When I was a young athlete navigating endometriosis, three laparoscopies, chemically induced menopause, and then surgical menopause, there was no roadmap. No playbook for someone in their 30s trying to keep training. I wasn’t finding helpful studies in PubMed. All I had was Hystersisters — a chat forum that didn’t help me train, recover, or feel human.
Stacy Sims was apparently doing research back then, but it wasn’t showing up in my Google searches. And when I finally did find her work, it still felt incomplete. Some puzzle pieces, but not the full picture. Not for someone like me.
Fast forward to today, and we’ve got Stacy Sims and Lauren Colenso-Semple debating “women’s fueling needs” on a podcast like it’s a prize fight. Lauren spent years taking passive-aggressive swipes at Stacy in pink-and-purple infographics with tiny PubMed links tucked in the corner. This time she did it to Stacy’s face.
And honestly? The whole thing is unnecessary. It doesn’t move the needle. It doesn’t give clarity to the women who need it. It’s just another round of “who’s right?” while actual athletes are left exhausted and confused.
The Receipts (and How They Don’t Add Up)
Lauren’s side:
-
Cited human trials (some women-only, some mixed-sex) showing that fasted vs fed training produces similar adaptations when daily intake is matched.
-
Pointed to her own research showing the menstrual cycle doesn’t change protein metabolism.
-
Bottom line: outcomes look the same, stop fear-mongering about timing.
Stacy’s side:
-
Leaned into meal-timing research in overweight adults, rodent studies on kisspeptin and ghrelin, and the strongest piece of her arsenal: low energy availability (LEA) data in women.
-
Bottom line: women are uniquely sensitive, avoid fasted training or risk hormone chaos.
Reality check:
-
Lauren cherry-picks outcomes, ignoring LEA literature.
-
Stacy cherry-picks mechanisms, ignoring outcome trials.
-
Both camps? Mostly studying young, eumenorrheic women.
-
Neither gives us guidelines for masters or menopausal athletes.
| Topic | Lauren’s Evidence | Stacy’s Evidence | Reality Check |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fed vs fasted training | RCTs in women/mixed groups: outcomes similar | Rodents + LEA warnings | Fasted sessions aren’t catastrophic if fueling overall is solid |
| Nutrient timing | Women-only trials: pre vs post doesn’t matter | Mixed-sex, overweight adults: early > late eating | Daily intake & adherence matter more than timing |
| Protein metabolism | Men vs women: similar MPS; cycle phase no effect | Mechanistic “female sensitivity” | Little sex difference; no need for cycle micromanaging |
| Hormone sensitivity | Downplays it | Rodents, macaques, kisspeptin/ghrelin | Mechanistic, not performance outcomes |
| LEA (low energy availability) | Ignored | Strong women-specific studies | Both should acknowledge: LEA risk is real |
The Actual Elephant in the Room: Fatigue
The number one complaint I hear from peri- and menopausal women isn’t “should I eat before my workout?” It’s fatigue. Bone-deep exhaustion. And it usually comes down to three things: fueling, hydration, and sleep.
Sleep can be slippery in midlife. But fueling and hydration? Those are within reach. The problem is, women have been conditioned for decades to believe not eating is virtuous. They trained fasted in the 90s because they were told it “burns fat.” Now intermittent fasting is having its moment, and they feel guilty if they eat before they move.
And yet these same women tell me they’re exhausted, sluggish, not recovering.
Why is it controversial to suggest fueling every workout? That doesn’t mean a sit-down meal or stuffing your belt with snacks for a 20-minute jog. It means a little something. Half a banana. A slice of toast. A few sips of sports drink. Enough to tell your body you’re not running on fumes.
Instead, we’ve turned fasted training into some kind of hill to die on — as if “burning a little more fat” is worth feeling flat, tired, and broken down. Spoiler: it’s not.
Why This Debate Misses the Mark
Both Lauren and Stacy are brilliant. Both have shaped important conversations. But this debate? It’s theater. It’s about proving who’s right, not helping women who are struggling.
-
Lauren is so focused on debunking Sims that she forgets not everything needs to be a “gotcha.”
-
Stacy is so focused on warning women about hormone disruption that she sometimes oversells what the mechanisms actually prove.
And while they spar, the women who need guidance — masters athletes, menopausal women, those juggling careers, families, training, and health shifts — are still without answers.
My Take
I don’t need another PubMed link embedded in an infographic. I don’t need another rodent study spun into a scary headline. I don’t need to watch two women argue over who’s more “right.”
What I need — what athletes need — is nuance. Is coaching. Is permission to eat before they move. Is acknowledgement that research in 22-year-olds doesn’t tell us how to fuel a 45-year-old in menopause.
I’m sick and tired of watching women fight for disordered eating patterns dressed up as “training hacks.” I’ve lived through endometriosis, surgical menopause, and years of piecing together my own roadmap when the research didn’t care to include me. I don’t care who wins a debate. I care who helps athletes feel strong, resilient, and less exhausted.
And right now? That’s not coming from either side of this debate.
And as a side note: I've dug into Lauren's approach to this topic previously. You can read more here.