Why exercise science still treats the male body as the default human norm

A major review finds exercise physiology still sidelines women in research, shaping how fitness, training and recovery advice is built, raising questions about how universal health research really is

Much of today’s exercise science claims to be universal, to work for all bodies. However, a new review suggests that this assumption may be wrong. 

The study, Exercise physiology trails the field in sex and gender equity: a call for faster progress, higher standards, and stronger science, published in Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism, finds that exercise research continues to rely heavily on male participants and male-led studies. 

After analysing more than 600 recent papers, researchers report major gaps in who is studied, who leads the science, and how sex and gender are handled, which could affect how accurately exercise advice works for women. 

The review shows that male bodies continue to define what is considered “normal” in exercise physiology. Nearly half of all studies examined included only men, while fewer than one in ten focused exclusively on women. When research findings drawn mainly from male participants are generalised to everyone, female physiology is often treated as a variation rather than a standard, or excluded altogether. 

According to the study, across 629 studies published between 2018 and 2020, 46 per cent included only male participants. Just 8 per cent studied women alone, while the rest were mixed, but even these typically included fewer women than men. Overall, women made up only about 41 per cent of all participants, well below what would be expected in research meant to apply to the general population.  ALSO READ | Zone Zero fitness: Why ultra-low-intensity exercise is trending globally

Does male-dominated research affect exercise advice for women

The researchers say when female bodies are underrepresented, sex-based differences in fatigue, recovery, injury risk, and responses to training may be missed. The authors warn this can distort guidance on disease prevention, rehabilitation and athletic performance, leaving women with advice that may not fully fit their biology.

Why are women still excluded from exercise science studies

The review shows that a frequent justification is the perceived complexity of female biology, particularly hormonal fluctuations across the menstrual cycle. Researchers often cite logistical challenges or concerns about “confounding” results. However, the authors argue these challenges do not justify systematically excluding half the population from research that claims to describe human physiology. 

The authors call for action from individual scientists to funding bodies, universities and journals for better enforcement of reporting guidelines, stronger support for inclusive study designs, and serious investment in recruiting and retaining women researchers for more reliable exercise science.