The Sex Data Gap in Sport and Exercise Science Research
This week we are dissecting a paper co-authored by our female health writer Kelly McNulty.
Cowley, E. S., Olenick, A. A., McNulty, K. L., & Ross, E. Z. (2021). “Invisible Sportswomen”:
The Sex Data Gap in Sport and Exercise Science Research. Women in Sport and Physical Activity Journal, 29(2), 146-151.
Study background
Historically inequalities have existed in the inclusion of women in sport and exercise. For example, in the early 1800’s scientists cautioned women against physical activity, with concerns that “physical effort, like running and jumping, might damage female reproductive organs and make them unattractive to men” (1). Today, we have a record number of women taking part in sport and exercise with the biggest rise reported over the last 3 to 4 decades (2).
Specifically, the percentage of women competing at the Olympic Games has increased from only 26% in 1988 to an all-time high of 49% in Tokyo earlier this year (3). With more women participating in sport and exercise we need to know more about female physiology and how this might impact on the likes of our performance and training, because ultimately just like the men we want to get stronger, faster, achieve personal bests (PBs) and even, for some of us, break world records.
Despite the increase in the number of women participating in sport and the need to know more about female physiology and how this might influence performance or training – research on the female athlete still falls way short of that carried out on men. For example, a study by Costello et al. (2014) concluded that females were “significantly underrepresented” within the top three sport and exercise science journals (4). This means that most of our sport and exercise science guidelines have been derived from studies using males as participants and generalising the data to females. As such, in 2014, Costello and colleagues called for more research which investigated the effects of female physiology, such as the menstrual cycle, on the likes of performance, training, and nutrition.
Fast forward to 2021, seven years after the original paper by Costello et al., and there’s an ever-growing demand for, and interest in, women-specific sport and exercise science data which might’ve played a role in closing this sex data gap. As such, the purpose of this study was to determine if the sex data gap still exists by examining all research papers during a 7-year period from 6 sport and exercise journals. Additionally, the authors examined the accuracy of publication titles and the sex-specific nature of the research topics being investigated.
Method overview
Publications involving humans were examined from The European Journal of Sports Science, Medicine & Science in Sport & Exercise, The Journal of Sport Science & Medicine, The Journal of Physiology, The American Journal of Sports Medicine, and The British Journal of Sports Medicine, from 2014 to 2020. The total number of participants, the number of male and female participants, the title, and the topic, were recorded for each publication.
What did they find?
- 5,261 publications and 12,511,386 participants were included in the analyses.
- When analysing participants included in all journals, a total of 8,253,236 (66%) were male and 4,254,445 (34%) were female.
- 63% of publications included both males and females, 31% included males only, and 6% included females only.
- The majority (63%) of publications which only include females typically state this in their title; this contrasts with publications which only include males with very few (14%) of these studies stating this within their title.
- 0.6% of publications that included only men focused on a male-specific factor, meaning that 99.4% of these papers could’ve also included female participants!
What does this mean?
The results provide evidence that female participants continue to be underrepresented within sport and exercise science research, with the results showing a male bias in both the total number of participants and the number of single-sex studies. These results echo that of the earlier study by Costello et al. meaning that despite the call to readdress the balance, female inclusion within sport and exercise science research has remained relatively consistent over the last decade. On top of this, sex disparity was demonstrated within sport and exercise publication titles and within sex-specific research.
A range of factors are likely responsible for the sex bias in the current sport and exercise science literature, such as:
- Women are more physiologically variable than men and this added variability presents a methodological challenge (controlling or matching hormonal status which takes time [i.e., complicates and lengthens the study’s schedule] and increases study cost) and is one of the most frequently cited reasons for the exclusion of women participants in studies.
- Despite the rise in women participating in sport and exercise, participation rates are still less than men, and a greater number of men are taking part in sport which skews the participant pool toward males.
- Lack of funding since men’s sporting bodies typically have access to larger budgets than women’s organisations.
- Underrepresentation of women in senior academic and gate-keeper positions on journals might lead to a continued dominance of white, male-focused research.
Takeaway
The lack of female participants in sport and exercise science research has resulted in clear gaps in our knowledge base particularly in relation to these female-specific factors. As such, there are numerous avenues of unexplored opportunities to improve female athlete performance – whether that’s winning a gold medal at the Olympic Games or beating our 5-k time at our local Park run. Therefore, there is an urgent need for more women to be included in research and for more women-only research which looks at the effects of sex-specific factors, such as the menstrual cycle, on sport and exercise outcomes. Ultimately, it’s essential that we redress the current knowledge gap and achieve equivalence of understanding of both sexes so that we can optimise the support we give to women, allowing them to reach their health and performance potential.
References
- McCrone, K. (2014). Sport and the Physical Emancipation of English Women (RLE Sports Studies): 1870-1914. Routledge.
- International Working Group on Women & Sport. (2019). Women, Gender Equality and Sport. https://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/public/Women%20and%20Sport.pdf. Accessed 1st June 2021.
- International Olympic Committee. (2019). Gender Equality in Sport. https://olympics.com/ioc/gender-equality. Accessed 1st October 2021.
- Costello, J. T., Bieuzen, F., & Bleakley, C. M. (2014). Where are all the female participants in Sports and Exercise Medicine research?. European Journal of Sport Science, 14(8), 847-851.
