Osteopenia and Strength Training for Women: What Happens Before Menopause

Written by Evelyn Calado, MKin, CSCS, RKin

There is a persistent misconception that bone loss is something that “just happens” after menopause. By the time many women start thinking seriously about bone density, the process of loss is already well underway.

Osteopenia and strength training are directly linked, yet most women are not told how early bone loss actually begins.

Bone health is not a passive outcome of aging. It is an active, dynamic process shaped by hormones, mechanical loading, and energy availability across the entire female lifespan.

Understanding osteopenia requires understanding one central principle: bone is living tissue, constantly undergoing remodeling through the opposing actions of osteoblasts and osteoclasts.

Bone Remodeling: The Balance Between Formation and Breakdown

At any given moment, your skeleton is not static. It is metabolically active.

• Osteoblasts are responsible for bone formation

• Osteoclasts are responsible for bone resorption

In a healthy system, these processes are tightly coupled. Bone that is broken down is replaced with new, strong bone. The integrity of your skeleton depends on the balance between these two forces.

Estrogen plays a critical regulatory role in maintaining this equilibrium.

Estrogen as a Regulator of Bone Turnover

Estrogen is not just a reproductive hormone. It is deeply involved in musculoskeletal health.

It functions, in part, by:

• Inhibiting excessive osteoclast activity

• Supporting osteoblast survival and activity

When estrogen levels are stable, bone turnover remains balanced. But when estrogen becomes low or erratic, this regulatory system begins to fail.

Estrogen does not “leach calcium from bone.” Its decline removes inhibitory control over osteoclasts, allowing bone resorption to outpace formation.

The result is a gradual reduction in bone mineral density, what we clinically recognize as osteopenia, and eventually osteoporosis if left unchecked.

Perimenopause: The Underappreciated Inflection Point

Much of the conversation around bone health focuses on postmenopause. However, perimenopause is a critical and often overlooked phase.

This is not simply a state of low estrogen. It is a state of hormonal volatility.

During perimenopause:

• Estrogen levels fluctuate unpredictably

• Progesterone exposure becomes inconsistent

• The coordination of tissue remodeling processes becomes impaired

These fluctuations influence:

• Bone turnover

• Muscle protein synthesis

• Recovery capacity

The net effect is a physiological environment that becomes increasingly catabolic, meaning tissue breakdown can begin to exceed tissue formation.

This is why bone density decline can begin before menopause is complete.

The Muscle–Bone Unit: Why Strength Matters

Bone does not exist in isolation. It is functionally linked to muscle through what is often referred to as the muscle–bone unit.

When muscle contracts, it exerts mechanical force on bone. This mechanical strain is the primary stimulus for bone adaptation.

Without sufficient loading, the body interprets bone as metabolically expensive and unnecessary, and osteoclastic activity increases accordingly.

Strength training directly targets this system.

Through high-load resistance exercise:

• Muscle force increases

• Mechanical strain on bone increases

• Osteoblast activity is stimulated

• Bone mineral density is preserved or improved

This is not a marginal effect. It is one of the most powerful non-pharmacological interventions available for maintaining skeletal integrity.

If you are unsure where to start, this is exactly where an individualized approach matters. [Start with an Initial Assessment]

Why Endurance Alone Is Not Enough

Many active women assume that being “fit” is sufficient to protect bone health. However, endurance training does not provide the same osteogenic stimulus as resistance training.

In fact, without adequate nutrition and strength work, high volumes of endurance exercise can:

• Increase cortisol and systemic stress

• Contribute to low energy availability

• Impair bone formation

Bone health requires specific, targeted mechanical loading, not just general activity.

Why Strength Training Is Essential for Women’s Bone Health

Dr. Stacy Sims is explicit. Strength training is not optional for women. It is a lifelong requirement.

General recommendations include:

• At least 2 to 3 strength sessions per week

• Emphasis on heavy resistance, not just light weights

• Inclusion of compound lifts and power-based movements

This becomes even more critical during perimenopause and beyond, when:

• Muscle mass becomes harder to maintain

• Hormonal support for tissue repair declines

• The risk of accelerated bone loss increases

Strength training is not simply about preserving aesthetics or performance. It is about maintaining structural integrity.

For most people, this requires structure, progression, and accountability. [Explore Personal Training Options]

The Compounding Effect of Muscle Loss

Muscle loss and bone loss are interconnected.

As muscle mass declines:

• Mechanical loading on bone decreases

• Bone formation signals weaken

• Risk of fragility increases

Hormonal environments during this phase can also increase muscle protein breakdown, making it harder to maintain lean mass without intentional intervention.

This creates a feedback loop:

Less muscle leads to less bone stimulus, which leads to weaker bone and higher injury risk.

Strength training interrupts this cycle.

Bone Health Is Built, Not Preserved

One of the most important reframes is this:

You are not trying to hold on to bone. You are trying to continually build and reinforce it.

Bone is responsive tissue. It adapts to the signals it receives.

• If the signal is inactivity, bone loss occurs

• If the signal is chronic stress without adequate fuel, bone loss occurs

• If the signal is heavy loading with adequate nutrition, bone strength improves

Perimenopause does not mark the end of this adaptability. It simply raises the stakes.

Final Thoughts

Osteopenia is not an inevitable consequence of aging. It is, in large part, the result of mismatched physiology, where hormonal changes are not met with appropriate mechanical and nutritional support.

Estrogen may set the stage, but behavior determines the outcome.

Strength training, done consistently and with sufficient intensity, provides the necessary stimulus to:

• Maintain bone mineral density

• Preserve lean muscle mass

• Counteract the catabolic shifts of hormonal fluctuation

For women entering perimenopause, this is not optional. It is essential.

And the earlier this foundation is built, the more resilient the system becomes over time.

This is why most of the women we work with are already incorporating structured resistance training before these changes begin. [Learn More About Hybrid Coaching]

Source

Dr. Stacy Sims, ROAR

ACL Injury Risk in Female and Youth Athletes: What Actually Matters (Part 2)

Written by Michael Crawley, BSc, BPT, CSCS

Anterior cruciate ligament injuries are a significant issue in sport, particularly among female and youth athletes. Female athletes have a significantly greater incidence of ACL injury compared to males, with research suggesting the risk may be between 2 and 8 times higher depending on the population studied (Herzberg et al. 2017).

A number of factors have been proposed to influence this increased risk. These include both extrinsic factors such as playing surface, and intrinsic factors such as biological, structural, and physical characteristics. This article focuses on the intrinsic side of the equation.

If you have not read Part 1, where we break down how ACL injuries occur and what influences risk more broadly, you can start here: ACL Injuries: How They Occur, Who Is at Risk, and Why Training Quality Matters

The key intrinsic factors that may influence ACL injury risk in the female athlete include:

• hormonal influences

• biomechanics and structural considerations

• strength and neuromuscular control

It is also important to recognize that surgery is not the only solution following an ACL injury. The appropriate approach depends on the athlete’s age, injury severity, and the presence of additional damage such as meniscal or cartilage involvement. Graft selection is also influenced by these factors and plays an important role in long-term outcomes.

Menstruation and Hormones

The menstrual cycle consists of three phases, each characterized by fluctuations in key hormones including estrogen, progesterone, and luteinizing hormone (Wojtys et al. 2002).

• Follicular phase: approximately 9 days

• Ovulatory phase: approximately 5 days, marked by peaks in estrogen and luteinizing hormone

• Luteal phase: approximately 14 to 15 days, with elevated progesterone

Research in this area remains mixed. However, several studies have reported a higher incidence of ACL injuries during the ovulatory phase compared to other phases (Wojtys et al. 2002; Herzberg et al. 2017).

Wojtys et al. (2002) demonstrated a higher number of ACL injuries, marked as X on the figure above, in a group of young female athletes during the ovulatory phase. The mechanisms behind this relationship are varied and often disputed. At the neurological level, Kumar et al. (2013) demonstrated reduced reaction time to visual and auditory stimulus between the follicular and luteal phases.

From a structural perspective, the ACL contains estrogen receptors, and cell culture research has demonstrated that estrogen can influence the ligament’s collagen composition. It is proposed that this may increase knee joint laxity. Maruyama et al. (2021) examined knee laxity across the menstrual cycle and found increased anterior knee laxity during the ovulatory phase.

However, this difference was only observed when participants were grouped into those with genu recurvatum and those without it, meaning athletes whose knees hyperextend 10 degrees or more versus those who do not. This adds another layer of complexity, as it suggests that biomechanical factors such as hyperextension may interact with hormonal factors such as higher estrogen levels rather than acting independently.

Relaxin is another important peptide hormone that has been specifically linked to injury risk in female athletes. It appears to work synergistically with estrogen, contributing to changes in ligament laxity (Berger et al. 2023; Parker et al. 2024).

Relaxin exerts its effects in two key ways:

• increases type 1 collagen degradation

• suppresses collagen synthesis

Given that ligaments are composed of approximately 40 to 50 percent type 1 collagen, this provides a plausible mechanism by which relaxin may influence ACL integrity. Alterations in the collagen structure of the ligament are one proposed explanation for increased laxity and injury risk.

Parker et al. (2024) also highlight a practical consideration. Relaxin levels tend to peak around days 21 to 24 of the menstrual cycle. In a coaching setting, this may present as an athlete reporting unexplained musculoskeletal discomfort around the knee without a clear training-related cause. This is not something to overreact to, but it can serve as a useful opportunity for education, monitoring, or short-term modification of training.

Across the cycle, these hormonal fluctuations may contribute to changes in reaction time, ligament laxity, and available joint range of motion. While some research has explored the use of oral contraceptives to regulate these hormonal variations and potentially reduce ACL injury risk (Herzberg et al. 2017), the quality of evidence remains low and is often confounded by multiple variables.

More importantly, as Parker et al. (2024) point out, oral contraceptives are not without trade-offs. While they may influence hormones such as relaxin and estrogen, there are more accessible and lower-risk interventions available. For most young female athletes, this is not where the focus should be.

Which leads into the next major factor: strength and neuromuscular training.

Strength and Neuromuscular Training

As female participation in sport has increased over the past few decades, there has been a corresponding increase in injury rates. At the same time, training age and exposure to structured strength and conditioning within a gym setting has generally lagged behind that of male athletes.

Well-rounded strength and conditioning is not only a tool to support and improve performance in sport. It can have a profound effect on robustness and coordinative qualities, helping to mitigate injury risk.

For a deeper look at how strength training should be structured for younger athletes, see: Building a Strong Foundation: The Crucial Role of Youth Strength and Conditioning

In young female athletes, several characteristics have been associated with increased ACL injury risk (Collings et al. 2022):

• lower strength ratios between hip adductors and abductors

• reduced trunk control

• higher countermovement peak force values

This highlights the importance of a complete strength and conditioning plan. As young athletes improve jumping ability and increase power output, the risk of ACL injury and other issues such as patellofemoral pain may also increase (Myer et al. 2015; Collings et al. 2022).

Training for these athletes must address several components:

• maximal strength and power

• jumping and landing mechanics and technique

• strength capacity

• energy system development

Sugimoto et al. (2016) demonstrated that neuromuscular programs that include a combination of strength training, jumping, trunk control, and coordination significantly reduce ACL injury risk in young female athletes.

Practical Exercise Examples

Below are five exercises that cover several key qualities related to performance and injury mitigation:

• Side lunge deceleration control

• Front squat

• Side plank hip abduction iso

• 1-2-1 broad jump

• Split stance press + hip hike

Adjusting variables such as volume, intensity, range of motion, and frequency can make exercises like these highly effective across a range of sports and athlete levels.

Adherence, Enjoyment, and the Training Environment

Several factors can impact adherence in young female athletes:

• time

• enjoyment

• coaching expertise

• equipment access

Research suggests that even two 30-minute sessions per week in-season can meaningfully reduce ACL injury risk, provided a more comprehensive program is completed in the off-season (Sugimoto et al. 2016).

Enjoyment and coaching quality are closely linked. Engagement in the gym setting can be a challenge, particularly for younger athletes. Incorporating competition, variability, and game-based elements can improve buy-in and training consistency.

Reaction, Coordination, and Game-Based Training

The following examples can be used to improve reaction time, coordination, and strength:

• Tennis ball reaction game

• Walking lunge with figure 8 pass

These drills can be implemented in pairs, relay formats, or with sport-specific variations. They also expose athletes to a broader range of movement patterns.

This ties closely into long-term athlete development principles, which are outlined further here:
Build the Athlete First: Why Youth Athletes Need Physical Literacy Before Sport Specialization

An additional benefit of implementing games with different constraints and equipment is the development of energy systems and exposure to a wider range of motor patterns. The importance of this is two-fold.

1. Fatigue has been shown to impact landing control and hip-to-ankle force dissipation in female athletes (Mancino et al. 2024). Improving overall capacity can enhance an athlete’s ability to maintain reaction time and landing mechanics over longer periods.

2. Game and exercise constraints can also help offset the repetitive, high-volume actions seen in many sports. This becomes even more relevant in athletes who specialize early in a single sport.

Luo et al. (2025) found that early sport specialization increases injury risk, reduces long-term performance, and negatively impacts psychological outcomes. With a creative and experienced coach, the gym setting can serve as a valuable environment to address these gaps.

That said, even with a well-informed and diligent athlete who engages in strength training and participates in multiple sports, ACL injuries can still occur.

Surgical Route and Graft Selection

When a discussion has been made and surgery is deemed the best option, the next decision is graft selection. The importance of this choice lies in the fact that it is one of the few modifiable factors (Duchman et al. 2017). For the young female athlete, variables such as sex, age, and sporting demands cannot be changed.

The main graft options include:

• Autograft: tissue harvested from the athlete’s own body. Common options include hamstring tendon (HT), bone-patellar tendon-bone (BPTB), and quadriceps tendon (QT)

• Allograft: donor tissue. Options can include tibialis anterior, Achilles tendon, hamstring, or patellar grafts (Duchman et al. 2017)

Pinheiro et al. (2022) conducted a large analysis in female athletes and found that bone-patellar tendon-bone grafts had a lower incidence of graft failure compared to hamstring grafts. This becomes more nuanced when age is considered.

Mancino et al. (2024) reported that BPTB grafts had lower re-rupture rates in females aged 15 to 20 compared to hamstring autografts. However, in athletes aged 21 and older, outcomes between BPTB and hamstring grafts were similar.

Graft revision risk is also an important consideration. Pinheiro et al. (2022) found that revision rates were 1.8 times higher in hamstring grafts compared to BPTB, increasing to 2.8 times in females under 18. This is particularly relevant, as revision surgeries tend to produce poorer outcomes compared to primary ACL reconstruction (Meena et al. 2024).

More recent evidence suggests that quadriceps tendon grafts produce comparable outcomes in terms of knee stability, functional performance, and re-tear risk (Meena et al. 2024).

Previous injury history should also influence graft selection. Lazarides et al. (2018) reported that a history of moderate to severe patellar tendinopathy was associated with increased graft failure when using BPTB grafts.

Similarly, hamstring autografts may contribute to post-surgical return-to-sport challenges (Bouzekraoui Alaoui et al. 2025), including:

• persistent strength deficits compared to the uninvolved side

• reduced maximum effective angle, a proxy for hamstring function and potential injury risk

In athletes with a history of recurrent hamstring strains or existing strength deficits, harvesting a hamstring graft from the involved side should be carefully considered. This may further complicate the already challenging process of restoring hamstring strength and function during rehabilitation.

Additional Surgical Consideration: LET

Another surgical consideration is the lateral extra-articular tenodesis (LET), which may provide additional protection against re-injury. Recent research has identified specific factors where LET can help reduce risk and may be used as an added layer of structural support (Meena et al. 2024).

These factors include:

• increased general knee ligament laxity

• high tibial slope and increased knee hyperextension

• return to high-demand sport

• younger age

These considerations are particularly relevant for the young female athlete. As discussed throughout this article, hormonal influences on ligament laxity, along with structural characteristics such as knee hyperextension, are commonly observed in this population.

Using appropriate graft selection alongside LET where indicated provides an additional layer of structural support and may improve long-term outcomes in higher-risk athletes.

Summary

There is a complex interplay between hormonal, structural, and neuromuscular factors that may increase ACL injury risk in young female athletes. While many aspects of the research still require further clarity, it is clear that both modifiable and non-modifiable factors are at play.

There are several practical approaches that can help mitigate risk while also improving performance. As participation in female sport continues to grow, appropriate exposure to education, training, and support systems is no longer optional. It is essential.

Actionable Takeaways

• Pre-season screening and strength testing, alongside ongoing in-season monitoring, can help identify and manage risk

• Strength and neuromuscular training should be prioritized, including development of landing mechanics and force absorption

• Coaches can use warm-ups and training creatively to expose athletes to a wider range of movement patterns, which can improve engagement and reduce repetitive strain

• Avoiding early sport specialization where possible can support long-term performance and reduce injury risk

• Graft selection should consider individual factors such as age and injury history, with input from both the physio and orthopaedic surgeon

• Discussing additional surgical options, such as LET where appropriate, may improve outcomes in higher-risk athletes

• Education for both athletes and parents is key. Increasing awareness and training age can have a meaningful impact on long-term development and injury mitigation

For athletes or parents looking for more structured support, this is where individualized assessment and programming can make a meaningful difference: Book an Initial Assessment

Are You Actually Fight Ready? What Most Fighters Get Wrong About Conditioning

Written by Evelyn Calado, MKin, CSCS, RKin

You think you’re in shape.
Until round two.

Everything feels sharp early. Your hands are fast. Your feet are light. You’re seeing openings.

Then your output drops. Your shoulders start to burn. Your breathing spikes. Now you are surviving instead of fighting.

This isn’t a lack of toughness.
It’s a conditioning problem.

More specifically, it is a fight conditioning problem that most fighters never actually address.

The Real Problem Isn’t Effort

Most fighters do not lack work ethic.

They train hard. They push themselves. They leave the gym exhausted.

The problem is they are training the wrong things at the wrong time.

A lot of fighters live in what we call the gray zone. Sessions that are not easy enough to build a real aerobic base. Not intense enough to develop true fight specific power. Just hard enough to feel tired.

And feeling tired gets mistaken for getting better.

But fatigue is not a performance metric.

Fighting is not about how tired you can get. It is about how long you can produce, recover, and repeat high intensity efforts.

Why Fighters Misjudge Their Conditioning

Gym Conditioning Is Not Fight Conditioning

You can hit pads hard, push through circuits, and still gas out in a fight or sparring.

Because fighting is not continuous effort. It is intermittent.

Short explosive bursts.
Brief recovery periods.
Repeated over multiple rounds.

All energy systems are working together, not just general effort.

If your training does not reflect that structure, your conditioning will not transfer.

No Objective Testing

Most fighters judge conditioning based on how tired they feel or how hard a session was.

That is guesswork.

Without testing, you do not know if your output is dropping round to round, if your recovery is improving, or where your actual limitation is.

Without testing, you are guessing.

Over Reliance on Fatigue

A hard session feels productive.

But you can get better at tolerating fatigue without improving the systems that actually drive performance.

That is why some fighters look great in training but fall apart when the pace of a real fight hits.

What Actually Matters for Fight Conditioning

To perform at a high level, you need a system, not just effort.

Aerobic Base

This is your foundation.

A well developed aerobic system helps you recover between exchanges, maintain output, and sustain effort across rounds.

Repeat Power

Explosive combinations rely on your highest power output.

The key is not just producing power once. It is being able to repeat it with limited recovery.

Glycolytic Capacity

Longer exchanges and flurries are where most fighters begin to break down.

If this system is not developed, output drops and technique starts to fade.

Recovery Between Efforts

This is one of the biggest separators.

Fighters who recover faster between bursts can maintain pace and stay effective deeper into rounds.

Efficiency Under Fatigue

At a high level, conditioning is also about efficiency.

Can you stay relaxed when tired?
Can you maintain technique?
Can you make good decisions under pressure?

That is what real fight readiness looks like.

Why Testing Matters

Most fighters know they get tired.

Very few know why.

Testing does not give you every answer, but it gives you a clearer picture of what is happening. Especially when it comes to fight conditioning and repeat effort performance.

It can help show how your heart rate responds to work, how your output changes over time, and how well you repeat high intensity efforts.

It gives direction to your training instead of relying on guesswork.

Where We Come In

This is part of what we look at in our performance testing at Avos Strength.

We use simple, practical tests to get a snapshot of how your conditioning is functioning and how it compares to other athletes.

It is not about labeling you as fit or unfit.

It is about giving you better information so you can train with more intent.

Try It for Yourself at the Combat Sports Farmers Market

If you are coming to the Combat Sports Farmers Market, on March 29th in North Vancouver, we will be running a simple jump test on site. The event supports a charitable initiative, making it a great opportunity to connect with the community while giving back.

This test gives you a quick look at your lower body power, which is one piece of performance across all combat sports.

We will also have a leaderboard running so you can see how you stack up.

If you enter, you will be put into a draw to win a discount on a full performance testing session.

If you are interested in a more complete look at your conditioning, you can learn more about our full testing process here.

Final Note

If you feel like you are doing everything right in training but still fading in sparring or competition, you are not alone.

Most fighters are working hard.

Very few are training with clarity.

The Limb Arc Model: Why You Should Train the Range of Motion You Actually Own

Written by Evelyn Calado, MKin, CSCS, RKin

If you’ve ever wondered why:

• Your knees cave in at the bottom of a squat

• Your low back extends when the weight gets heavy

• One hip always feels “stuck” at 90°

• Or mobility drills don’t seem to transfer to strength

…you’re probably running into a concept explained by the Limb Arc Model.

This model, commonly attributed to Bill Hartman, describes how rotational bias changes across ranges of joint flexion — particularly at the hip. And once you understand it, exercise selection becomes dramatically more logical.

Let’s break it down.

What Is the Limb Arc Model?

The Limb Arc Model proposes that rotational leverage changes as a joint moves through flexion.

At the hip specifically:

• Early flexion favors external rotation (ER)

• Mid-range flexion favors internal rotation (IR)

• Deep flexion returns to an external rotation bias

This is not arbitrary. It reflects changes in joint geometry, length tension relationships, and moment arms.

Most people train hip flexion as if it is one continuous quality. It is not. It is three mechanically distinct regions.

That shift matters for:

• Squats

• Deadlifts

• Split squats

• Gait mechanics

• Sport performance

• Injury risk
  

The Hip Flexion Arc Explained

Here’s the simplified breakdown:

0–60° Hip Flexion → External Rotation Bias

In early hip flexion, the joint favors:

• External rotation

• Abduction

• Supination at the foot

• Sacral counternutation

In gait, this corresponds most closely with early stance, when the heel has contacted the ground and the pelvis is relatively externally rotating as load is being accepted.

In the gym, this is the top portion of a squat or the early phase of a hinge.

External rotators and abductors have favorable leverage here.

60–100° Hip Flexion → Internal Rotation Bias

Around 90° hip flexion:

• Internal rotators and adductors have improved leverage

• Length–tension relationships favor IR

• The piriformis shifts moment arm toward IR

• The sacrum moves toward nutation

• The foot transitions toward pronation

In gait, this corresponds most closely with mid stance, when the pelvis is internally rotating on the femur and vertical ground reaction forces are highest.

In a squat, this is typically around parallel.

100°+ Hip Flexion → Returns to External Rotation Bias

As you approach deep hip flexion:

• The system transitions back toward ER

• Supination strategies often reappear

• External rotators regain leverage

This helps explain why some people feel “better” deep in a squat even if they struggle at parallel. They are returning to a range where external rotation leverage increases again.

Why Internal Rotation at 90° Matters

Most loaded bilateral lower-body exercises demand control around 60–100° hip flexion.

If internal rotation is limited in that range, common compensations show up:

• Knee valgus

• Lumbar extension

• Butt wink

• Hip shifting

• Over-pronation

• Gripping with toes

This is not always a strength problem.

It’s often a relative motion problem.

The joint is being asked to produce force in a range it does not control. When the femur is not internally rotating relative to the pelvis, the pelvis, spine, or foot moves instead.

“Train within the Range You Own”

Here’s where this becomes practical.

Owning a range means:

• You can access it

• You can control it

• You can breathe in it

• You can maintain joint relationships without compensating

If you lack IR at 90°, loading it heavily won’t fix it.

It may:

• Reinforce compensations

• Drive orientation strategies (like anterior pelvic tilt)

• Increase compressive strategies instead of restoring motion

Instead, you might need:

• Split squats that bias mid-stance

• Exercises emphasizing medial arch contact

• Internal rotation control drills

• Breathing-based repositioning work

• Heel references to restore early stance mechanics

Force production should follow motion restoration — not precede it. Ie; Restore control first. Then add load.

How This Applies to Programming

The Limb Arc Model gives you a filter for exercise selection.

The question is not whether someone “has internal rotation.”

The question is where in the arc they lose control.

If Control Breaks Down Between 0 and 60 Degrees

You will see:

• Difficulty accepting load at the top of the squat

• Poor heel contact

• Immediate external rotation gripping

• Early lumbar extension

In this case, reinforce early stance mechanics.

Use closed chain drills that emphasize heel reference and controlled external rotation.
Keep the hip in the zero to sixty degree range and teach load acceptance without extension strategies.

The goal is stable external rotation control in early hip flexion.

If Control Breaks Down Between 60 and 100 Degrees

You will see:

• Knee valgus at parallel

• Hip shift at ninety degrees

• Lumbar extension at the sticking point

• Loss of medial arch control

This is the most common presentation.

Here, you bias time spent in sixty to one hundred degrees of hip flexion in closed chain.

Split squat variations are useful when organized correctly because they allow:

• Pelvis on femur relative motion

• Clear stance leg reference

• Control of hip flexion angle

• Moderate load that does not overwhelm internal rotation capacity

The key is managing support and load so that the pelvis can internally rotate on the femur without defaulting into orientation strategies such as anterior pelvic tilt or lateral shift.

This is not about making someone balance harder.

It is about placing them in the internal rotation biased window and allowing them to control it.

If Control Breaks Down Beyond 100 Degrees

You will see:

• Instability or collapse in deep squat

• Over reliance on passive structures

• Loss of tension in the bottom

In this case, gradually expose the athlete to deeper flexion under controlled conditions, restoring external rotation leverage without compensatory lumbar flexion.

Why This Model Is Powerful

The Limb Arc Model connects:

• Gait

• Breathing mechanics

• Pelvic motion

• Squat depth

• Performance

• Compensation patterns

It explains why:

• One depth feels strong and another feels unstable

• Deep squats don’t fix mid-range weakness

• “Mobility” doesn’t always transfer to strength

Because leverage changes as joint angles change.

And if you don’t own the transition between those zones, the body will compensate.

Final Takeaway

The Limb Arc Model isn’t about stretching more.

It’s about understanding that:

Rotational demands shift as joints move through flexion.

And if you load a range you don’t own, your body will borrow motion from somewhere else.

Train the range you control.

Then expand it.

That’s how you build durable strength.

Learn more about how we assess movement and build individualized programs at Avos Strength.

What Actually Happens During an Initial Assessment?

Written by Evelyn Calado, MKin, CSCS, RKin

If you’ve ever hesitated to start training because you didn’t know what to expect from that first session, you’re not alone. At Avos Strength, we treat the initial assessment as one of the most important parts of the entire training process. Not because it’s a test, or something you can pass or fail, but because it lays the foundation for everything we do moving forward. It’s how we get to know you, your goals, your movement, and how we can best support you.

Here’s what actually happens during an initial assessment with us.

It’s a 55 Minute, One-on-One Session

Most initial assessments are done in person. We also offer virtual options for remote clients. Whether we’re working with you at the gym or through a screen, the goal is the same: get a clear picture of where you’re at so we can build something that’s right for you.

It Starts With a Conversation

Before we even get moving, we sit down together and go through your intake form. And yes, it’s detailed. We ask for it to be completed at least 24 hours in advance because we actually review it before the session.

We go over:

• Your injury history and relevant medical conditions

• Sports background, hobbies, and training experience

• Your goals, both short-term and long-term

• Any current pain, discomfort, or limitations

• Your preferred training setup (in-person, hybrid, remote)

This isn’t just a checklist. It’s a conversation. We want to hear your story, understand what brings you in, and talk about how we can help. That also includes discussing which coach might be the best fit, based on your needs and our availability.

Movement Screen and Table Assessment

After the consult, we begin assessing movement.

We typically look at:

• Posture and gait

• Basic functional movements (like squats, toe touches, and rotation)

• Joint mobility and range of motion on the table

This gives us an idea of how you move in space, where you may feel limited, and what patterns we should be aware of when designing your program. For remote assessments, this part is adapted as best we can based on your space and setup.

This Is Not the Avos Performance Battery

Our initial assessment is different from the Avos Performance Battery, which is a full 90 minute performance testing session that includes a written report. This assessment is about gathering foundational information, not performance metrics. It’s the first building block in your training process, not a test.

What Happens With the Remaining Time?

Depending on how the session flows, we may use the last 10 to 20 minutes to go through some light drills, address pain points, or suggest a few exercises to get you started.

Sometimes we’ll do a bit of strength or movement testing, just enough to give us some useful data without overwhelming you on day one.

Why We Do It This Way

Your initial assessment helps us:

• Build rapport and trust

• Understand how you move

• Identify restrictions or red flags

• Gather everything we need to design a personalized program

Without this step, we’d be guessing. And that’s not how we operate. Your coach takes the time before, during, and after this session to make sure we’re starting from the right place.

How You Should Feel After

You should walk away feeling heard. You should feel supported. Ideally, you feel excited, not nervous, to start training and build something that’s going to serve you long term.

Training is a skill. It’s a habit. It’s a way of taking care of your body so you can keep doing the things you love, whether that’s playing sports, being active with your family, or just moving better every day.

Common Misconceptions We Hear

“I feel like I’m being judged.”
You’re not. There are no wrong answers in this process. If your hips move a certain way, or your shoulder is limited, that’s all information we use to help you.

“I don’t think I’m fit enough to be assessed yet.”
That’s exactly why we do assessments. You don’t need to be fit. This is about meeting you where you are and giving us a starting point to work from.

“What if I fail?”
You can’t fail. This isn’t a test. It’s a snapshot of where you’re at today.

A Structured, Individualized Approach

Everything we collect goes into your client file, not a generic template. Your program is built from the ground up based on your movement, your goals, your limitations, and your training setup.

Every Avos coach follows this system. Our junior coaches go through a structured mentorship before ever leading assessments on their own, and we continue to support them with feedback and review to maintain high standards.

There are no shortcuts. And that’s the point.

The first session isn't about being perfect. It's about getting started the right way; with a coach who sees you, listens to you, and builds something with you.

If you're ready to take the next step, explore our training options to find the approach that best fits your goals.

Is Two Days per Week of Strength Training Enough for Longevity?

Written by Evelyn Calado, MKin, CSCS, RKin

If you look at most public health guidelines, the answer seems straightforward. Adults are advised to perform muscle-strengthening activities at least two days per week. This recommendation appears in Canadian, American, and international guidelines and applies to both adults and older adults.

But this raises an important question.

Is two days per week simply the minimum needed to check a health box, or is it actually enough to support long-term health, independence, and longevity?

The short answer is that two days per week can be enough, but only under specific conditions. Frequency alone does not determine whether strength training meaningfully impacts longevity. The quality and intensity of the stimulus matter far more than the number of days on a calendar.

What the Guidelines Actually Mean

Public health recommendations are designed for populations, not individuals. Their goal is to identify the lowest effective dose of activity that meaningfully reduces disease risk at a broad scale.

When guidelines recommend strength training twice per week, they are not suggesting that this is optimal for strength, muscle mass, or performance. They are identifying a threshold below which health risks increase, particularly as we age.

In other words, two days per week is a floor, not a ceiling.

Strength Training and Longevity: What the Research Actually Shows

Research consistently shows that resistance training is associated with lower all-cause mortality, reduced cardiovascular disease risk, and improved long-term health outcomes. From a public health perspective, even relatively small amounts of strength training appear to provide meaningful benefit.

However, it is important to be precise about what these findings actually represent.

Most large-scale longevity studies are designed to identify the minimum effective dose of strength training required to reduce population-level risk. They are not designed to define what is optimal for building strength, preserving muscle mass, or maximizing physical capacity across the lifespan.

In this context, it is true that one to two well-performed strength training sessions per week capture a substantial portion of the longevity benefit observed in epidemiological research. Beyond that point, additional sessions do not appear to reduce mortality risk in a simple, linear fashion.

This does not mean that training more is unnecessary, nor does it suggest that strength beyond a certain point stops being valuable. It simply reflects how longevity is measured in large populations.

For individuals interested in aging well, remaining strong, and protecting themselves against injury, disability, and loss of independence, the goal should not be to meet the minimum dose, but to build and maintain as much usable strength as possible over time.

Longevity vs Capacity: Two Different Goals

It is worth separating two concepts that are often conflated.

Training for longevity focuses on reducing disease risk and maintaining basic function. Training for capacity focuses on building strength, muscle mass, power, and resilience.

While two strength sessions per week may be sufficient to support longevity-related outcomes and can improve strength and muscle mass, they are often not the most effective approach for maximizing those qualities long term, particularly in trained individuals or as we age.

From a coaching perspective, the objective is not to do the least amount of work required to stay alive. The objective is to build a body that remains capable, robust, and adaptable for decades.

That typically requires more than the minimum.

Grip Strength, Brain Health, and Why Strength Is More Than Muscle

One of the most compelling demonstrations of strength’s relationship to long-term health comes from research on grip strength.

A large prospective study using data from nearly 500,000 adults in the UK Biobank examined the association between hand grip strength and dementia incidence. Grip strength, often used as a proxy for overall muscular strength, was found to be strongly and inversely associated with dementia risk.

Individuals in the lowest quartile of grip strength had a 72 percent higher incidence of dementia compared to those in the highest quartile.

This finding is important for two reasons.

First, it reinforces that muscular strength is closely tied to neurological and cognitive health, not just physical capability.

Second, it highlights that simple, measurable indicators of strength can reflect deeper systemic health. This is one reason grip strength is included in assessments such as the Avos Performance Battery. It provides insight into overall robustness, not just hand function.

Strength training, when performed with sufficient intensity, appears to play a meaningful role in preserving mobility, independence, and long-term brain health.

Strength Still Matters Even When Cardio Is “Good Enough”

Another frequently overlooked point is that strength contributes to longevity independently of cardiovascular fitness.

A long-term study following approximately 1,500 men over the age of 40 with hypertension for nearly 18 years examined the relationship between muscular strength, cardiorespiratory fitness, and mortality risk.

The findings were striking.

Even among men who were only in the bottom half of cardiorespiratory fitness, those in the top third for muscular strength had an almost 48 percent lower risk of all-cause mortality compared to those in the lowest strength group.

In other words, being strong mattered, even when aerobic fitness was not exceptional.

The lowest mortality risk was observed in individuals who were both strong and aerobically fit, but strength alone still provided a substantial protective effect. This reinforces the idea that resistance training is not optional if longevity is the goal.

Is Two Days per Week Enough in Practice?

This is where nuance matters.

For many adults, particularly those with limited time, two well-designed strength training sessions per week can meaningfully support long-term health. When performed with sufficient intensity and progression, this approach can maintain and often improve key outcomes such as:

• Muscular strength

• Muscle mass (particularly in untrained individuals or those returning to training)

• Bone health

• Joint capacity and tissue tolerance

• Metabolic health

• Overall function and independence as you age

However, outcomes depend on the goal, training history, and how the sessions are structured.

If an individual’s goal includes maximizing lean muscle mass, strength, power, or creating a larger buffer against age-related decline, training more than twice per week is often useful. This is not because two days “doesn’t work,” but because additional sessions often make it easier to accumulate more high-quality weekly training volume, practice key movement patterns, and progress without excessively long sessions.

Frequency alone does not determine effectiveness. What matters is whether training provides enough mechanical tension, effort, and progression to challenge the tissues that decline most rapidly with age.

Using five-pound dumbbells indefinitely, avoiding effort, or treating strength training as light activity rather than progressive overload is unlikely to produce meaningful adaptation.

Two high-quality sessions can outperform several low-effort ones. But for many people seeking to age strong, three to four sessions per week can be a practical way to accumulate more total weekly work and drive continued progress, especially once the “beginner gains” phase has passed.

Aging Changes the Equation

As we age, muscle protein synthesis becomes less responsive, strength declines faster than endurance, and power loss accelerates. This means that intensity and intent become increasingly important over time.

For older adults, two days per week may still be sufficient, but only if:

• Exercises are appropriately loaded

• Movements challenge balance and coordination

• Strength is trained through meaningful ranges of motion

• Progression is maintained where possible

Training “often enough” is not the same as training “effectively.”