- Aug 15, 2018
- 605
- 346
- 63
Alright everyone, OLYMPIC here.
We have women on this board who've trained for years, women returning after a long break, and women who are just getting interested in lifting in their forties or fifties. The conversation about menopause sometimes makes it sound as though strength suddenly disappears or progress becomes impossible. That's not what the research says.
I want this thread to be a place where we talk honestly about the science without turning someone's life stage into a sales pitch or a list of things they supposedly have to do.
## Let's start with what researchers have measured
Menopause is a biological transition, but "women over 40" is not one uniform research population. Perimenopause, early postmenopause, and later postmenopause are different situations. Studies also differ in prior training experience, age, baseline strength, and what the researchers actually counted.
The broad signal is encouraging: postmenopausal women can improve measured strength in resistance-training studies. A **2023 systematic review and meta-analysis** published in *Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine* brought together **129 studies involving 7,141 postmenopausal women** across different exercise types. The pooled lower-body strength result favoured exercise, with a standardized mean difference of **1.06** (95% confidence interval **0.90–1.22**).
That's a statistical effect across varied studies, not a promise of a particular number of pounds on anyone's lift. The review also covered more than resistance training alone, so it doesn't isolate a single lifting style as the answer for everyone.
## Strength and bone density aren't the same result
Here's a distinction that gets lost online. A stronger squat in a study is not identical to a measured change in bone mineral density, and neither is direct proof that fractures have been prevented.
The **LIFTMOR randomized trial**, published by **Watson and colleagues** in the *Journal of Bone and Mineral Research* in **2018**, enrolled **101 postmenopausal women**, averaging **65 years old**, with low bone mass. The researchers compared a supervised resistance-and-impact programme with a control group over eight months.
Lumbar-spine bone mineral density changed by **+2.9%** in the training group versus **−1.2%** in controls. At the femoral neck, the changes were **+0.3%** versus **−1.9%**. The study also reported better results in several physical-function measures.
Those are interesting findings, but let's read them properly. It was a supervised trial in a selected population, not proof that every woman should copy the protocol. It wasn't a large fracture-outcomes trial either. The measured endpoints were bone density and function.
## Studies don't all agree about training styles
**Von Stengel and colleagues** followed a group of **53 previously trained postmenopausal women**, average age **58.2**, in research comparing strength-oriented and power-oriented approaches. Their **2005** report described spinal bone-density change of **+0.7%** in the power group versus **−0.9%** in the strength group over the reported observation period. The corresponding hip changes were **0.0%** and **−1.2%**.
Interesting? Absolutely. Final verdict on the best training style for every woman? Not remotely. This was a small selected sample, and the women had already been active in a training programme. That matters when someone tries to transfer the numbers to a beginner.
A **2024 systematic review in *Climacteric*** included **12 studies** of resistance training in healthy postmenopausal women. It found statistically significant improvements in upper- and lower-extremity strength compared with control groups. That's consistent with the broader pattern, but study sizes, test methods, and intervention lengths still varied.
## Let's retire a few myths
**"It's too late to gain strength after menopause."** The controlled studies don't support that absolute claim. Older women in research groups have shown measurable strength improvements. That doesn't mean everyone's trajectory or recovery experience will look alike.
**"All body-composition changes after 40 are caused by menopause."** Too simple. Age, activity history, sleep, diet, medications, and measurement methods can all be involved. Menopause is one factor in a larger picture.
**"A study showing more bone density proves nobody will fracture."** No. Bone density is a useful research measure, but fracture outcomes require different evidence, usually larger samples and longer follow-up.
**"One training method wins for every woman."** No single trial has established that. Comparing results between studies without checking who participated and how outcomes were measured is a poor way to settle an argument.
## The bit I want our community to get right
We have to stop treating women 40+ as a single stereotype. Some have trained for decades. Some are navigating major changes in energy, schedules, or performance. Some have never felt stronger. Personal stories deserve respect, but anecdotes and trial averages are different kinds of evidence.
If someone posts a study, I'm interested in four things: **how many women were included, their ages and training backgrounds, what changed, and how long the researchers followed them**. I'd also look for withdrawals and whether researchers measured actual strength rather than only a body-composition number.
My takeaway is straightforward: the literature gives real grounds for optimism about strength in midlife and beyond, while leaving plenty of questions about individual variation and long-term outcomes. Nobody here needs a miracle narrative, and nobody needs to be told their training years have an expiry date.
Let's keep the replies focused on experience and evidence without turning the thread into personal medical instructions.
## Community discussion
1. For women who've trained across their forties, fifties, or later, what has changed most in how you *experience* strength progress, apart from the number on the bar?
2. When you see a menopause-and-lifting study shared online, which detail do you wish people would examine before announcing a universal conclusion?
3. Which research question should we dig into next as a forum: measured strength, muscle mass, bone density, or longer-term training participation?
— OLYMPIC
We have women on this board who've trained for years, women returning after a long break, and women who are just getting interested in lifting in their forties or fifties. The conversation about menopause sometimes makes it sound as though strength suddenly disappears or progress becomes impossible. That's not what the research says.
I want this thread to be a place where we talk honestly about the science without turning someone's life stage into a sales pitch or a list of things they supposedly have to do.
## Let's start with what researchers have measured
Menopause is a biological transition, but "women over 40" is not one uniform research population. Perimenopause, early postmenopause, and later postmenopause are different situations. Studies also differ in prior training experience, age, baseline strength, and what the researchers actually counted.
The broad signal is encouraging: postmenopausal women can improve measured strength in resistance-training studies. A **2023 systematic review and meta-analysis** published in *Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine* brought together **129 studies involving 7,141 postmenopausal women** across different exercise types. The pooled lower-body strength result favoured exercise, with a standardized mean difference of **1.06** (95% confidence interval **0.90–1.22**).
That's a statistical effect across varied studies, not a promise of a particular number of pounds on anyone's lift. The review also covered more than resistance training alone, so it doesn't isolate a single lifting style as the answer for everyone.
## Strength and bone density aren't the same result
Here's a distinction that gets lost online. A stronger squat in a study is not identical to a measured change in bone mineral density, and neither is direct proof that fractures have been prevented.
The **LIFTMOR randomized trial**, published by **Watson and colleagues** in the *Journal of Bone and Mineral Research* in **2018**, enrolled **101 postmenopausal women**, averaging **65 years old**, with low bone mass. The researchers compared a supervised resistance-and-impact programme with a control group over eight months.
Lumbar-spine bone mineral density changed by **+2.9%** in the training group versus **−1.2%** in controls. At the femoral neck, the changes were **+0.3%** versus **−1.9%**. The study also reported better results in several physical-function measures.
Those are interesting findings, but let's read them properly. It was a supervised trial in a selected population, not proof that every woman should copy the protocol. It wasn't a large fracture-outcomes trial either. The measured endpoints were bone density and function.
## Studies don't all agree about training styles
**Von Stengel and colleagues** followed a group of **53 previously trained postmenopausal women**, average age **58.2**, in research comparing strength-oriented and power-oriented approaches. Their **2005** report described spinal bone-density change of **+0.7%** in the power group versus **−0.9%** in the strength group over the reported observation period. The corresponding hip changes were **0.0%** and **−1.2%**.
Interesting? Absolutely. Final verdict on the best training style for every woman? Not remotely. This was a small selected sample, and the women had already been active in a training programme. That matters when someone tries to transfer the numbers to a beginner.
A **2024 systematic review in *Climacteric*** included **12 studies** of resistance training in healthy postmenopausal women. It found statistically significant improvements in upper- and lower-extremity strength compared with control groups. That's consistent with the broader pattern, but study sizes, test methods, and intervention lengths still varied.
## Let's retire a few myths
**"It's too late to gain strength after menopause."** The controlled studies don't support that absolute claim. Older women in research groups have shown measurable strength improvements. That doesn't mean everyone's trajectory or recovery experience will look alike.
**"All body-composition changes after 40 are caused by menopause."** Too simple. Age, activity history, sleep, diet, medications, and measurement methods can all be involved. Menopause is one factor in a larger picture.
**"A study showing more bone density proves nobody will fracture."** No. Bone density is a useful research measure, but fracture outcomes require different evidence, usually larger samples and longer follow-up.
**"One training method wins for every woman."** No single trial has established that. Comparing results between studies without checking who participated and how outcomes were measured is a poor way to settle an argument.
## The bit I want our community to get right
We have to stop treating women 40+ as a single stereotype. Some have trained for decades. Some are navigating major changes in energy, schedules, or performance. Some have never felt stronger. Personal stories deserve respect, but anecdotes and trial averages are different kinds of evidence.
If someone posts a study, I'm interested in four things: **how many women were included, their ages and training backgrounds, what changed, and how long the researchers followed them**. I'd also look for withdrawals and whether researchers measured actual strength rather than only a body-composition number.
My takeaway is straightforward: the literature gives real grounds for optimism about strength in midlife and beyond, while leaving plenty of questions about individual variation and long-term outcomes. Nobody here needs a miracle narrative, and nobody needs to be told their training years have an expiry date.
Let's keep the replies focused on experience and evidence without turning the thread into personal medical instructions.
## Community discussion
1. For women who've trained across their forties, fifties, or later, what has changed most in how you *experience* strength progress, apart from the number on the bar?
2. When you see a menopause-and-lifting study shared online, which detail do you wish people would examine before announcing a universal conclusion?
3. Which research question should we dig into next as a forum: measured strength, muscle mass, bone density, or longer-term training participation?
— OLYMPIC