Cited by 595Muscle activation and electromyography studiesCardiovascular and exercise physiologySex and Gender in Healthcare

Sex differences in human fatigability: mechanisms and insight to physiological responses

Open access
Hunter, S. K.·2014·Acta Physiologica

Abstract

Sex-related differences in physiology and anatomy are responsible for profound differences in neuromuscular performance and fatigability between men and women. Women are usually less fatigable than men for similar intensity isometric fatiguing contractions. This sex difference in fatigability, however, is task specific because different neuromuscular sites will be stressed when the requirements of the task are altered, and the stress on these sites can differ for men and women. Task variables that can alter the sex difference in fatigability include the type, intensity and speed of contraction, the muscle group assessed and the environmental conditions. Physiological mechanisms that are responsible for sex-based differences in fatigability may include activation of the motor neurone pool from cortical and subcortical regions, synaptic inputs to the motor neurone pool via activation of metabolically sensitive small afferent fibres in the muscle, muscle perfusion and skeletal muscle metabolism and fibre type properties. Non-physiological factors such as the sex bias of studying more males than females in human and animal experiments can also mask a true understanding of the magnitude and mechanisms of sex-based differences in physiology and fatigability. Despite recent developments, there is a tremendous lack of understanding of sex differences in neuromuscular function and fatigability, the prevailing mechanisms and the functional consequences. This review emphasizes the need to understand sex-based differences in fatigability to shed light on the benefits and limitations that fatigability can exert for men and women during daily tasks, exercise performance, training and rehabilitation in both health and disease.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/apha.12234

Cites

208 of 208 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Sex-based differences exist in endurance performance such that, relative to body mass and composition, females outperform males during exercise at submaximal intensities.

    “Sex-based differences are well known to exist in endurance performance where, relative to body mass and composition, females would outperform males during exercise at submaximal intensities (Hunter et al. 2014).”

    From Analysis of sex-based differences in energy substrate utilization during moderate-intensity aerobic exercise (2022) · cites this paper as Hunter et al. 2014

    The Physiological Mechanisms section (page not available in our copy) reports that, at the same relative endurance-exercise intensity, women oxidise more fat and that sex differences in muscle properties can contribute to less fatigue in women. It does not establish that women outperform men in submaximal endurance performance after accounting for body mass and composition. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The reduced muscle fatigability and metabolic advantage in women has been attributed to higher lipolytic efficiency and greater relative distribution and activation of fatigue-resistant slow twitch fibers.

    “This fact has been attributed to a higher lipolytic efficiency (Bergström and Hultman 1966) and to a greater relative distribution and activation of fatigue resistant slow twitch fibers (Zierath and Hawley 2004; Hunter 2014; Temesi et al. 2015; Tiller et al. 2021).”

    From Analysis of sex-based differences in energy substrate utilization during moderate-intensity aerobic exercise (2022) · cites this paper as Hunter 2014

    In Physiological Mechanisms (page unavailable), Hunter reports that women have a greater proportional area of slow type I fibres and links these fatigue-resistant fibres to lower fatigability. The passages do not establish greater activation of those fibres in women. The separate claim about lipolytic efficiency is attributed to Bergström and Hultman, not Hunter, in the citing sentence. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Women possess a greater capacity to resist fatigue.

    “women possess a greater capacity to resist fatigue [87]”

    From Loading recommendations for muscle strength, hypertrophy, and local endurance: a re-examination of the repetition continuum. (2021) · cites this paper as [87]

    The Relevance to Clinical Populations, Training and Rehabilitation section says women are less fatigable than men during many fatiguing tasks. The Single Limb Contractions section also reports tasks with no sex difference. The source supports greater fatigue resistance in many tasks, but not as an unqualified general capacity. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hunter, S. K.
Affiliations
Marquette University (US)
Corresponding author
Hunter, S. K.
Venue
Acta Physiologica
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2014-02-25
Volume
210
Issue
4
Pages
768-789
ISSN
1748-1708 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2043456716
Cited by
595
References
208
Citations by year
2026: 76 · 2025: 72 · 2024: 51 · 2023: 61 · 2022: 57 · 2021: 51 · 2020: 53 · 2019: 33 · 2018: 48 · 2017: 29 · 2016: 27 · 2015: 24 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 1
FWCI
15.87
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Acta Physiologica (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • e-Publications@Marquette (Marquette University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Institute on Aging (R15AG039697)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Muscle activation and electromyography studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Complementary and alternative medicine › Cardiovascular and exercise physiology
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Sex and Gender in Healthcare
Keywords
sex differences, muscle fatigue, fatigability, neuromuscular performance, isometric contraction, motoneuron pools, afferent nerve fibers, muscle blood flow, skeletal muscle metabolism, task specificity, sex bias in research, exercise performance, rehabilitation
MeSH terms
Female, Humans, Male, Sex Factors, Stress, Physiological, Muscle, Skeletal, Muscle Fatigue

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review