As a woman, if I honestly thought there were things we should do differently to optimize our results, of course I would be doing them myself and telling other women to do them too.
The narrative that women need a sex specific program or nutrient timing guidance or a particular intensity of exercise or rep range or all of it.
It makes women feel like they're being spoken to and being considered.
And then they're part of this community instead of oh you know, just do what your boyfriend does or what your husband does.
So the narrative is very much women are not men.
And so obviously women need something different.
The data says men and women respond to exercise very similarly.
Welcome to the Huberman Lab Podcast, where we discuss science and science-based tools for everyday life.
I'm Andrew Huberman and I'm a professor of neurobiology and ophthalmology at Stanford School of Medicine.
My guest today is Dr. Lauren Colenso Semple.
She holds a PhD in integrative physiology and is a certified strength and conditioning specialist.
She is an expert in both the science and practice of building muscle and strength, cardiovascular fitness and the relationship between hormones and exercise.
Today's discussion is focused on fitness for women and how it overlaps directly with the same things that men should do for their fitness.
Therefore, today's discussion is relevant to both women and men.
Dr Colenso Semple explains how to structure your ideal training routine according to the time you have available and your health and fitness goals.
She also clearly explains what the science says about if and when women's hormone cycles, life stages such as menopause and things like birth control should actually impact how women should train and when.
As we all know, information about best practices for fitness, nutrition and health are hotly debated online.
Dr Colenso Semple has become one of the most trusted voices for explaining what the science says about women's specific fitness, as well as for delivering clear, actionable evidence for protocols that work in the real world.
It was a true honor and pleasure to host her on the podcast.
Before we begin, I'd like to emphasize that this podcast is separate from my teaching and research roles at Stanford.
It is however, part of my desire and effort to bring zero cost to consumer information about science and science-related tools to the general public.
In keeping with that theme, today's episode does include sponsors.
And now for my discussion with Dr. Lauren Colenso Semple.
Dr. Lauren Colenso Semple, welcome.
Thank you.
Very excited to have you here.
To kick things off, is there anything fundamentally different about muscle tissue in men and women?
And, if not, at the cellular level, in terms of the hormone receptors that they express or the hormones that they're exposed to in a way that should change people's behavior about how to exercise.
When we look at how the muscle responds.
So we look at muscle protein synthesis in response to exercise or nutrition.
There are no differences.
Very similar protein metabolism response, very similar growth response.
The major difference and this is hormone related is the baseline muscularity, because During puberty, when men experience a surge in testosterone, that coincides with an increase in muscle mass.
So if you take an untrained adult man and an untrained adult woman, there will be a disparity in their baseline muscle mass.
And that is due to differences in testosterone.
However, once they start training, they will gain similar relative size.
So not that I'm suggesting people get into competitive bodybuilding and use steroids, although some people might make that their life choice.
The vast majority of people won't.
But if we were to look at female bodybuilders at any point in the last 30 years or so, it's very clear that with chemical augmentation, which is typically increasing testosterone or some testosterone-like derivative, that women can achieve a very impressive level of muscularity that in many ways rivals what certainly men who are not taking anabolic steroids can achieve.
What does that tell us?
The fact that the addition of androgens, testosterone and testosterone-like derivatives can take female musculature and make it look essentially like male musculature.
Does that tell us anything interesting that informs the non-steroid user, the non-bodybuilder?
Not so much, because we're talking about those supraphysiological levels, and that's the real game changer.
So if we think about, even with men, what is the normal range of testosterone, we don't see this relationship between oh, you're closer to 900 and you are going to respond better to resistance training.
So as long as you're within that wide normal range, there doesn't seem to be a predictability of your response to training.
However, once we get into those supraphysiological levels and we're taking that exogenous hormone then yes, we are going to develop levels of muscularity that wouldn't necessarily be possible.
You said several things very interesting.
If I understood correctly, if a male is somewhere in the reference range, so typically I believe that's somewhere between 300 nanograms per deciliter and 900 nanograms per deciliter.
Maybe in some countries it goes up to 1200, but in any case that a male with 400 nanogram per deciliter testosterone versus 600.
It's not as if the male with 600 can make that much more muscle growth, and the same is true for women.
That's right.
OK.
So, as long as you are within that broad normal range and of course what's normal for you differs from what's normal for someone else
So if there are changes that might impact you, because now you're below what is your normal, then that can manifest in a variety of ways.
But there isn't this clear kind of linear relationship where we would say oh, let's measure your testosterone.
You are going to be a hard gainer or you're going to put on mass really easily.
If we were to just look at people who are not chemically augmented in any way, not know their testosterone in any way, and here I'm referring to women specifically, how much individual variation is there, or what's known about the individual variation among women in terms of the amount of potential to grow muscle and strength?
Is it true that some women have a much greater potential to build muscle mass that's independent of their testosterone levels?
I'd say yes, it's independent of the testosterone levels, but we're going to start with different baselines.
And then it depends on the stimulus that you are using for growth.
And some people... are adapting to that growth stimulus to a greater extent than others.
But part of that is effective, consistent, progressive training.
And then part of it is arguably some genetic factors.
But when we even look at the molecular level, say fiber type differences, we see adaptation in both sexes.
That is quite dramatic.
And that tells us that both men and women have the potential for large adaptations in either direction, whether we're saying, you know, to endurance type training or resistance type training.
I would like to take a quick break and acknowledge one of our sponsors, Juve.
Juve makes medical grade red light therapy devices.
Now, if there's one thing that I have consistently emphasized on this podcast, is the incredible impact that light can have on our biology and our health.
Now, in addition to sunlight, which I've talked about a lot on this podcast, red light, near infrared and infrared light have been specifically shown to have positive effects on improving numerous aspects of cellular and organ health.
These include faster muscle recovery, improved skin health, wound healing, improvements in acne, reduced pain and inflammation, improved mitochondrial function and even improvements in vision.
Nowadays there are a lot of red light devices out there, but what sets Juve lights apart and why they're my preferred red light therapy device is that they use clinically proven wavelengths, meaning they use the specific wavelengths of red light near infrared and infrared light in combination to trigger the optimal cellular adaptations.
Personally, I use the Juve whole body panel about three to four times a week, usually for about 10 to 20 minutes per session.
And I use the Juve handheld light both at home and when I travel.
If you would like to try Juve, they're offering up to 400 off select products for listeners of this podcast.
To learn more, visit Juve, spelled J-O-O-V-V.com slash Huberman.
Again, that's J-O-O-V-V.com slash Huberman.
Today's episode is also brought to us by Eight Sleep.
Eight Sleep makes smart mattress covers with cooling, heating, and sleep tracking capacity.
One of the best ways to ensure you get a great night's sleep is to make sure that the temperature of your sleeping environment is correct.
And that's because, in order to fall asleep and stay deeply asleep, your body temperature actually has to drop by about one to three degrees.
And in order to wake up feeling refreshed and energized, your body temperature actually has to increase by about one to three degrees.
Eight Sleep automatically regulates the temperature of your bed throughout the night according to your unique needs.
I've been sleeping on an Eight Sleep mattress cover for nearly five years now and it has completely transformed and improved the quality of my sleep.
The latest Eight Sleep model is the Pod 5.
This is what I'm now sleeping on, and I absolutely love it.
It has so many incredible features.
For instance, the Pod 5 has a feature called Autopilot, which is an AI engine that learns your sleep patterns and then adjusts the temperature of your sleeping environment across different sleep stages.
It'll even elevate your head if you're snoring, and it makes other shifts to optimize your sleep.
If you'd like to try 8sleep, go to 8sleep.com slash Huberman to get up to $350 off the new Pod 5.
Eight Sleep ships to many countries worldwide, including Mexico and the UAE.
Again, that's eightsleep.com slash Huberman to save up to $350.
I want to put aside the use of exogenous testosterone therapy, although we can return to that a little bit later because it seems to be a popular theme in women's health circles now, especially in the perimenopause, excuse me, and menopause conversation.
But It's well known from studies, I believe, that were exclusively carried out in men, that training a certain way sprints, resistance training and you talk about exactly how can increase circulating testosterone in meaningful ways that can feed back on psychology and can feed back on growth and strength development, et cetera.
Have the same studies been carried out in women?
In other words, if a woman lifts weights in a certain manner for 45 minutes or 60 minutes, do we expect a big surge in her circulating levels of testosterone?
Well, the circulating levels are already quite low.
And one of the issues here is that the way testosterone has been measured in women for a very long time is such that the assays are not capable of detecting some of these normal low levels.
So we know a lot less about those lower kind of circulating levels of testosterone in women than I think people people acknowledge.
But more importantly, that acute response to exercise, that increase in post-exercise testosterone growth hormone etc.
People used to think that was the driver of hypertrophy.
And so there were all of these training styles to sort of maximize that response.
And so people would promote high rep training or supersets and they'd say oh, you know, this is going to really maximize that response.
But what we know now is that response, although acutely, it's not the driver of growth long term.
And so it doesn't really make sense to chase that short term response because it's not predictive of longer term adaptations.
Until fairly recently, women doing resistance training especially heavy.
For them you know somewhere between 70 and 90 of a one rep max or even a one rep max.
So heavy for them was scary for a lot of women.
I've women in my family and they're like, I don't want to lift weights.
I don't want to, I don't want to get too big.
This is, you know, was a common statement.
What do you think changed?
I think part of it was the introduction of the bikini category in competitive bodybuilding, because that was a level of muscularity that people didn't look at and say oh, that's bulky.
That was, oh, she looks good in a bikini.
And so people wanted to look like that, realized that they needed to lift weights differently.
And it kind of opened up a door for resistance training being more feminine.
I think that, in combination with the introduction of more group fitness that had resistance training components CrossFit, which a lot of women were drawn to, I think all of that has made women feel more comfortable, empowered to lift weights and less fearful of the results.
Although I think there is still a sentiment in some circles that lifting weights or lifting too heavy is going to make you huge instead of you know.
Quote unquote toned
Also, where are all of these bulky women?
How often do you walk down the street and see an incredibly jacked woman?
It's very, very rare.
And so clearly, no one is getting huge by accident.
You're not getting extremely muscular without working really, really hard and often incorporating some pharmacological help.
For a woman who's not currently doing resistance training, Maybe we could talk to her for a second.
At what age is too early for a woman to do resistance training?
What does the data say?
I think it's a cultural thing, stereotype that at least in high school the girls didn't belong in the weight room.
That was certainly my experience growing up, and now I think that's shifting and so it's not that it's unsafe, it's just that it wasn't done and so people weren't teaching teenage girls how to lift weights, and there's a lot of advantages to that, especially if you're playing sports, because we have female athletes who are teenagers and then going into college and continuing to play their sports.
And there can be not only a performance improvement but also an injury reduction from doing some resistance training along with your sports-specific training.
So I think it's certainly valuable to start younger, also from a habit-building perspective perspective, because I know if you're somebody who has gone decades without ever doing a lot of structured exercise or without ever lifting weights, it can feel kind of daunting and intimidating to learn the new skill.
That said, we know that you can gain muscle anytime, even if you start at 70.
So it's not that it's ever too late to start.
But if we start earlier, we are building muscle in the way that you're building a savings account or a retirement account.
Because if we're not lifting weights and if we're not physically active, then we do start to lose muscle with age.
And later in life, it does become a problem.
I wonder if resistance training should be taught earlier.
It doesn't sound like it should be avoided for young girls.
Is that correct?
Yeah, I mean, I think if we see a young kid doing a barbell squat, there's something kind of jarring about that.
But think about all the kids we see all the time you know on the monkey bars, essentially doing pull-ups or muscle-ups and developing a lot of upper body strength.
And certainly young gymnasts have been doing that for a very long time.
So it's not that easy.
There isn't any sort of resistance training going around or happening in childhood.
It's just not the structured training that we think when we talk about lifting weights.
That's an excellent point.
And it makes me realize that probably early in development boys and girls are doing resistance training at the level of pull-ups and monkey bars and all the rest to the same extent.
Maybe even the girls a bit more, if the boys are all playing video games or like I don't know, who knows.
But then there's a drop-off because of this, what really is just a cultural stereotype that boys are going to go to the gym and girls aren't, although that seems to be changing.
That's a bit of the sociology around resistance training in young girls.
What about a woman in her teens 20s, 30s or older who's just never done formal resistance training, perhaps has done other forms of exercise?
How should she think about starting resistance training?
We could break this down into days per week, sets and reps, et cetera.
But what's the sort of general contour of a really good starter program for a woman at essentially any age?
Historically, I think women have been told that exercise is for weight loss.
And so it's really important that we start to shift that narrative, because resistance training isn't about being smaller.
It's not about the number on the scale.
So we want to think about. getting bigger, about growing muscle.
And in order to do that, we need to challenge the muscle in a way that is a sufficient stimulus for growth.
So if we think about a full body training program, we want to target all of the major muscle groups.
And a challenging load will differ depending on the exercise and the muscle groups that we're targeting.
And we can train in low, moderate, or high rep ranges, but we need to train close enough to failure.
Meaning if we can only do 10 and not an 11th, that's failure.
So we can stop at maybe 8 or 9, and that's an appropriate stimulus.
But if we finish that set of 10 and we could easily do another 10, then that load is too light.
So making sure that we are doing a full body training program targeting all the major muscle groups, that we're using appropriate loads and we're progressing over time.
Because what you'll be able to do whether it's load or number of repetitions this month, will change next month and the month after.
You mentioned full body program.
Does the entire body have to be trained each session?
Or could somebody use a so-called split like chest and back.
One day rest legs, the next day rest shoulders and arms calves.
Some ab work stretch, repeat that sort of thing.
If you're only going to train two or three times a week, I think it's better to do a full body session, because you're hitting all those major muscle groups at an appropriate number of times per week.
If you want to train more often than that, it does make sense to split it up.
So if you're training four days per week, I would do maybe upper body, lower body.
Upper body, lower body.
If you're training five days or six days per week, then we might split it up even more the way that you suggested.
And there are also... options depending on your personal goals.
And so if we're thinking about muscle growth for overall health, then maybe we're not doing as many exercises like accessory type exercises.
But if we're thinking about changing the physique with resistance training, then we might tailor the program to your goals and preferences and work a little bit more on those muscle groups that are important to you.
For sake of example, then, I'll just try and build a structure around what you're saying.
Let's say a woman decides to do a Monday Wednesday, Friday whole body workout each time, take the weekends off.
Obviously, the days that it starts could shift.
But due to schedule or other things, sometimes it's a Monday, Friday.
Sometimes it's a Monday, Wednesday.
Sometimes they hit Monday, Wednesday, Friday.
Seems like a reasonable framework.
Would you suggest training the entire body All three or in some cases two days per week, using the same exercises to target the same muscle groups each time?
Meaning if she squats on Monday for her quads and of course also for other muscle groups.
You know hamstrings and glutes and lower back are going to get hit too.
But should she squat again on Wednesday and Friday, or do you recommend varying the movement per muscle group?
It's an option to do either.
I think there's an element of personal preference.
If you're working on improving squat strength, then you probably do want to squat more than once per week, because practicing the movement is important.
But if we're talking about muscle growth, then we have a lot of options.
And so you can do barbell work, you can do machine work, you can do dumbbells, and we can break it up, if you wanted more variety, by saying OK, Monday your lower body exercises are going to be squat, and on Wednesday we'll do a good morning and we'll work more of the posterior chain, or Friday maybe we'll do more of a glute dominant exercise and we'll do some hip thrusts, and so I think it depends how many exercises you're doing in a session and then how long the workout's going to be before we decide how we're going to split that up.
And so you could do a more quad dominant movement like a squat, a lunge, a leg press, a step up, and also do more of a hamstring dominant movement like a good morning or a syphilic deadlift, and do both in the same session.
Or you could split those up and have more of a quad dominant day and a more hamstring glute dominant day.
Got it.
Um, I'm going to drill down a little bit more into specifics because I anticipate that's what people will want and it's uh, probably the first time we've had somebody so well qualified to get into these specifics about resistance training on this podcast specifically for women, although you're going to tell us later that the words specifically for women is dangerous language.
We'll get back to that.
Okay.
So let's assume two or three days per week, whole body workouts.
One could vary or keep the exercises per muscle group the same.
How many work sets after a sufficient warmup?
And when I think of warmup, I'll take the liberty here and you can tell me where I'm wrong.
I think okay, a light set to kind of remind yourself what the mechanics are, get some blood flow going, see if anything feels like it might need another light warmup set and just kind of like a stretching out.
Then a moderate set like 50 of your one rep max, something where you could do 10 to 15 reps, but maybe you do seven or eight or maybe even a little heavier.
And then move to the work set.
The work set that's taken within to failure or within a rep or two just shy of failure.
How many work sets after a sufficient warmup for that muscle group?
At least two.
I prefer three.
You could do four.
Beyond that is probably overkill.
And that's assuming one exercise for that muscle group for the entire workout.
So for three to four sets per Per muscle group per workout, each muscle two to three times per week.
With the understanding that many exercises work more than one muscle group.
So if I'm doing a leg extension, then I know I'm specifically working the quads, right?
But if I'm doing a leg press or a squat, then yes, I'm working the quads, but I'm also working the glutes.
And you can kind of say, well, is that a half a set for the glutes?
Is that a full set for the glutes?
And same thing if we're doing a bench press.
Yes, you're working your chest, you're working your delts, you're also working your triceps.
So is that a full set for the triceps, or is it just a tricep pushdown that I'm going to consider a set for the triceps?
It gets a little bit murky when we think about exercises that work multiple muscle groups.
But I think if we focus on those compound movements, the bench press, the squats, the deadlifts, then we should think in that range that we're doing at least two, preferably three, but beyond four probably unnecessary.
Well, three workouts per week, you know it's.
That's getting anywhere from 9 to 12 sets for the quads.
That's a fair amount of work.
If one were to collapse all of that into a single workout, that's a lot of quad work.
What sort of rest intervals between sets do I prefer auto-regulation for rest.
I think if you have strength-specific goals, meaning you're really working on a one rep max deadlift, let's say, in order to repeat that type of performance, you will need longer rest, maybe four minutes, five minutes, it depends, right.
But for an average gym session, you know, using some machines or using some dumbbells, then two minutes is probably fine for most people.
And once you've been training for a while, you'll know when you're ready.
But if it makes you feel better to set the timer, then I'd say two minutes for most exercises, maybe three minutes for something like a squat or a deadlift.
Is there anything of value that can be done during the rest period other than rest and change the weight, of course?
If you want to maximize time efficiency, then we might consider agonist antagonist supersets.
So when you look at somebody doing a bench press or chest press and then, instead of resting for the two to three minutes and then doing the next set, they go and they do a row.
And so you're going back and forth and you're pairing a push and a pull.
And that doesn't seem to interfere with adaptation or even acute performance, the same way it would if you didn't rest in between your straight sets of bench press.
So that can be a really viable way to train, especially if you are crunched for time.
So maybe a bench press or some other press type movement dumbbell incline presses whatever she selects.
And then move immediately from there to a pull down.
Sure.
And then wait out the remainder of the rest interval and then do another superset, that sort of arrangement.
Yep.
Supersetting or doing an exercise that normally you would rest two or three minutes between, and instead resting a minute, then going and doing the antagonistic muscle and back also prevents getting lost in your phone because you're on task.
You know, it's amazing how much longer workouts get when one starts texting or paying attention to other things.
And the switching back of focus from exercise to phone is I don't know.
I don't know any good studies on this, but it can't be healthy.
Yeah, there are also studies about stretching in between or doing some sort of active recovery type work in between.
We don't have enough data to say that's necessarily beneficial.
But I think if people are thinking I don't want to sit and rest and do nothing, then the superset or even a circuit type of structure is probably a better way to go.
What about pushing past failure?
Some assisted reps, aka forced reps, done in reasonably good form so injury isn't a risk.
Drop sets where you immediately lower the weight and get a few more reps after failure.
Are you a fan of these so-called intensity techniques?
I think forced reps we're not getting much benefit from other than it can be fun if you're working with a training partner.
Drop sets um, are a good kind of finisher because they can, especially if you're doing a cable type exercise.
I'm not I'm not going to say drop sets are better than straight sets, but it is a way to add some kind of variety into especially the last set of of a workout.
Um, or if, if you're doing exercises that are um, just more conducive to drop sets, like a bicep curl or a leg extension or something that's really easy to immediately drop the weight and go to the next.
So it's not better, but it's certainly a tool and it fits into that time efficient strategy.
For the longest time, I thought time under tension and moving the weight really slow was a value.
I know that everyone should control the weight so that you don't get injured.
No, dropping the weight and swinging it back up and this kind of thing.
But assuming that the weight is under control, meaning momentum isn't doing most of the work, you're being careful to protect your form and posture, et cetera.
Is there a best rate of movement for the resistance?
Should we emphasize the lowering phase, et cetera?
There's always going to be a harder part of the movement and an easier part of the movement.
So we should move the weight as quickly as we can during that difficult phase and then control on the easier phase.
But trying to intentionally slow down either direction is not particularly advantageous, especially if we think about, Like standing up from a squat.
We want to stand up from the bottom of the squat as quickly as we can under load.
If we have a lot of load, we're not going to stand up super fast, but we should be thinking, stand up.
Because if we don't, we're less likely to be able to complete that repetition.
I think this is a really important point that most non-muscle physiologists, exercise physiologists have not been trained on, but I'm hearing more about this these days, that trying to move the weight as fast as one can under control against resistance should be the mindset inside of the set.
Is that correct?
I want to make sure I'm not contorting your words at all.
That's right.
And when you think about doing a set of 10 right by the time you get to 7 8 9, the weight is already moving more slowly.
You're starting to grind it out because it's getting more and more challenging.
And so if you are using a load that is appropriate, then the rate, the time it takes for you to complete that rep, will inevitably get a little bit longer.
But that's not something you're doing intentionally.
Got it.
I'm getting really granular here, but I get asked these questions all the time.
And as it relates to women's training specifically, you'd be amazed that people are coming to me for that, but almost certainly so that I could ask you partial repetitions and isometric holds do they have any value?
The problem with doing partial repetitions or even playing with tempo is that it's really difficult to replicate consistently.
And so I mentioned earlier that we want to progress over time.
And if we're standardizing the range of motion and we're standardizing the exercise and we're standardizing the tempo, then it's easy to say okay, I'm using two and a half more pounds this week, I've progressed.
If we're playing around with all of these variables and then we're trying to add load, it starts to get a little tricky because you're saying I know I'm using more load, but am I cutting the range of motion short in order to lift more?
Am I... speeding up the reps in order to lift more.
So we want to introduce fewer variables to make sure that we are progressing, whether it's a rep or load.
Repetition ranges.
Earlier you said getting close to failure or going to failure is the critical component, but within a pretty broad range.
Do you think it's necessary to limit oneself to certain repetition ranges on the order of a workout?
The week, the month, a phase of the year?
Are repetition ranges, between you know, three and five, compatible with repetition ranges for, you know, other muscle groups are the same in the same week of 10 to 15.
I mean, I think there's a lot of... kind of vagueness around this for women and for men.
You hear, oh, low reps get you strong, but don't grow muscle.
And then here, higher reps, as long as you go to failure, they'll grow muscle.
And that's all fine and good.
But no one really has ever said clearly how to vary this stuff in a way that allows for the best progress.
And-
I realize that's a lot to ask you to tackle in one answer, but you have the mic.
What are your thoughts on repetition ranges and how to vary them and when?
We used to think and they used to teach all the personal trainers this there was a strength endurance continuum, such that you're doing one to five reps and you're building strength.
And then you're doing something kind of moderate range up to 12, and that's hypertrophy.
And then beyond that, 12 to 20, that's muscular endurance.
And our understanding of that has evolved.
Certainly, if you're training for maximal strength ie a one rep max then you need to be training in those lower rep ranges, because that is a sports specific range.
And so it's not that if you do sets of 10, your one rep max won't get stronger.
It will.
But to maximize your one rep max, then we need to do some very high load, very low rep training.
If the goal is hypertrophy, we have way more flexibility because we do see similar growth, whether you're training in those high load low rep ranges or the lower load high rep ranges and anything in between, provided that we train close enough to failure.
However, we need to think about overall volume because that's very important for growth.
So if we're doing sets of three, we're going to need to do a lot of sets of three to accomplish the same overall volume that we would get by doing sets of eight or 10.
That last point, I'm so grateful you said that.
I used to hear the late Charles Polquin say this, that if you're going to use higher repetitions let's say between 8 and 15, which for me seems like high repetitions you can I don't want to say get away with, but you could do two or three sets per muscle group or per exercise, and maybe two exercises for a muscle group.
Whereas if you're going to train in the three to six rep range, you might need to do eight sets of and because typically one rests longer in between sets when with heavier loads, those are two very different workouts.
One is actually much more efficient than the other, even though gets you something slightly different.
I'm sure people are wondering, and I know you don't want to bias people's choices but do you have a favorite repetition range for you for your level of experience these days?
I mean, what do you typically select?
I typically... do something in the six to 12, depending on the exercise.
But I think some exercises are fun to do 15 reps of, and some are not.
So I think if you're doing something like face pulls for your rear delts or leg extensions, I would never say yeah, do a set of three.
But if you're doing squats, I don't want to do a set of 20 squats ever.
And most people don't.
So I think we can for most people say all right, somewhere in the kind of six to 12 ish is a good sweet spot.
If you're new, I'd say go eight to 12, because we want to get really comfortable with the movement pattern.
And so if you're only doing sets of four or sets of five, then you're not repeating the movement enough to get really proficient with the technique.
So I'd love for those people to start in a moderate rep range.
I think also if you go beyond that, then there's more of a chance of kind of form failure and injury risk.
And so we want to be really proficient in the moderate rep range before we start exploring those lower or higher rep ranges.
Do you think it's valuable for women to vary the repetition or men to vary the repetition ranges like week by week?
Like, okay, this week I'm going to train six to 10 reps on everything.
Or yeah, going to go three to five reps on everything for three weeks.
Then I'm going to switch to six to eight for three weeks.
And then I'm going to go, you know, 10 to 15 for three weeks and then repeat.
Is there any known value for hypertrophy and strength training to doing it sticking with one thing and then systematically varying every say, three weeks?
You can do it that way.
I prefer to combine it into the week.
So if let's say, we're doing squats twice a week, then let's do a lower rep set day and a moderate rep set day.
And you can do that for all of your kind of main compound lifts.
And that adds some variety but also means you have the data to make sure that you're progressing in each of those rep ranges kind of simultaneously.
Whereas if we were to do sets of six for three weeks and then move to sets of 12, then I don't really have that anchor point.
For am I making progress?
Because now I'm doing that lift in another rep range.
If you're a regular listener of the Huberman Lab podcast, you've no doubt heard me talk about the vitamin mineral probiotic drink AG1.
And if you've been on the fence about it, now's an awesome time to give it a try.
For the next few weeks, AG1 is giving away a full supplement package with your first subscription to AG1.
They're giving away a free bottle of vitamin D3K2, a bottle of omega-3 fish oil capsules and a sample pack of the new sleep formula AGZ which, by the way, is now the only sleep supplement I take.
It's fantastic.
My sleep on AGZ is out of this world good.
AGZ is a drink, so it eliminates the need to take a lot of pills.
It tastes great.
And like I said, it has me sleeping incredibly well, waking up more refreshed than ever.
I absolutely love it.
Again, this is a limited time offer, so make sure to go to drinkag1com slash Huberman to get started today.
A moment ago you said something, and I'm so grateful that you said this, because I don't think it's ever been communicated as clearly as you did.
And I would just want to double click on it.
There's this assumption that heavier sets, and I'm not referring to one to three reps.
I mean, let's say, in the five to eight repetition range, final repetitions close to failure or failure, that somehow they are more dangerous than high repetition sets.
In my experience, high repetitions from 15 to 25, especially on compound movements, get people hurt at least as often as the heavy stuff.
And I think it's because it's, I'm guessing here, but that it's hard to concentrate and generate perfect form on a very high repetition.
Set and compound movements are where you can get hurt.
You can get hurt on isolation movements, but multi-joint movements done for 20 reps.
I mean, unless you're really locked in mentally.
That's often where people get injured, is my observation.
Yeah, I think it's an equal opportunity game.
You know, we really need to make sure that form is dialed in and that you have a spotter or a training partner, if appropriate, depending on the lift that you're doing.
Because if you're doing high rep deadlifts, for example, you do have more opportunities to lift the weight in such a way that you just tweak something and sometimes if people are doing those lower rep, heavier sets, they're more likely to kind of take that moment reset, lock in and then perform the next rep and it's a bit easier to rush the set and not kind of force yourself to reset and focus on those form cues when you're using a load that doesn't require you to do so.
Thank you.
Yes, recently there was a pretty avid debate online about heavy weights versus not heavy weights, especially for older folks.
And since now I'm 50, I place myself in that category.
I'm a big fan of low repetitions, but not three or less.
But let's just say some of my peers feel that that's super dangerous not to recommend five to eight repetition range.
It could be that some people are just better at quote unquote, locking everything in and getting really focused and doing a proper set.
When there's fewer repetitions, then and some people might be great at, I realize that, doing 20 repetitions of stiff legged deadlifts and every repetition is just beautiful.
But isn't there the idea that some of the smaller supporting muscles can fatigue as a set goes on and make one susceptible to injury?
Is that, or is that just gym?
Is that just like jock science?
No matter what, we need to make sure that we're appropriately warmed up and that we're using proper technique.
So if you try to go do a one rep max or a set of three and you're not properly warmed up, I'm concerned.
Sure.
But assuming all else is equal then, depending on the exercise, we also have to think of overall systemic fatigue, even exercise fatigue on the cardiovascular system if you're doing 30 squats.
You might be out of breath before your legs give out, and that can introduce another mental challenge to the set.
Excellent point.
I hadn't considered that.
I also don't enjoy 20 repetition squats, although on the belt squat I'm finding some let's just say some personal growth through them, mental personal growth.
It's a whole different thing to do high repetition leg work.
And it is very cardiovascular.
Speaking of which, I think most people nowadays, men and women, understand that cardiovascular exercise is important as well.
And I realize that term pisses off the endurance athletes because what is cardiovascular exercise?
I'm talking about something that you can repeat for six minutes or more continuously gets heart rate elevated, and so on.
I think most people think of this as cardio.
How do you recommend scheduling cardio with the two or three day per week resistance training?
Does it matter if somebody does it before or after their weight training on a given day?
Can they do it on the same day?
Would they be better off doing it on other days?
What are the guidelines?
So the concept of kind of the interference effect or issues with concurrent training come from the idea that you have both endurance training goals and resistance training goals.
And that if you perform those too close together that the endurance training might blunt some of that hypertrophic adaptation.
We see that could be true if you're doing very high volume work and you're stacking it very close together.
So assuming you're hypertrophy or strength is the goal, then we would want to perform that first.
And if possible, separate them by at least several hours.
But we really don't run into true interference effect type results unless we're doing tons of training and you're doing your sprints before you do your leg workout.
I would avoid that.
I think we also need to think about whether we have endurance training goals or we're just trying to be fit for health.
Most people listening to this probably would like to get stronger, probably would like to add muscle to specific muscles and maybe have it in mind and we'll get here in a moment to not deliberately not add muscle to other muscles.
And to be what they consider lean enough and that want to be fit.
I always think of the general life requirements.
Like you want to be able to carry your suitcase or bag.
And if you have to run for the plane, that you can do it without coughing up a lung.
Pick things up and not get injured.
Sprint if you need to.
Play a game of Frisbee or soccer or volleyball, a pickup game at the picnic or something.
Go for a hike, maybe with a kid on your back, maybe with a backpack if you don't have kids.
I think these sort of like just ability to go out on a Sunday and take a long hike with a pack without having to train for it.
The ability to sprint for the plane without dying when you arrive there.
These kinds of things to me are the real life metrics.
I feel like that's what most people want.
And then, of course, some people want to run marathons and be powerlifters.
And, you know, Alex Honnold just, you know, scaled a tower in Taipei without any ropes.
So, you know, there's a huge range.
But I think what I described I think is where most of us are at.
What do you think most women are at?
Lifting weights is so important because we don't have a lifestyle fun equivalent activity.
Mm-hmm.
But I don't think we all need to be going for a jog or spending an hour on the elliptical if we prefer playing tennis or going for bike rides with friends or going for hikes or something that is physical, physically active and enjoyable and that we will be more likely to do consistently.
So there is an element of that that can be really freeing for people because they think, oh well, then I don't need to worry about adding these structured cardio sessions in my week.
I'm just going to do those outdoor physical activities with friends that I'm enjoying and also benefiting from.
What are the data on walking?
I've heard 7,000 steps or so per day is a good number to shoot for.
I heard that the 10000 number was just kind of thrown out there, the same way that eight hours of intermittent fasting was just kind of thrown out there.
We'll get back to that.
How important and helpful is walking for women in particular?
I like to think of walking as something you can do that is not structured exercise.
And so we're not thinking about meeting a step count necessarily.
You can do that, but people who focus on something like step counts usually do so for a few months and then stop because being kind of obsessive about tracking that metric gets a little old.
And it's important to think not only about hitting one target, whether it's, you know, minutes of exercise per week, or step count or heart rate goal, but what are we doing for the other hours in the day?
So I think somebody who isn't active at all, going from doing exercise very few steps to getting it up to four five, six thousand steps yes, we're going to see a huge benefit.
But if you're somebody who is physically active in a variety of ways and you are moving throughout the day, not necessarily focusing purely on steps, then that metric of step count is a little bit less useful, because we are getting in that overall activity that is going to be beneficial for health.
So what I'm hearing is, if a woman is in the gym two or three days per week lifting the way that you described, and has some outdoor or or indoor social sport type activities that she enjoys, there's no need to specifically add cardio unless there's an endurance goal or a sprint competition goal.
Is that right?
Yeah.
And I think a lot of people are adding cardio for weight loss goals.
And that is a bit of a fool's errand, because the fat loss that we will get from just adding exercise is pretty disappointing relative to the fat loss that we will see when we adjust our nutrition.
What about getting up toward max heart rate for sake of the dreaded VO2 max.
No, I don't say dreaded.
I mean, I just think it's funny because you know, five years ago no one was talking about heart rate variability and VO2 max.
I mean again, I'm not trying to inject male fitness or my routine into it, but by virtue of what I've learned in the course of the podcast and also what I enjoy, I make it a point to get on the Airdyne bike or some other thing I can do at max effort or close to it without getting injured.
Um and do 30-second sprint, 30-second rest, 30-second sprint for at least once a week, ideally twice.
I'm assuming and you tell me you have the credentials here.
I'm assuming that by getting my heart rate way, way up for a couple of minutes each week that I'm doing myself some benefit separate from my resistance training.
Is that true or is it Because I see, I mean I'm not a calorie counter, kind of an intuitive sense of what I need, but I see, you know, at the end of those workouts it says I burned 100 calories.
Which is, you know I, you know I walk, I eat 100 calories of blueberries in one pass by the blueberry basket.
So I'm not trying to do it for caloric burn sake.
Yeah, the value of the really high intensity stuff is time efficiency, right?
So if we look at those adaptations to endurance exercise or if we're going to just say cardio broadly, then you can get those by doing more long-form, moderate intensity.
You can also get those by doing higher intensity for shorter amounts of time.
So it's not that...
It's magic in terms of the adaptation, but you're able to get more bang for your buck because you're doing that higher intensity and you don't need to do it for quite as long.
Let's talk about the somewhat barbed wire topic these days about variations in hormones as they relate to the menstrual cycle and training requirements.
There's a lot of assumptions about this.
There's a lot of conjecture.
And I do believe there's also a lot of outright fabrication, not because anyone necessarily wants to mislead, but I don't think anyone has spent as much time with the data on this as you have.
So should women train differently depending on where they are in their menstrual cycle?
The short answer is no.
The conversation around the menstrual cycle is good.
I think it's good that we're talking about it.
It's good that people feel comfortable discussing it with their coach.
The unfortunate shift of because you have a menstrual cycle and because hormones are fluctuating, you need to change how you are exercising is way too simplistic and doesn't align with the data that we have.
So, instead of worrying about whether you're in this phase or that phase, or whether estradiol is high or low, I would really focus on how you feel.
Train hard, train consistently, train progressively.
If, at some point in your cycle, you experience menstrual symptoms or fatigue or a lack of motivation that you relate to menstruation, then having an option to skip a workout or adjust the exercises that you're doing for that workout or do another form of exercise that day is completely fine.
Not saying you have to grind it out, push through.
But you are not less capable that day because you have your menstrual period or because the hormone profile has shifted in one direction or another.
There's a broader conversation around this.
I think about when to push through internal resistance, either just kind of general malaise, like one doesn't feel well or didn't sleep well, whether or not one is feeling run down.
Maybe we can kind of tuck that into this conversation about ways to vary training or not vary training according to phase of the menstrual cycle.
Let's say somebody is not feeling as rested as they normally do or would like to.
And I say that because And people assume you need eight hours of sleep, right?
One might need eight, they might need 10.
I'm fine on six and a half to seven.
I prefer eight, but actually six and a half to seven, I'm good.
Five, that's a whole other issue.
Should women push through a day of a workout if they got maybe an hour or two less than their normal ration of sleep that they need?
Or are they putting themselves in some sort of danger if they do that?
There's no danger.
You might feel worse, but subjective.
Measures of performance are different often from objective measures of performance, and that goes for the menstrual cycle symptoms and other factors as well.
So you might go in and deadlift the same weight as last week and you'd say wow, this feels really heavy, or the weight's moving really slow this morning, but you're still lifting it.
So objectively, the performance was the same.
It's just your experience of what it felt like differs.
It feels harder today.
To your point, that can be the case for a variety of reasons.
We can be underslept, or we are jet lagged, or we're stressed about something work-related and feeling distracted.
There's a lot of reasons why we don't have a 10 out of 10 workout every single time we go to the gym.
So I think there's an argument to be made to, yeah, push forward, just do it anyway.
Even a subpar workout is better than no workout at all.
In your experience and observation, do you think that women who take up resistance training enjoy it on average?
Do they tend to enjoy it or do they tend to enjoy the feeling afterwards?
How do you feel about resistance training?
I think it's particularly powerful for women because – and I alluded to this earlier.
There is a history of –
Marketing ineffective programs to women or encouraging them to constantly switch it up.
Try this new group fitness class or try this new at home video workout.
And they never really see the results that they are hoping to see.
And so you're just program hopping and disappointed and feeling like I'm putting in all this work, I'm doing the thing and I'm not seeing results.
When you stick to a good resistance training program for long enough, not only do you start to see results in the way that your body looks, because muscle growth can change your body composition and can change your physique, but you also have this empowering feeling of progression over time.
I can get stronger.
I can do more.
And that keeps you coming back.
It's really motivating.
So I think that can be really powerful, that you feel like you're getting something out of what you're putting in and you're more likely to stick to it long-term.
For anyone.
But since we're talking mainly about women's resistance training today um, Do you think there's value to spending two or three weeks maybe less, maybe more just learning movements properly before getting into the whole business of progressive overload?
Yes, because the problem is you start to see, oh, I can do more than I did last week.
And then you think, oh, well, this is linear, right?
And so you think I can add 10 pounds every week forever.
It doesn't work like that.
So inevitably, you end up training or many of us have trained in such a way that we don't injured something tweaked something, form failed because we got so focused on just lifting more weight, lifting more weight, lifting more weight.
So I agree that a slower progression could be better, but that's also the power of just trying to add another rep instead of trying to add weight week in and week out.
We're all told we just kind of like need to exercise.
And there's examples of how to do movements.
But it would be wonderful if there was kind of like getting the basics.
Like a sprinter doesn't just go sprint.
They learn how to do all these drills and move into it.
And some of these things are complex.
And it's not just about avoiding injury.
It's about getting the most out of the exercise over time.
That's kind of how I'm thinking about this.
I think it's also making sure that you are – using proper technique and full range of motion.
Because that's one of the other things that is often the first to go when we really try to load up and load up, and load up.
And you see this with people squatting and benching all the time.
They're just adding another plate but then cutting the range of motion short to accommodate that additional load.
And so that's not really progressive overload because you changed your range of motion.
So I think, especially if a lift is technically demanding something like a hinge deadlift good morning for a lot of people who've never done that movement pattern it can be really difficult to
Just develop that kinesthetic awareness of where am I in space?
Am I bending my knees too much or not enough?
Am I starting to round my upper back?
And when you can really understand the proper form, then you know how to load it.
If a woman just feels lousy at one particular phase of her cycle and that's a consistent month to month thing for her and she doesn't want to train during that time, it sounded like there's no issue with that.
That you're not suggesting that women push through, that necessarily we're on the West coast.
That they honor their, their feelings, is how people speak out here.
Um, that they honor their feelings as opposed to push against the.
You know the.
The sense like it.
This is just a tough time to do this, but you're from New York and you're giving me this.
Look now where that makes it.
Who are the people are just listening.
Um, well, Lauren's looking at me like, yeah, that sounds like, uh, you know, I don't know.
So, but I don't want to put words in your mouth.
What are you thinking?
Well, I'll tell you this.
We have survey data looking at how many people report experiencing menstrual symptoms, things like cramps and low back pain, lack of motivation, irritability.
And 75, 80% of women report feeling those symptoms.
And none of them report changing their training in response to those symptoms.
So not to say that you shouldn't, but typically, at least Where the data shows, it's not that common that people are overhauling their training, even in response to menstrual symptoms.
That said, most people experience them for one or two days.
So we're only talking about skipping or adjusting one, maybe two workouts.
So I don't feel that strongly about it either way.
I think it's up to you.
And, like I said, there will be a variety of reasons Within any given month why we show up to the gym and we don't feel our best.
And some of those days again, for a variety of reasons, we might decide to make some adjustments, and other days we might just decide to push through, and both are completely acceptable.
It's an unfortunate reality, but tap water often contains contaminants that negatively impact our health.
In fact, a 2020 study by the Environmental Working Group estimated that more than 200 million Americans are exposed to PFAS chemicals, also known as forever chemicals, through drinking of tap water.
These forever chemicals are linked to serious health issues such as hormone disruption, gut microbiome disruption, fertility issues and many other health problems.
The Environmental Working Group has also shown that over 122 million Americans drink tap water with high levels of chemicals known to cause cancer.
It's for all these reasons that I'm thrilled to have Rora as a sponsor of this podcast.
I've been using the Rora countertop system for almost a year now.
Roro's filtration technology removes harmful substances, including endocrine disruptors and disinfection byproducts, while preserving beneficial minerals like magnesium and calcium.
It requires no installation or plumbing.
It's built from medical-grade stainless steel and its sleek design fits beautifully on your countertop.
In fact, I consider it a welcome addition to my kitchen It looks great and the water is delicious.
If you'd like to try Rora, you can go to rora.com slash Huberman and get an exclusive discount.
Again, that's Rora, R-O-R-R-A dot com slash Huberman.
If I'm not mistaken, you've looked at the data on the relationship between hormone-based contraception and effects of exercise.
And I be very clear.
I said hormone-based contraception because there are so many different forms of contraception, some of which are hormone-based, some of which aren't.
And, of course, within the domain of hormone-based, you've got estrogen-based progestin-based, and there's others as well.
What are the general and more specific takeaways from that literature?
Does hormone-based contraception impact the adaptation to exercise, the motivation to exercise or anything else that women should be aware of?
What do the data say?
The majority of these studies are on folks taking combined oral contraceptive pills.
So this wouldn't apply to something like a hormonal IUD.
Or there's a patch that people are using now that it's a more modern take.
But there is enough data at this point to say, when it comes to strength, hypertrophy power, we're not seeing combined oral contraceptive pills move the needle in either direction.
And there were appropriate hypotheses to say oh, maybe this could be detrimental or maybe this could be beneficial.
But what we see, similar to the influence of the endogenous hormone fluctuations, which are quite substantial if those aren't affecting performance or exercise-induced adaptations, it's not that shocking that the hormonal contraceptives wouldn't move the needle to a great extent either.
Yeah, it's an excellent point.
I mean, if one just looks at the plot of estrogen levels or progesterone levels across the different phases of the menstrual cycle, these are enormous differences.
Likewise for testosterone and other hormones in women.
And you're making the point that hormone-based pill contraception is making changes in hormones of at least that magnitude.
And so there's no reason to expect that it should impact um at least ability.
I can think of motivation to train um ability somehow, like if it relates somehow to contractability, the muscles or tendon, um uh, tendon strength or something, and then the actual adaptation, like so it sounds like none of these things block the adaptation to exercise, the increase in muscle size or strength or both.
Is that right?
That's right.
I would say, if you're just starting a contraceptive pill, some people have symptoms and side effects, some of which are kind of attenuated over time and some of which are not, and you need to switch to something else.
So you might for a short term because that pill is not a good fit for you, then there could be some short-term influence in that sense.
But On the flip side a lot of people go on a hormonal contraceptive because they have really severe menstrual symptoms and then that can be helpful in relieving that pain.
And so then you might be willing to go to the gym more frequently during the week where you have your menstrual period.
So I think we can think about those kind of practical implications, but in terms of just the hormones themselves and the fact that we're down-regulating the endogenous hormone production by introducing these synthetic hormones, that doesn't seem to impact performance or adaptations to exercise.
What, if any, are the really good data around the relationship between perimenopause and menopause and the hormone changes that tend to occur, let's assume, without hormone replacement therapy for the moment, and training?
Should women change their training as they enter perimenopause, menopause?
There's no reason to change your training because we still want the same adaptations.
We want to increase and maintain muscle size and strength.
We want to reduce fall risk and fracture risk, maintain bone density.
And so resistance training is going to be a really key component of an exercise program for somebody – pre and post menopause.
I think the idea that somehow the hormonal changes would influence muscle are really tied to that same thought process that cycle syncing is based on.
And so it comes down to this hypothesis that there is this relationship between estrogen and muscle.
And so if estrogen is declining with menopause, then that would have some effect on muscle.
But we don't see that.
We see age-related muscle loss that is exacerbated by physical inactivity.
But you look at lean mass across the menopause transition And that in and of itself isn't accelerating the loss of muscle.
I think for understandable reasons, there's this correlation that people draw between hormones and muscle.
And since resistance training is more kind of muscle oriented in people's minds anyway, I mean, you got you know tendon and bone et cetera then cardiovascular training.
It's a silly thing, but we kind of make that association.
All these things around women's fitness, it's like.
Should training change during different phases of the menstrual cycle?
Because after all, menstrual cycle is hormones.
Hormones affect how one feels, but also muscle.
Here we are, you know, back to muscle.
The changes in muscle size and strength as one ages in my understanding are just as much a function of atrophy of nerve to muscle connections, the strength of those as they are, some drop in hormones.
And I think it's never really been stated out loud.
So I just want your thoughts on this.
Do you think that if people understood that a lot of muscle and strength loss is inactivity, as you said, and inactivity brings a weakening of the nerve to muscle connection, that it might help us get away a little bit from this idea that everything about muscles is hormones and everything about hormones is muscle, that they're equally important?
I realize I'm leading the witness here a little bit, but I'll just out you.
Your father's a neuroscientist.
How important is the nervous system and the changes that the nervous system normally undergoes as one ages important here.
Is that what we're trying to do or are we trying to offset some of that?
It's important, too, because we need to maintain those connections for all movement patterns, right?
And so when we see long periods of physical inactivity think immobilization or bed rest the rate at which you lose muscle is shocking.
It's really, really dramatic.
And so we know that is a very extreme model of atrophy that we want to avoid.
But there are other versions of that in just daily kind of sedentary life.
You're not on bedrest and you're not technically immobilized, but you're moving so infrequently that you are exacerbating muscle loss.
Even if you are just physically active, even if you're not lifting weights, you're much more likely to maintain that muscle.
But once you stop being physically active, then we run into a lot of problems.
If more people understood the neural aspect of all this exercise stuff and muscle and how that relates to fitness and brain health, I think it would help men and women to get around this thing that you mentioned earlier.
It's just kind of hovering my mind that so much of the way that fitness has been presented, exercise has been presented to women, is around weight loss.
And now the conversation seems to be changing.
It's about longevity.
It's about maintaining muscle.
It's about maintaining brain health and not getting injured.
And so it seems like it's morphing slightly.
I think that is missed in resistance training because we just think about it at the muscle level.
But when we think about motor unit recruitment, that is a neural pathway.
And we need all of those to stay intact to perform any kind of motor function.
And so when we are lifting weights, we're not – exclusively building muscle.
And that's why we see tendon adaptations, bone adaptations, everything is connected.
And it's also why, if you're somebody who is aging but you're physically active in a way, that requires a certain type of coordination maybe it's pickleball that that is really helpful as well.
I think The idea that you have to go to the gym is intimidating for some people because a lot of women in their minds think that they're going to be the only woman in the gym.
That's less and less true.
But in my experience it's still.
The weight room is still probably a male dominated section of the gym.
I think the biggest fear is not knowing what to do.
And machines can be a really good place to start if you're somebody who doesn't want to work with a trainer and is a little bit nervous about trying to self-teach those movement patterns with barbells or dumbbells.
A lot of commercial gyms these days have a circuit of machines and you can start there and kind of get comfortable with those movement patterns, get comfortable with what is challenging, what is close to failure, and then progress to some of these other exercises and equipment.
Yeah, when I've tried to encourage female family members to weight train like I don't want to go to a gym.
Like, why not?
They're like, I like my yoga class.
I like Pilates.
I like going for hikes.
What do you think are some things that women could do to sort of lower those barriers for people?
Starting with group fitness because, even though most group fitness classes are suboptimal from the perspective of a sound resistance training program, it gets you into the gym.
It gets you feeling comfortable.
It will teach you some of those movement patterns that we've discussed.
And then maybe after class you and a couple of friends that you've made in class can go and try out a couple of machines.
And so you can kind of ease into it that way.
And people gravitate towards group fitness because it's social and you have an appointment because you have to be there at a specific time.
So that can be another good kind of entry point to get you going to the gym without feeling overwhelmed by it.
Exercises you're not sure how to perform, or equipment that you're not sure how to use.
In terms of the relationship between hormones, menstrual cycle and training.
I know I'm staying on this, but it comes up.
I mean, you've on social media.
I mean, I don't know what percentage of questions that you get on social media relate to hormones and training, as they relate to one another.
It's a lot.
I think now more than ever, you're just seeing more and more of this messaging pop up.
And with the menstrual cycle, it's not only about exercise.
I see the way you should eat differently due to cycle phase, the way you should work differently, the way you should socialize differently.
There are all of these messages that are saying –
You need to kind of overhaul this aspect of your life to align with these phases.
Is there any evidence that resistance training can help ameliorate some of the symptoms of the negative symptoms of certain phases of the cycle that women might be experiencing?
In other words, do they often feel better by training during the most difficult phase of their cycle?
Has that ever been demonstrated?
Not with resistance training specifically, but with physical activity, sure.
It can definitely help, because if you have something like cramps, then just kind of doing something to increase blood flow, even if it's going for a walk, can be helpful.
And it also kind of gets your mind off of it, so you're not actually sitting there, kind of focusing on the fact that you're uncomfortable.
And it depends on the person, but I think some sort of physical activity can be beneficial and that's something that you should consider exploring, whether it's resistance training or anything else.
What about the nutrition aspect and the menstrual cycle?
The nutrition data is pretty poor because, as is most nutrition data, it's kind of self-report.
And so we're saying observationally, people tend to eat a little bit more in this phase versus that phase, on average based on self-reported food diaries.
Okay.
Does that mean that you should change caloric intake or protein intake or carbohydrate intake?
We don't have the data to support any of that.
And a lot of it comes back to this theory that you have a kind of an anabolic phase or a catabolic phase.
And so that, extended from oh, you should focus on more resistance training during this phase to oh.
Well then, you must need more protein in this other phase.
So what kind of started as a hypothesis about anabolic and catabolic states has twisted into changing your exercise program and changing your diet, among other things?
I spoke to a couple of different women prior to sitting down with you today, because I needed data from actual women as opposed to my ideas about what they might be thinking right.
Or what I see online, right?
These are people I'm close with and I believe they were honest with me.
And for the it wasn't an enormous poll.
This is not an official study, but I heard something at least three times out of the five people I spoke to.
And it was this.
I know I should lift weights, but I feel like I get enough muscle training from my Pilates or yoga.
And I said, yeah, but couldn't those things be really different than resistance training?
And the answer that I got back was similar in several cases, which was yeah, but my Pilates teacher, she looks awesome and she has tons of energy and she's 10 years older than me and I want to look like her.
So I'm going to do Pilates.
And I said, well, do you does she lift weights?
And she said, no, she just does Pilates.
And then I said, well, I wonder if she would like did gymnastics when we were younger.
And then pretty soon, I'm now the guy having this like conversation, trying to essentially negotiate something I have no interest in negotiating, but it gave me a window into something that I think might be pretty common, which is that um.
We all look at somebody and what they're doing and we go, oh like, that seems like a look that is reasonable and attractive and I would want that.
And they seem to be like kicking butt in life and happy and I'm going to just do that.
And so what do you say to women who perhaps think like they're as muscular as they want to be now doing Pilates and walking and maybe doing some other activities, but they're not doing resistance training?
Is there some reason why they should be motivated to also resistance train?
What you're describing is very common.
And unfortunately for the vast majority of people.
They then go and do the exercise class or follow what this person eats in a day.
And they never end up looking like that person.
Because we have genetic factors, nutritional factors, exercise factors.
And sometimes, no matter what, we're not going to have the body of this other person.
But Pilates is particularly guilty of promising these dramatic changes in body composition.
And that if you do this class, that you're going to get toned, you're going to increase your muscle mass and get these long lean lines, or you'll look like a dancer.
And so when we use that word, which we don't toned, but when people use it, they mean increase muscle size and decrease body fat.
And the most effective and efficient way to accomplish that is through resistance training to increase muscle size and through nutritional adjustments to decrease body fat.
Even if you're happy doing the Pilates and walking right now and I'm not saying give that up, because I'm a fan of all physical activity that people enjoy but it is not sufficient resistance.
It's not progressive resistance to stave off that age-related muscle loss that I mentioned.
All we need is two 20 minute workouts per week full body resistance training to make a pretty powerful impact on trying to attenuate some of that decline.
And losing muscle mass, increasing fall risk, fracture risk, all of those downstream health effects that lead to an existence in your 80s or 90s that is not very functionally independent.
We don't want that.
And so if we know we can implement this and it's not that much of a time investment, it's not that much of a financial investment, it's kind of a no-brainer.
I'm so glad you mentioned the genetic piece, because Genetics are huge when it comes to, you know, lean mass to non-lean mass body ratio.
People don't, I mean, obviously people over consume calories, they're going to gain weight.
Some people more quickly than others, perhaps.
But, you know, it's such a big factor.
It seems to me that so is someone having... done strength and speed sports when they were younger.
But you look at someone who was a gymnast, a sprinter, a pole vaulter, a competitive tennis player.
He got a lot of like speed type movement.
And I noticed even when they just do yoga or something in their 30s.
I noticed because, as a graduate student, as you know right,
When I was in my 20s and then a postdoc in my 30s, you know, I was exercising less.
And the people around you are exercising less.
So you're just doing experiments all the time and studying all the time.
And some people just seem to stay really fit through that.
And you go, like, what do you do?
And they're like, oh, I just like these days, I just do yoga.
Did you play a sport in high school?
Yeah, I was like, you know, D1 soccer, gymnast.
And I do think that people who play these competitive sports early in life they hold on to a certain amount of musculature.
Now, maybe there's a selection bias that led them to be a D1 athlete combined with training, right?
So they were... kind of had genetics that then they built on.
But what I'm, I feel like these situations are very misleading.
And with men, it tends to be misleading where somebody is extremely muscular and lean.
I think of my friend Nasima.
He does a podcast with Mark Bell.
Um sema is completely steroid and trt free.
He really is.
I believe him.
And and it's actually to speak to your earlier point his testosterone he's shown his charge to somewhere in like the mid fives.
The guy is like his muscle density is insane.
He's got he walks around with eight percent body fat.
He's a terrific athlete, etc.
He has genetic gifts that he's built upon with very hard work.
So I can't look at him and say oh, I'm going to just do what he does right.
The parallel in women's fitness, and I don't want to discount the women out there who want to be very, very muscular, but let's just consider the averages here.
They might look at their Pilates teacher and she might have been a gymnast who was also slightly genetically gifted and now can just do that.
No one talks about this.
And it really contorts people's thinking and people are trying to figure out what to do, what to eat, et cetera.
So I'd love for you to elaborate on this a bit more if you think it's appropriate.
But like no one acknowledges this.
I share your hypothesis about the activity you do as a kid, even if you don't become an elite athlete.
I think that is something that does kind of stick with you.
And let's say you were a child gymnast and then you pick up lifting in your 20s.
I see women develop that upper body strength a lot more easily because I think they were doing that in childhood.
The genetic variability is huge because it's the structure, our bone structure, our muscle insertions, The size of our waist.
There are certain things that we can't change.
You can't change your shape.
Yes, we can gain fat, lose fat, gain muscle, lose muscle.
But some people have naturally broader shoulders or have...
Delt insertions that mean they have that look of these capped shoulders or they just don't carry a lot of body fat on their arms or on their legs.
And so the way that where we tend to store fat or distribute that fat differently varies from person to person.
The place in which we lose fat first and last will vary.
And often, when you compare yourself to somebody with a very different structure, perhaps they have a metabolism that allows for them to maintain a certain body weight or a certain body fat at a really comfortable caloric intake.
Whereas for you to maintain that certain level of body size or body fat would require a very uncomfortable, unsustainable level of caloric intake.
And that is just is what it is.
In the old days of fitness, meaning when I started in the 90s it's not old days, but here I am there was this idea of ectomorph, endomorph and mesomorph.
We don't hear that anymore.
Ectomorph being very thin, long sinewy muscles, small joints, quote-unquote hard gainer.
There was mesomorph, which is the kind of, you know, more muscular, somewhat lean perhaps.
And then there was the endomorph idea, somebody carrying a lot of excess body fat kind of idea.
Is that just completely irrelevant now in terms of picking training programs?
Have we just really landed in a place where it's all about Hey listen, if you're a endomorph, you're eating more than you should?
There's muscle under there.
Perhaps if you're an ectomorph, you're just, you know, maintaining a very low body weight.
You need to lift more and eat more.
Is there any reality to this?
I could be wrong, but I think those labels and those descriptors don't even come from any sort of physiology research or framework.
I think they come from psychology, which makes no sense, given that we're using them to describe how one might expect to adapt to training.
You can say, oh, if you're somebody who is kind of skinny, maybe you can expect to be a hard gainer.
But sometimes that's not the case at all.
You see teenage boys that were kind of skin and bones and lanky, and then they start lifting and they blow up.
Oh, I didn't.
I raised my hand.
I didn't blow up.
But, I mean, I was a 6'1", 150 pounds.
Yeah.
And in my first year of training I think I put on like 25, 30 pounds of maybe it wasn't all muscle, but that didn't continue.
It definitely can happen.
But I also knew guys, that when we finished junior high school, they were like built, even though they had never touched a weight.
They were like my bulldog Costello who had these huge forearms.
He never touched a weight.
It was just –
So I do think the genetic variation piece is huge.
There's also the height component too though, because if you think about if you are – five, six and you have, you know, the same kind of relative muscle mass as somebody who is five 11, you are going to look way more muscular than the tall counterpart.
So if the person who's five, 11 or six two wants to look really muscular, they're going to have to put on a lot of mass because they're taller.
I'd like to take a quick break and acknowledge one of our sponsors, Function.
Last year I became a Function member after searching for the most comprehensive approach to lab testing.
Function provides over 100 advanced lab tests that give you a key snapshot of your entire bodily health.
This snapshot offers you with insights on your heart health, hormone health, immune functioning, nutrient levels and much more.
They've also recently added tests for toxins such as BPA exposure from harmful plastics and tests for PFAS or forever chemicals.
Function not only provides testing of over 100 biomarkers key to your physical and mental health, but it also analyzes these results and provides insights from top doctors who are expert in the relevant areas.
For example, in one of my first tests with function, I learned that I had elevated levels of mercury in my blood.
Function not only helped me detect that, but offered insights into how best to reduce my mercury levels, which included limiting my tuna consumption.
I'd been eating a lot of tuna, while also making an effort to eat more leafy greens and supplementing with NAC and acetylcysteine, both of which can support glutathione production and detoxification.
And I should say, by taking a second function test, That approach worked.
Comprehensive blood testing is vitally important.
There's so many things related to your mental and physical health that can only be detected in a blood test.
The problem is blood testing has always been very expensive and complicated.
In contrast, I've been super impressed by function simplicity and at the level of cost.
It is very affordable.
As a consequence, I decided to join their scientific advisory board, and I'm thrilled that they're sponsoring the podcast.
If you'd like to try Function, you can go to functionhealth.com slash Huberman.
Function currently has a wait list of over 250000 people, but they're offering early access to Huberman podcast listeners.
Again, that's functionhealth.com slash Huberman to get early access to Function.
So let's talk about training fasted or not training fasted.
I'm chuckling because you know there are these times when I think oh, you know, recently it got really intense online.
Should women train fasted or not train fasted?
Coming from the world of research science, which we both do, like these quote unquote battles online.
They're like nothing because it's in the end it really boils down to.
What do we know?
What do we not know?
Right. right?
Battles in science get down to two people looking at the same graph and arguing about it.
That one piece of data out on the plot.
We're not really arguing data when we're arguing mass experience.
So what is the data?
The laboratory data on women training fasted in terms of fat loss, muscle gain, strength gain and just whether or not it's a good or bad idea on the whole.
I'm glad you bring up the data piece because in some of these conversations there's a lot of extrapolation of a potential mechanism.
And that's not where we lean when we develop data. recommendations about exercise and nutrition.
We need to look at the data in the population of interest humans, measuring the outcome.
We are interested in using the intervention that we're discussing.
So in the case of fed and fasted state training, This has been looked at on longer-term studies.
So consistent fasted state training, not just an acute bout of fasted state training.
And the muscle growth and fat loss adaptations to exercise are the same in men and in women.
And there was a school of thought that fasted training might be beneficial for fat loss, like 2012 maybe, and everyone was doing fasted cardio, thinking it was going to accelerate their fat loss because they were exercising in a fasted state and oxidizing more fat because they were fasted acutely.
Turns out that acute fat oxidation, or fat oxidation post-workout, isn't meaningful enough to offset the rest of the metabolism throughout the day, such that you don't lose more body fat long term.
Now the pendulum has kind of swung in the other direction, and the argument is that if you're training fasted, you're going to gain fat or lose muscle.
That doesn't make a whole lot of sense either, because when we wake up in the morning, we ate dinner.
Last night, right.
We have stored glycogen, and most resistance training sessions aren't extremely glycogen depleting anyway.
So, unless we're going to do some really long form endurance training, in which case yeah, it's probably wise to have something to eat beforehand to fuel that long session the decision to train fed or fasted should be based on personal preference.
Do you have a personal preference?
If I go in the morning, I always train fasted.
If I go later in the day, I've eaten.
Caffeine before you train?
Always.
For the just general alertness aspect, or also performance enhancing effects of caffeine.
I notice more the general alertness, but it's probably hard to separate those.
I think we see more performance benefits if you go from being caffeine naive, and I am not.
I'm very habituated at this point, so I'm probably not seeing that many performance benefits.
But I definitely feel it when I don't have caffeine pre-workout.
90% of adults in the world drink caffeine every day.
And it turns out one of the hardest things to do about running a study on caffeine is getting people to not drink caffeine for like two weeks to do a washout.
Because otherwise you end up studying caffeine withdrawal versus people who are continuing to drink caffeine.
I spent a lot of time with this literature and it's a maddening literature.
I'm right there with you.
Total caffeine addict.
And I'm cool.
I'm Andrew.
I'm a caffeine addict, you know, and proud of it.
So if you were going to ingest food before you train, and given that most resistance training sessions are not glycogen depleting, which you said, is there any advantage to having some starchy carbohydrate before resistance training that's independent of glycogen?
Is there any value to eating a given food before training might make you feel better.
You might feel like you have more energy, you might feel better in in the gym.
Other people feel like they have gi issues if they eat too close to a workout, and so that's uh.
They prefer to eat afterwards.
So i think if you are someone who wants to experiment with both, then have at it.
But for resistance training, the composition of the meal you're eating pre-workout is very unlikely to be used as fuel in that workout.
Really?
Well, if we are eating right before we train, then we still need to digest and absorb those nutrients.
So I guess it depends what it is that we're consuming.
If you're consuming, you know, one of those liquid packs that people consume during a marathon.
Do you know what I mean?
Yeah.
So that's like really fast generating.
But if we're going to have some oats or something, then if I'm eating my oats and going to the gym, I'm probably not using that as my fuel for that workout.
What about post-workout nutrition?
For many years, there were all sorts of ideas.
You have a unique opportunity to store more glycogen.
To this day, I still have some fruit and some starch and a protein drink after I train.
Does it matter if it's in the first 30 to 90 minutes in terms of the adaptation?
This is all independent of... hunger and kind of what makes one feel better.
I'm just thinking in terms of recovering more quickly to be able to train again, get back to work and do other things.
So the training is the stimulus for the adaptation or muscle growth.
If we're talking about resistance training,
And then the nutrition or the dietary protein can kind of optimize our results from that stimulus.
And there was once a school of thought that there was this anabolic window and it was very narrow and you needed to slam that protein shake the second you left the gym, or why did you even bother lifting that day?
It turns out that post-resistance training, that window, that elevated protein synthesis, long lasting,
We've measured this and see that it's still elevated even 24 hours after your session.
Not that I'm suggesting you wait 24 hours to eat, but this indicates that whether you're eating within 30 minutes or three hours, that's not going to affect the extent to which that dietary protein can support your muscle adaptations.
I saw a study I think it was about a year and a half ago that asserted that post-resistance training and I forget how long they waited post-resistance training, but some period of time after resistance training that men and women can assimilate up to 100 grams of protein, Whereas previously we thought that one could only assimilate 30 grams of protein per feeding.
Whatever became of the 30 gram limit, and how does exercise impact the amount of protein one can, and perhaps should, ingest?
Well, when we think about the protein that we're actually able to ingest, absorb and utilize for muscle adaptation, it's a different question of how much can we consume and absorb, because not all of the protein that we consume is going straight into the muscle.
So it's not that we should worry so much about maximizing per meal protein so much as per day per week consistent protein intake.
And that will again support the adaptations from the stimulus that we're getting from our training.
But the idea that we're somehow gaming the system with timing or dosing, it's really we need to kind of pull back the lens and think more big picture of okay, if I'm aiming for this overall protein intake, then practically it probably makes sense for me to split that up into a couple of meals.
So what does that look like?
And then can I do that consistently?
Creatine is really big these days.
Everyone's talking about creatine, it seems.
Creatine has been around a long time.
What can it do for muscle and strength?
What do we know it can do for brain function?
And is there anything different about the creatine women should take or the amount of creatine women should take or when they should take it?
I'm not familiar with this aspect of the creatine literature at all.
But I hear about creatine just about every day.
Yeah, it's having a renaissance, but for women.
It's still the same.
It's just creatine monohydrate, often packaged in gummy form, which you should be careful about, because gummy supplements often don't contain the dose that they claim to contain.
Someone actually analyzed a bunch of creatine gummies top-selling brands on Amazon and And some of them contained virtually no creatine.
Really?
Yeah.
So be careful about the gummies.
They're often, they spray the gummy with the kind of solution on top afterwards.
And so it can, anyway.
I would go with a powder form of creatine monohydrate over a gummy.
It can get you an extra rep or two in the gym or cut a second off your sprint.
We're talking adaptations of that nature.
It's very safe.
It's well studied.
And so if you're somebody who is training and you're interested, then I think it's worth taking.
And the kind of standard recommendation would be five grams. per day.
And if you're not exercising, I really wouldn't bother taking creatine.
It's not going to just increase muscle mass when you don't have the stimulus for muscle growth.
So this is an appropriate supplement for people who are exercising.
The claims about brain health, I think, are premature because the data that we have to date are people in some kind of a deficit.
So they were Alzheimer's patients.
They were clinically depressed and also taking SSRIs.
They were undergoing extreme sleep deprivation.
They had a traumatic brain injury.
This is really interesting literature, but I think it's been repackaged to tell people that you're getting some sort of cognitive boost with creatine.
And that's not the same as oh.
This could be helpful for these clinical populations with some sort of potential brain creatine deficit.
It will increase creatinine levels on a blood chart.
Is that right?
Often it will, yes.
Because that will spike into the quote-unquote red zone.
It'll spike high.
My understanding is there's no reason to be concerned about that if that spike of the creatinine levels are because of taking creatine.
That's right.
And you just need to tell your physician that you're taking it, because otherwise they likely would be concerned.
But it's normal.
That's just breaking down creatine.
And is it still true that the long-term data show no danger of taking creatine on the order of five grams per day for years?
Is that still true?
That's still true.
It's one of the most studied supplements out there.
What's your take on creatine? the various forms of creatine.
Monohydrate is the most typical form, but I see a lot of different versions.
There's a, I think it's a.
Well, I won't name brands, not because I'm trying to hide that, because I can't remember, but some people want more water drawn to the muscle and less subcutaneous water.
Is there any evidence that it can be directed that way by way of the form of creatine?
No, I mean, creatine monohydrate is definitely the most studied form.
And so people are trying to introduce these with the kind of claim that somehow it would be better or that you know you won't bloat as much.
I've seen that particularly marketed to women.
But it doesn't really end up working that way because, just because it's, it's breaking down more in your liquid right.
It doesn't mean that it's absorbed differently when you actually consume it.
So even if you were to just dry scoop creatine and just chase it with water, the results are the same as if you blend it up until there's literally no bits left in the glass.
For two scientists to have an – I have a friend who told me kind of conversation is a little bit non-scientific.
But I have a friend.
She's a woman.
She started taking creatine.
She started resistance training, not in that order.
And she's getting great results and loves it.
And she's totally into the fact that now she can do three full-range pull-ups.
And it's just awesome to see her progression and hear her. her excitement around it.
She was fit before.
Now she's just really charged up about this.
And she said, she was reporting her experience.
She said, you know, when I take five grams of creatine, I feel like it kind of makes me blurry.
Like there's a lot of subcutaneous water I hold.
Then when I take three, that doesn't happen.
This is a more general question that I have about how to deal with people's individual experience.
I mean, you never want to argue with somebody's individual experience.
I believe her.
She knows her better than anyone.
And yet my understanding is that there's no data to support that.
So I'm asking you about creatine, but thematically, I'm asking you as a scientist who's online dealing with questions all the time, who?
As our own individual experience, how do you want people to think about a situation like that?
For creatine, but for anything.
Hey, when I... Some people say, I take creatine and I lose hair.
And you're like, oh, there's no evidence of that.
But then they go, no, I think my hair falls out.
What do you do?
How do you specifically deal with that?
Well, I think some people are online for others to validate their own personal experiences.
And in that situation, you say, I respect your experience and you walk away.
There are other people who are online with genuine questions, sometimes because they've heard that this was their friend's experience or they've seen another post about it, and they're actually open to the information.
And those are the people that are worth the time investment to connect with, because they're genuinely interested in the science and interested in learning.
And it's not about proving them wrong, because that's a losing battle.
There is another phenomenon, not just online, where there's a lot of distrust in formal academic science nowadays.
There are a lot of reasons for this, social media being one of them, but this was building up for a long period of time.
And I think, as a woman in this area of research and public education, I think it's tricky when we look back.
You know 25 years and we were told oh yeah, you know, if you work out with weights, put on muscle, but then it all turns to fat if you stop.
It's like, you know, if you take creatine, it's going to destroy your kidneys.
You know it's going to mess up your hormone cycles, especially if you're a.
Are there any things that you hear circulating now that you would like to see explored in a formal, rigorous way because you think they could really help clarify and help people?
I think we don't understand a lot about these body composition changes that some women experience and others don't through the menopause transition.
And one of the big problems, complaints that a lot of women have is this kind of redistribution of body fat or preferential growth of body fat in the midsection.
And you could speculate that it's the estrogen receptor related perhaps, but we don't have human data to support that.
And whenever you make a claim about estrogen specifically, or loss of estrogen, then you have to think well, If it's only that, then it should be everybody who experiences it.
Because post-menopause, you're on the same boat, right?
And so it has to be more complicated than that.
And most things.
As you know, physiologically it's rarely just one thing and that one thing can explain.
So I think that deserves more exploration.
And I think we need to do a better job with science communication because unfortunately the internet is sort of taking it by storm.
And on one hand, I'm thinking it's cool that there's this interest in science, that people want that PubMed ID and people are asking for data.
But the flip side of it is that not everybody has the tool or the skill set to interpret the full paper.
And so then, people are using science as a way to cherry pick or to promote a message that isn't really reflective of the literature as a whole.
And that's really challenging for researchers, the confused woman on social media, for the fitness coach or personal trainer who is trying to help that woman out, and for the scientist who looks around and says hey, this is sort of a weaponization of science because you're not being true to the literature.
That said...
An individual study is not designed to tell any one person exactly how to eat or how to train, or how many steps to take or what supplements to take.
So yes, we need to be evidence-based.
Yes, we need to be honest about what the science says, what we do and do not know.
But of course there's going to be a component of individualization when you actually make decisions about what behaviors to engage in.
Spectacular answer, I would love to see the study that you described done.
Is it possible to look at receptor distributions in adult humans using some imaging technique?
Or do you have to biopsy fat and muscle from the midsection to get a sense of like estrogen receptor density and saturation?
The biopsy would be the way to go.
And a fat biopsy is even more uncomfortable than a muscle biopsy.
Ouch, yeah.
Wouldn't it be wonderful if there were imaging techniques that would allow people to go into a scanner and you'd get distribution of estrogen receptors, distribution of testosterone receptors and saturation how many bound?
It would be wonderful.
I mean, medical imaging can get us there, I think, hopefully.
Yeah, I mean it would be really powerful because even when we think about any biopsy study we're taking,
50 to 100 milligrams of tissue out of a single muscle or site and then making a lot of extrapolations based on this tiny amount of tissue.
We're saying, is this representative of the whole muscle?
Is this representative of other muscles in the body?
And if we're doing a kind of pre-post design, then when you go back in, Is it possible that the adaptations along that same muscle could vary slightly?
So there's a lot of limitations to what is a very cool, very valuable technique.
But I think when we talk about a biopsy and what we're getting from that, we do need to acknowledge that we're making a lot of assumptions based on that tiny amount of tissue.
Earlier you said that where people store, fat has a genetic component.
So, as uncomfortable as the experiment might seem to people, is it fair to say?
If you want to know where you have a propensity to store fat, look at your parents.
Maybe.
But there are lifestyle considerations certainly that go along with that.
So I think Genetics is our starting point, but it doesn't dictate our end point.
And so if you have parents who have never really paid attention to their diet, have never really engaged in sport or structured exercise or resistance training, then how they fare through the aging process does not have to be the same experience for you.
I'm just trying to think of how the site of fat storage would be encoded genetically.
I'm guessing like more adipocytes at certain locations.
Of course there's a male-female difference.
There tends to be a male-female difference that presumably depends on androgen and estrogen receptors, but I'm not an expert in that issue.
Specifically,
Some would hypothesize that there's a kind of reproductive advantage to having more fat around the hips.
And so then, across the menopause transition, when you no longer have that reproductive function, then that explains the reason why you would start to gain more fat around the midsection and lose fat around the hips.
Do we have the data to support that?
Not really.
This is more kind of looking back at evolutionary biology and kind of trying to piece things together as to why it might be the case.
That said, not all men have what we would say you know male pattern fat distribution, and not all women have what we would say is female pattern fat distribution.
So yes, you're right that there's a tendency to have one or the other, but it's not necessarily a one-size-fits-all.
Speaking of hormones, let's talk about the most barbed wire hormone of them all, which is cortisol.
I won't belabor this conversation with This because I've said it many times before, but you want high cortisol in the morning.
It's why you wake up in the morning.
You want your cortisol low at night before you go to sleep in the last hours before sleep.
That sets you up for a lot of great things.
And that's true for men and women.
But cortisol and women and women's fitness has become like a real hotbed of misinformation.
Mm-hmm.
It's the first time I've ever used that word on this podcast, misinformation.
It's such a loaded word.
But I think it's appropriate here because you hear all the time if you stress, your cortisol goes up.
People will say, if you cold plunge, your cortisol goes up.
And if your cortisol goes up, you're going to get moon face and you're going to store body fat around your midsection, which is true if somebody has Cushing syndrome, which is pathologically high levels of cortisol.
But Please clarify, educate.
Yeah.
And you hear, oh, never do zone two training because of cortisol.
Don't do high intensity training because of cortisol.
And so then you're stuck with these women who are thinking that you know, any intensity is bad because of cortisol.
As you said, this is real manifestations of Cushing syndrome that are being kind of twisted to say Hey, are you a little stressed?
Have you gained some fat around your midsection?
It must be cortisol.
So it's a really compelling pitch to people, usually to sell them some ineffective cortisol reducing supplement which we don't need and they don't work.
If you actually have chronically elevated cortisol, then you need to be treated with medication, not some natural supplement.
So I think the important point here is that those cortisol increases are normal and necessary.
It's also necessary for blood pressure regulation, blood glucose regulation.
That's important for exercise.
And those acute fluctuations are not contributing to fat storage or inability to lose fat.
Yeah, presumably population of people who try and self-soothe with eating excess calories.
When they're stressed that the correlation just becomes to them obvious.
But it's like cryptic correlation, as we call it right.
Because two things are happening.
They're stressed and they're eating more.
And yes, their cortisol is probably elevated.
So it all hangs together rationally, but the food part is never really discussed.
How being stressed causes some people to eat far less, and how being stressed causes some people to eat far more, in particular, unhealthy foods.
So I feel like the real world puzzle pieces kind of fit together at the level of kind of perfect storm of people with thinking that cortisol is the culprit, forgetting what cortisol does to eating when food is most likely.
I don't like to call food a culprit, but In this instance I think it's appropriate.
Well, I think that is not an exciting message that makes you feel like... Really?
So if you say, oh, you know, what's your diet look like?
We, as humans, we want a different answer.
We want to look for something else to blame.
And so the flavor of this year, or maybe the last couple years, has definitely been cortisol.
Maybe we'll move on to blame a different hormone in in 2026.
Just as supplements go through broad trends, hormones go through broad trends.
Neurotransmitters like a few years back, it was all oxytocin.
Everything was oxytocin.
Then it was serotonin.
Dopamine had its big moments.
And, and then now it really does seem to be like cortisol is the thing.
And I'm only being half facetious.
I mean, I love that people are interested in this stuff and they want to learn.
I think you can't give them so much detail that they, you know, dissolve into a puddle of their own confusion.
And yet the oversimplification can be tough.
And Cushing's syndrome is not very common.
It's typically a manifestation of somebody who's taking a lot of steroids, and then you're ending up with this chronically elevated cortisol as a side effect.
And so it's not the case that everybody on the internet actually has Cushing syndrome and should be concerned and needs to go see an endocrinologist.
It's more the case that people are again borrowing from some of the side effects of Cushing syndrome and then kind of tugging at people's vulnerabilities and desires to change their body composition and saying you know, it's not your behaviors, it's not your lifestyle, it's your cortisol.
As you and I both know, a good, solid resistance training session of about 30 minutes to an hour will triple or quadruple circulating cortisol levels.
I think if people understood that, they might look at cortisol a little bit differently.
How do you think people should feel when they finish a workout?
I know that might seem very subjective, but it's something that we can all get in touch with, because I know that if I train for an hour or 75 minutes, I feel great.
If I push hard past 90 minutes in the gym, I'm pretty depleted for a while.
And oftentimes that leads to less progress and minor, I think more susceptibility to infection and things like that.
Is it reasonable to assume that cortisol is somehow involved?
Is overtraining at the level of an individual workout a real thing?
Most importantly, how should people walk out of the gym feeling, assuming they're sleeping well and the rest of their life is in order?
I think most people are not at risk of overtraining, especially your average female population.
There are issues with female athletes certainly, but I think there's a lot of concern about you know needing recovery or inflammation, that it's probably overblown because you know, true overtraining, we get red flags that would manifest in other ways.
So you would have difficulty sleeping or you would feel sore for days and really under recovered or under the weather.
And And those might be some signs that you're really overdoing it.
But I think it's probably not an issue for most people.
But I think some days it depends on when we're training, what time of day we're training.
And that might dictate your personal decisions for how hard to push and how long to train.
There are some people if they train in the evening, then that disrupts their sleep.
And there are other people who, when they train in the morning and feel like that's a great start to their day, really pushes energy and productivity for the rest of the day.
Are you a morning trainer or an evening trainer?
I prefer mornings.
I'll go in the afternoon.
I won't go in the evening.
I don't like it.
What about you?
I used to train in the afternoon evenings when I was in college.
And then over the years, I've just shifted to training in the morning.
I would like everyone to ask themselves the following question.
If... you train at different times of day, does it impact your energy the rest of the day?
Because what I've found and this is less about my experience, I like to prompt people's questions about themselves is, if I do resistance training before say, 10 am, I have more energy all day long.
If I do it somewhere around noon, 2 p.m., afterwards, I'm just beat.
And I like to think that I'm, dare I say, riding the morning cortisol wave or collapsing whatever cortisol I'm getting from my training into that and I just feel really good.
I don't like to train after 2 pm because I like to drink a lot of caffeine before I train and it messes up my sleep.
I do not like to train uncaffeinated.
So that's the biggie for me.
But in college, when I was more of going to sleep at midnight, 1 am and sleeping until you know 8 or 9, because I could afford to do that, I'd go to the gym at night.
And it's also when it was social.
And I think some of those factors change over time.
Yeah, I think one thing to keep in mind for people is if you are used to training at a certain time of day and then you switch it, particularly if you transition from late afternoon or evening training to morning training, you might see a kind of hit in performance initially, but that should resolve in a couple of weeks.
Cardio, I'll do whenever because I don't need caffeine to do it, but I prefer caffeine to do it.
Prefer caffeine for most things.
What are your thoughts on hormone therapies that are not replacement?
And I'm not talking about blasting anabolic steroids.
I'm talking about, because this is happening now in mass with women, because of the understandable interest in hormone replacement therapy for perimenopause menopause, estrogen therapy, testosterone therapy.
So for a woman who feels like hey, like They're feeling less vigor, their sleep muscle, et cetera,
And they get.
It's very easy nowadays to find a doctor to prescribe them estrogen or testosterone cream or an injection.
And they're like, I feel awesome.
I talked to someone the other day.
I'm taking this, I think it's progesterone.
I have to be, a progesterone.
And she said, I feel awesome.
The progesterone thing fixed my sleep.
I have so much energy.
I'm up in the morning.
She's like, I feel like I did in my 30s.
It's, now we're not talking supplements.
Talking prescription drugs.
But none of them had a measurable deficiency.
They're just giving some what I call hormone augmentation.
It's, you know, and the language gets tricky here.
They're just augmenting their hormone level.
So they're going from whatever they were to higher.
And they are thrilled about it.
I don't know that they're not creating other issues.
But I think we're going to see tons of this in the years to come.
Menopause hormone therapy, as you said, is not intended to replace because you're not supposed to have the same hormone levels after menopause as you did pre-menopause.
So the goal there with these estrogen-based therapies is really to target symptoms, not to treat to a hormone level.
And there's a wealth of data that this can be really effective for symptom management, which has a ton of downstream effects.
So we don't have good data to suggest that it is going to attenuate the loss of muscle mass or increase muscle mass, but it's.
If you're somebody who is suffering with hot flashes and poor sleep and night sweats and then you can get some relief from that, then certainly you're more likely to be adherent to your diet or going to the gym with greater frequency and feeling better.
And so we can't discount the... ability to lean on some of these to improve the way that you feel.
The testosterone conversation gets a little bit trickier, because right now it's really only kind of proven to be effective for low sexual desire, low libido in women.
And so there are a lot of people who are experimenting with it for other reasons.
But we need to remember that the testosterone levels that people are using, or should be using, for this kind of supplement are fairly low because you're trying to treat to low normal.
And then if you start to go beyond that low normal, then we can get a lot of those unwanted side effects that we would get if we were taking testosterone for the bodybuilding purpose.
And so you might see voice deepening or unwanted hair growth.
So that's typically why if you're a woman, you'd only want to use this in really low doses.
And We don't have the evidence to say that that low dose is going to do anything for muscle.
And it's probably not worth the risk to take the high dose when you could just lift weights.
When you could just lift weights.
Thank you for entertaining that somewhat tricky question.
Because I think we're in a whole new self-directed medical care landscape, meaning even if people are working with doctors, they can generally find a doctor to make them feel better, even if it's not dealing with the specific issue.
We need to be careful with the hormone therapy conversation though, because the data to date doesn't support the use of it for preventing cognitive decline or preventing cardiovascular disease.
And there's a lot of messaging out there that is sort of telling women if you don't take hormone therapy, you're doomed.
That's not accurate.
And some women can't take hormone therapy.
So we need to kind of hold two truths, where this is really powerful and can be really effective for symptoms.
Perhaps down the road, we'll learn that it has these other benefits.
Or it could go the other direction.
We don't know.
But prematurely making claims about all of these benefits that it's going to improve your lifespan, increase longevity, prevent disease.
That's not accurate.
And women need to understand that something can be really valuable, but not a panacea.
Do you feel isolated because you're like won't join this?
Hey, things are different for women message.
Well, if it were true, I would say it.
I mean, when I got into this field, of course, that was a question.
That was one of the major questions that I had.
And at the time, there were reasonable hypotheses to explore.
And As scientists, we test those and then we look at the data and we form our opinions based on the data.
As a woman, if I honestly thought there were things we should do differently to optimize our results, of course I would be doing them myself and telling other women to do them too.
But the narrative that women need a sex-specific program or nutrient timing, guidance or a particular intensity of exercise or rep range or all of it.
It makes women feel like they're being spoken to and being considered.
And then they're part of this community instead of oh you know, just do what your boyfriend does or what your husband does.
So the narrative is very much, we know this works for men, but women are not men.
And so obviously women need something different.
The data says men and women respond to exercise very similarly.
I think the fitness space is so saturated that a lot of people think they need to kind of reinvent the wheel, or that message that you and I have discussed, which is, you know consistent effective, progressive training.
That's it's not exciting enough.
That doesn't give you the edge.
And so you need something else.
And that something else is often needed misinformation or something that just over complicates everything and makes but when it's more complicated, people are convinced that you know something they don't.
And that's why misinformation spreads.
I don't think it could be made any clearer.
And I, I appreciate your directness about it.
Um, the scientist in you, the uh, the person who looks at data, comes absolutely clear in that statement.
And I'll say this when I explored menstrual cycle phases yes, I was interested in would there be differences in these different hormone profiles?
But the other reason, the more exciting take home from the fact that there was no difference is one of the biggest reasons why we don't have as much data in female participants is because of the challenge associated with standardizing the testing and the training and the recruitment for people with equal length phases and standardizing ovulation timing and excluding people who are on contraceptives.
It adds in a whole study on top of a study.
And so if we don't have to do that anymore, Think about all the research we can do in women or in mixed sex samples, or in combined people on and off contraceptives, especially for sports science labs with fewer resources.
They can be part of that mission to do more research in women, if we don't have to worry about what was a huge barrier historically.
There are more funds now being directed towards studies that include women or are solely directed at women's health and fitness.
Having not come through science, through that portal, I'm curious about how experiments are done in terms of resistance training and muscle growth and strength increases.
I'm familiar with some of Brad's work and your work.
Do you think it replicates the gym well enough?
I'm not being critical.
I just, you know, I've seen studies where it's like oh, you know, leg extension, you know, and then you're looking at one rep max on the curl.
I'm not saying you guys did those studies, but a lot of times I think, untrained subjects who then, you know, train for eight weeks doing something and it's hard for me to know if it really carries over.
It could.
I mean, I ran a lab where we used VR to study stress.
You'd say, well, is that real?
It's better than just showing people pictures on a screen, but it's not like real life stress.
You know, we had a falling thing and people think they're falling.
We actually had people fall, and physically in lab thinking because the visual world's going up in VR, but it's not like falling off a building.
So are the studies of resistance training that one can do in a lab, gym slash lab, do you like them?
Are you satisfied with what's there in a lot of cases?
Well, I've been involved in those more real-world gym-like program studies.
And with that increase in ecological validity you – sacrifice some of the measurements that you can do.
You take away some of that really tight control or within subject designs, where you're having one leg perform one protocol and another leg perform another.
So I think there's a time and a place for both.
But if we want to look at molecular signaling, if we want to do these tighter controls where we just want to know that there was a sufficient exercise stimulus and it's not necessarily about the fact that it was a leg extension versus a real world leg training program, then those are better, because that kind of a study is not designed to say and therefore everyone should do unilateral leg extensions.
It's designed to say under these conditions, you know, with this hormone profile or with this infusion of nutrition, then what happens to protein synthesis.
And that can be powerful and controlled in a way that a lot of the more translational exercise science studies are not.
So I think both are important, but it really depends on the research question as to which is the most appropriate design.
How long have you been training?
14 years, something like that.
So with that caveat, people are going to want to know, what is your general routine now?
And how much does it look like or differ from what you described earlier?
It's definitely changed over the years.
I went through phases of really trying to maximize strength and I got injured a lot.
And then, when I've been in phases of doing data collection, I've had to really scale back from my training because your schedule is not your own.
And now I'm at a point where I like more frequency.
So I tend to go more often, but not necessarily for really long sessions.
So I go for...
A half hour, sometimes 45 minutes.
But I like to go more frequently because then I feel like I'm better at kind of keeping up with the habit.
And so right now I do a split of an upper body push, an upper body pull, and a lower body.
And I just kind of rotate through that.
So do you take a day off after six days of that?
So push, pull legs, push, pull legs, take a day off?
Or sometimes I'll do push, pull legs and take a day off, and then push, pull legs and take another day off.
I'm not as kind of strict with it because it does depend on my weekly schedule.
But that rotation kind of allows me to always be able to go in and pick up where I left off.
And you're doing the sets presumably the way you described before getting close to failure or going to failure.
Yeah, I will typically get close to failure.
Occasionally I will go to failure.
It kind of depends on the exercise.
You know, I think if you're doing something particularly machine based, then going to failure is pretty risk free.
Either the weight moves or it doesn't.
And cardio in addition to that, dedicated cardio?
I will do some cardio, but not regularly because I tend to be physically active, hiking with my dogs, and I prefer to be outside, if I can, getting my physical activity than you know on a Stairmaster, on an inclined treadmill.
But I'll do it if the weather is bad.
I think the routine you just described sounds really doable.
The routine you described earlier sounds really doable.
Do you think mobility work is important for women or men?
Dedicated mobility work.
Not really, because I think if you are doing full body training through a full range of motion, then as you are warming up with those lighter sets and making sure that you are moving through your full range of motion, you're already getting that built in mobility work.
So if it makes you feel good, then great.
But I think a dynamic general warm-up versus a specific, like let's do some of the target exercise with lighter loads and move through that they can be equally effective.
Yeah.
I want to make sure I double click on something you said earlier.
You said the long-term outcomes of these hormone replacement therapy.
Studies on women do not show improvements in cognition, et cetera.
My understanding of that large data set was that women who started hormone replacement therapy as they entered menopause fared better than those that didn't.
But those that started it after menopause it didn't turn out well.
Maybe I'm not up on the latest of these.
Well, it depends which outcome you're interested in.
But you know, one of the biggest problems issues historically was in the early 2000s.
Women's Health Initiative was doing a set of studies looking at hormone therapy.
It was older versions of hormone therapy.
But ultimately the goal was to evaluate the utility of that estrogen-based hormone therapy for reduced risk of cardiovascular disease.
And They stopped one of the trials early because they saw that it wasn't reducing risk and that perhaps it was going in the other direction.
And so they couldn't ethically continue the trial.
But the media. had a field day with this and kind of twisted things.
And then the message to the public was that hormone therapy causes heart disease.
Hormone therapy causes cancer.
It took a lot of years to really unpack that, to say, OK, what does the data actually say?
What was that study designed to assess?
Because it's one of the largest data sets to date on all sorts of outcome measures.
But what it doesn't say is, you know, a blanket statement hormone therapy is terrible for this person, or for that reason, or here is when everyone needs to start it.
Because to your point, there were people who were a variety of ages and menopause status.
So there's work that has come out since looking more specifically at outcomes like muscle mass, bone density, cognitive health.
And then there's also trials that are more observational in nature or cross-sectional and saying you know, can we look at this to identify some patterns that we could then go investigate in a clinical trial?
And there is a tendency to kind of jump the gun and say well, based on this potential pattern, then it looks like there might be this health benefit.
And then the message is gets misconstrued into if you take it, you know you'll never get Alzheimer's or you'll never get dementia.
And that's not an appropriate representation of the data.
I'm just curious.
So deliberate cold exposure, yay, nay, meh, depends.
Depends.
I think the most compelling benefits are probably the kind of mental clarity and psychological well-being as opposed to the physiology.
Zone two?
It's fine.
It's certainly necessary with long-term endurance training goals.
But if you prefer higher intensity or other forms of moderate physical activity, then do that instead.
Weight vests.
Skip.
Really?
I'm surprised.
Please tell me more.
Because weighted vests are being marketed to women as an alternative for resistance training.
Walking with a weighted vest.
And so walking with a weighted vest is not going to improve muscle or bone.
It's not the appropriate stimulus.
So if you want to use the vest to maybe do some squats or lunges or jumping exercises, then that might be an appropriate use case for it.
But just going on walks with a weighted vest is not a substitute for resistance training.
Arm hang test as an indirect measure of longevity.
I would skip that, I think.
We have a lot of data in grip strength, because grip strength is really easy to measure in clinical settings, in people who have never exercised, including people who are on bed rest.
So we know there's a relationship between grip strength and quote unquote longevity, because grip strength is a proxy for overall strength.
So instead of worrying about testing or training grip strength, we should be focusing on doing our full body resistance training jumping up onto or off of things specifically to get a longevity or safety effect.
I'd rather incorporate some sort of balance training into your resistance training session.
So we could do that through unilateral exercises or through something like a walking lunge.
And then we're making sure that we're kind of working in full ranges of motion in different planes of motion.
Because that way, if we have good balance and we have our strength and muscle mass and we're able to coordinate that movement, then
If we start to fall, we'll also be able to catch ourselves.
Dedicated abdominal work.
And if it's a yes, what's your favorite recommendation?
Any kind of abdominal exercise is not going to burn off your belly fat.
So if you want to hypertrophy your rectus abdominis, then you need to treat it like any other muscle group and load it progressively.
But I think most women who are doing hundreds of crunches are hoping that it's going to make them leaner, not that it's going to grow their abs.
Favorite exercise that you don't see people doing that they might want to try with the appropriate instruction.
Just like a fun one that you like.
I like a single leg RDL, Romanian deadlift.
And you can hold on to something.
And so you're getting kind of a good glute and hamstring exercise on a single side, and you can also incorporate a kind of balance component into that if you don't want to hold on to something for stability.
I like to put one of those barbell pads on a low bar in a squat rack.
So then you can put the top of your foot on the pad, and then it's more comfortable than putting your foot on the bench.
And do you hold the dumbbell on the side that's doing the work or on the side with the leg back when you do those?
You can do it either way.
I prefer to hold it on the same side.
Last question.
Is there anything that's been scientifically shown to accelerate recovery from resistance training?
Not just move out soreness although if it does that great but to accelerate recovery, meaning to get you from the stimulus to the adaptation more quickly.
A lot to attenuate soreness, but to accelerate the adaptation.
If you want to accelerate recovery, then you're potentially compromising adaptation.
So ice baths are a perfect example of that.
You know, you're getting more recovery, but you're possibly blunting the hypertrophic stimulus.
So Same with NSAIDs.
Same with NSAIDs, yeah.
They will block hypertrophy because they reduce inflammation.
Right, and we want that inflammation, at least, you know, short term.
Well, Lauren, Dr. Colenso-Simple, this was amazing.
First of all, thank you so much for coming here and talking with us, with the audience today.
Thank you for being a rational, scientific voice online.
I will say with a high degree of confidence that what you described before, that it's very hard to get attention for the basics and for what's known in a landscape where You know, other things seem to lend favor.
I think there's been a lot of that now.
And I'm confident that you're going to be the signal in a lot of noise so that things invert.
And it's a wonderful thing that you're doing what you're doing.
I really appreciate the clarity of your answers.
And I also have to say, I really appreciate your Instagram, et cetera.
Are there other things that you're doing now that people can find you?
Yeah, I write a monthly research review with three other PhDs Eric Trexler, Eric Helms and Michael Zordos.
And we release that, like I said, monthly.
And it's all sorts of topics in health, fitness, wellness.
And we kind of break down the latest science and information. give you actionable take home.
So if you're someone who likes the deep dive into the science and also wants to know, you know, in the context of the literature as a whole, what should I do?
Then check out Mass Research Review.
Great.
All right.
We'll put a link to that also.
Well, thank you so much.
Definitely come back when there are more data to discuss.
I'm sure it won't be long and it'll be interesting to see how the landscape changes.
But like I said before, Thanks for being the signal and the noise.
Appreciate you.
Thank you.
Thank you for joining me for today's discussion with Dr. Lauren Colenso Semple.
To learn more about her work, please see the links in the show note captions.
If you're learning from and or enjoying this podcast, please subscribe to our YouTube channel.
That's a terrific zero cost way to support us.
In addition, please follow the podcast by clicking the follow button on both Spotify and Apple.
And on both Spotify and Apple, you can leave us up to a five-star review.
And you can now leave us comments at both Spotify and Apple.
Please also check out the sponsors mentioned at the beginning and throughout today's episode.
That's the best way to support this podcast.
If you have questions for me or comments about the podcast, or guests or topics that you'd like me to consider for the Huberman Lab podcast, please put those in the comments section on YouTube.
I do read all the comments.
For those of you that haven't heard, I have a new book coming out.
It's my very first book.
It's entitled Protocols, An Operating Manual for the Human Body.
This is a book that I've been working on for more than five years and that's based on more than 30 years of research and experience.
And it covers protocols for everything from sleep to exercise to stress control, protocols related to focus and motivation.
And of course, I provide the scientific substantiation for the protocols that are included.
The book is now available by presale at protocolsbook.com.
There you can find links to various vendors.
You can pick the one that you like best.
Again, the book is called Protocols, an operating manual for the human body.
And if you're not already following me on social media, I am Huberman Lab on all social media platforms.
So that's Instagram, X, Threads, Facebook, and LinkedIn.
And on all those platforms I discuss science and science-related tools, some of which overlaps with the content of the Huberman Lab podcast, but much of which is distinct from the information on the Huberman Lab podcast.
Again, it's Huberman Lab on all social media platforms.
And if you haven't already subscribed to our neural network newsletter, the neural network newsletter is a zero cost monthly newsletter that includes podcast summaries as well as what we call protocols in the form of one to three page PDFs that cover everything from how to optimize your sleep, how to optimize dopamine, deliberate cold exposure.
We have a foundational fitness protocol that covers cardiovascular training and resistance training.
All of that is available completely zero cost.
You simply go to hubermanlabcom, go to the menu tab in the top right corner, scroll down to newsletter and enter your email.
And I should emphasize that we do not share your email with anybody.
Thank you once again for joining me for today's discussion with Dr. Lauren Colenso Semple.
And last but certainly not least, thank you for your interest in science.
