Exercise training while wearing a weighted vest is undergoing somewhat of a renaissance. Social media posts and trainers are promoting them as a potential strategy for improving fitness and health.

Exercising with additional weight attached to the body is nothing new. This idea has been used with soldiers for many centuries if not millennia – think long hikes with a heavy pack.

The modern weighted vest comes in a range of designs that are more comfortable and can be adjusted in terms of the weight added. But could one be helpful for you?

What the research says

One of the earliest research studies, reported in 1993, followed 36 older people wearing weighted vests during a weekly exercise class and at home over a 20-week period. Wear was associated with improvements in bone health, pain and physical function.

Since then, dozens of papers have evaluated the exercise effects of wearing a weighted vest, reporting a range of benefits.

Not surprisingly, exercise with a weighted vest increases physiological stress – or how hard the body has to work – as shown by increased oxygen uptake, heart rate, carbohydrate utilisation and energy expenditure.

Adding weight equal to 10% of body weight is effective. But it doesn’t appear the body works significantly harder when wearing 5% extra weight compared to body weight alone.

Does more load mean greater injury risk?

A small 2021 study suggested additional weights don’t alter the biomechanics of walking or running. These are important considerations for lower-limb injury risk.

The safety considerations of exercising with weighted vests have also been reported in a biomechanical study of treadmill running with added weight of 1% to 10% of body weight.

While physiological demand (indicated by heart rate) was higher with additional weight and the muscular forces greater, running motion was not negatively affected.

To date no research studies have reported increased injuries due to wearing weighted vests for recreational exercise. However a 2018 clinical study on weight loss in people with obesity found back pain in 25% of those wearing such vests. Whether this can be translated to recreational use in people who don’t have obesity is difficult to say. As always, if pain or discomfort is experienced then you should reduce the weight or stop vest training.

Better for weight loss or bone health?

While wearing a weighted vest increases the energy expenditure of aerobic and resistance exercise, research to show it leads to greater fat loss or retaining muscle mass is somewhat inconclusive.

One older study investigated treadmill walking for 30 minutes, three times a week in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. The researchers found greater fat loss and muscle gain in the participants who wore a weighted vest (at 4–8% body weight). But subsequent research in obese older adults could not show greater fat loss in participants who wore weighted vests for an average of 6.7 hours per day.

There has been considerable interest in the use of weighted vests to improve bone health in older people. One 2003 study reported significant improvements in bone density in a group of older women over 32 weeks of weighted vest walking and strength training compared to a sedentary control group.

But a 2012 study found no difference in bone metabolism between groups of postmenopausal women with osteoporosis walking on a treadmill with or without a weighted vest.

Making progress

As with any exercise, there is a risk of injury if it is not done correctly. But the risk of weighted vest training appears low and can be managed with appropriate exercise progression and technique.

If you are new to training, then the priority should be to simply start exercising and not complicate it with wearing a weighted vest. The use of body weight alone will be sufficient to get you on the path to considerable gains in fitness.

Once you have a good foundation of strength, aerobic fitness and resilience for muscles, joints and bones, using a weighted vest could provide greater loading intensity as well as variation.

It is important to start with a lighter weight (such as 5% bodyweight) and build to no more than 10% body weight for ground impact exercises such as running, jogging or walking.

For resistance training such as squats, push-ups or chin-ups, progression can be achieved by increasing loads and adjusting the number of repetitions for each set to around 10 to 15. So, heavier loads but fewer repetitions, then building up to increase the load over time.

While weighted vests can be used for resistance training, it is probably easier and more convenient to use barbells, dumbbells, kettle bells or weighted bags.

The bottom line

Weighted vest training is just one tool in an absolute plethora of equipment, techniques and systems. Yes, walking or jogging with around 10% extra body weight increases energy expenditure and intensity. But training for a little bit longer or at a higher intensity can achieve similar results.

There may be benefits for bone health in wearing a weighted vest during ground-based exercise such as walking or jogging. But similar or greater stimulus to bone growth can be achieved by resistance training or even the introduction of impact training such as hopping, skipping or bounding.

Exercising with a weighted vest likely won’t increase your injury risk. But it must be approached intelligently considering fitness level, existing and previous injuries, and appropriate progression for intensity and repetition.

Rob Newton, Professor of Exercise Medicine, Edith Cowan University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Medicare, Australia’s universal health insurance scheme, guarantees all Australians access to a wide range of health and hospital services at low or no cost.

Although access to the scheme is universal across Australia (regardless of geographic location or socioeconomic status), one analysis suggests women often spend more out-of-pocket on health services than men.

Other research has found men and women spend similar amounts on health care overall, or even that men spend a little more. However, it’s clear women spend a greater proportion of their overall expenditure on health care than men. They’re also more likely to skip or delay medical care due to the cost.

So why do women often spend more of their money on health care, and how can we address this gap?

Women have more chronic diseases, and access more services

Women are more likely to have a chronic health condition compared to men. They’re also more likely to report having multiple chronic conditions.

While men generally die earlier, women are more likely to spend more of their life living with disease. There are also some conditions which affect women more than men, such as autoimmune conditions (for example, multiple sclerosis and rheumatoid arthritis).

Further, medical treatments can sometimes be less effective for women due to a focus on men in medical research.

These disparities are likely significant in understanding why women access health services more than men.

For example, 88% of women saw a GP in 2021–22 compared to 79% of men.

As the number of GPs offering bulk billing continues to decline, women are likely to need to pay more out-of-pocket, because they see a GP more often.

In 2020–21, 4.3% of women said they had delayed seeing a GP due to cost at least once in the previous 12 months, compared to 2.7% of men.

Data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics has also shown women are more likely to delay or avoid seeing a mental health professional due to cost.

Women are also more likely to need prescription medications, owing at least partly to their increased rates of chronic conditions. This adds further out-of-pocket costs. In 2020–21, 62% of women received a prescription, compared to 37% of men.

In the same period, 6.1% of women delayed getting, or did not get prescribed medication because of the cost, compared to 4.9% of men.

Reproductive health conditions

While women are disproportionately affected by chronic health conditions throughout their lifespan, much of the disparity in health-care needs is concentrated between the first period and menopause.

Almost half of women aged over 18 report having experienced chronic pelvic pain in the previous five years. This can be caused by conditions such as endometriosis, dysmenorrhoea (period pain), vulvodynia (vulva pain), and bladder pain.

One in seven women will have a diagnosis of endometriosis by age 49.

Meanwhile, a quarter of all women aged 45–64 report symptoms related to menopause that are significant enough to disrupt their daily life.

All of these conditions can significantly reduce quality of life and increase the need to seek health care, sometimes including surgical treatment.

Of course, conditions like endometriosis don’t just affect women. They also impact trans men, intersex people, and those who are gender diverse.

Diagnosis can be costly

Women often have to wait longer to get a diagnosis for chronic conditions. One preprint study found women wait an average of 134 days (around 4.5 months) longer than men for a diagnosis of a long-term chronic disease.

Delays in diagnosis often result in needing to see more doctors, again increasing the costs.

Despite affecting about as many people as diabetes, it takes an average of between six-and-a-half to eight years to diagnose endometriosis in Australia. This can be attributed to a number of factors including society’s normalisation of women’s pain, poor knowledge about endometriosis among some health professionals, and the lack of affordable, non-invasive methods to accurately diagnose the condition.

There have been recent improvements, with the introduction of Medicare rebates for longer GP consultations of up to 60 minutes. While this is not only for women, this extra time will be valuable in diagnosing and managing complex conditions.

But gender inequality issues still exist in the Medicare Benefits Schedule. For example, both pelvic and breast ultrasound rebates are less than a scan for the scrotum, and no rebate exists for the MRI investigation of a woman’s pelvic pain.

Management can be expensive too

Many chronic conditions, such as endometriosis, which has a wide range of symptoms but no cure, can be very hard to manage. People with endometriosis often use allied health and complementary medicine to help with symptoms.

On average, women are more likely than men to use both complementary therapies and allied health.

While women with chronic conditions can access a chronic disease management plan, which provides Medicare-subsidised visits to a range of allied health services (for example, physiotherapist, psychologist, dietitian), this plan only subsidises five sessions per calendar year. And the reimbursement is usually around 50% or less, so there are still significant out-of-pocket costs.

In the case of chronic pelvic pain, the cost of accessing allied or complementary health services has been found to average A$480.32 across a two-month period (across both those who have a chronic disease management plan and those who don’t).

More spending, less saving

Womens’ health-care needs can also perpetuate financial strain beyond direct health-care costs. For example, women with endometriosis and chronic pelvic pain are often caught in a cycle of needing time off from work to attend medical appointments.

Our preliminary research has shown these repeated requests, combined with the common dismissal of symptoms associated with pelvic pain, means women sometimes face discrimination at work. This can lead to lack of career progression, underemployment, and premature retirement.

Similarly, with 160,000 women entering menopause each year in Australia (and this number expected to increase with population growth), the financial impacts are substantial.

As many as one in four women may either shift to part-time work, take time out of the workforce, or retire early due to menopause, therefore earning less and paying less into their super.

How can we close this gap?

Even though women are more prone to chronic conditions, until relatively recently, much of medical research has been done on men. We’re only now beginning to realise important differences in how men and women experience certain conditions (such as chronic pain).

Investing in women’s health research will be important to improve treatments so women are less burdened by chronic conditions.

In the 2024–25 federal budget, the government committed $160 million towards a women’s health package to tackle gender bias in the health system (including cost disparities), upskill medical professionals, and improve sexual and reproductive care.

While this reform is welcome, continued, long-term investment into women’s health is crucial.

Mike Armour, Associate Professor at NICM Health Research Institute, Western Sydney University; Amelia Mardon, Postdoctoral Research Fellow in Reproductive Health, Western Sydney University; Danielle Howe, PhD Candidate, NICM Health Research Institute, Western Sydney University; Hannah Adler, PhD Candidate, Health Communication and Health Sociology, Griffith University, and Michelle O’Shea, Senior Lecturer, School of Business, Western Sydney University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.