UNFUCG
DashboardSearchChatBookmarksNotificationsActivityPremiumProfile
?
Home
Search
Chat
Saved
Profile
Episode
Women Should Train Completely Differently Than Men | Educational Video | Biolayne
~8 min
Episode Brief·YouTube

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

Layne Norton
Watch on YouTube Add to chat My bookmarks← All sources

TL;DR

The four things you'd lose by not watching

4 items

TL;DR

The four things you'd lose by not watching

4 items
1

In a new bench press study, women completed twice as many total reps as men during a fatiguing protocol of sets of 5 with 90s rest at 75% 1RM to failure, despite no difference in a single set to failure.

2

Women recovered velocity between sets significantly better and had lower blood lactate, suggesting faster set-to-set recovery, but multi-day strength recovery was similar between sexes.

3

Layne Norton hypothesizes that the difference may be driven by absolute load rather than biological sex, citing powerlifting examples where lighter lifters of both sexes handle higher volumes.

4

Norton cautions against automatically prescribing higher volume for women; training volume should be dictated by individual progress and plateaus, not sex-based recovery capacity.

Protocols

Concrete recipes — what, when, how much, and why

1 item

Add training volume only when progress stalls

WhatIncrease sets, reps, or frequency only if strength or muscle gains have plateaued; otherwise maintain current volume.
WhenWhen you have not seen improvements in strength or muscle size for an extended period (weeks), and after confirming adequate nutrition, sleep, and technique.
DoseNo fixed dose; the increase should be gradual (e.g., 1–2 extra sets per muscle group per week) and re-evaluated.
For whomAll resistance trainees, regardless of sex, according to Norton’s interpretation of the evidence.
WhyTraining stimulus should match recovery-adaptation status. Adding volume unnecessarily creates extra fatigue without additional gains, and may hinder progress.
CaveatsThis is a general guideline; some individuals with very high recovery capacity may still profit from higher volume while making progress, but the speaker recommends caution.

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.

Mechanism

Muscle growth and strength improvements rely on disrupting homeostasis through mechanical tension and metabolic stress. When current training stress is sufficient, the anabolic and strength signalling pathways are maximally stimulated for that level of conditioning. Additional volume merely adds fatigue without further upregulating these pathways. Progress stalls when the current stress is no longer a novel stimulus; at that point, increasing volume becomes necessary.

if you are making progress strength-wise, muscle-wise, you don't need to add more. But if you have plateaued, if you've stagnated, then you can add more.

Also said
“The amount of volume that you do will depend on your goals and your training status.”— Emphasizes individualization over blanket rules

What's new

Personal practice updates, fresh positions, predictions

3 items

Women show superior between-set recovery in bench press

A new study found that women performed twice as many total reps as men in a multiple-set, short-rest bench press protocol at 75% 1RM, due to faster velocity recovery between sets and lower blood lactate, despite equal fatigue within sets.

Why this matters: Challenges the common assumption that there are no meaningful sex differences in resistance exercise fatigue and recovery, and has sparked calls for sex-specific training prescriptions.

Background

Prior research on sex differences in fatigue during resistance training has been mixed, with many studies showing no major differences or even a female advantage in endurance tasks. This study provides a well-controlled design that isolates within-set fatigue and between-set recovery.

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.

the women did twice as many reps as the men.

Also said
“between men and women during a set the velocity loss was similar, but between sets women recovered to their fastest velocity on the next set way better than men.”— Directly quantifies the set-to-set recovery advantage
“They also had lower levels of blood lactate. Men increased levels of blood lactate a lot more than women did.”— Suggests a metabolic underpinning for the recovery difference

Absolute load might explain the sex difference, not biology

Norton hypothesizes that the higher recovery of women may be due to the lower absolute weight lifted, not an inherent female recovery advantage, and calls for future studies controlling for absolute strength.

Why this matters: Offers a contrarian mechanistic interpretation that moves the debate from 'women are different' to 'load matters', potentially undercutting immediate sex-specific training recommendations.

Background

Initial social media interpretations jumped to the conclusion that women inherently recover faster and therefore need higher training volumes.

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.

I am not sure if it is a biological sex thing, or if it's simply a matter of there is some effect of the absolute load.

Also said
“80% of Jesus Olivares' one-rep max is over 800 lb on a squat, but 80% of, say, a 59-kg lifter's one-rep max is like 200 kg or 440 lb. And I think that total load matters.”— Concrete example showing how absolute load differentials emerge from identical relative intensities

The conclusion that women should train with more volume is premature

Despite the finding that women recover better between sets, Norton argues that training volume should not be increased solely because of recovery capacity; it should be based on individual progress and stagnation.

Why this matters: Pushes back against the trending hot take on social media that women inherently need higher training volumes, urging a more individualized, goal-based approach.

Background

Many social media posts following the study’s publication claimed that women must train with higher volume to optimize gains because they can recover faster.

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.

Just because they can doesn't mean they should.

Also said
“if you are making progress strength-wise, muscle-wise, you don't need to add more. But if you have plateaued, if you've stagnated, then you can add more.”— Directly lays out his volume prescription logic
“when women and men do the same number of sets to the same proximity of failure, same level of intensity, they get similar relative increases in muscle mass.”— Evidence that volume equality yields similar outcomes
Disclosed sponsorships1speaker disclosed

Biolayne Workout Builder

Service Sponsored · disclosed

Norton promotes this tool as a way to eliminate guesswork in designing evidence-based training programs.

DisclosureLayne Norton's own training program service.

At the end of the video, he offers the Workout Builder as a resource for viewers who want structured, research-supported programming. It automates decisions around rep schemes, set volumes, and intensity. This recommendation comes directly from his experience as a researcher and coach, and is presented as the practical solution to the complex programming questions raised by studies like the one discussed.

If you guys want help with your training, check out the bio link workout builder. Takes all the messy guesswork of how many reps should I do, how many sets should I do, what intensity. Click the link in my bio and get access to all my evidence-based programs.

Find Biolayne

Notable quotes

Lines worth pulling out — contrarian, specific, or perfectly phrased

5 items
the women did twice as many reps as the men.
Stark, memorable quantification of the primary study finding.
Just because they can doesn't mean they should.
Pithy rejection of the automatic volume-increase narrative.
I am not sure if it is a biological sex thing, or if it's simply a matter of there is some effect of the absolute load.
Condenses his central counter-hypothesis and scientific skepticism.
80% of Jesus Olivares' one-rep max is over 800 lb on a squat, but 80% of, say, a 59-kg lifter's one-rep max is like 200 kg or 440 lb. And I think that total load matters.
Vivid, tangible comparison that makes the absolute load argument concrete.
They also had lower levels of blood lactate. Men increased levels of blood lactate a lot more than women did.
Directly ties the performance finding to a physiological marker, supporting the recovery mechanism.

Sign in to share feedback

Tell us if this brief hit the mark or missed it — feedback feeds back into the next iteration of the prompt.

Topics covered

women-vs-men-recoverybench-press-studyset-to-set-recoveryvelocity-recoveryblood-lactate-differencesabsolute-load-hypothesispowerlifting-weight-classtraining-volume-prescriptionindividualised-progressionsex-specific-trainingfatigue-researchbiolayne-workout-builder
Free account

Make this library yours

Reading is free for everyone. A free account adds the personal layer: save protocols, follow experts, and see how the other experts weigh in on this same topic.

Create a free accountSign in

Where the experts disagree — weekly

One email a week: the sharpest new disagreements and protocols from the library. No spam, unsubscribe anytime.

Educational summary of the cited expert source — not medical advice. Open the source recording linked above and consult a qualified physician before acting on any protocol.