Lauren Colenso-Semple (00:00):

If you are a lifestyle client, you want to live your life, right? And so if you can get that lean, but that means you're no longer socializing, you're no longer having a glass of wine, you're tracking everything you eat and you refuse to go out to eat. All of these things are meaningful when we think about, okay, what's the trade off between being really, really lean and happy?

Michelle MacDonald (00:38):

What if the advice you've been given about training with your cycle, losing fat during menopause or toning your body was never based on science and never meant for women? Welcome to Stronger By Design. I'm your host, Michelle McDonald, and today's guest is Dr. Lauren Colenso Semple. You're going to hear a lot more from this woman. She is one of the world's leading researchers in female exercise physiology, and in this episode we're going to pull back the curtain on the pseudoscience dominating women's fitness right now from the midst of cycle sinking, that's all over the internet to the confusion around fat loss After 40, together we unpack the real science behind muscle growth, metabolic health, and the role of hormones in training, especially during menopause. We talk about the dangers of oversimplified narratives, the importance of sustainable dieting and why women deserve more than one size fits all advice. If you're a woman tired of GI or you're a coach who just wants to get it right, this is a conversation you can't afford to miss. Alright, so let's just dive in. Let's talk about what first pulled you in to this particular niche, right? Female exercise physiology, and what's kept you there?

Lauren Colenso-Semple (01:59):

Well, I'm a former fitness professional, so initially I was trying to get the best results for myself and also for my clients at the time. And the idea that we could do that in an evidence-based way really appealed to me. And so that was sort of the impetus for me to actually get involved in research and ultimately go back to graduate school.

Michelle MacDonald (02:23):

Give me a time reference. When were you competing as an athlete training other people?

Lauren Colenso-Semple (02:30):

I was training other people in 2011 and then I went back to grad school in 2017 and I did a master's degree and then subsequently a PhD.

Michelle MacDonald (02:46):

So you did a lot of time working with people in the trenches as it were, which is unique I think, in the space of academia. And one of the things that we hear a lot about is science or evidence-based practitioners are stuck in theory versus what we're seeing in the trenches, but there's people like you, of course, Eric Helms, a colleague of yours that are very much at that intersection, and I think that's really important to underline.

Lauren Colenso-Semple (03:17):

I agree. I think it's one thing to be really, really interested by the science, by the mechanisms that are underpinning what we are seeing in a practical setting, but it's also important to be able to pull back and say, okay, what's relevant for the general public, for the fitness professional? What can we take if anything? And sometimes it's nothing because not every study is designed to tell you how to train or how to train others, but it's important to be able to separate what is scientifically interesting versus actionable and practically relevant.

Michelle MacDonald (03:57):

Yeah, I think a lot of times that is what's getting missed or dropped in the conversations, especially when we're chasing these viral likes and all of that, and we're seeing a lot of that right now. I know you're becoming known for calling out really oversimplified training and nutrition narratives for women. What has been the most surprising reaction from the fitness community to your findings?

Lauren Colenso-Semple (04:22):

I think the most surprising reaction is that it's not a relief. It's not good news because I think from my perspective, the fact that these messages are being presented as extremely complex and very polarizing and sort of saying never do this or you must do this, and there's a real overemphasis on these small nuances that actually really affect people's behavior. They are changing the way people approach fitness, and that is meaningful because when you start to get so confused sometimes it just puts you off the whole thing. And then people are not engaging in these behaviors that are going to be not only health promoting, but also beneficial for their physique, beneficial for their mental health. So there's a huge benefit from my perspective to keeping it simple and focusing on the basics that actually work. And for some reason people are not responsive to that in a positive way. They think, oh, you must be hiding something or you don't understand because you're just saying what the trainers are saying. And so these scientists or doctors who are presenting very, very complicated narrative must know more than you do.

Michelle MacDonald (05:48):

Yeah, I know we were talking about that offline and I saw in your story today that you were talking again, there's an influencer out there and she looks fabulous of course, which is a big sell pushing cycle, sinking training, and that this is what all great trainers should be doing and what women should be doing and all of that. And you are breaking down some of the science. Let's talk about that because it's important and I think it's crucial for the audience, whether they're still in the reproductive years or they have a sister or a daughter or a granddaughter that's in their reproductive years because this is going to continue to be big in the training space. It's not going anywhere despite there not being substantial evidence to prove it, in fact, the opposite. So let's go into that. Let's talk about cycle sinking versus performance-based programming.

Lauren Colenso-Semple (06:44):

There is a huge emphasis on making everything about hormones right now. So whether that is, as you said, cycle sinking during the reproductive years or the menopause transition and how the hormone fluctuations during that time is going to affect how you should exercise or how you should diet, and when we look at the messaging around cycle sinking, it's typically telling women to lift weights for a week or maybe two weeks and really back off the intensity or don't lift weights at all, do some light yoga, do some stretching, and substantially reduce your training volume. So what's important here is if you have a training goal, whether it's to get stronger or gain muscle, get faster, improve your running economy, whatever the goal is, even improve your yoga performance, you need to do it consistently. If you don't do it consistently, you will not progress at the same rate.

(07:46):

When it comes to muscular adaptation specifically, we need that stimulus over and over. It needs to be challenging and it needs to be progressive in nature by telling women that they should completely switch up what they are doing for half the month. We are just missing that basic principle that applies really to all solid training programs. The issue with focusing on these hormone fluctuations, in addition to the fact that this doesn't make sense practically, it doesn't make sense for your performance goals, it's also just not acknowledging the tremendous variability between women. Women don't all have 28 day menstrual cycles. Some have 21 days, some have 37 days, and all in between. And so you also don't have equal length cycle phases. And all of these programs that are out there are just giving you these sort of four quadrants and saying every menstrual cycle is four weeks and this is your hormone profile week 1, 2, 3, 4. It's not the case. And I say this as somebody who has tracked cycles, assessed ovulation and measured blood hormones in many, many women across many, many cycles.

Michelle MacDonald (09:08):

Yeah, you've done a considerable amount of research. I think you were part of that more recent meta-analysis, pulling the best research that was done on hormonal influences to hypertrophy or strength or performance gains. And the conclusion was there's just not evidence supporting that women should be on mass doing cycle training.

Lauren Colenso-Semple (09:36):

Absolutely. And I always like to caveat this with if you have menstrual symptoms, which the majority of people do, typically it's for one to two days. Maybe it's right before you start your period, maybe it's day one or two of your cycle, it's absolutely fine to adjust a session as needed, back off the intensity, skip the gym altogether, but we should be reactive to those symptoms and when they're present, we don't need to overhaul the whole program or plan for massive adjustments that would affect more than, like I said, one or two training sessions. Yeah,

Michelle MacDonald (10:16):

This is huge, and this is another discussion that we talked about before about autoregulation. In fact, what you are saying is more nuanced and more boutique as it were. Then this idea of making a sweeping generalization for all women and as you said on a false assumption that all women have a 28 day cycle, which we know is absolutely not true, and even one woman can change from month to month. So it's so nonsensical on so many levels. But in terms of autoregulation, now here's something that we can dig into, but we also might want to caveat that and say if you are trying to achieve a big goal, an athletic goal, you want to be cautious with that. So we want to understand that that's an option. Auto autoregulation of course is important, but we don't want to lose that athletics reflex of I need to get this volume in or I need to get this lifting done.

(11:16):

And so if you're an athlete, if I'm in a position where I'm feeling that I can't give it my all in a particular training program, my reflex is to reflects, well, what did I do or what did I not do to put myself in this situation? That's one, right? And could I do things differently next time with the narrative being I can perform and I can't perform at a high level in a high stakes game? And this is important because we're definitely seeing that shift across the board, not just with athletics, but in a lot of other aspects of life where we're being told or it's being suggested, women are incapable of doing hard things.

Lauren Colenso-Semple (11:58):

And this is really the problem because a lot of these programs and this messaging is presented as empowering for women or feminist. And really to your point, I view it as the opposite because if you are telling women you should expect worse performance or you should plan to feel so bad that it's not even worth exercising or that there might be something detrimental about engaging in exercise for a week or two weeks at a time, there's no truth to this. And the psychological implications of saying plan on feeling worse, plan on worse performance in the gym, these are huge because I've already planted that seed in your mind and that can affect how you feel and how you perform. So I think we also need to acknowledge there are plenty of reasons why on a day-to-day we don't feel our best. Maybe I didn't sleep very well last night.

(12:59):

Maybe I was so busy that I couldn't get the usual number of meals in that I usually do before I get to the gym. Maybe I'm just really stressed right now with work and I just feel like my mind's all over the place and I'm not focused. There are a lot of reasons why you don't have the best session every single day, and menstrual symptoms are one of those reasons perhaps. And so we need to approach this in a way that allows us to get whatever done we can. And so it's not that I'm saying don't listen to your body, but don't plan on feeling bad. If you do feel bad, then react and decide what can I do? Because specifically when it comes to menstrual symptoms, we often will find once we start moving, we actually feel better. And so if you have terrible cramps and you're on the couch with the heating pad and you feel like I couldn't possibly get up and do anything, sometimes if you do, you realize, oh, now that I'm moving, even if, oh, I went for a walk or I cut the grass or I went to the gym, I actually feel better now that I'm moving.

Michelle MacDonald (14:12):

Yeah, that was me. I have a high pain tolerance I had because I'm postmenopausal now, but when I was in my reproductive years, I would always say I have a really high pain tolerance except for anything to do with menstruation. I was one of those unicorns that couldn't wait to get hit menopause because I couldn't wait for it to all be over. Seriously. And I found that I would often PR when I on day one, like the last day of my cycle or day one of my next cycle, and I'm the kind of, I often wonder to myself if there is there two kinds of women, the one kind that gets more anxious and depressed and then the other kind who gets kind of bitchy and angry, and if the one that gets kind of bitchy and angry, they're the ones that are reacting differently to those fluctuations that estrogen and progesterone. I don't know, it's a whole other topic, but I was one of the people that would often pr, so that whole narrative didn't make sense to me. And then of course when I was working with my clients, I've had over a thousand clients and I have had two where there was a noticeable change in their late luteal phase and we would just shift, but everyone else, there really was nothing observable. I would see strength gains, no changes in body composition, not measurably. So

Lauren Colenso-Semple (15:44):

Yeah, I think when we actually see people's responses, oh, I perform better at this time or I feel better at this time, it's all over the place. And so there's clearly not a single solution for everybody and we just need to either, if we're coaching ourselves or coaching others, we need to coach the individual and not make any assumptions because this is a woman,

Michelle MacDonald (16:11):

I say that all the time. I coach the individual. It's so crucial that we don't get ensnared in reducing women. And I love that you said this. It's what we're hearing now is almost profoundly anti-feminist, right? We're really being reduced to our hormones and it's this interesting flip where we have a lot of women in the comment section that we're seeing taking on the mannerisms or the intonations of what used to be the toxic guy, right? Reducing other women to their hormones. That's it. It's all about your hormones.

Lauren Colenso-Semple (16:49):

I think it's a really interesting transition that we've gone through because it used to be we never talked about the menstrual cycle, we never talked about menopause, and it was sort of this hush hush topic, the fact that we are talking about it that men to an extent are allowed to be involved in the conversation. This is positive and coach, client, open dialogue, all good. The issue is we've gone from a time where when it was sort of hush hush, if a woman was pissed off about something and a man said, oh, you must be on your period, you must be PMSing. We as women found that really offensive and really problematic because we are allowed to have emotions and feedback and feelings that have nothing to do with our period. So then we've gone on this journey of, hey, we are women. We can do anything that men can do and don't treat us as lesser because we have a menstrual cycle or because we can get pregnant. All of these things we've fought for an equal playing field and for some reason now it's really the women who are coming in and making everything about hormones and presenting a lot of fear-based messaging around hormones. And women are really believing a lot of this and changing their behaviors based on this messaging. And it's all just a marketing ploy to confuse you because hormones are confusing and because you really don't necessarily know what's going on on a given day or in a given week, but that's fine. The point is you don't need to.

Michelle MacDonald (18:40):

Yeah. This is great. This brings me into the next topic that I want to dive into. If you, Lauren, and that's the noise right now about women in menopause and how they must eat differently. We hear this all the time now it's nonstop in order to lose fat, but it's hard to lose fat. I think I heard recently that woman don't even respond to being in a calorie deficit. I've seen gals on social media saying that they shouldn't be doing cardio, that they need to be eating more, they need to be having refeed meals. And again, we're losing the nuance. We're losing a lot of context too when people are making these kinds of claims. So I'd like to talk about that low carb hormone cycling, fasting windows, all of that stuff. I know your research into sex specific responses to training and metabolism tells a much more nuanced story than what we're often hearing. So I'd love to dive into that. What do women actually need to do in menopause to lose body fat? Is it significantly different than what men have to do? Can we talk with that a little bit?

Lauren Colenso-Semple (19:46):

Two things. First, people often say We have no research in women, and that's a segue into, and therefore I'm going to essentially make something up and then try to sell you something. The truth is, we actually have a lot of research in women at this point. Is it as much as we have in men? Depending on the topic, maybe not. But the interesting thing is over the past decade, the more and more we start replicating the studies in women that were originally conducted in male participants. We realize that when it comes to training adaptations or the way we can lose fat on a particular diet or not, there really aren't that many substantial sex differences when it comes to those practical, relevant, actionable items. And unfortunately, we don't have as much data on the menopause transition as we would like. It's a very, very difficult population to study because the menopause transition experience is very different from one woman to the next.

(20:54):

The length can differ from one woman to the next. The hormone fluctuations can differ. The presence or absence of symptoms and the severity of those symptoms can differ. So this is very tough for research because in science we try to standardize everything we can. We try to reduce the variables, and this is a group that has a ton of variables, a lot of difficulty predicting, and we will get more research. We do have data. What we know is this, or I'll start with what we don't know. We don't fully understand why some women experience changes in body composition, maybe a shift in where we tend to distribute body fat. There are some proposed mechanisms that are hormone related, but we have to be really careful not to jump the gun because when we have a proposed mechanism that we've seen in cell culture or we've seen in animal models, often that doesn't translate to humans. And so we need to be careful about the messaging there. That said, and the good news is we know whether it's for reducing subcutaneous fat, reducing visceral fat, a calorie deficit works and it works in men and it works in women, and it works pre menopause and it works post menopause. And the fact that people are promoting anything to the contrary is not evidence-based.

Michelle MacDonald (22:32):

Yeah, I want to underline that again because my husband and I've been coaching for between the two, it was like three decades at this point in time, and every time I talk to somebody else who's in this business and has been coaching for a very, very long time, it's so perplexing. This bashing on the things that create a deficit, which is caloric reduction. And there's nuances in context, like I said before, but caloric reduction your meat, which we generally track via steps and cardio, and we see all three of those things that create that deficit being thrown out of the bus. And I wish it was the case that we could just increase people's food, remove their cardio and train three times a week, and that would be enough for them to develop sculpted bodies. Wouldn't it be great, I think Mr. Olympia would be filled with competitors, but it's not the case.

Lauren Colenso-Semple (23:32):

Yeah, I think people also tend to underestimate the time it takes to lose body fat. It doesn't happen overnight. It doesn't necessarily happen in a month or even two months. And that's why consistency is key because women tend to go on this one diet and then throw up their hands and say, that didn't work for me. I need a different diet. And so you have people trying some anti-inflammatory diet and then the ketogenic diet, and then we're going to try fasting and all of this sort of diet hopping, and ultimately they might land on something that actually works, but the reason it worked is because it put you in a calorie deficit and their takeaway is, oh, that particular diet,

Michelle MacDonald (24:16):

Like fast a magic bullet, paleo or whatever, versus well, you removed a bunch of food, right, A whole food group or you removed a bunch of meals and that led to the deficit.

Lauren Colenso-Semple (24:28):

Exactly. And it's really important that we're also understanding what is a sustainable diet for us, because even if you are able to lose a bunch of body weight in six months, if you're on a very extreme diet, it's really unlikely that you are going to be able to stick to that in the long term. And it's one thing if you are a fizzy competitor or another athlete who is losing body fat for a short term and understanding that you're not going to stay there, that's a very specific case, but generally speaking, we want to be able to lose weight and maintain that weight loss and that can be really challenging if you are implementing these practices that are just not sustainable.

Michelle MacDonald (25:16):

Yeah, I taught that to my coaches at the Wonder Woman where we bring people into that deficit achieving physique goals with the caveat being we want to achieve a goal that is actually maintainable versus, and I would always say exactly what you said versus a contest prep. You'll see me getting super, super lean and that is not maintainable and not healthy for the long term. So what we do with what we call lifestyle clients is we bring them to a place that is achievable, would be achievable to maintain, and how we decide, again, this is being in the trenches, what are the things that we can look at if we're looking at data that would intimate, this is probably a good place for her to live. We're looking at photos, but again, there's a massive amount of individuality between women. Some women are going to be able to eat tons of food and not be in a big deficit and get very, very lean.

(26:19):

And other women, their maintenance will be at a higher body fat level and we'll really look at data and across the board, usually weight loss will have sort of this sharp decline and then everyone will hit a spot where all of a sudden it just sharply across metrics we do just waist up and thigh. You could do more, but we just do waist up and thigh and it'll just really start to, the ROI on the deficit will start to flat lie and after they've been dieting for a long time and then it's like, you know what? The bang for buck's not here. We need to start tapering off here and really secure this as your new set point. I don't know how you worked, but that's what I've talked to my coaches and working around that nuance with individuals so they're not feeling like they're missing out or there's something wrong with them, like respect your individual body. You've done an amazing job of losing that fat. Let's really double down now on building strength, mobility, agility.

Lauren Colenso-Semple (27:18):

Yeah, I think two really important points there. One is often we're going to focus on fat in a specific area and sometimes that fat is the last fat to go, and so you can really lose a lot of body fat and maybe there's still going to be some on your midsection or hips and thighs. It really depends how you personally distribute body fat and hold onto it. But if we're laser focused on that, then what we have to understand is maybe we're only going to be able to reduce that at a really, really, really severe restricted deficit that again, is probably not sustainable. And remember, we also, if you are a lifestyle client, you want to live your life. And so if you can get that lean, but that means you're no longer socializing, you're no longer having a glass of wine, you're tracking everything you eat and you refuse to go out to eat.

(28:22):

All of these things are meaningful when we think about, okay, what's the trade off between quality of life being really, really lean and happy? And I think the other thing that is important to keep in mind is what is your body type versus another body type? And so when we think about your muscularity, what are your insertions going to look like? How tall are you? How do you distribute body fat? How wide are your hips? And there are many, many things that are going to make my physique never look like yours, and so it would be really silly for me to say, I want to look like Michelle and I'm going to do everything Michelle's doing expecting my physique to look like hers. It's not going to happen.

Michelle MacDonald (29:12):

Yeah, I feel like it's much more prevalent around the body versus something like your speed or your basketball layup skills or something like that. We know that genetics is a huge proponent of or component rather of sports bodybuilding, which when we look at certainly what we teach at the Wonder Woman, our methodologies come from that bodybuilding framework. I call it my fitness model blueprint is we are optimizing everyone's unique genetic potential, but the genetics in your structure and as you said, the shape of your muscles, the ratio of type two to type one your insertions, how long the tendons are right versus the muscle bellies, like all of this, your fascia, all of this comes into play, but for some reason it's harder for people to really accept that and by accepting, I don't mean low balling your success, but really accepting it and then really going for it based on what's achievable and how that fits into the rest of your life.

(30:24):

And that's super important. I want to talk about something else while we're on the subject because this is where that nuance comes in. You've talked about it before and it's the first time actually, and I thank you Lauren for bringing it to my attention. I've heard of the female athlete tribe before, but I hadn't heard of reds before. So relative energy deficiency in sport, and this is something I've encountered in lifestyle clients, you check on their macros, they're not doing their higher carved days, they're not doing their social meals, they're doing cardio still or doing a ridiculous amount of steps. They're not getting out of that extreme deficit, right? Can you talk a little bit about that and explain what that is to people that are listening because it's so important that we understand that, especially for the gals that are older. I always say to my clients, I really prioritize maintaining my metabolic rate and my set point, those two things together, and it's very easy in my busy life to skip eating meals, and I know every time I do that, I am digging myself into a hole. I really like hyperbolize it from myself. I don't want to be that 54-year-old that is not eating and then their body is getting really adapted to 1,250 calories. I don't want to be that person. So talk a little bit about reds and why we have to be aware of this.

Lauren Colenso-Semple (31:52):

So this really refers to low energy availability and in the science this is calculated with your energy in versus your exercise energy expenditure relative to your fat-free mass. So we typically will run into problems with physique competitors or ice skaters or cyclists, dancers, people who are really trying to maintain a low body weight either for aesthetic or performance reasons or perhaps both. And if you are in this state, then there are many, many physiological consequences and menstrual cycle dysfunction is one, but there are many others. Increased risk of fracture, reduced protein synthesis, reduced immune function. There's a whole host, it's not good. We don't want to stay there for long. So essentially if you are somebody who has to go there for an athletic reason, then we want to minimize the amount of time that we're in that state. I think for the general population, we don't really need to worry about this because we might be trying to diet excessively, but that's usually not coupled with excessive energy expenditure from exercise.

(33:24):

So this is again, typically something that we are going to see in highly, highly, highly active people. That said, I think you made it a really interesting point about how, especially in the menopause transition, there is such a focus on fat loss that we often forget about the fact that muscle is extremely important for our long-term metabolic health, for our physique, for long-term physical function. And if we are constantly trying to be in a calorie deficit, if we're really focusing on how little can I possibly eat that, it doesn't set you up to grow muscle because muscle growth and fat loss are kind of divergent goals, and so we're only focusing on the fat loss lever, we're never focusing on the muscle growth lever, then not only will we not get those changes in body composition that we really want for those aesthetic reasons, we're also setting ourselves up for some dangerous consequences long term because maybe you are really lean now at 45, but what do you look like at 75 if you have never focused on actually putting on some muscle?

Michelle MacDonald (34:42):

Yeah, it's funny, Lauren. I do see, I have seen clients that of course there's issues with technology, but they're following their expenditures on their watches or their AA rings or whatever, and they're seeing this astronomical number, especially if we're in a cutting phase versus what they're consuming. And of course there's a question mark there, maybe they're, we call 'em BLTs bite looks and tastes or something like that. They're not tracking everything that they're eating, but there's a big gap there and they're stalled. So that has always been very interesting to me. Sometimes I've seen gals where they come in not eating a lot, really, it's sort of amazing. Even my mother was an example of that when she started, she was 200 pounds at five foot three and she had a hard time eating 1,250 calories. I gave her 1500 calorie diet. She couldn't eat it.

(35:38):

We were lucky to get a thousand calories into her, and that was just to me, just wild that a body could become so efficient carrying that much weight. But I've seen that a lot with the older female clientele and one of the things I love to do is once we get that body composition into a pretty good spot and we're usually able to gain muscle at the same time because of the newbie gains when we reverse diet, and I love reverse dieting, I know people have some mixed ideas on how important it's, but I tend to do a reverse diet with, in fact, I always do diet with our clients and getting them up to a place where calories per pound far outstrips where they were coming in, and the foodie in me is always thinking of number one, that's more great food going into you, more likely that you're going to have more palatable food because your options are wider because you're eating more food, you have more macros to eat, and that's going to lead to more success.

(36:41):

But also just the micronutrients thinking of fiber, like trying to get 25 grams of fiber as an adult female on a 1,250 calorie diet versus a 2000 calorie diet. They're two different games. One, you're pulling your hair out and taking Metamucil and the other one is pretty easy to do and it's enjoyable. The other thing that I notice is the ability for woman, the female, but the older female body to adapt to lower calories, and that's where I see this RED as coming into play or maybe a different version of it. It's not quite that particular thing, but I see in the older clientele, again, this is just anecdotal, but not amongst everybody, but for a large percentage, it seems that the body more readily adapts to decreases in caloric intake. So somebody who maybe we've been able to reverse diet up to 1800 calories, if they enter a particularly stressful time of their lives and they're missing some meals or whatever, they'll adapt down to 1500 and it's like we have to do a reverse diet again and bring in some cardio and kind of play around with that space to try to get their body back up to being able to consume that higher caloric load without spillover.

(38:13):

I don't know if that's something that you and Eric see and talk about or I mostly only work with people that are at this point in the 45 plus category.

Lauren Colenso-Semple (38:21):

Yeah, I think it's tough because there are many people who are in that menopause transition time and they say, I am doing everything exactly the way that I used to. And often I think we're not really looking at the big picture because maybe there are inadvertent reductions in physical activity. Maybe there are inadvertent changes in caloric intake or even just eating patterns and eating behavior. And then there's the symptom piece, and if you're somebody who is experiencing really disruptive menopause related symptoms that are affecting your sleep, that can have a huge trickle down effect on your adherence to a diet and an exercise program, your motivation to train and be consistent. And so we can't kind of forget about all of the factors that are going to come into play when we think about changes in body composition and what we can do about it.

Michelle MacDonald (39:23):

Yeah, that is a big one. I know in the coaching world it's something that we have to skirt it around a lot because you want to empower people to be in a place of self-awareness and really see what it is they're doing, be able to make those changes that are necessary in order to achieve a goal. And of course, it's nuanced, right? Some people have a hard time getting that feedback. So I remember listening to Cliff Wilson talk about how he'll sometimes pitch a necessary behavioral change instead of sort of coming at somebody front on, you're not doing this thing. He'll say, if he's listening to this, I hope I don't misquote him. But he would frame it more as, is there something that you are doing or not doing that could really help us make some progress here or move the needle here? Kind of framing it that way so it's more of a collaboration, and I love that. I love to talk about, this is the last thing I want to pick your brain on is because I mean you're doing such a phenomenal job, Lauren, on social media, you're posting great content or co-owner of Mass Review,

Lauren Colenso-Semple (40:39):

Co-owner of the Mass Research

Michelle MacDonald (40:41):

Co-owner of Mass Research Review. Guys, I'll drop that link in the show notes. It's full of tons of great information that are very, very relevant if you're interested in Ian muscle hypertrophy, building muscle, all of that nutrition training. But right now we're seeing a slew of very highly credible storied credentialed experts, some with PhDs, some with MDs gynecologists, functional medicine doctors, researchers that are making really sweeping claims on social media that often lack nuance or scientific backing, strong scientific backing, whether it's extreme diet protocols or training protocols or whatever. We're seeing a lot of this, and especially around menopausal women, overselling, HRT as the magic fix. We're seeing peptides being sold on the back door, compounded hormones, all of that and the lines between science and marketing are getting really blurred. From your perspective as a researcher and somebody really in the field, what do you think is driving this shift and what's the cost with evidence-based voices? When evidence-based voices start treating scientific rigor for viral reach,

Lauren Colenso-Semple (41:59):

It's a huge problem. And instead of being honest about the state of the literature, what we do know, what we don't know, there is this tendency to just pick a study that will support whatever narrative these people want to put out there to sell a product and say, Hey, and this is really unfortunate because if you're somebody who is truly evidence-based, if you have respect for the science and the scientists, you'll understand that science evolves. It builds upon the science that came before it, and we always have to look at it overall and never a single study. And the fact that there is this mistrust in science or this sort of weaponizing of science to then push people with fear-based messaging to say, oh, and this is why you have to take this supplement or this is why you have to buy the weighted vest, or this is why you absolutely need this diet that I sell because nothing else will work for you.

(43:11):

All of these are red flags because there's never a single answer to a problem. Fear-based messaging is a problem because we should never be leading with fear, and these voices are typically presenting something that sounds really, really complicated. And although human physiology is complex, translating practical health, fitness, nutrition recommendations is not. That's really simple. We should be able to articulate it simply in a way that people can understand. And so by presenting something that sounds really, really complicated, and then basically the message is I'm a scientist or I'm a doctor, take my word for it. This is why I'm telling you to do this. That's disingenuous. If you can't communicate it in a way that is understandable by the masses, then chances are misleading people

Michelle MacDonald (44:04):

And things are just so ridiculously polarized. I mean the space of science has become, and particularly science and menopause has become as bad as a political election at this point in time. And even the followers, as we started off the podcast talking about some of the pushback you've had, science thrives on conversation, on discussion, on debate. It thrives on looking for the flaws in our theories versus hiding flaws in the argument, skipping over issues, cherry picking data, not being honest about the quality of the study or the data that you're pulling from. This is kind of rampant. I know Dr. Allen was saying when I was talking with him and I told him, you got to coin this one for yourself. Women are not small mice and so much pulling from rodent studies to intimate what women should be doing with their bodies. And it's really challenging because I think what the lay person wants to hear is that they can trust the science and there can be that conversation where we're able to address concerns or issues. What are your thoughts on that? How can we have a shift towards more open conversations amongst the experts? What has to change?

Lauren Colenso-Semple (45:45):

I think people who are legitimate scientists are always open to those discussions because it moves the field forward. And it's true that two scientists might have a slightly different interpretation of a particular body of literature, but we're talking about nuances here. I can criticize this paper because of the way that you measured something, and I think we should replicate that and measure it in this newer better way, for example, and those are good kinds of conversations that help progress, and the more data we have, the better. So it's always good to do more studies, and the issue we have with some of the people in the menopause space that are kind of crossing the line over to influencer is they are claiming to be science-based, but it's really performative because let's talk about the weighted vest literature. For example, weighted vest studies, majority of them had the participants wear the weighted vest for eight to 10 hours per day.

(47:04):

Now we're using those to say, if you go on a 30 minute walk wearing this three times a week, you're going to get results. That's not honest. Whatever the study is, whatever study is linked, it needs to include an outcome in humans that is the outcome of interest. So if we're talking fat loss, I want to see that these people went on a diet and did or did not lose fat or these people engaged in this exercise program or that exercise program and did or did not lose fat. Same thing goes for muscle growth. Same thing goes for any sort of outcome, bone density, metabolic rate. If they didn't measure it in the study that's linked, then this is not an honest display of the science and it's not an accurate portrayal of the research because we can't take these snapshots of, oh, you used more fat as fuel during this 30 minutes and therefore if you do this over time, you're going to lose more body fat. We know it doesn't work that way, or we looked at this particular pathway and therefore we can extrapolate that that is going to lead to muscle growth or muscle loss. No, we have to measure muscle growth or muscle loss long-term in order to make a recommendation that includes the claim. This will help grow muscle, and that's the problem. We have a lot of people sort of being swirly with the science and citing studies that really don't support the claim, but there's a kind of kernel where they can twist it and it's related

Michelle MacDonald (48:49):

Very messy, even if it's the headline, the headline says this thing, but then when you open up the research, the people actually say, it doesn't show this thing is happening. Right? Or more study has to be done, or You can't infer X from this. But the headline says it. I think actually it was Alan, or maybe it was Dr. Stewart Phillips was saying it seems like the person in question, the influencer who I think was a PhD or an md, they obviously didn't even read the research. They just stop with the headline.

Lauren Colenso-Semple (49:23):

We have what are called narrative reviews in science, which are literature summaries, and they allow the authors to provide their opinion, and the authors can choose which studies to cite, and they can be good as a place to say, this is the state of the literature and this is the recommendations for the future studies. The problem is they will have titles like the influence of fasting on for women or nutritional recommendations for women. And so things that sound like a kind of position stand rooted in data, but they're not. They're an opinion paper, and this is one of many nuances that the general public doesn't really understand. And so you see, oh, this is a citation. I can look it up on PubMed. That's science. When in reality there's a difference between a clinical trial or an interventional study where like I said, we have a group of people and another group of people and we put them through some sort of protocol and we measured things before and after versus this is my opinion based on including whatever references I choose that may or may not include human and animal data.

(50:44):

And then that can get very murky. So I really encourage people to follow scientists and science communicators who can point out that nuance, who are trained to critically read, interpret, and communicate the science, because it is a skill and it's a reason why we spent a really long time in school, and I think everyone just feels like, well, I can go on PubMed. And so what difference does it make? It does make a difference because people who are trained to do this can look and say, you know what? This shouldn't be interpreted that way and here's why.

Michelle MacDonald (51:25):

Yeah, I think again, it gets so difficult because we literally have PhDs from Harvard and Stanford and MDs Gynecologists, people that seem to have the credentials and the education that are saying things that major organizing bodies aren't saying, and the sentiment is that these major organizing bodies or people like you potentially are either gatekeeping or behind the times, which is wild, but really that's what's happening in terms of public sentiment, especially when these people that are PhDs or MDs or gynecologists, whatever, have millions of followers. I mean, it's just really hard and they're on big platforms, big podcast platforms. It's really hard for the public to know who to believe. When you have that stamp of public support, public credibility, people are going to, and you're new to the game, you're not thinking you're about to be hoodwinked and why would an expert hoodwink you anyways, especially if they're not selling something on the front end.

(52:44):

But as I said in our offline conversation, doctors and scientists are just as prone to that dopamine effect of getting the comments and the engagement and the followers. So it's very, very challenging. I think for people just getting into this space. They want to get information on how to train, build muscle. They know it's important, but they see a big influencer and they think, I got to go get away to invest, and that's to solve my problems, and they might stop there and that is just not going to be enough, especially for looking at osteoporosis.

Lauren Colenso-Semple (53:20):

Absolutely, and I think that's really what the issue is with a lot of these people, that they are really affecting the decisions people are making around their health. And so it's one thing if you're being honest about what you're promoting, the benefits of what you're promoting, the downsides of what you're promoting, the potential risks, and doing it in such a way that doesn't ignore the things that we know work. Because what I see is a lot of messaging around the vest or the supplement stack or insert whatever diet or even particular foods, and then no one's talking about the calorie deficit and the resistance training, which is what is going to get us 95% of the way there when it comes to the goals that most people have.

Michelle MacDonald (54:14):

Yeah, it's an exciting time for women for the older, for the 40 plus one for sure, in that the discussions around menopause, the discussions around hormones is at the forefront, and yet it's also very distressing because with this democratization of information, the rise of social media and reporting from people sort of in the trenches, it's getting so muddy, so fast, and it's so hard for the truth to get out there. The basics have never been sex. We got to make the basics sexy and appealing right as much as the silver bullet is. Laura, last words, is there anything that is exciting you right now that you're either working on or that you're hearing discussions about that you would want to mention before we end off?

Lauren Colenso-Semple (55:08):

I think it is an exciting time to be in the menopause space and consuming this information and really looking ahead to the research that is forthcoming because although we do need to be patient, science is unfortunately slow. There is data coming, there are people doing the very difficult work that goes into this, and so I think we need to stay tuned for that, but it's great that we're discussing it and that we're able to shine a light on it and that women feel more and more comfortable sharing their own experiences. I think all of this is good, but make sure that you don't fall for extreme messaging over complicated messaging, confusing messaging, the basics work and follow people who emphasize that because it can be really easy to start just missing the forest for the trees.

Michelle MacDonald (56:08):

Yeah, I couldn't agree more. Alright. Thank you so much for being on the show and sharing with us all of your insights and your expertise. I'm going to share a lot of information how people can follow you and access to your research in the show notes. Thank you so much, Dr. Lauren. And guys, we'll see you on the next episode. Great conversation with Dr. Lauren Colenso Semple, and it's a reminder that women deserve real science, not recycled myths, repackaged as empowerment. Two key takeaways. Single psyching has no solid evidence behind it. Women are not mice blindly following. It may hold women back from building real strength. Two, menopause is not a dead end. It's a phase that demands clarity, not fear. With the right strategy, woman over 40 can gain muscle, lose fat, and feel powerful in their bodies. If this episode helped cut through the noise, please share with the friend or fellow coach who's ready to raise the standard. We're proud to be in the top 1% of global podcasts. Your review shares and critical thinking are what keep us there, and I really appreciate that. As always, park the judgment, do the research, and never settle for less than evidence-based truth. This is stronger by design and we're just getting started.