Strength unseen: confronting prejudice in women’s resistance and weight training

Abstract

Introduction

Women face unique challenges in bone development and loss due to the role of estrogen, which leads to lower peak bone mass and a higher fracture risk, especially after menopause. Resistance and weight training are effective strategies to maintain bone health, yet societal biases often deter women from engaging in these activities. This article aims to challenge these misconceptions and advocate for the integration of strength training into women’s fitness routines to promote overall well-being.

Discussion

Misconceptions surrounding excessive muscle gain, loss of femininity, and perceived barriers discourage many women from participating in strength training. Studies show that women who do not engage in strength training perceive higher barriers compared to those who do, highlighting the influence of societal discrimination against exercise trends among women. Cultural opinions, societal norms, and biological limitations shape these perceptions, often confining women’s success within traditional notions of femininity. While the health benefits of resistance training are clear, the complexities of these biases require further investigation to foster a culture where women can freely participate in resistance and weight training without stigma or limitations.

Conclusion

Resistance and weight training and the associated prejudice against women’s engagement in these activities is an underdefined topic, and future research in this field will allow us to create a community where both resistance trainers and non-resistance trainers can understand and appreciate individualized health goals.

KEY MESSAGES

• Acknowledging prejudice toward women in resistance and weight training is essential for addressing the elements that limit women’s full participation in strength training activity.

• Prejudice surrounding women’s resistance and weight training participation is not an isolated bias but a multifaceted societal problem rooted in longstanding gender norms, cultural expectations, among others.

Introduction

An imbalance between bone remodeling and resorption causes osteoporosis, which reduces the skeletal mass. A fracture caused by osteoporosis will affect more than 50% of postmenopausal Caucasian women, and only 33% of older women who suffer a hip fracture will be able to restore the ability to live independently [1]. Osteoporosis impacts 200 million individuals globally, with more than 70% of cases occurring in those over 80 years of age. It is more prevalent in females, impacting 9–38% of females and 2–8% of males in affluent nations [2]. Approximately 9 million fractures occur each year because of osteoporosis, affecting one in three women and one in five men over the age of 50. The osteogenic effects of resistance exercise have been viewed as protective for bone health and reduces bone loss [3].

Estrogen plays a central role in the acquisition and maintenance of bone mineral density (BMD). Compared to men, women attain a lower peak bone mass (PBM) and experience accelerated bone loss particularly in peri-menopausal phase due to decline in estrogen level [4–6]. Approximately 54 million Americans are impacted by low bone mass or osteoporosis, with women representing 80% of the 10 million diagnosed with osteoporosis [7]. Adolescence is a critical phase for bone growth, during which 40–60% of peak bone mass (PBM) is attained and a 10% increase in PBM during this era might diminish the risk of osteoporotic fractures by 50% in later life [8]. Mechanical loading is essential for osteogenesis and resistance training provides a sufficient amount of mechanical load required to stimulate bone remodeling beyond what is achieved through daily routine work [9,10]. Evidence demonstrates that resistance training improves BMD at clinically significant sites such as the lumbar spine and femoral neck, mitigates age-related muscle loss, and reduces fracture risk [11]. Despite all of these benefits, women participate in resistance training exercises less often than men in many countries [12]. Existing societal misconceptions, including concerns regarding excessive muscle hypertrophy, altered body composition, or injury risk, continue to deter participation in resistance training. This represents a modifiable public health gap with significant long-term clinical and socioeconomic burden.

Accordingly, this review aims to take into account current evidence on the physiological benefits of resistance training in women to address the most prevalent barriers surrounding resistance training and identify sociocultural and structural barriers limiting participation.

In this manuscript, ‘resistance training’ refers to structured exercises performed against external load (e.g. free weights, machines, resistance bands, or body weight) with the aim of improving muscular strength, hypertrophy, and neuromuscular performance [11]. Although terms such as ‘strength training’ and ‘weight training’ are often used interchangeably in the literature, the word ‘resistance training’ is used consistently in this study for conceptual precision.

Additionally, ‘sex’ refers to biological attributes (e.g. hormonal milieu, muscle morphology), whereas ‘gender’ refers to socially constructed roles, norms, and expectations that shape participation in physical activity. Distinguishing these constructs is essential when examining both physiological adaptations and sociocultural determinants of exercise behavior [13].

Myths versus facts: understanding the real impacts of resistance training on women

A prevalent barrier to women’s participation in resistance training is the belief that weightlifting will lead to significant muscle growth and compromise femininity [14]. Hormones play a significant role in cellular growth and development. However, scientific research indicates that women exhibit smaller absolute hypertrophic responses compared to men due to lower circulating testosterone levels despite achieving similar relative strength gains. Resistance training primarily enhances endurance, bone density, neuromuscular function, and metabolic health, rather than developing excessive muscularity [15–18]. Despite the abundance of scientific data, this barrier is rooted in long-held gender standards that associate muscularity with masculinity and femininity with being thin, soft, and restrained in appearance. This leads to the inability of scientific knowledge to cause a behavioral change. Women may ignore physiological realities due to fear of social rejection, alterations in body image, or deviation from conventional femininity. To overcome this obstacle, we must adapt how we discuss muscular strength and resistance training in women such that it complements rather than contradicts femininity [19,20].

Resistance training impacts women’s cognitive, emotional, and physical well-being, and yet many do not meet recommended activity levels [21]. Surveys show that women face unique barriers in regards to body image in gyms, including negative self-perception and fear of judgment [19]. Despite rising gym memberships, women often feel intimidated in male-dominated spaces due to unwelcome attention and pressure to conform to societal beauty standards, which renders them more reluctant to go to the gym regularly [22,23]. More et al.’s mixed-methods survey revealed themes of body dissatisfaction, self-criticism, and complex relationships with gym culture [24]. These studies suggest the need for inclusive and supportive gym environments to enhance women’s participation.

Despite awareness of these benefits among healthcare professionals and fitness experts, the way these recommendations are made may unintentionally support existing myths and make it harder for behavioral change among women. In numerous clinical environments, physical activity coaching is irregular, focuses heavily on aerobic exercises, and underlying gender bias in clinical decision-making might influence provider conduct and recommendations [25]. An international scoping study on musculoskeletal pain management indicated that female patients were less likely than male patients to receive exercise recommendations from healthcare providers, implying that gender may affect non-pharmacological guidance, including exercise counseling [26]. In primary care studies, older women were shown to be less likely to receive exercise recommendations from general practitioners compared to other groups, underscoring gender discrepancies in recommending physical activity counseling. Previous data indicates that physicians are more likely to impose activity limits on female patients compared to their male counterparts, suggesting that gender bias may affect clinical guidance and treatment recommendations [27]. These patterns, along with time constraints during consultations and lack of gender-sensitive training, can make it harder for practitioners to deal with socio-cultural barriers to resistance training. Therefore, there are still gaps in participation, even though there is strong evidence that resistance training is good for women.

Discussion

Intrinsic differences in muscle strength and endurance between males and females have been proven through various comparative studies. Padmavathi et al. conducted a cohort study of 123 subjects, including 70 males and 53 females, employing a handgrip dynamometer recording interpretable results to a polygraph. Males’ handgrip strength was shown to be close to twice that of females, but the muscle endurance measured by the rate at which the muscle strength declined during the isometric contraction was greater in females [28]. Laughlin et al. performed a study analyzing muscle endurance tasks of specific muscle groups and discussed the results with respect to the gender disparities. The authors attributed different gender-specific exercise outcomes to the level of prior experience in exercise and the accessibility of such training. This highlighted the performance variation between men and women is not only distinguished by their respective anatomical and mechanical elements but also the external causes [29]. The societal discrimination against the role of women is an important concept to delve into to analyze how the perception of physical activities in women varies compared to that in men. The multinational study carried out by de Looze et al. examined if there was any relationship between the existing gender inequality and adolescent physical activity. The study’s results led to the conclusion that the presence of higher gender inequality in specific countries was related to the sex differences in physical activity [30]. Understanding the importance of societal barriers, public health advocacy has surfaced as one of the viable solutions to mitigate the limitations imposed on women carrying out strength training. Kraemer et al. claimed that the efforts put forth by the National Strength and Conditioning Association (NSCA) has been instrumental since before the 1990s in normalizing strength training for women [31].

Understanding the implications of societal discrimination against exercise and physical activity trends in women is a Segway to the specific question that addresses the bias against weight and resistance training in women. Hurley et al. researched the ways in which women attending college face challenges in carrying out resistance training. This questionnaire study involving 116 participants found that 34.2% of participants reported ‘no resistance training at all’. The authors claimed that their analysis indicated that the respondents who perceived that resistance training as significant time or effort commitment ended up participating less in resistance training. The study also alluded to having a women-based weightlifting class or women-only fitness center as a solution for more engagement in resistance training activities [32]. Another set of interesting findings have been discussed by Harne et al., where they investigated and compared the perception of benefits of strength training in college going women that engage in strength training and those who do not. While both cohorts did not differ significantly in their perceptions of the benefit of strength training in all four categories (psychological, body image, social, and health), they had different perceptions on barriers to achieve strength training. The cohort that did not perform strength training perceived there to be higher barriers in doing so compared to their counterpart. Like the results found by Hurley et al., time and effort were significant deterrents in pursuing strength training, which was mainly attributed to academic requirements in the study [33]. Table 1 summarizes the main studies.

Table 1.

Summary of the main studies.

Authors	Year	Number of subjects	Findings
Padmavathi et al. [28]	1999	123	Males’ handgrip strength was shown to be stronger than that of females. The muscle endurance measurement was greater in females.
Laughlin et al. [29]	2007	62	Different gender-specific exercise outcomes were concluded to be due to the level of prior experience in exercise and the accessibility of such training.
de Looze et al. [30]	2009	71,225	Biological sex differences in physical activity led to the presence of higher gender inequality in some countries.
Hurley et al. [32]	2018	116	Survey participants who perceived that resistance training is a significant time or effort commitment ended up participating less in it. Possible solutions for low engagement in strength activities among women are women-based weightlifting class or women-only fitness center.
Harne [33]	2015	100	Perceptions of the benefits of strength training in all four categories (psychological, body image, social, and health) were not statistically significantly different between strength trainers and non-strength trainers. Two cohorts had different views on barriers to achieve strength training.

In another study, Dworkin shared that women that conduct weight training activities were limited by the societal ideologies that frame women under the title of femininity and women’s success within the set boundaries. This was further analyzed by the results provided by the same study that women who perform less-than-high-level strength exercises come to terms by lowering their weight-related workouts whether by completely avoiding, taking a pause, or modifying their workout regimens [34]. Salvatore et al.’s work focused more on the cultural aspect that deter women from lifting weights by employing the term ‘cultural dissociation’ where the female gender and strength-related exercise goals do not align themselves [35]. This subject matter was more intricately narrated by Nelson where the author claimed it is hard to understand the complex nature of the discrepancy between men and women and their ‘strength gap’ due to the discrete nature of studies that do not allow the ‘not-just-biological’ and ‘non-just-cultural’ themes to lead to a definitive conclusion on the topic [36]. An overall bird’s-eye view integrative review study of women’s lower engagement in muscle strength exercises was conducted by Stimson et al., which included five out of the 1895 initially considered studies. The authors considered sociodemographic elements along with ‘self-efficacy norms’ as the detrimental factors that led to lower strength exercise engagement rather than any bias or prejudice against women participating in such activities [37].

Many studies share the internal and external factors that deter women from performing resistance and weight training. However, the fundamental basis of bias against women in their pursuit of demanding physical activities is not well portrayed due to its intricacy that combines biological limitations, cultural opinions, and societal norms, which warrants for future studies that investigate such relationships to foster a better culture for women to be able to carry out resistance and weight training without limitations.

Conclusion

Resistance and weight training and the associated prejudice against women’s engagement in these activities is a superficially characterized subject without clear path forward. Although it is a well-known concept that strength training is important in overall well-being, it is underappreciated in women who are exposed to the lack of resources within the broader environmental and societal nuances. The scientific literature also mentions the importance of such activities in maintaining overall health, but the dearth of information lies in the absence of any sort of correlation between various elements that make up the motivation or lack thereof among people in their pursuit of strength training. As discussed, the intertwined nature of the subject matter should not be disregarded.

Analyzing the current state and understanding barriers to women’s engagement in strength enhancing exercises will allow us to extrapolate the findings into future practice. Furthermore, the specificity of the topic focusing on resistance and weight training rather than any type of training should also be appreciated Future research in this field will allow us to create a community where everyone can understand and appreciate the importance of working towards their physical and mental goals on their own terms and cherish an inclusive culture in the realm of fitness.

Funding Statement

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Ethical approval

We confirm that this study adhered to the ethical guidelines of this journal.

Consent to participate

This declaration is not applicable.

Consent for publication

Authorship requirements have been met, and all authors have approved the final manuscript.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Disclaimer

Paper has not been submitted to any other journal/conference/meeting.

Data availability statement

Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no data were created or analyzed in this study.