Short answer: not as a default. Women and men generally benefit from the same strength-training principles: suitable exercises, progressive resistance, enough weekly work, appropriate effort and time to recover. The programme should then change for the person’s goal, starting point, training history, schedule, symptoms and response—not for a stereotype.
Equal principles do not mean identical plans. Two women may need programmes that differ more from each other than either differs from a man’s programme. The useful question is which variable needs to change, and what evidence supports that change.
What the new study found
A study published online on 30 September 2026 followed 41 physically active adults with more than one year of resistance-training experience. Twenty-two males and 19 females completed 12 weeks of supervised, progressive resistance training twice a week.
Muscle thickness increased by about 14% at the biceps and 10% at the vastus lateralis, with no statistically significant difference between the groups.
The strength results show why the way progress is reported matters. Women had a larger percentage increase in bench-press strength, but not a larger increase when the change was expressed in kilograms. Men had a larger increase in hex-bar deadlift strength in kilograms, but not when the change was expressed as a percentage.
The same training data can therefore tell a different-looking story depending on whether the question is ‘Who added more kilograms?’ or ‘Who improved more relative to where they started?’
This was a small study of trained adults over 12 weeks. It did not test whether a ‘women’s programme’ beats a ‘men’s programme’, and it does not cover pregnancy, postpartum training, perimenopause, menopause, injury or clinical conditions. It supports a narrower conclusion: average muscle growth was similar, and simple claims about who adapts better can depend on the measurement used.
Larger reviews point in the same practical direction
A 2025 systematic review and Bayesian meta-analysis included 29 studies in healthy adults aged 18–45 who completed the same resistance-training intervention. Absolute muscle-size gains slightly favoured men, but relative gains from baseline were similar between sexes.
The same distinction appears in older adults. A 2023 review of 36 studies included 1,305 healthy people aged 60 or over. Absolute strength gains favoured men; relative strength gains favoured women. The review found no sex-based difference in limb muscle-size change or physical performance.
These are group averages, not a promise about one client. They do suggest that starting size and strength affect how change looks on paper. A person who begins stronger may add more kilograms while another records the larger percentage improvement. Neither result tells you, by itself, whose programme was better.
Shared principles are not a generic template
A large network meta-analysis of resistance-training prescriptions included 178 strength studies and 119 muscle-growth studies. Women made up 45% and 47% of those evidence networks. All the compared resistance-training prescriptions improved strength and muscle growth compared with no training.
Higher loads ranked highest for strength, while multi-set programmes ranked highly for muscle growth. That review did not compare separate male and female templates. Its value here is more basic: load, sets, frequency and progression matter across a large mixed evidence base.
Tempo’s coaching judgement is to start with five shared questions:
- What result is the programme meant to produce?
- What can the person perform safely and repeatably now?
- How much useful work fits the week and recovery available?
- Which exercises and loads make progress measurable?
- What does the person’s response say should change next?
Sex may be relevant context. It is not an answer to all five questions.
What about the menstrual cycle?
It is reasonable to take symptoms seriously. That is different from automatically changing every woman’s programme according to a calendar.
A 2026 study in 28 resistance-trained women tracked bench-press and trap-bar deadlift performance across two training phases while using calendar counting, ovulation testing and hormone measurements. Menstrual-cycle phase had only small associations with lifting velocity. Motivation and some symptom measures also related to performance, with different patterns between exercises.
An earlier umbrella review found highly variable results and poor or inconsistent cycle-verification methods across the literature. Its authors concluded that it was premature to claim that short-term hormonal fluctuations materially change resistance-training performance or long-term adaptations.
The practical position is neither ‘ignore the cycle’ nor ‘build the whole plan around it’. Track symptoms and performance when they matter to the person. Adjust the session when the evidence from that person is useful. Do not assume the same calendar rule applies to everybody.
When individual changes are justified
A programme may need different exercise choices, volume, loading or recovery because of:
- the training goal and current strength;
- experience and movement skill;
- available time and equipment;
- sleep, work stress and recovery;
- pain, symptoms or confidence;
- pregnancy, postpartum status, perimenopause, menopause, injury or a health condition that needs appropriately qualified support.
Those are reasons to assess and coach. They are not reasons to apply a generic easier programme to every woman or a generic heavier programme to every man.
A practical three-week review
Keep the programme stable enough to learn from it for three weeks. For the main exercises, record the load, completed repetitions and estimated repetitions in reserve. Add one short note on sleep, symptoms or unusual work stress only when it affected the session.
At the end of three weeks, ask:
- Is performance progressing at the intended effort?
- Is technique repeatable across the work sets?
- Is recovery adequate for the next planned session?
- Is any symptom or constraint repeating often enough to justify one change?
Then change one useful variable. Add load, adjust repetitions, change an exercise, move a session or reduce work where the record supports it. Do not redesign the programme around one difficult day.
Tempo’s personalised programme guide explains how training variables fit together. The training over 40 guide separates age from the person’s actual starting point, and the weekly strength-frequency guide helps place the work across a realistic schedule.
If you want help turning the shared principles into a plan for your goal and week, request a free consultation and bring your current training record.