Amped Training

Like this article? Share it!

Female-Specific Training and Diet for Physique Development 

Part I - Myths and Misconceptions in Training

Download as PDF  

This is going to be a three-part series on "how to train and diet" with a slant towards women in specific.

Women in general don't need to do anything crazy, stupid, or outlandish in order to get in shape. In terms of stress-response from the body, which is all training and diet are, women respond nearly identically to men.

What this means is that any training or diet regimen that works for men will work for women. But you don't see this advertised. Quite the opposite. 

I feel bad for women that are trying to get in shape. I really do. Men, although still bombarded with rampant idiocy, have it relatively easy compared to women.

The training of women by necessity falls into two categories:

1. 
   

2. Women are different than men, and thus should train differently.
   

3. 
   

4. Women respond to physical activity in the same way as men, and thus should train the same as men.

The old-school train of thought is that number one is true. I should explain what I mean by old-school. In this context, I mean the uneducated masses of men that inhabit most commercial gyms and assume they know what women should do based on the advice propagated by women's magazines. This is what "everybody knows" women should do.

There's also a lot of women that fall into this category as well, generally adopting this stance based on the one 21-year old girl that's “hot and sexy”. She trains a certain way, so therefore her appearance must be due to that. It certainly can't have anything to do with genetics; the factors that control how the body develops and reacts to outside stimuli. Nah, that'd be dumb.

These training approaches often emphasize a lot of high-rep work with isolation-type exercises, stuff that is affectionately referred to as “pump and tone crap”, and a major emphasis on endless spans of low-intensity cardio.

This would be a perfectly valid training strategy to take, except for one crucial fact: the vast majority of women training will see little to no results training in this way. There's a laundry list of reasons as to why, but the gist of it is simple: the body is never pushed sufficiently into making any real changes. If you provide no stimulus, you get no response.

Compound this with often idiotic dietary recommendations, which are usually way out in left field in regards to what and how much should be eaten, and you've got a recipe for failure.

Then of course you get the other side of the pendulum. Recent years have shown a resurgence of a more intellectual, logical, and science-based approach to training, which has led to many more sound practices. Relatively speaking, at least.

The result is a greater emphasis on strength training and overall conditioning, as opposed to “pump and tone” alongside endless cardio sessions.

This, on the surface, is a good thing. As the general base of training knowledge has become more readily available, smart coaches and smart women have begun to adopt these practices with much more favorable results. Truthfully, intelligent training benefits both men and women. In this world view, women are maximizing their results just as much as men are.

However, even point two has problems. Firstly, the “new paradigm” of intelligent training has its share of misapplication and misinformation, to include the famous paralysis by analysis issue. Secondly, some still can't let go of premise one from above, and will try to subtly sneak in “pump and tone” crap under the guise of intelligent propositions. Thirdly, some are capitalizing on this market with material just for the sake of material. This can lead right back to stupidity.

The first issue applies globally to men and women; the second is still a matter of men assuming that women will respond differently. This attempt at rationalization has rested upon the idea that men and women need to train identically when the goals are the same, but that women have different goals, which justifies bringing out different training approaches.

Do they now? This is a hefty assumption, and one that's resting on shaky grounds. However a more in-depth look at things can shed light on both the “old school” approach as well as this newer incarnation hiding behind the mask of science.