The BBC article about the benefits of strength training….why only women?

[ImNotAsThinkAsYouDrunkIAm]

I know the article says that the study was done on men and women, but you’d be forgiven for missing that when all the examples, quotes, and photos are of women.

So why do we think the BBC felt the need to give the impression that only women needed to find the time to do ‘many hours’ of aerobic exercise as well as two hours of strength training a week, lest we die an early death?

www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0r2lekenlpo

Because more and more research is showing that women need to strength train for health and longevity.

More and more research is also showing what WORKS for women. We have different muscles and hormones to men as well as different anatomical structure. We need different things nutritionally and for recovery as well as for optimum training.

I don’t think two hours of weights a week is really that much. Maybe if we were able to take that time for ourselves we’d see the benefits. Yes society places more burdens on us but it’s great to see women’s health, strength and longevity being talked about.

I’ve just skimmed the article. I find it odd and a bit sad that you’ve taken a negative view on it. It’s a really short article that is helping women see the benefits of strength training. Not everything has to be both sexes all the time.

I don't think 2 hours is unattainable at all. I follow Caroline Girvans programme as much as I can and that's 2.5 hours a week split on 30 minutes chunks over 5 days, I usually make 4 as I do cardio too. It's 30 minutes, most will spend longer than that on their phone.

Because many women don’t think it’s important for them when it absolutely is. The message needs to get out there

The honest channel on YouTube has a great series on the difference have made to her 80+ mum, that's what's really shown me the importance, just seeing the functional difference it can make

https://youtube.com/shorts/2Ae8ftq0Yd4?si=6veflfnkevGoe6_p

I think that's it great to see focus on women more specifically.
One key difference between men and women is that I think men are more likely to think "need to go to the gym" if they want to do more exercise, but women are (probably) more likely to go for a walk, run, or join a class (not strength related).

It's hard to know because, as a woman, I'm not the target audience, but I'm not sure how much information is out there for men that don't currently strength train. My DH hasn't exercised (at all) in years but he's still significantly stronger than me (who does), and wouldn't see strength training as a priority, whereas I'm more aware of my body weakening as I get older.

But what women are going to realistically take up 2 hours of strength training a week?

That's 40 minutes, 3 times a week. Yes, when I had non-sleeping small children and worked full time, I couldn't have found that time. But I was also struggling to find time to eat. Most people have 2 hours of leisure time in their weeks. Some of the point is that women who do spend time exercising should be spending more of this on strength training specifically, rather than just things like yoga and cardio.

Strength training very important in peri- menopause and menopause as bone density reduces I believe with lack of estrogen leading to osteoporosis etc.

Thanks all. Clearly I’m just being over sensitive. I think I’d have not cared if the article had openly been about the benefits to women. Clearly there is a female specific slant to this. It’s the fact that the study the article was about apparently applied to both men and women and yet the article chose to focus on women without any declared reason. Thats what made it feel a bit uncomfortably like it was one more thing to tell women, but not men, to do. Like I said, I’m obviously being over sensitive.

because men do not have a big hormonal change that affects bone and cardiovascular health

Oh no, an article that centres women in an area that is traditionally a male focused field, what are we to do? What the fuck is this thread?

The article actually says that the benefits were greatest amongst people who, as well as 2 hours of strength training, did ‘many hours’ of aerobic exercise.

Honestly, it did feel unattainable. Especially for women, who the article focussed on. That was the uncomfortable sub text for me (and as I’ve said I’m probably being over sensitive), that women, specifically, need to find more time in our lives even though I’d arguably say the pressures on our time as a sector of society are the highest.

A lot of the (peri) menopausal women who, yes, would absolutely benefit from this, are already trying to juggle jobs, kids, elder care, exercise, and fucking ‘me time’. As I said, it hit a nerve 😆

Participation rates of women in sports generally is pretty poor and the number of women doing weights is even less. Go to your average gym and the studio classes and cardio equipment is dominated by women and free weights/machines dominated by men. Any campaign or raising awareness of the benefits of weights aimed at women is not a bad thing.

THIS THIS THIS

Show me a man suffering from osteoporosis and all the bone breaks

No, men dont have a menopause but after the age of 50 they do also experience a reduction in bone density and increased muscle atrophy if they do no exercise.

you include "exercise" just make sure its aerobic. Walk faster, take the stairs not the lift etc

its not rocket science.

There's no hope! That's a really positive article yet some posters are reading all sorts into it, lots of it negative. Strength training for women is not the latest thing (that was from a PT - how old are you?!) I've been doing strength training for over 30 years and wasn't a rarity when I started. It has many, many health benefits. You need less time for beneficial strength training than you do for things like running. Strength training doesn't mean exclusively lifting heavy weights either. The article is very good imho.

Part of the issue is that it's BBC: so rubbish by default. Lazy journalism and a lot of it is AI. I haven't read it because I refuse to support the BBC so have speculated why the content wasn't clearer without knowing a) whether it was clear b) AI was used c) you have misunderstood

That aside, as others have said, strength training is supposed to be highly effective against osteoporosis. Everyone has made it pretty clear why that's important.

However, if the article truly states "hours of cardio," it's silly. No one needs "hours" of cardio. Cardio is great for cardiovascular, mental health etc but it needs balanced with strength training. Otherwise, recovery for muscles etc are impaired. Additionally, depending on the type of cardio, running, jogging etc can actually damage our bones and joints as we get older if we do it excessively or more than strength training.

I'm glad more women are looking at health instead of just thinking that starving is the way. Mental health is so much better when you're nourishing your body with activity instead of starving to look great for everyone in jeans.

I don’t actually come across that many stairs, except in my house, which I obviously do take, but thanks, I’ll remember that when I do.

I’m honestly interested in how many women can easily fit in what could be described as many hours of aerobic exercise and two hours of strength training. How do you do it?

Approximately zero men will read an article about weight training that has photos of middle aged women 😂
I also wouldn't read an article about weight training with photos of men.
Whatever we are told, sex definitely matters.

This is amazing, I watched recently.

I run four times a week and weight train. I have the same busy life as anyone else - I work, have two young kids, I volunteer two nights a week. You just have prioritise it over other stuff.

Instead of spending time watching TV in the evenings, I might go for a run or do a weight session. I will do a run or exercise session on my lunch break at work. I will run or power walk to and from somewhere I need to get to instead of taking the car. I’ll get up early and do 30 mins before school. At the weekend, DH might take kids to park for 45 mins and I will go for a run while he does that.

Three hours a week of good quality exercise (stuff that gets your heart beating fast and some strength training) will yield benefits. That’s not a lot to find across a week, you just have to make the space for it. You can do bits of functional strength training through the day too. Squats while waiting for the kettle to boil, that sort of thing. It doesn’t have to be an hour-long weight session.

Before I started being active I had all the excuses too, I was too busy, all that, but the reality is that if something is important, then you adjust your life to fit it in.

Oh and running is some of my ‘me time!’ I’ve got a long run I’ll do this evening, an hour or so of listening to my podcasts while outside in the fresh air in the woodlands, no one talking to me or asking me questions. It’s done wonders for my mental health.

Why should it be “easily” though, and why would you only want to be told of health benefits if they are easy?

Your objections are starting to sound more about you being offended to learn that sonething that takes time and commitment than about the article featuring women.

I disagree. I go to a strength (weights) training class 3 x a week, and have been going for 3 years. 45 min x 3 = 2.25 hrs a week. Bingo! Although not promoted as women only, it is. It has a waiting list, all also women. It’s actually very sociable!

What I particularly enjoy about strength training, is that it gives me the fitness to climb mountains, cycle all day and so it. It very much supports those activities you listed, as well as the stand alone physical & mental health benefits.

Kids classes are a good time to fit in exercise too. If you would usually sit in your car and wait for them to finish or something like that, or spend the time driving back and forward for only 20 mins at home, then it’s a great time to go for a jog or just a fast walk instead.