Episode #376: Cycle Syncing, Cardio Myths, and Iron Deficiency: A Barbell Medicine Review of Diary of a CEO's Viral Claims

Cycle Syncing, Cardio Myths, and Iron Deficiency: A Barbell Medicine Review of Viral Claims

Episode Summary: Debunking Women's Health Claims and Setting Optimal Targets

In this in-depth episode, Dr. Jordan Feigenbaum, joined by Dr. Lauren Colenso-Semple and Dr. Austin Baraki, breaks down the viral women's health claims made on a popular podcast, separating misleading mechanistic theory from actionable, evidence-based advice.

They tackle three major topics: the idea that Cycle Syncing is necessary for performance (spoiler: it's not); the confused messaging surrounding HIIT and Zone 2 cardio (consistency is key); and a critical discussion on Iron Deficiency, clarifying why standard lab cutoffs for ferritin are too low and why treating to an optimal target (greater than or equal to 50 ng/mL) is essential for managing fatigue and optimizing exercise performance in women.

⏱️ Episode Timestamps

• 1:29 I. Cycle Syncing: The Claim and the Mechanistic Logic
• 18:54 II. Conditioning Confusion: High Intensity, Zone 2, and Zone Definitions
• 21:10 Polarized vs. Pyramidal Training (Context)
• 47:08 III. Iron Deficiency: Normalizing Low Ferritin
• 51:52 Evidence Review: Setting Accurate Ferritin Cutoffs

⭐ Get More Value: Exclusive Content and Resources

Connect with Dr. Lauren Colenso-Semple: @drlaurencs1

Want to support the show and get early, ad-free access to all episodes plus exclusive bonus content? Subscribe to Barbell Medicine Plus and get ad-free listening, product discounts, and more. Try it free for 30-days.

Unsure which training plan is right for you? Take the free Barbell Medicine Template Quiz to be matched with the ideal program for your goals and experience level.

For media, support, or general questions, please contact us at [email protected]

I. Cycle Syncing: Why Consistency Trumps Hormone Status

The Problem with Mechanistic Reductionism

The viral claim that women must systematically adjust their training volume and intensity based on fluctuating hormones (estrogen and progesterone) to optimize performance or avoid harm is based on a reductionist and largely unproven hypothesis. While hormone changes are real, relying solely on mechanistic data (what happens in isolated cells or textbook diagrams) is insufficient, as the complex, interactive nature of human physiology often overrides these single-factor effects.

Dr. Feigenbaum and Dr. Colenso-Semple clarify that no reliable human evidence supports the idea that cycle syncing leads to superior athletic performance or adaptation. The fundamental flaw in the advice is that it confuses a plausible mechanism with a meaningful outcome.

Harm Assessment: The Cost of Inconsistency

The primary harm in cycle syncing is that it leads to missed training opportunities. Adaptation is driven by consistent training load (mechanotransduction), not a temporary hormone profile. Planning to proactively reduce training intensity or volume based on an unproven hormone schedule is detrimental to long-term strength and endurance gains.

Training modifications should be reactive—if a person genuinely feels symptoms of fatigue, pain, or discomfort on a given day (regardless of their cycle status), they should adjust or skip the workout. The advice to only exercise or train hard when you "feel awesome" is inconsistent with the reality of progressive training and often sets unrealistic expectations.

II. Conditioning Confusion: Context is Everything