Nakul Kumar, PhD

Of course there will always be that one person who pipes up with something like "if someone squats with one foot facing forward and the other foot facing backward, there is obviously a high risk of injury!".

And that is true, in exactly the same way that plyometrics are inherently not high-risk, but that isn't to suggest that a drop jump from a 20 story building is a good idea.

For those struggling to grasp the message that the post is trying to drive home, the post isn't suggesting that lifting technique or biomechanics don't matter.

It's highlighting the fact that there is no single specific lifting technique that will reduce the risk of injury.

It's highlighting the fact that blanket statements that there is one 'right' way to lift and that deviations from this require 'correcting' or 'fixing' to reduce risk of injury/pain are inaccurate and misleading.

It's highlighting the fact that injury mechanisms are complex and multifactorial (Bittencourt et al., 2016; Meeuwisse et al., 2007).

It's highlighting the fact that pain is complex and multifactorial, involving interconnected physiological and psychological mechanisms with substantial individual variability (Belfer et al., 2013; Cholewicki et al., 2019; Dunn et al., 2024; Kela et al., 2021; Marchand et al., 2021).

It's highlighting the fact that rather being a major risk factor for injury, your lifting technique or biomechanics are actually far more important in the context of trying to achieve a specific outcome (Lehman, 2018; Washmuth et al., 2022).

Yes, we do need more research on women.

But the statement often gets hijacked by people to continue pushing narratives (e.g., cycle-syncing and women needing to train differently) that have no real backing.

Firstly, while there's a 6% statistic that gets (wrongly) cited as female representation in exercise science research, that percentage referred to research focusing exclusively on females and female-specific questions at that point in time (2014-20), with the authors reporting overall female participation as ~34% (Cowley et al., 2021).

Since then, Ose et al. (2025) and Buehler et al. (2026), reviewing 2021-23 and 2020 time periods respectively, reported female representation in sports science and sports medicine research as >40%.

And while these studies did review limited journals (BJSM, AJSM, MSSE, JSSM, EJSS and J.Physiol), no one is denying the gender-gap or the need for more data on women. If anything, the studies are highlighting it, while also acknowledging that female representation is growing.

But the people pushing those (false) narratives about women's training, while falling back on the "there's not enough research on women", conveniently ignore the current research that we do have on women because it doesn't really make for great marketing.

So with regard to those claims that women need 'cycle-syncing' or that they shouldn't be 'training like men', here's what we currently know..

1. Research has highlighted the inability to make general phase-based exercise recommendations, with variations in strength, fatigue, readiness, motivation and symptoms being unique to the individual (Dam et al., 2022; McNulty et al., 2020; Munteanu et al., 2026; Ryman Augustsson and Findhé-Malenica, 2025).

2. There seems to be no greater anabolic effect of resistance training in the follicular vs luteal phase (Colenso-Semple et al., 2025; D'Souza et al., 2026).

3. Menstrual cycle-related hormonal fluctuations don't seem to have an effect on adaptations to resistance training (Colenso-Semple et al., 2023; D'Souza et al., 2026).

4. Women and men seem to exhibit similar relative adaptations to resistance training (Refalo et al., 2025; Roberts et al., 2020).

Resistance training is one of the best things you can do for your health.

For coaching support, use the link in bio to enquire 🔗

An exercise is just tool that we use to deliver that training stimulus, with volume and frequency dictating the exposure to said stimulus.

Ultimately, the effectiveness of a training programme boils down to training intensity and consistency.

It's not that these specific measures are what underpin that reduced risk of mortality, it's about what these measures are representative of.

Instead of training to improve the outcome in those specific tests, focus on developing your overall physical fitness.

And yes, that's Tom Hales | Strength & Fitness Coach juggling while doing pistol squats on a Kettlebell.

It's easy to fall into the trap of overcoaching, because you think you need to constantly be giving feedback.

As coaches, we're here to provide support and facilitate the learning process, with the athletes/individuals taking responsibility for some of their own learning.

While acknowledging that total independence isn't practical, we don't want to build dependency on the coach i.e., we should be looking to make our athletes/clients less reliant on constant coaching feedback and instruction.

They'll always need your support, just don't overdo it.