Jun 10, 2026 · 2 hr 8 min · 13 segments
In this episode, I sit down with Dr. Lauren Colenso-Semple to examine what the science says about female-specific training and nutrition. We discuss why so little research has historically focused on…
Lauren Colenso SempleGuest
Andy GalpinHost
I thought it would be interesting, and I'll actually have to give you credit for this because you brought this up this morning while we were eating, uh, breakfast, that almost 10 years ago, you and I had an idea for a lit review paper, and according to your memory, not mine, we at least mocked that thing up, got close to it, and I'm not sure where it went from there.
So my first three questions, one, walk us through what the idea of that paper was.
Two, why were you even interested in it? Where did the idea come from? What was the, uh, love and support for it then? And then three, which one of us screwed it up in not getting it out? Whose fault was it that paper never got published? So you can take those in whatever order you'd like.
I come from a background as a fitness professional, and so my interest in science was rooted in my background as a fitness professional, and at the time, looking at the literature and seeing there was an underrepresentation of, of female participants, and you'll hear a lot of people say that.
You know, "There's no data in women." But there, there is data in women, but at the time, it's true that it was very common to have at least an initial study conducted in young college-aged men.
And so I was really a proponent of, "Hey, let's try to replicate these studies in women." So the idea for the review was what are these potential sex differences that maybe we have an inkling of a mechanism to generate a hypothesis to say, "Is it true or, or could it be true that maybe women can train more frequently? Could it be true that there's some protective effect of estrogen that would allow for faster recovery or, or less muscle damage in response to hard training? And is there something to be said for these hormones that fluctuate throughout the menstrual cycle?" Because we know a ton about testosterone.
We don't know much about estrogen and progesterone, and so if it is the case that men and, and women are gaining muscle size and strength at similar relative rates, clearly testosterone is not the key that, that unlocks the strength and hypertrophy kingdom.
So at the time, there was enough to say, "Here's the list of the kinda could-bes.
Let's hash that out," because the purpose of a lit review is to say, "Here's the state of the evidence as it stands, and here's where we need to go." So that was the, the intention, uh, to kinda lay it out there, and what we were doing together at the time was exploring some of the, the sex differences in fiber type because that was another theory that was posited of if there are these sex differences in, in fiber type distribution, like could that fuel the d- uh, different training recommendations or, or optimizations, if you will.
Why were you even interested in these questions to begin with? Why did it matter if we had data on sex-specific training and nutrition recommendations? What, what got you interested in that question to begin with?
So not to say that I necessarily thought men and women should train differently, but I thought we should explore the possibility because if we don't w- look at these potential sex differences and we just assume that these findings in men apply to women, then, you know, we're not doing, uh, justice to, to the full process.
At that time, did you have any reason, based on your experience coachingTo think that we needed separate recommendations?
I thought it would be interesting, and I'll actually have to give you credit for this because you brought this up this morning while we were eating, uh, breakfast, that almost 10 years ago, you and I had an idea for a lit review paper, and according to your memory, not mine, we at least mocked that thing up, got close to it, and I'm not sure where it went from there.
So my first three questions, one, walk us through what the idea of that paper was.
Two, why were you even interested in it? Where did the idea come from? What was the, uh, love and support for it then? And then three, which one of us screwed it up in not getting it out? Whose fault was it that paper never got published? So you can take those in whatever order you'd like.
I come from a background as a fitness professional, and so my interest in science was rooted in my background as a fitness professional, and at the time, looking at the literature and seeing there was an underrepresentation of, of female participants, and you'll hear a lot of people say that.
You know, "There's no data in women." But there, there is data in women, but at the time, it's true that it was very common to have at least an initial study conducted in young college-aged men.
And so I was really a proponent of, "Hey, let's try to replicate these studies in women." So the idea for the review was what are these potential sex differences that maybe we have an inkling of a mechanism to generate a hypothesis to say, "Is it true or, or could it be true that maybe women can train more frequently? Could it be true that there's some protective effect of estrogen that would allow for faster recovery or, or less muscle damage in response to hard training? And is there something to be said for these hormones that fluctuate throughout the menstrual cycle?" Because we know a ton about testosterone.
We don't know much about estrogen and progesterone, and so if it is the case that men and, and women are gaining muscle size and strength at similar relative rates, clearly testosterone is not the key that, that unlocks the strength and hypertrophy kingdom.
So at the time, there was enough to say, "Here's the list of the kinda could-bes.
Let's hash that out," because the purpose of a lit review is to say, "Here's the state of the evidence as it stands, and here's where we need to go." So that was the, the intention, uh, to kinda lay it out there, and what we were doing together at the time was exploring some of the, the sex differences in fiber type because that was another theory that was posited of if there are these sex differences in, in fiber type distribution, like could that fuel the d- uh, different training recommendations or, or optimizations, if you will.
Why were you even interested in these questions to begin with? Why did it matter if we had data on sex-specific training and nutrition recommendations? What, what got you interested in that question to begin with?
So not to say that I necessarily thought men and women should train differently, but I thought we should explore the possibility because if we don't w- look at these potential sex differences and we just assume that these findings in men apply to women, then, you know, we're not doing, uh, justice to, to the full process.
At that time, did you have any reason, based on your experience coachingTo think that we needed separate recommendations?
The rest of this transcript — segmented and speaker-labeled, so you land on the exact moment something was said
Search every transcript — by keyword, by phrase, or by meaning, across every show Radar indexes
Trends — what is surging across podcasts, measured against its own baseline
Alerts — when a name you follow appears in a newly indexed episode
No account is needed to search Radar.
