably consistent lifting will bring you far greater rewards than the perfectly designed programme you rarely do.