Women Should Train Completely Differently Than Men | Educational Video | Biolayne

This protocol is framed as a direct counter to the viral conclusion that women need more volume because they recover faster. Norton argues that recovery ability is not a mandate to train harder; it’s a buffer that allows adaptation. Training volume is a tool to overcome homeostasis, and if homeostasis is already being disrupted by current volume, adding more will not yield additional adaptation and may lead to overreaching. He points to research showing equal relative gains from equal set counts when both sexes train hard. Therefore, volume should be titrated based on measurable progress, not on biological markers of recovery capacity. The advice is universal but particularly relevant given the current social media narrative.

The study had three sessions: (1) determination of 1RM, (2) a single set to failure at 75% 1RM, and (3) a fatiguing protocol of sets of 5 at 75% 1RM with 90 seconds rest until failure, tracking velocity and blood lactate. In session 2, there was no sex difference in reps performed to failure. However, in the fatiguing protocol, women completed approximately twice as many total reps as men. Velocity loss during each set was similar between sexes, but the velocity recovered from the slowest rep of one set to the fastest rep of the next set was much greater in women. Blood lactate increased much more in men than in women. Across several days of follow-up, strength recovery and soreness profiles were largely similar, though men reported slightly more soreness. The key takeaway is that women recover faster on a set-to-set timescale, while overall recovery trajectories are comparable.

Norton points out that men in the study bench-pressed about double the absolute weight of women. Drawing on powerlifting observations, he notes that top lifters in the heaviest weight classes – both men and women – cannot handle high-frequency squat or deadlift training, whereas lighter weight-class lifters often train with much higher frequency and volume. For example, 80% of a super heavyweight like Jesus Olivares’ squat is ~800 lb, while 80% for a 59-kg lifter is ~440 lb. The total mechanical load and associated systemic fatigue may be the primary driver of between-session recovery demand. Thus, the apparent sex difference might disappear if researchers match participants by absolute strength level rather than relative (%1RM). He expresses his desire for follow-up studies that scale absolute loads to test this possibility.

Norton emphasizes that ‘just because they can doesn’t mean they should’. The amount of volume a person does should be driven by their goals and training status. If an individual is making consistent progress in strength or muscle size, adding volume is unnecessary and may increase injury risk or lead to overtraining. Only when progress has plateaued or stagnated should volume be increased. He also references existing research showing that when men and women perform the same number of sets to a similar proximity to failure, they achieve comparable relative increases in muscle mass, further suggesting that sex-specific volume prescriptions are unwarranted.