March 18, 2025 • 51 mins
“Women’s physiology isn’t a problem to be solved - it’s an opportunity to innovate.”
In this fascinating episode of The Game Changers podcast, I speak with Professor Kirsty Elliott-Sale, one of the world’s leading researchers in female physiology, about the critical need for women-focused sports science.
From her unconventional journey into the field, to leading ground-breaking research, Kirsty challenges outdated approaches and highlights why women’s health must be at the centre of performance science, not an afterthought.
We cover:
➡️ Bridging the research gap – why we must innovate rather than simply adapt male-based models
➡️ The Centre of Excellence for Women in Sport – how the Manchester centre is dedicated to advancing research and collaboration
➡️ ACL injuries in female athletes – does oestrogen play a role, or are we missing the bigger picture?
➡️ Menstrual-cycle-based training – the scientific evidence (or lack of it) behind tailoring training to cycle phases
➡️ Pregnancy & performance – how attitudes are shifting, and why more female athletes are competing as mothers
➡️ The future of women in sports science – how young women can break into the field and drive change
Kirsty’s message is clear: women’s physiology isn’t a limitation—it’s a strength that should be studied, understood, and embraced.
“If we only ever research men, we’ll only ever understand men. It’s time to stop playing catch-up and start leading.”
Thank you to Sport England who support The Game Changers Podcast with a National Lottery award.
Find out more about The Game Changers podcast here: https://www.fearlesswomen.co.uk/thegamechangers
Hosted by Sue Anstiss
Produced by Sam Walker, What Goes On Media
A Fearless Women production
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Sue Anstiss (00:03):
Hello and welcome to The Game Changers.
I'm Sue Anstiss, and this isthe podcast where you'll hear
from trailblazing women in sportwho are knocking down barriers
and challenging the status quofor women and girls everywhere.
What can we learn from theirjourneys as we explore key
issues around equality in sportand beyond?
I'd like to start with a bigthank you to our partners, Sport
(00:24):
England, who support the GameChangers podcast through a
national lottery award.
My guest today is ProfessorKirsty Elliott-Sale, Head of the
Centre of Excellence for Womenin Sport at the Manchester
Metropolitan UniversityInstitute of Sport.
In 2024, Kirsty was named asone of the 50 most influential
(00:47):
women in sport by the Telegraph.
Following a PhD that examinedthe effects of female
reproductive hormones on musclestrength.
Kirsty's work is primarilyfocused on female athletes in
areas that include the menstrualcycle, hormonal contraceptives
and menopause.
Kirsty's also been involved indesigning and implementing
exercise interventions duringand following pregnancy for a
(01:10):
variety of populations,including women in the military
athletes and women with obesity.
Kirst is hugely respected inthe sports industry, having
worked with high-profileorganisations across a wide
range of sports, including theUK Sports Institute, the FA,
uefa, the European ClubAssociation, Arsenal Women's
(01:30):
Football Team, British Rowing,WTA, the ECB, Manchester Thunder
and the Matildas.
Kirsty's work is extensivelypublished, which is actually how
I first came to discover her,when I was researching my book
back in 2020, and I'm delightedto say that our paths have
crossed many times since then.
So, Kirsty, can I start byperhaps asking you to share your
(01:57):
journey into sports science?
So where did it all start foryou, oh my?
Professor Kirsty Ellio (02:01):
Goodness , let's rewind.
It's a long time ago, Sue.
I accidentally fell into sportsscience.
I'm not sure if I should admitthat so clearly.
Listeners will have guessedalready from my accent that I'm
Irish, and so there I was atsecondary school, hugely
influenced by I had a PE teacher, Mrs Kane.
(02:22):
I can still remember her,clearly huge impact on me.
And I had a PE teacher, mrsKane.
I can still remember her,clearly huge impact on me, and I
loved my PE sessions.
Now I should say I went to aconvent Catholic school, the
women in my family and my schoolsetting.
It wasn't sporty at all Not,you know, this is Ireland in the
late seventies, early eights,and so my only interaction with
(02:44):
sport was through PE and throughthis PE teacher who was amazing
, and so I wanted to be a PEteacher.
That's what I wanted to do.
I wanted to leave home in a bigway.
I wanted to spread sort of mywings, and so I thought, oh well
, I'll go abroad.
I mean, I'm from Ireland, Itook a huge step to England, but
I wanted to go somewhere new,wanted to go abroad.
(03:06):
So I essentially had appliedfor PE everywhere in England, or
so I thought I put down thewrong code in my UCAS form and
that led me to Liverpool, johnMoores, and to actually not
sport science in its purestsense, but I had applied for a
coaching science degree.
(03:26):
So you can see how, on the UCASbrochure, coaching science
might've been quite similar toPE, you know, in the same sort
of bracket.
And so Liverpool, John Moores,invited me for an interview and
I loved it.
I loved the city, I loved thiscoaching science because it
seemed a little different,because I had science in it and
(03:47):
I happened to love science.
I was doing biology andchemistry and so this idea of
putting together sport andcoaching with science seemed
like the perfect fit.
And the rest is history.
So there I went to Liverpool,john Moores, studied coaching
science, which is really sportand exercise science, but with
sort of, I guess, a specialityin sports coaching.
And then I was really fortunatethat Liverpool, john Moores
(04:08):
asked me to stay on and do a PhDand I did and I loved it and I
think you mentioned in your verykind introduction, you know,
that my PhD started.
Sue Anstiss (04:19):
You know that's where my sort of work with women
started, so yes, I love the wayyou just casually go and they
asked me to stay and do a PhD,as if it's just like, yeah, I
hung around a bit in the rightplaces, but how fantastic that
it was almost a accidentallyfinding that course or something
that you wouldn't have done.
It's interesting, isn't it?
We think about the challengesnow of getting more women into
coaching, and yet that was acoaching course.
(04:41):
What was the gender balancelike at the time that you did
that course?
Professor Kirsty Elliott (04:44):
um so actually there were only seven
on that degree program, so it'sa very small sort of degree
program.
As I say, that sort of boils onand sits alongside sports
science.
Um, now I'm trying to do themental math.
Sue Anstiss (04:56):
There were three women and four men and was
coaching an option that youwould have taken a pure coaching
route rather than more of ayour kind of movement into
science?
Professor Kirsty Elliott (05:06):
yeah, so so built into to the degree,
um, you know, you had to docoaching placements.
So I was an athlete at the timemyself, and then through my, my
sport, I was obviously coachingwithin the, the clubs that that
I um, the club that I trainedin.
What did you play?
Oh, I was a kickboxer.
Sue Were you From a martialarts background and so, yeah, so
(05:28):
I was obviously training andcompeting with my club and a
part of the GB kickboxing teamat the time, then also coaching,
you know, younger children andlower belts grades.
It was quite active in thatspace.
But, to honest, I wasn'tthinking about women at that
point in my degree.
That wasn't a specialism ofmine, it wasn't on my radar.
(05:51):
Where I became interested wasright at the end of my degree
and again, it's probably not theroute people are going to think
.
But I took a chronobiologymodule.
Chronobiology, most peoplewould know, is around circadian
rhythms.
'm gonna I promise I'm gonnaexplain all the tech jargon
around how time of day usuallyaffects people.
So people might say you know,there's a time of day where
(06:13):
temperature, body temperature,peaks and that's good for
strength training or whatever,and so that's what chronobiology
is is well known for sort ofdaily rhythms and hourly rhythms
and so on.
But but there was one lecturein that module on what we call a
circummental rhythm, and Idon't know how your Latin is,
but circummental means around amonth.
(06:34):
And now everybody's thinking,oh, what happens around every
month?
And it was the menstrual cycle.
And so the menstrual cycleappeared in this chronobiology
module and that's where I firstsort of encountered it and I
loved it.
I thought that was reallyfascinating, this repeating
patterns of hormones in womenthat occur over typically around
a calendar month.
And so that sort of whet myappetite.
(06:56):
And then, as I said, hangingaround in the right place at the
right time, and Liverpool, johnMoore said would you stay and
do a PhD?
And at that time they'd alreadyhad a really fantastic
researcher, julie Greaves.
She'd not long finished her PhDin women's physiology and she'd
done some really nice studieson the menstrual cycle and
(07:19):
menopause and so on.
And so the idea was is that Iwould stay, I would work with
Julie, we would continue thisline of work together.
And at that point John Moores,you know, were really, I guess,
trailblazers, you know,prioritizing women's physiology
at a time when nobody was.
And so then suddenly it allcame together the idea of you
(07:39):
know the coaching and the sportsscience and the physiology and
endocrinology, and and then,sadly, I because life took over
and research took over, Istopped competing and stopped
coaching.
But now I'm really lucky.
I feel like I'm having severalcareers.
I'm now in a position where Ican now start to influence again
in the sort of direct athletespace and the coach space.
(08:00):
So I've maybe come full circle.
Sue Anstiss (08:03):
I can't believe it's my first question.
I've already learned so muchabout you and I thought I
already knew a lot about youalready.
Um, what, what was it?
Do you think about Liverpool,john Moores at that time?
So was it a specific person inplace?
Why were they such atrailblazing university then?
Do you think?
Professor Kirsty Elliott (08:17):
Oh, that is a good question.
Well, um, I'm thinking aboutTim Cable.
Professor Tim Cable is in mymind because Tim was my PhD
supervisor At Liverpool, oh, wow, and I did my PhD between 1998
and 2001.
And then, if you were to fastforward to now, I joined the
Institute of Sport at man Metjust over two years ago.
(08:39):
And who's the director of theInstitute of Sport?
But Tim Cable.
And so here we are.
The band is back together 20something years later.
And you know, tim is still atrailblazer and you know, not
only is he very good atidentifying areas of, you know,
worthy areas of investigationand innovation, he's very good
(09:02):
at bringing people together.
So, you know, when Tim callsyou, you sort of pick up the
phone and go, yeah, I'm there.
So, yeah, I think a lot of it,I would have to say, rests with,
you know, tim identifying thatarea as being important.
And then, as I say, 20 oddyears later, he's still
championing that women's agenda.
And so when he called and said,would you join the Institute of
(09:22):
Sport?
And he said, said, and if youcome here, what, what could we
build in this space?
And then you know, sort ofwithin the first year of being
here, we recognize that.
You know we've a lot ofexpertise within the institute
and man at university, and thenyou know, slowly, that idea
around developing and launchingand, you know, sustaining now a
center of excellence for womenin sport.
(09:42):
So I'm going to give Tim Cablethe thumbs up for this one.
Sue Anstiss (09:47):
I do love it because on my path across with
him 20, 25 years ago when Iworked for Gatorade and he was
doing research in terms of, youknow, heat, acclimatisation and
fluids and all that stuff too.
So it's lovely, yeah, that kindof repeating thread of somebody
.
Professor Kirsty Elliott (10:01):
And in his PhD.
So you know, and he he wouldn'tmind me saying, but even before
my time, when he did his PhD,um, some of his work, um, his
cardiovascular work, was inmenopausal women.
So you know he himself wascontributing to that area.
Um, you know, right back in theday.
And you know, maybe one of thethings we'll come on to discuss
(10:21):
is, I know that women are in thespotlight right now, and
absolutely as they should be.
But you know, people have beenworking, you know, hard in this
area.
You know, and even though theymay not have been noticed and
picked up and it wasn'tmainstream, I think it is worth
acknowledging.
You know a legacy.
You know I'm standing on theshoulders of giants.
(10:41):
You know it's through lots ofgreat people.
You know that laid thefoundation for my PhD and then,
in the interim 20 odd years thatwe've been working together.
Lots of good people out there.
Sue Anstiss (10:50):
Absolutely.
Yeah, right to give them credittoo, isn't it?
There's a positive picture thatyou've painted there of being a
woman in academia and thatprogress.
What has that been like?
Have you faced challenges as aas a female a female in the
sports science space, would yousay or does it feel like it's
always been very equal andyou've had opportunities?
Professor Kirsty Elliott (11:09):
um, oh, that's a good question,
isn't it?
Yeah, it's hard to knowsometimes if you have missed out
on something.
No, I'm.
I'm going to say that I thinkyou know my, my journey has been
a good one and I am fortunatethat I found my people quite
early on and you know, when youhave a mentor like Tim to start
(11:30):
with, it does sort of put you ona certain track.
Of course, no journey iswithout its bumps and and that
sort of thing, but I think, no,I'm going to say that you know,
I've enjoyed my journey and Ithink my hard work has been
rewarded.
In the main, what I would say isthe challenge possibly for me
(11:51):
in my career which maybe is alittle bit different than, say,
my male counterpart was probablywhen I had my children and just
sort of trying to balance the,you know, a career break, that
re-entry.
I chose to work part-time whenI came back.
That was the way that I couldbalance sort of everything.
So I guess my, my top levelanswer is no, I've enjoyed
(12:13):
myself.
I found my sport and exercisecommunity to be a good one.
There have been a couple ofbumps, maybe no more or less
than anybody else, and possiblythe only real challenge was just
navigating motherhood.
Sue Anstiss (12:29):
And in terms of that bigger sports science piece
that we talked about, some ofthe work that you've been doing,
but historically it has.
The women's sports science hasbeen under research, and we hear
that kind of discussed a lot atthe moment, don't we?
But what does that kind of meanfor female athletes?
Are we still seeing femaleathletes today that being
trained using the data that'sbased on primarily male
physiology?
Professor Kirsty Elliott (12:46):
Yeah, I think that there is certainly
there's no disagreement.
You know, the focus has notbeen on female athletes.
Sport and exercise science hasbeen largely, you know,
developed and the data that'sbeen derived in this area have
been from males.
And yeah, I think that data isstill being used.
I guess there's a nuance here.
Two really points to make.
(13:08):
Is one, some of that dataderived from men will be
relevant to women.
So, you know, that's importantto say.
I don't feel that we need torepeat every study that we've
done in men, in women.
I think what's been overlookedand under-researched and
under-resourced and so on, isthe female-specific
considerations.
(13:28):
So, you know, looking at thatsport or that athlete, so you
know a footballer, and seeingwhat are the female-specific
considerations for femalefootballers, and that's been
largely overlooked.
We've just been looking at themas footballers or we've been
defaulting to men.
So I think that's the areathat's been overlooked and I
think, you know, as we've said,it's coming into its own now.
(13:52):
Better late than never.
But I know people can't see myface.
There is a disdain for look onmy face because it did take
longer than it should have done.
You know this should havehappened a long time ago.
I don't know if joke is theright word, but you know,
sometimes it's mentioned thatwomen were invented sports.
(14:13):
Women were invented in the lastOlympic cycle because, of
course, in for Tokyo, it was theintention to reach parity in
participation at the games.
That didn't quite happen, itwas close, but then obviously
that was achieved in Paris andso often people, as I say, joke
not sure that that's the rightword that women were invented in
the last Olympic cycle andthat's a little sad because
clearly we weren't.
(14:34):
And the drive for medals youknow it took a drive for medals
to become the drive for, youknow, sort of a focus on women
and female specificconsiderations.
So I think, you know, again, I'malways trying to be glass half
full, so I'm glad the lightshave come on.
That's how I always describe it.
The lights are on now and youknow it's what we do moving
(14:55):
forward.
I think we should innovate inthis space and do something new,
and so you know, I think,trying to incorporate and
embrace and empower and all ofthose things around female
specific considerations to todevelop women's sport, let's do
something new here and let's doit using the knowledge that we
(15:16):
got maybe elsewhere.
So so yeah, it's.
It's not a linear journey, isit?
But hopefully we can nowaccelerate in this space and
come into our own.
Sue Anstiss (15:26):
That's such an interesting point.
I had never, never reallythought about it in that way.
But we talk a lot about inother areas of women's sport,
don't we?
In terms of funding andsustainability, we don't just
want to be like what we've seenin men's sport because it hasn't
worked in many cases.
So let's build it better and,you know, more sustainably, in a
positive way, and I hadn'treally considered.
That is also the case in thescience, in the sports science
(15:47):
area too, isn't it?
Professor Kirsty Elliott (15:48):
yeah, absolutely.
I mean that that's the thing,isn't it?
Um, you know we've got greatpeople, as we've said, and you
know I'm hoping that in inscience, in the science space of
this, you know bigger overallpicture of women's sport, that
we will get the opportunity toto do something new and to write
and, you know, developsomething new and exciting.
And you know, of course, wealways talk about, you know,
(16:11):
this taking, you know thisimprint or blueprint that we
have for men and taking it intowomen's sport.
I am looking forward to a timewhere men are taking things from
women's sport and you know atime where men are taking things
from women's sports andimprinting that and embedding it
into their space.
So, yeah, I mean, maybe I'mnaive, but I think that the
future is hopeful.
Sue Anstiss (16:32):
And it does feel, doesn't it?
Even in the last few years,there's been this huge jump in
progress in terms of neworganisations being established,
new university centres ofinnovation and we're going to
come on to talk about Manchestermore and also more investors,
and female investors, in thespace too.
So do you feel we've gone?
Is there no going back now?
Have we?
We're not.
I don't really like the phrasetipping point, but do you feel
we're?
We're there now.
Professor Kirsty Elliott (16:54):
Yes, and again, I know no people can
see my face.
It looks a little twistedbecause you know, I think this,
this change, certainly in mycareer, has been coming the last
five or so years and it'sgaining momentum.
And up until recently, if you'dasked me that question, I would
have said no, I felt likesomebody might turn the lights
out again.
But no, I do feel like you know, it has been a sustained
(17:17):
momentum.
You know the opportunities areincreasing, all those things
that you said.
So no, I think I think therewould be a revolution across all
sectors if anybody tried toturn the lights off now.
So no, I think this is thetipping point and I think you
know we've made it over the browof the hill.
Don't get me wrong, there's alot of work to be done, but I
don't think that we can ever.
Sue Anstiss (17:39):
You know it will ever be pushed back or hidden as
it has, has been and youmentioned the centre of
excellence for women in sport soestablished, launched in march
2024, last year in manchester.
Can you tell us a bit moreabout it and and and why it was
needed?
But you have alluded to, butthe kind of history behind its
establishment?
Professor Kirsty Elliott (17:59):
yeah, so our centre of excellence for
women in sport, I guessphysically housed in in
manchester, mesh, so in inManchester, but in collaboration
with the UK Sports Institute.
And so there are our partnersin this endeavour and of course
they are I'm sure everybodyknows already but they represent
Olympic and Paralympic andCommonwealth sports in the UK
(18:22):
and although the Centre goesbeyond just Olympic Paralympic
sport and we do professionalsports and we do health and we
do society, you know it's reallya continuum, I guess, from that
elite space right down to, youknow, girls and women who have
maybe never exercised before,and so people often go.
So why did you make thisrelationship with the top end
(18:44):
then?
But actually we can learn a lot, but actually we can learn a
lot we can learn from athletes,and that information is
applicable right through oursystem or our timeline or our
spectrum of the girls and womenthat we hope to work with.
So it is, it's a really greatsort of relationship.
We have lots of other partnersand collaborators too.
(19:04):
We work a lot with ArsenalWomen's Football Club, who've
made a huge investment into notjust their women's team in you
know from what the public sees,but you know behind the scenes
into facilities and resourcesand actually into research.
So you know the relationshipwith us.
We have a PhD student embeddedat the football club.
The club, the players, thestaff there.
(19:27):
They're generating what we wouldcall the research questions,
and I guess in applied sportthey would say the challenges
faced by women and they discussthose with us and we design some
studies to interrogate thatfurther, to generate some data
and that data goes straight backto the players, to the club, to
the staff there and thenhopefully will improve for the
players and for the game ingeneral.
(19:48):
So yeah, we've got partners infootball and netball and rugby
and lots of different sports.
And again, we're reallyfortunate that UKSI are
fantastic partners because theydon't ever try and limit us,
because they recognize as wellthat Olympic sports can learn
from professional sports.
The center, as I say, these twoorganizations have come
(20:09):
together with a willingness toamplify and accelerate the
development of women's sport andwe do that with a wide network
and it's not just throughresearch, it's through advocacy,
it's through looking atpolicies, it's about spreading
that dissemination with themedia.
We have a wide remit.
Sue Anstiss (20:31):
You mentioned that kind of flow down almost from
that very top level of scienceand we often hear that example
that we have the NASAresearchers and everything
that's done in space.
It impacts day to dayhouseholds.
But how long would you say itgenerally takes for that
cutting-edge research thatyou're doing at the very top to
work its way down throughorganizations, through coaches
and trainers, to to the athletesthat's?
Professor Kirsty Elliott (20:53):
a good question.
Um, I'm not sure I I have ananswer, because the reason why I
say that is because I'mthinking about, like, the
different organizations I workwith, and sometimes the
invitation from the organizationis you come in and you work at
the organizational level and andthat's where your question
would be applicable how does itget down?
(21:13):
But with the otherorganizations, they, the
invitation is to come straightin and talk to the athletes
themselves, and so you know thatbottom down and top up it's
different sort of sport by sportand country by country.
So I'm not sure there's auniversal answer.
But I guess what I could maybespeak to is, you know, from that
initial invitation wheresomebody within the sport and
(21:34):
organization says you know,would you come in and work with
us in whatever aspect you are,how long does it take to make a
change?
Not very long, because actuallysometimes the very first visit
I'm a bit cheeky I'll always askto use the toilet and then I'll
come out and I'll say tosomebody oh, there's no free
sanitary products in your toilet, and the next time I come, that
(21:57):
would be really great if thatwas changed.
And so there's a changeinstantly, you know, and there
are small, quick wins, and Iknow people call it low-hanging
fruit.
I don't really love that term,but actually you know change can
happen quickly.
The size of the change, yeah,that's another thing.
But there are ripples and youknow, I see that, you know even
(22:19):
organizations I've been intoonce.
The ripples go long, you knowway beyond your visit and you
know we can't take the creditfor it, but I think once an
organization invites anybodylike you, like me, to come in,
something has happened in themindset.
They know they need something,they want something and and not
(22:39):
they can't always put theirfinger on it.
Some organizations do, theyknow what it is they want and
some organizations don't, butthey know that they want to do
something in this space.
And so I think change can happenquickly and have ripples and
have legacy.
But if you were asking me andmaybe you were and I diverted
but if you ask me from a purelyresearch perspective, you know
(23:00):
you come up with a question, youdesign a study, you do the
study, you publish the study,you hope somebody reads the
paper and changes something.
That's a slow pipeline and Idon't, personally, in my
experience, I don't think you'returning that around in quicker
than 18 months and that would besomebody working fairly flat
out.
And so you know, I think theminimum research project that
(23:22):
I'm sort of accepting is with a12 monthmonth timescale and
knowing that there'll beprobably another six to 12
months after that to reallyoperationalize sort of the
findings from that project.
Sue Anstiss (23:33):
I think when I wrote the question, I think my
thinking was almost of a when Ithink of an everyday coach
coaching a young female athlete.
But my thinking is how longthings take to get from that a
discovery of something to comethrough, especially someone
that's coached for many, manyyears, and there's certain
protocols and there probablyisn't an answer to it.
But it's just an interestingpiece, isn't it?
Of how the we're seeing thischange over here.
(23:55):
But is it actually reaching theeveryday coach with athletes
today?
Professor Kirsty Ellio (24:00):
probably yeah, no, and then I will amend
my answer to actually answerthe question you asked me.
I still think that's takingquite a while.
Yeah, I do you know.
We know that we talk about itbeing under research, but we we
can also talk about being underresourced and so on and so on
and so on, and so when you havevery little, you know, it's hard
(24:21):
to dilute that even further andexpect people to stay at the
cutting edge of everything.
And so often in women's sportswe know that people are just
trying to keep their heads abovewater.
So I think it's taking a longtime to really, as you say,
filter through the entire systemand often down to the people
and the places where actually itprobably has the biggest impact
(24:42):
.
But I would say I'm encouragedbecause, again, if I took a
football example, there are moreand more invitations now to go
in and speak at more of agrassroots sort of, you know,
sort of academy level andinfluence there.
Because I guess, if I wentreally specifically to my area
that I'm interested in, which isa varying hormone profile, so
(25:02):
menstrual cycles and hormonalcontraception and pregnancy and
so on Actually I would loveyoung girls to have this body
literacy and then they take itthroughout their entire careers.
And you know, so often now, bythe time we're in an elite
organization, at the very topend, a lot of the athletes are
saying, gosh, I wish I knew thatsooner.
I really did, you know.
(25:22):
And they're gracious becausethey're still taking part in
research and they're leaving alegacy for those that come
behind them.
So I think, if we can sort offlip flop and try and
concentrate and again we'restill, we're getting more
funding and more opportunities,but we're still looking to
dilute a relatively small part.
But yeah, focused and targetattention, that's what's needed,
(25:43):
right.
Sue Anstiss (25:44):
Very interesting.
And what does success look likefor you as the institute itself
?
What's you know?
You look back in five yearstime.
What will you have have changed?
Or, you know, is there a volumeof work?
Does it depend on the fundingthat's coming in as well too, I
imagine?
Professor Kirsty Elliott (25:58):
I'm going to be.
I'm going to be selfish andtalk, I guess, about my
particular sort of stream ofwork within the center, because
obviously the center is such awide remit.
But I think success for mepersonally and and you know,
obviously as part of the center,would be a legacy where girls
and women understand the thosefemale specific topics, you know
(26:23):
the things that make themdifferent, and understanding
that there's as many positivesas there are negatives to these
differences.
And I do worry a little bitthat when we start talking about
female specific considerationsit's always in a negative way.
Oh, you know, girls and womenmenstruate and that's very
challenging and you know thatwill limit their ability to
(26:44):
train and to compete.
And suddenly, you know, womenmay be in some areas then seem
less than.
And how can we change that andsay to these girls and women
actually your menstrual cycle isa marker of health and you know
, your body is fantastic becauseobviously these are really, in
the first instance, they'rereproductive functions, right,
(27:07):
and and it's not, it doesn'tmatter whether you go on or not
to have children, but thatreproductive function, that
system, when it's working well,that's such a marker of of good
health and your body's ability,that that's brilliant and should
be celebrated.
If it comes with some challenges, as it does for many women,
again, rather than well, how dowe sort of deal with and sort of
(27:30):
you know, how do we change thetraining to accommodate these
adverse symptoms, I wouldchallenge and go actually,
rather than again asking womento suck it up and just cope with
them and deal with them andmaybe make small changes,
because, let's be honest, a lotof sports structures and
programs and all of that,they're quite rigid, especially
at the elite level, and there'snot much bend and you can't just
(27:52):
take three days off, you know,or not compete at the Olympic
final, because it's not theright time for you, I think you
know.
Again, a positive way to lookat it is if you face challenges,
what can we do within sport andexercise, science and medicine
to what can we do within sportand exercise, science and
medicine to alleviate and tomitigate against those adverse
symptoms?
And that's where I would liketo see us going.
Oh, my God, I don't evenremember the question.
(28:14):
I was very excited about that,but I think I was saying about,
you know, my legacy.
What would be the legacy andwhat would success look like?
Body literacy, understandingthe positives, understanding
that the challenges and thereare, I'm not trying to hide that
, I'm trying to re-redress thecurrent narrative.
But the challenges we face, howdo we overcome them in a
(28:35):
positive and acceptable andappropriate way?
And I think if I couldinfluence around menstrual
cycles, hormonal contraception,menopause, as maybe some of the
big hitters of those sort ofovarian hormone profiles that
women will encounter throughouttheir lifetime, then that would
be a job well done.
Sue Anstiss (28:56):
There's a lovely part in the Abby Ward
documentary made where she's athome filming herself when she's
had the baby and talks about herbody and her body changing, and
it gives me goosebumps even nowwhen I think back to it.
But how this body was, you know, she was an athlete, it was an
athlete's body, and then it's abody that's been built to house
a baby and that and it's done anamazing job of doing that, and
(29:17):
now she's kind of trying tochange back to being an athlete.
But it it's a really importantpart, isn't it this?
What the remarkable, incrediblethings that female bodies can
do and should be celebrated forthat.
Professor Kirsty Ell (29:27):
Absolutely , you know, and it's hard, isn't
it, when you're trying to drivechange quickly.
And you know we're asking theright questions now and I think
we've moved away from, as I say,those shadows and those taboos.
But I think we still have to becareful of of of the narratives
and shaping them to beempowering and not to be
(29:50):
limiting.
You know, it would be awfulthat, now that we're talking
about these things, that weaccidentally end up weaponizing
them and making women seem, seemless than, and so I think the
challenge here is to raiseawareness and then to be able to
shape the systems within sportsto accommodate for those things
.
And you know it's funny becauseyou know I'm a researcher and
(30:12):
you know, obviouslytraditionally from a university,
but once, I think, particularlyin the women's space, once
you're working here, your jobdoesn't stop at the university
door because you know you takewith you into you know policy
and into into you know policy,and into you know resources and,
as I say, the free sanitaryproducts and all of these things
.
And and I think it's reallynice that we are able to have
(30:34):
that, that domino effect andthat you know it, it goes, it
goes out and it comes back inand it's top down and bottom up
and meeting in the middle.
I think it's really importantthat, yeah, we're all pulling in
the same direction Fabulous.
Sue Anstiss (30:45):
You're a member of UEFA's research panel leading a
pioneering project investigatingthe effect of menstrual cycle
on footballers performance, socan you tell us a little bit
more about that?
And I also just, I guess,taking on to that, we talk a lot
about ACL injuries and that'sbeen very much of a news and
that link of hormones.
But I'm and I know I'm we'vehad this conversation before but
(31:06):
kind of what your findings havebeen in in that area.
Professor Kirsty Elliott (31:09):
Yeah, so, so really fortunate to to
be working with an amazing teamat UEFA.
So they're driving manyprojects.
They had their medicalconference last week and a whole
day dedicated to the women'sgame, which was was fantastic.
So again, more trailblazers.
So, yeah, I've been reallyfortunate to be part of the UEFA
panel and we're working on aconsensus statement.
(31:32):
It's written to you know, landin elite women's in football,
but actually they won't mind mesaying this it would be useful
to any sport really, and youknow any organisation.
So it's bringing together lotsof different people from whether
it's sports science, medicine,policymakers, you know, funders,
and trying to write down whatit not just how we look at
(31:58):
menstrual cycles, so likephysical measurements of
menstrual cycles within football.
But you know why are we lookingat them?
You know what's important, howdo we measure them, who accesses
that data, how that data isused.
So it's actually a really sortof holistic wraparound and so so
, as I say, we're working onthis consensus.
(32:18):
It's it's almost done and wetook a really robust approach to
that.
So we we generated what we callstatements and then we all
voted on them.
So it's really been quite arigorous scientific process and
then the idea is, of course,that this will go out, and we've
done it with, again, a spectrumin mind of, we understand, in
women's sports, and the same istrue for women's football Some
(32:41):
football clubs have a lot ofmoney and some less so, and so,
again, you don't want to come inwith policies or
recommendations that require,you know, a lot of money,
resources, et cetera, et cetera.
We want to be able to make surethat we can offer something to
everybody across the women'sgame.
So, yeah, so it's coming soonand hopefully will be really
(33:02):
useful.
Of course, the job is not donebecause, not least, we know that
not all women have a menstrualcycle, so there are other, you
know, guidelines to be made forthose with menstrual dysfunction
or, you know, during pregnancy,and so on and so on.
So it's part of a wider agenda.
So that's exciting.
And then it'll be interestingto see how that's received, how
(33:23):
the clubs deal with it, what theplayer feedback is, and so on.
So that's interesting.
And then you mentioned about ACLinjuries and first and foremost
, I'll say that, whilst I'vebeen really fortunate again to
be involved in quite a fewstudies relating to ACL injuries
, I'm not a physiotherapist overmedicine, so I don't have
genuine expertise in the ACLitself.
(33:44):
But where I always come in,know, come in, is, as you said,
you know, there's been a lot oftalk around whether or not
estrogen is obviously one of themost prevalent and potent
female hormones, whether or notthat is one of the key
contributors to a non-contactACL injury.
And here we could just go offand for the first time in this
(34:05):
interview I'm actually going tobe.
I'm going to be concise.
There's a dichotomy.
Right now, the research evidencespeaks to an increased risk of
ACL injury associated with thepeak in estrogen, and that is
usually around the mid cycle.
That's one sort of school ofthought.
Then, if you ask about thelived experiences, those
firsthand experiences of whetherthey're football players or
(34:28):
athletes who are other athletes,who who ACL injuries are
prevalent for, they would say no, no, that that it's happening
when you're menstruating andthat's actually when estrogen is
really low.
So both cannot be true and youknow so it's.
It's really really interestingto look at that and say OK, in
controlled laboratory settingsit seems to be one school of
(34:50):
thought and in the field, if youpardon my football pun, it
seems to be at an entirelydifferent time.
What would I say I would saythat, having worked with some
football clubs who have had ACLinjuries, unfortunately
certainly their players have notsustained them in the same
phase or all in the one phasebeing menstruation.
So even that sort of what we'rehearing, that more anecdotal or
(35:14):
sort of applied data thatdidn't hold up in in some of the
instances I've seen.
And then, if I was to be reallycritical of the research
evidence, there are many, manypapers talking about that high
estrogen risk.
But the frustrating thing hereis so you can find as many
papers that about that highoestrogen risk.
But the frustrating thing hereis so you can find as many
papers that say there isn't, andso all in the answer is we just
(35:35):
don't know.
And if you were to ask me myopinion based on theoretical you
know what's the physiology hereor the endocrinology here?
I personally don't think thatyour oestrogen concentration is
going to be the biggestpredictor or your highest risk
factor for an uncontacted ACLinjury.
But watch this space.
Who knows what's going to comenext?
Sue Anstiss (35:57):
It's like we're looking for a silver bullet,
aren't we?
I think people want to findthat thing because we want to
find the solution and share that, and that's it isn't it, it's
the quick fix or the quicksolution or the quick answer.
Professor Kirsty Elliott (36:10):
And again, where I have seen some
really eloquent work and papersrecently is around that gendered
environment.
And again, not my area ofexpertise but could share, I
think, broadly what's reallyresonated with me in this space.
And you know it's aroundlooking at that whole
environment.
You know we understand thatthere's a higher risk right now
(36:31):
in women than in men for theseACL injuries and of course you
go, oh, that's a sex difference.
What's the difference betweensexes?
Oh, ovarian hormones.
But actually if you forgot aboutthat, really zoomed in,
approach and you zoomed out andwent well, hang on a minute, if
we looked at how we train womenfootballers and when did they
start playing and what coachingdid they have and facilities and
(36:52):
so on and so on, I think thereare answers there bigger, bigger
influences there in thatparticular space and bigger
challenges.
But again, they're going totake money and long-term plans
to to make it equitable.
And I do again, if you wereasking me to theorize and not
now as a scientist and as aphysiologist, but my best guess
(37:15):
if the experience of boys andgirls and men and women was more
equitable, I think that riskfactor for women would come down
and wouldn't be far off therisk in men.
But that's just a personalopinion yeah, no, it's
fascinating, isn't it?
Sue Anstiss (37:30):
and I I spoke to um laurie youngson on the podcast
as well too, from ida boots.
So there's the kind of piecearound shoes and the grip and
the playing surfaces and, as yousay, so many different
components.
But it's fascinating and it'llbe interesting if we can look
back in 30 years, when thingshave equalized more in terms of
training and the categories andprotocols, to see where we are.
(37:51):
We'll come back and listen, seeif you're right, kirsty See you
in another two decades.
Professor Kirsty Elliott (37:55):
That'd be lovely.
Sue Anstiss (37:58):
And in terms of other kind of major
misconceptions around femaleathletes that exist in sport
today.
Are there other things that you, if you had a huge pool of
funding, is there anything you'dreally like to go and research?
Professor Kirsty Elliott (38:10):
Yeah, I think one of the sort of
biggest misconceptions right nowis around menstrual cycle phase
based training.
We're hearing a lot around.
You should train a specific wayat a various phase and point of
your menstrual cycle, and thereisn't a body of high quality
research evidence that supportsthat, and so obviously you can
(38:32):
imagine the scientists are sortof behind the scenes wringing
their hands saying how has thisbecome a thing?
Because where has it come from?
What is it based on?
And so we'd very much like forthat to go away.
And so if you had a blank checkand you were giving me lots of
money, I'd certainly be lookingto undertake high my study.
(38:53):
What I will stress and is superimportant is I will change my
(39:13):
opinion.
If that study then shows weshould be doing face based
training, I will absolutelychange my opinion.
So there's two points to this.
One, it needs to go away rightnow because there's no evidence
to support it.
But two, we must always, asscientists, stay open to the
possibility that if we were toget funding and independent labs
again, we would love to seethat replication of data from
independent labs.
(39:33):
You don't want to just see itonce and go.
Every woman should do thisbecause this happened in one lab
in 10 women.
So I think if we did get thefunding and we could do it and
take a high quality approach,and we could do it in
multi-centres and see aboutreplication of data, then if
there's still no evidence tosupport it, it really needs to
go away.
And if there is evidence, thenof course we all need to change
our narratives.
I don't think it's worth therisk of doing it now, just on
(39:57):
the off chance.
There is because I thinkadopting this approach is again
we talked about limiting women'scapability.
If you adopt this menstrualcycle phase-based approach right
now, you're limiting yourpotential, because there are
actually better trainingprinciples that women could do
to accelerate their health,their performance and so on.
So I would say stick with thegood principles of training
(40:17):
right now.
Let us investigate this andwe'll come straight back to you.
Let you know one way or theother.
But I don't think we should bechasing that down in real time
now when there's no evidence tosupport it.
Sue Anstiss (40:29):
Yeah, very interesting.
You talk there aboutreplicating studies and I know
collaboration has been reallyimportant to you and at the
Institute as well too.
So I'm interested to explorethat whether obviously we all
want more funding in this space,but how much is it important to
have that collaboration betweendifferent institutions and
sports bodies?
Professor Kirsty Elliott (40:46):
I am a huge fan of collaboration.
I think we're better together.
You know, I do think there'sstrength in numbers all the
cliches that you can think of, Imean.
Of course, you have to findgood partners who've got a
similar sort of ethos.
Don't get me wrong.
I don't think we shouldcollaborate in an echo chamber.
I welcome collaboration that ischallenging.
I love a good check andchallenge.
(41:07):
So I think diversity of mindsetis really important, but I
think we need to have a commonset of standards and goals and
morals.
And so, no, I'm a big fan ofcollaboration, and collaboration
either on sort of projectswhere we're sort of data
collecting and that sort ofthing, but also collaboration in
terms of developing andbuilding a trusted network,
(41:34):
whilst I, you know, think ourcentre of excellence is
brilliant.
Of course, I'm going to say thatI'm biased and you know we're
very, as I say, fortunate towork with UKSI and all the staff
and expertise that brings in.
You know we're a big group andwe've got lots of cool, good
stuff happening, but we can't doit all and we don't know
everything.
I'm going to give you onespecific example.
I hope it's okay and name checkIn our center, we don't do
anything around breast health orbras, and we know that our
(41:57):
colleagues, our lovelycolleagues at University of
Portsmouth, are experts.
You see you're nodding, you knewwhat I was going to say.
So therefore, you know, part offor us at the center is about
building that trusted networkand if somebody happens to land
in with us they've heard aboutus and they ask and they want
whatever, I am absolutelysignposting them.
That is true collaboration.
To say no, we don't do that,but our colleagues at University
(42:20):
of Portsmouth do thatbrilliantly and let us connect
you.
So you know, collaboration canlook different, you know,
depending on the setting, but Ido think it's so important and
again, if we're truly toaccelerate and amplify the
development of women's sport, wecannot do that in silos.
Excellent.
Sue Anstiss (42:40):
I mentioned in the introduction, didn't I, that
you've been involved withdesigning pregnancy exercise
interventions for many, manyyears.
So I'm interested in whereyou've seen the biggest changes
in kind of attitudes andapproach to women exercising in
pregnancy.
And I know you.
You have worked with differentpopulations too, so any advice
that you might share today foractive women.
Uh, you know exercising duringpregnancy and how that's changed
(43:02):
, I feel even in my own lifetimelifetime, but you know, in the
last 20 so years or so that'sreally changed yeah, absolutely
no.
Professor Kirsty Elliot (43:10):
There's been a huge change recently,
and you know I would probablystart my answer the same way as
you did.
I was thinking about, you know,when I had my boys, and my boys
are 17 now and it's very, verydifferent landscape.
And again, I guess my ownexperience and and it's that
duality that you're just talkingabout earlier is, you know,
there was a version of me as anathlete, then as a researcher in
(43:32):
sports science and then as apregnant woman and all those
sort of mindsets coexisting,going.
What should I do?
17 years ago, the attitude wassit down and put your feet up
like don't move, and so, um, youknow, and there was no advice
on anything right through fromacceptable weight gain, you know
what was a healthy weight gain,you know that weight management
(43:52):
afterwards, you know whatshould you lose and how should
you lose that, how do you stayactive during pregnancy, all
those things.
So actually there was nothing,and so couple that with my, I
guess, researcher career, whichis slightly longer than my
motherhood.
I think the change has beenrapid and quite recently, and so
now I think there's been a realchange in mindset that women
(44:14):
who were active before theybecame pregnancy shouldn't be
told to go home and sit downbecause they're pregnant, and I
think that's a huge leap.
You know, I see the researchcoming out of Canada as being
world leading, with MargieDavenport Individually.
Margie is a great researcherbased out of Canada and is
obviously shaping the fieldworldwide.
But equally, canada as acountry have put out some great
(44:35):
resources to their athletes, youknow, before most other
countries.
So, no, it's great to see thatchange of mindset around.
If you're active beforehand,then we're going to try and find
solutions to keep you active,you know, during your pregnancy,
and then again to look at andinterrogate more what the return
to sport is.
And so again, that idea ofplease, you know, sit down for
(44:56):
six weeks after you've had ababy.
You know, realistically, whatdoes that look like.
And of course, there areexceptions to every rule.
We're not being flippant orglib.
There will be contraindications, there will be people who
absolutely need to and must sitdown and put their feet up, but
in the main, I think we've gotto swap, you know, the exception
and the rule type balance.
I'm really glad to see thatshift in.
(45:18):
You know, those who are activecontinue to be active at quite a
high level and those boundariesare being pushed all the time,
but in the right settings.
Settings and maybe those whoare inactive starting some
activity during pregnancy.
So they're the two biggestthings but, yeah, they're big
strides and I think that'sreally exciting.
And, of course, the number of atthe elite level sports women
(45:40):
having babies during theircareer yes, please, more of that
.
That that's fantastic.
And you know we're reallyfortunate to work with faith pro
around pre, during and postpregnancy sort of guidelines, um
, across the football community,and part of that work was the
athlete voice and to hear fromthese women you know, who've had
children during their careersand have come back.
(46:02):
Yes, more of that.
And you know we talk aboutresearch and labs and all of
that sort of thing.
That's research, hearing fromthe women, from their
experiences.
You know we talk about researchand labs and all of that sort
of thing.
That's research, hearing fromthe women, from their
experiences.
You know that's reallyimportant research and making
sure their voices are heard andthose things are actioned and
those changes are made is soimportant.
Sue Anstiss (46:20):
You've clearly had an extraordinary career within
the world of sports science, butI wonder how would you
encourage more young womenlooking for those careers today
coming into sports science?
Professor Kirsty Elliott (46:33):
oh, that's a big question and I feel
it's a really important one.
Um, go for it, you know,absolutely go for it.
Find your people, make theconnections, find your people
and I don't know if this is agood way to describe it, but
elbows out, you know.
Stand in this space and take upthe space and and and recognize
(46:57):
and advocate for yourself andand your career in your space
within, within sports science,but if that work is also around,
you know, developing women'ssport, yeah, elbows out, go for
it.
I think now, gosh, I hope, Ihope there are less barriers, I
hope some of those you knowbarriers have been broken down.
But I just think, hold yourground, find your people and be
(47:20):
visible.
Sue Anstiss (47:21):
Yeah, be visible it does feel like it's a positive
time.
I meet amazing young women atuniversities and it does feel in
terms of PhDs I'm constantlyhearing about PhDs, and not just
on the physiology and thesports science side, but in all
areas of women's sport andresearching that equality piece
it does feel like it's not agood time to be in in science,
but that does feel like it's thecase it is, there are
(47:44):
undoubtedly more opportunities.
Professor Kirsty Elliott (47:45):
So, yeah, I think, embrace them, but
it comes with someresponsibility as well and be
ready for that responsibility.
Still now, we don't tend toembed a lot of content within
our sport and exercise sciencedegrees on women's physiology or
these key anatomical orphysiological or sociological or
psychological female specificconsiderations, and so what I
(48:09):
would say is, you know, findyour people, find your space,
take the space, but that comeswith responsibility and it is
probably going to involve someupskilling.
And you know, I think certainlymy PhD students have found that
, you know, they're prepared insome aspects for their PhD
journey, but, you know, thefirst six months or so they are
going back to textbooks fortheir physiology and
(48:30):
endocrinology and maybe that wasa little unexpected to them.
So there's going to be, I think, some upskilling because it's
not yet, you know, reallyembedded in our sort of, you
know, degree and master'straining, and so, yeah, it is
extra work, but, as I say, ofcourse, of course this goes
without saying it's so worth it.
And you know, I think you know,we need more people with
(48:52):
expertise and experience in that.
So, yeah, please come in, filla space, level up and keep going
.
Sue Anstiss (49:08):
And finally, kirsty , if there was one key message
that you'd hope people might,take away from the big body of
work that you've done.
Professor Kirsty Elliott (49:12):
What would that be?
It would be that women'sphysiology is different from
men's physiology.
That's the obvious.
But those differences areinteresting and they shouldn't
be avoided.
They shouldn't be avoided, theyshouldn't be written off as too
complicated or too timeconsuming.
It's interesting and it'simpactful and it's so worthy.
(49:36):
That would be it.
It would be.
Come into this space andembrace it.
This is a great area to work inand don't be distracted by the
challenges.
Every area of science, everyarea of life so know this comes
with its own challenges.
So I think, come in and embraceit, dive in with both feet and
(49:57):
I think that people will find ita really interesting area.
And, sticking up onto the otherquestion that you asked me, in
a really interesting career.
Sue Anstiss (50:14):
Thank you so much to Kirsty for such a fascinating
conversation.
If you'd like to hear from moretrailblazers, there are over
200 episodes of the GameChangers that are free to listen
to on all podcast platforms orfrom our website at
fearlesswomencouk.
Along with leading sportsscientists and academics like
Kirsty, other guests haveincluded elite athletes, coaches
, entrepreneurs, broadcasters,journalists and CEOs all women
(50:39):
who are changing the game insport.
As well as listening to all thepodcasts on our website, you
can also find out more about theWomen's Sport Collective, a
free, inclusive community forall women working in sport.
We now have over 10,000 membersacross the world, so please do
come and join us.
The whole of my book Game On theUnstoppable Rise of Women's
(51:01):
Sport is also free to listen toon the podcast.
Every episode of series 13 isme reading a chapter of the book
.
Thank you once again to SportEngland for backing the Game
Changers and the Women's SportCollective with a National
Lottery Award, and to Sam Walkerat what Goes On Media, who does
such a fantastic job as ourexecutive producer.
(51:22):
Thank you also to my lovelycolleague at Fearless Women,
kate Hannan.
To my lovely colleague atFearless Women, kate Hannan.
You can find the Game Changerson all podcast platforms, so
please do follow us now to makesure you don't miss out on
future episodes.
Do come and say hello on socialmedia or you'll find me on
LinkedIn and Instagram at SueAnstis the Game Changers
(51:46):
fearless women in sport.
Hello and welcome to The Game Changers.
I'm Sue Anstiss, and this isthe podcast where you'll hear
from trailblazing women in sportwho are knocking down barriers
and challenging the status quofor women and girls everywhere.
What can we learn from theirjourneys as we explore key
issues around equality in sportand beyond?
I'd like to start with a bigthank you to our partners, Sport
(00:24):
England, who support the GameChangers podcast through a
national lottery award.
My guest today is ProfessorKirsty Elliott-Sale, Head of the
Centre of Excellence for Womenin Sport at the Manchester
Metropolitan UniversityInstitute of Sport.
In 2024, Kirsty was named asone of the 50 most influential
(00:47):
women in sport by the Telegraph.
Following a PhD that examinedthe effects of female
reproductive hormones on musclestrength.
Kirsty's work is primarilyfocused on female athletes in
areas that include the menstrualcycle, hormonal contraceptives
and menopause.
Kirsty's also been involved indesigning and implementing
exercise interventions duringand following pregnancy for a
(01:10):
variety of populations,including women in the military
athletes and women with obesity.
Kirst is hugely respected inthe sports industry, having
worked with high-profileorganisations across a wide
range of sports, including theUK Sports Institute, the FA,
uefa, the European ClubAssociation, Arsenal Women's
(01:30):
Football Team, British Rowing,WTA, the ECB, Manchester Thunder
and the Matildas.
Kirsty's work is extensivelypublished, which is actually how
I first came to discover her,when I was researching my book
back in 2020, and I'm delightedto say that our paths have
crossed many times since then.
So, Kirsty, can I start byperhaps asking you to share your
(01:57):
journey into sports science?
So where did it all start foryou, oh my?
Professor Kirsty Ellio (02:01):
Goodness , let's rewind.
It's a long time ago, Sue.
I accidentally fell into sportsscience.
I'm not sure if I should admitthat so clearly.
Listeners will have guessedalready from my accent that I'm
Irish, and so there I was atsecondary school, hugely
influenced by I had a PE teacher, Mrs Kane.
(02:22):
I can still remember her,clearly huge impact on me.
And I had a PE teacher, mrsKane.
I can still remember her,clearly huge impact on me, and I
loved my PE sessions.
Now I should say I went to aconvent Catholic school, the
women in my family and my schoolsetting.
It wasn't sporty at all Not,you know, this is Ireland in the
late seventies, early eights,and so my only interaction with
(02:44):
sport was through PE and throughthis PE teacher who was amazing
, and so I wanted to be a PEteacher.
That's what I wanted to do.
I wanted to leave home in a bigway.
I wanted to spread sort of mywings, and so I thought, oh well
, I'll go abroad.
I mean, I'm from Ireland, Itook a huge step to England, but
I wanted to go somewhere new,wanted to go abroad.
(03:06):
So I essentially had appliedfor PE everywhere in England, or
so I thought I put down thewrong code in my UCAS form and
that led me to Liverpool, johnMoores, and to actually not
sport science in its purestsense, but I had applied for a
coaching science degree.
(03:26):
So you can see how, on the UCASbrochure, coaching science
might've been quite similar toPE, you know, in the same sort
of bracket.
And so Liverpool, John Moores,invited me for an interview and
I loved it.
I loved the city, I loved thiscoaching science because it
seemed a little different,because I had science in it and
(03:47):
I happened to love science.
I was doing biology andchemistry and so this idea of
putting together sport andcoaching with science seemed
like the perfect fit.
And the rest is history.
So there I went to Liverpool,john Moores, studied coaching
science, which is really sportand exercise science, but with
sort of, I guess, a specialityin sports coaching.
And then I was really fortunatethat Liverpool, john Moores
(04:08):
asked me to stay on and do a PhDand I did and I loved it and I
think you mentioned in your verykind introduction, you know,
that my PhD started.
Sue Anstiss (04:19):
You know that's where my sort of work with women
started, so yes, I love the wayyou just casually go and they
asked me to stay and do a PhD,as if it's just like, yeah, I
hung around a bit in the rightplaces, but how fantastic that
it was almost a accidentallyfinding that course or something
that you wouldn't have done.
It's interesting, isn't it?
We think about the challengesnow of getting more women into
coaching, and yet that was acoaching course.
(04:41):
What was the gender balancelike at the time that you did
that course?
Professor Kirsty Elliott (04:44):
um so actually there were only seven
on that degree program, so it'sa very small sort of degree
program.
As I say, that sort of boils onand sits alongside sports
science.
Um, now I'm trying to do themental math.
Sue Anstiss (04:56):
There were three women and four men and was
coaching an option that youwould have taken a pure coaching
route rather than more of ayour kind of movement into
science?
Professor Kirsty Elliott (05:06):
yeah, so so built into to the degree,
um, you know, you had to docoaching placements.
So I was an athlete at the timemyself, and then through my, my
sport, I was obviously coachingwithin the, the clubs that that
I um, the club that I trainedin.
What did you play?
Oh, I was a kickboxer.
Sue Were you From a martialarts background and so, yeah, so
(05:28):
I was obviously training andcompeting with my club and a
part of the GB kickboxing teamat the time, then also coaching,
you know, younger children andlower belts grades.
It was quite active in thatspace.
But, to honest, I wasn'tthinking about women at that
point in my degree.
That wasn't a specialism ofmine, it wasn't on my radar.
(05:51):
Where I became interested wasright at the end of my degree
and again, it's probably not theroute people are going to think
.
But I took a chronobiologymodule.
Chronobiology, most peoplewould know, is around circadian
rhythms.
'm gonna I promise I'm gonnaexplain all the tech jargon
around how time of day usuallyaffects people.
So people might say you know,there's a time of day where
(06:13):
temperature, body temperature,peaks and that's good for
strength training or whatever,and so that's what chronobiology
is is well known for sort ofdaily rhythms and hourly rhythms
and so on.
But but there was one lecturein that module on what we call a
circummental rhythm, and Idon't know how your Latin is,
but circummental means around amonth.
(06:34):
And now everybody's thinking,oh, what happens around every
month?
And it was the menstrual cycle.
And so the menstrual cycleappeared in this chronobiology
module and that's where I firstsort of encountered it and I
loved it.
I thought that was reallyfascinating, this repeating
patterns of hormones in womenthat occur over typically around
a calendar month.
And so that sort of whet myappetite.
(06:56):
And then, as I said, hangingaround in the right place at the
right time, and Liverpool, johnMoore said would you stay and
do a PhD?
And at that time they'd alreadyhad a really fantastic
researcher, julie Greaves.
She'd not long finished her PhDin women's physiology and she'd
done some really nice studieson the menstrual cycle and
(07:19):
menopause and so on.
And so the idea was is that Iwould stay, I would work with
Julie, we would continue thisline of work together.
And at that point John Moores,you know, were really, I guess,
trailblazers, you know,prioritizing women's physiology
at a time when nobody was.
And so then suddenly it allcame together the idea of you
(07:39):
know the coaching and the sportsscience and the physiology and
endocrinology, and and then,sadly, I because life took over
and research took over, Istopped competing and stopped
coaching.
But now I'm really lucky.
I feel like I'm having severalcareers.
I'm now in a position where Ican now start to influence again
in the sort of direct athletespace and the coach space.
(08:00):
So I've maybe come full circle.
Sue Anstiss (08:03):
I can't believe it's my first question.
I've already learned so muchabout you and I thought I
already knew a lot about youalready.
Um, what, what was it?
Do you think about Liverpool,john Moores at that time?
So was it a specific person inplace?
Why were they such atrailblazing university then?
Do you think?
Professor Kirsty Elliott (08:17):
Oh, that is a good question.
Well, um, I'm thinking aboutTim Cable.
Professor Tim Cable is in mymind because Tim was my PhD
supervisor At Liverpool, oh, wow, and I did my PhD between 1998
and 2001.
And then, if you were to fastforward to now, I joined the
Institute of Sport at man Metjust over two years ago.
(08:39):
And who's the director of theInstitute of Sport?
But Tim Cable.
And so here we are.
The band is back together 20something years later.
And you know, tim is still atrailblazer and you know, not
only is he very good atidentifying areas of, you know,
worthy areas of investigationand innovation, he's very good
(09:02):
at bringing people together.
So, you know, when Tim callsyou, you sort of pick up the
phone and go, yeah, I'm there.
So, yeah, I think a lot of it,I would have to say, rests with,
you know, tim identifying thatarea as being important.
And then, as I say, 20 oddyears later, he's still
championing that women's agenda.
And so when he called and said,would you join the Institute of
(09:22):
Sport?
And he said, said, and if youcome here, what, what could we
build in this space?
And then you know, sort ofwithin the first year of being
here, we recognize that.
You know we've a lot ofexpertise within the institute
and man at university, and thenyou know, slowly, that idea
around developing and launchingand, you know, sustaining now a
center of excellence for womenin sport.
(09:42):
So I'm going to give Tim Cablethe thumbs up for this one.
Sue Anstiss (09:47):
I do love it because on my path across with
him 20, 25 years ago when Iworked for Gatorade and he was
doing research in terms of, youknow, heat, acclimatisation and
fluids and all that stuff too.
So it's lovely, yeah, that kindof repeating thread of somebody
.
Professor Kirsty Elliott (10:01):
And in his PhD.
So you know, and he he wouldn'tmind me saying, but even before
my time, when he did his PhD,um, some of his work, um, his
cardiovascular work, was inmenopausal women.
So you know he himself wascontributing to that area.
Um, you know, right back in theday.
And you know, maybe one of thethings we'll come on to discuss
(10:21):
is, I know that women are in thespotlight right now, and
absolutely as they should be.
But you know, people have beenworking, you know, hard in this
area.
You know, and even though theymay not have been noticed and
picked up and it wasn'tmainstream, I think it is worth
acknowledging.
You know a legacy.
You know I'm standing on theshoulders of giants.
(10:41):
You know it's through lots ofgreat people.
You know that laid thefoundation for my PhD and then,
in the interim 20 odd years thatwe've been working together.
Lots of good people out there.
Sue Anstiss (10:50):
Absolutely.
Yeah, right to give them credittoo, isn't it?
There's a positive picture thatyou've painted there of being a
woman in academia and thatprogress.
What has that been like?
Have you faced challenges as aas a female a female in the
sports science space, would yousay or does it feel like it's
always been very equal andyou've had opportunities?
Professor Kirsty Elliott (11:09):
um, oh, that's a good question,
isn't it?
Yeah, it's hard to knowsometimes if you have missed out
on something.
No, I'm.
I'm going to say that I thinkyou know my, my journey has been
a good one and I am fortunatethat I found my people quite
early on and you know, when youhave a mentor like Tim to start
(11:30):
with, it does sort of put you ona certain track.
Of course, no journey iswithout its bumps and and that
sort of thing, but I think, no,I'm going to say that you know,
I've enjoyed my journey and Ithink my hard work has been
rewarded.
In the main, what I would say isthe challenge possibly for me
(11:51):
in my career which maybe is alittle bit different than, say,
my male counterpart was probablywhen I had my children and just
sort of trying to balance the,you know, a career break, that
re-entry.
I chose to work part-time whenI came back.
That was the way that I couldbalance sort of everything.
So I guess my, my top levelanswer is no, I've enjoyed
(12:13):
myself.
I found my sport and exercisecommunity to be a good one.
There have been a couple ofbumps, maybe no more or less
than anybody else, and possiblythe only real challenge was just
navigating motherhood.
Sue Anstiss (12:29):
And in terms of that bigger sports science piece
that we talked about, some ofthe work that you've been doing,
but historically it has.
The women's sports science hasbeen under research, and we hear
that kind of discussed a lot atthe moment, don't we?
But what does that kind of meanfor female athletes?
Are we still seeing femaleathletes today that being
trained using the data that'sbased on primarily male
physiology?
Professor Kirsty Elliott (12:46):
Yeah, I think that there is certainly
there's no disagreement.
You know, the focus has notbeen on female athletes.
Sport and exercise science hasbeen largely, you know,
developed and the data that'sbeen derived in this area have
been from males.
And yeah, I think that data isstill being used.
I guess there's a nuance here.
Two really points to make.
(13:08):
Is one, some of that dataderived from men will be
relevant to women.
So, you know, that's importantto say.
I don't feel that we need torepeat every study that we've
done in men, in women.
I think what's been overlookedand under-researched and
under-resourced and so on, isthe female-specific
considerations.
(13:28):
So, you know, looking at thatsport or that athlete, so you
know a footballer, and seeingwhat are the female-specific
considerations for femalefootballers, and that's been
largely overlooked.
We've just been looking at themas footballers or we've been
defaulting to men.
So I think that's the areathat's been overlooked and I
think, you know, as we've said,it's coming into its own now.
(13:52):
Better late than never.
But I know people can't see myface.
There is a disdain for look onmy face because it did take
longer than it should have done.
You know this should havehappened a long time ago.
I don't know if joke is theright word, but you know,
sometimes it's mentioned thatwomen were invented sports.
(14:13):
Women were invented in the lastOlympic cycle because, of
course, in for Tokyo, it was theintention to reach parity in
participation at the games.
That didn't quite happen, itwas close, but then obviously
that was achieved in Paris andso often people, as I say, joke
not sure that that's the rightword that women were invented in
the last Olympic cycle andthat's a little sad because
clearly we weren't.
(14:34):
And the drive for medals youknow it took a drive for medals
to become the drive for, youknow, sort of a focus on women
and female specificconsiderations.
So I think, you know, again, I'malways trying to be glass half
full, so I'm glad the lightshave come on.
That's how I always describe it.
The lights are on now and youknow it's what we do moving
(14:55):
forward.
I think we should innovate inthis space and do something new,
and so you know, I think,trying to incorporate and
embrace and empower and all ofthose things around female
specific considerations to todevelop women's sport, let's do
something new here and let's doit using the knowledge that we
(15:16):
got maybe elsewhere.
So so yeah, it's.
It's not a linear journey, isit?
But hopefully we can nowaccelerate in this space and
come into our own.
Sue Anstiss (15:26):
That's such an interesting point.
I had never, never reallythought about it in that way.
But we talk a lot about inother areas of women's sport,
don't we?
In terms of funding andsustainability, we don't just
want to be like what we've seenin men's sport because it hasn't
worked in many cases.
So let's build it better and,you know, more sustainably, in a
positive way, and I hadn'treally considered.
That is also the case in thescience, in the sports science
(15:47):
area too, isn't it?
Professor Kirsty Elliott (15:48):
yeah, absolutely.
I mean that that's the thing,isn't it?
Um, you know we've got greatpeople, as we've said, and you
know I'm hoping that in inscience, in the science space of
this, you know bigger overallpicture of women's sport, that
we will get the opportunity toto do something new and to write
and, you know, developsomething new and exciting.
And you know, of course, wealways talk about, you know,
(16:11):
this taking, you know thisimprint or blueprint that we
have for men and taking it intowomen's sport.
I am looking forward to a timewhere men are taking things from
women's sport and you know atime where men are taking things
from women's sports andimprinting that and embedding it
into their space.
So, yeah, I mean, maybe I'mnaive, but I think that the
future is hopeful.
Sue Anstiss (16:32):
And it does feel, doesn't it?
Even in the last few years,there's been this huge jump in
progress in terms of neworganisations being established,
new university centres ofinnovation and we're going to
come on to talk about Manchestermore and also more investors,
and female investors, in thespace too.
So do you feel we've gone?
Is there no going back now?
Have we?
We're not.
I don't really like the phrasetipping point, but do you feel
we're?
We're there now.
Professor Kirsty Elliott (16:54):
Yes, and again, I know no people can
see my face.
It looks a little twistedbecause you know, I think this,
this change, certainly in mycareer, has been coming the last
five or so years and it'sgaining momentum.
And up until recently, if you'dasked me that question, I would
have said no, I felt likesomebody might turn the lights
out again.
But no, I do feel like you know, it has been a sustained
(17:17):
momentum.
You know the opportunities areincreasing, all those things
that you said.
So no, I think I think therewould be a revolution across all
sectors if anybody tried toturn the lights off now.
So no, I think this is thetipping point and I think you
know we've made it over the browof the hill.
Don't get me wrong, there's alot of work to be done, but I
don't think that we can ever.
Sue Anstiss (17:39):
You know it will ever be pushed back or hidden as
it has, has been and youmentioned the centre of
excellence for women in sport soestablished, launched in march
2024, last year in manchester.
Can you tell us a bit moreabout it and and and why it was
needed?
But you have alluded to, butthe kind of history behind its
establishment?
Professor Kirsty Elliott (17:59):
yeah, so our centre of excellence for
women in sport, I guessphysically housed in in
manchester, mesh, so in inManchester, but in collaboration
with the UK Sports Institute.
And so there are our partnersin this endeavour and of course
they are I'm sure everybodyknows already but they represent
Olympic and Paralympic andCommonwealth sports in the UK
(18:22):
and although the Centre goesbeyond just Olympic Paralympic
sport and we do professionalsports and we do health and we
do society, you know it's reallya continuum, I guess, from that
elite space right down to, youknow, girls and women who have
maybe never exercised before,and so people often go.
So why did you make thisrelationship with the top end
(18:44):
then?
But actually we can learn a lot, but actually we can learn a
lot we can learn from athletes,and that information is
applicable right through oursystem or our timeline or our
spectrum of the girls and womenthat we hope to work with.
So it is, it's a really greatsort of relationship.
We have lots of other partnersand collaborators too.
(19:04):
We work a lot with ArsenalWomen's Football Club, who've
made a huge investment into notjust their women's team in you
know from what the public sees,but you know behind the scenes
into facilities and resourcesand actually into research.
So you know the relationshipwith us.
We have a PhD student embeddedat the football club.
The club, the players, thestaff there.
(19:27):
They're generating what we wouldcall the research questions,
and I guess in applied sportthey would say the challenges
faced by women and they discussthose with us and we design some
studies to interrogate thatfurther, to generate some data
and that data goes straight backto the players, to the club, to
the staff there and thenhopefully will improve for the
players and for the game ingeneral.
(19:48):
So yeah, we've got partners infootball and netball and rugby
and lots of different sports.
And again, we're reallyfortunate that UKSI are
fantastic partners because theydon't ever try and limit us,
because they recognize as wellthat Olympic sports can learn
from professional sports.
The center, as I say, these twoorganizations have come
(20:09):
together with a willingness toamplify and accelerate the
development of women's sport andwe do that with a wide network
and it's not just throughresearch, it's through advocacy,
it's through looking atpolicies, it's about spreading
that dissemination with themedia.
We have a wide remit.
Sue Anstiss (20:31):
You mentioned that kind of flow down almost from
that very top level of scienceand we often hear that example
that we have the NASAresearchers and everything
that's done in space.
It impacts day to dayhouseholds.
But how long would you say itgenerally takes for that
cutting-edge research thatyou're doing at the very top to
work its way down throughorganizations, through coaches
and trainers, to to the athletesthat's?
Professor Kirsty Elliott (20:53):
a good question.
Um, I'm not sure I I have ananswer, because the reason why I
say that is because I'mthinking about, like, the
different organizations I workwith, and sometimes the
invitation from the organizationis you come in and you work at
the organizational level and andthat's where your question
would be applicable how does itget down?
(21:13):
But with the otherorganizations, they, the
invitation is to come straightin and talk to the athletes
themselves, and so you know thatbottom down and top up it's
different sort of sport by sportand country by country.
So I'm not sure there's auniversal answer.
But I guess what I could maybespeak to is, you know, from that
initial invitation wheresomebody within the sport and
(21:34):
organization says you know,would you come in and work with
us in whatever aspect you are,how long does it take to make a
change?
Not very long, because actuallysometimes the very first visit
I'm a bit cheeky I'll always askto use the toilet and then I'll
come out and I'll say tosomebody oh, there's no free
sanitary products in your toilet, and the next time I come, that
(21:57):
would be really great if thatwas changed.
And so there's a changeinstantly, you know, and there
are small, quick wins, and Iknow people call it low-hanging
fruit.
I don't really love that term,but actually you know change can
happen quickly.
The size of the change, yeah,that's another thing.
But there are ripples and youknow, I see that, you know even
(22:19):
organizations I've been intoonce.
The ripples go long, you knowway beyond your visit and you
know we can't take the creditfor it, but I think once an
organization invites anybodylike you, like me, to come in,
something has happened in themindset.
They know they need something,they want something and and not
(22:39):
they can't always put theirfinger on it.
Some organizations do, theyknow what it is they want and
some organizations don't, butthey know that they want to do
something in this space.
And so I think change can happenquickly and have ripples and
have legacy.
But if you were asking me andmaybe you were and I diverted
but if you ask me from a purelyresearch perspective, you know
(23:00):
you come up with a question, youdesign a study, you do the
study, you publish the study,you hope somebody reads the
paper and changes something.
That's a slow pipeline and Idon't, personally, in my
experience, I don't think you'returning that around in quicker
than 18 months and that would besomebody working fairly flat
out.
And so you know, I think theminimum research project that
(23:22):
I'm sort of accepting is with a12 monthmonth timescale and
knowing that there'll beprobably another six to 12
months after that to reallyoperationalize sort of the
findings from that project.
Sue Anstiss (23:33):
I think when I wrote the question, I think my
thinking was almost of a when Ithink of an everyday coach
coaching a young female athlete.
But my thinking is how longthings take to get from that a
discovery of something to comethrough, especially someone
that's coached for many, manyyears, and there's certain
protocols and there probablyisn't an answer to it.
But it's just an interestingpiece, isn't it?
Of how the we're seeing thischange over here.
(23:55):
But is it actually reaching theeveryday coach with athletes
today?
Professor Kirsty Ellio (24:00):
probably yeah, no, and then I will amend
my answer to actually answerthe question you asked me.
I still think that's takingquite a while.
Yeah, I do you know.
We know that we talk about itbeing under research, but we we
can also talk about being underresourced and so on and so on
and so on, and so when you havevery little, you know, it's hard
(24:21):
to dilute that even further andexpect people to stay at the
cutting edge of everything.
And so often in women's sportswe know that people are just
trying to keep their heads abovewater.
So I think it's taking a longtime to really, as you say,
filter through the entire systemand often down to the people
and the places where actually itprobably has the biggest impact
(24:42):
.
But I would say I'm encouragedbecause, again, if I took a
football example, there are moreand more invitations now to go
in and speak at more of agrassroots sort of, you know,
sort of academy level andinfluence there.
Because I guess, if I wentreally specifically to my area
that I'm interested in, which isa varying hormone profile, so
(25:02):
menstrual cycles and hormonalcontraception and pregnancy and
so on Actually I would loveyoung girls to have this body
literacy and then they take itthroughout their entire careers.
And you know, so often now, bythe time we're in an elite
organization, at the very topend, a lot of the athletes are
saying, gosh, I wish I knew thatsooner.
I really did, you know.
(25:22):
And they're gracious becausethey're still taking part in
research and they're leaving alegacy for those that come
behind them.
So I think, if we can sort offlip flop and try and
concentrate and again we'restill, we're getting more
funding and more opportunities,but we're still looking to
dilute a relatively small part.
But yeah, focused and targetattention, that's what's needed,
(25:43):
right.
Sue Anstiss (25:44):
Very interesting.
And what does success look likefor you as the institute itself
?
What's you know?
You look back in five yearstime.
What will you have have changed?
Or, you know, is there a volumeof work?
Does it depend on the fundingthat's coming in as well too, I
imagine?
Professor Kirsty Elliott (25:58):
I'm going to be.
I'm going to be selfish andtalk, I guess, about my
particular sort of stream ofwork within the center, because
obviously the center is such awide remit.
But I think success for mepersonally and and you know,
obviously as part of the center,would be a legacy where girls
and women understand the thosefemale specific topics, you know
(26:23):
the things that make themdifferent, and understanding
that there's as many positivesas there are negatives to these
differences.
And I do worry a little bitthat when we start talking about
female specific considerationsit's always in a negative way.
Oh, you know, girls and womenmenstruate and that's very
challenging and you know thatwill limit their ability to
(26:44):
train and to compete.
And suddenly, you know, womenmay be in some areas then seem
less than.
And how can we change that andsay to these girls and women
actually your menstrual cycle isa marker of health and you know
, your body is fantastic becauseobviously these are really, in
the first instance, they'rereproductive functions, right,
(27:07):
and and it's not, it doesn'tmatter whether you go on or not
to have children, but thatreproductive function, that
system, when it's working well,that's such a marker of of good
health and your body's ability,that that's brilliant and should
be celebrated.
If it comes with some challenges, as it does for many women,
again, rather than well, how dowe sort of deal with and sort of
(27:30):
you know, how do we change thetraining to accommodate these
adverse symptoms, I wouldchallenge and go actually,
rather than again asking womento suck it up and just cope with
them and deal with them andmaybe make small changes,
because, let's be honest, a lotof sports structures and
programs and all of that,they're quite rigid, especially
at the elite level, and there'snot much bend and you can't just
(27:52):
take three days off, you know,or not compete at the Olympic
final, because it's not theright time for you, I think you
know.
Again, a positive way to lookat it is if you face challenges,
what can we do within sport andexercise, science and medicine
to what can we do within sportand exercise, science and
medicine to alleviate and tomitigate against those adverse
symptoms?
And that's where I would liketo see us going.
Oh, my God, I don't evenremember the question.
(28:14):
I was very excited about that,but I think I was saying about,
you know, my legacy.
What would be the legacy andwhat would success look like?
Body literacy, understandingthe positives, understanding
that the challenges and thereare, I'm not trying to hide that
, I'm trying to re-redress thecurrent narrative.
But the challenges we face, howdo we overcome them in a
(28:35):
positive and acceptable andappropriate way?
And I think if I couldinfluence around menstrual
cycles, hormonal contraception,menopause, as maybe some of the
big hitters of those sort ofovarian hormone profiles that
women will encounter throughouttheir lifetime, then that would
be a job well done.
Sue Anstiss (28:56):
There's a lovely part in the Abby Ward
documentary made where she's athome filming herself when she's
had the baby and talks about herbody and her body changing, and
it gives me goosebumps even nowwhen I think back to it.
But how this body was, you know, she was an athlete, it was an
athlete's body, and then it's abody that's been built to house
a baby and that and it's done anamazing job of doing that, and
(29:17):
now she's kind of trying tochange back to being an athlete.
But it it's a really importantpart, isn't it this?
What the remarkable, incrediblethings that female bodies can
do and should be celebrated forthat.
Professor Kirsty Ell (29:27):
Absolutely , you know, and it's hard, isn't
it, when you're trying to drivechange quickly.
And you know we're asking theright questions now and I think
we've moved away from, as I say,those shadows and those taboos.
But I think we still have to becareful of of of the narratives
and shaping them to beempowering and not to be
(29:50):
limiting.
You know, it would be awfulthat, now that we're talking
about these things, that weaccidentally end up weaponizing
them and making women seem, seemless than, and so I think the
challenge here is to raiseawareness and then to be able to
shape the systems within sportsto accommodate for those things
.
And you know it's funny becauseyou know I'm a researcher and
(30:12):
you know, obviouslytraditionally from a university,
but once, I think, particularlyin the women's space, once
you're working here, your jobdoesn't stop at the university
door because you know you takewith you into you know policy
and into into you know policy,and into you know resources and,
as I say, the free sanitaryproducts and all of these things
.
And and I think it's reallynice that we are able to have
(30:34):
that, that domino effect andthat you know it, it goes, it
goes out and it comes back inand it's top down and bottom up
and meeting in the middle.
I think it's really importantthat, yeah, we're all pulling in
the same direction Fabulous.
Sue Anstiss (30:45):
You're a member of UEFA's research panel leading a
pioneering project investigatingthe effect of menstrual cycle
on footballers performance, socan you tell us a little bit
more about that?
And I also just, I guess,taking on to that, we talk a lot
about ACL injuries and that'sbeen very much of a news and
that link of hormones.
But I'm and I know I'm we'vehad this conversation before but
(31:06):
kind of what your findings havebeen in in that area.
Professor Kirsty Elliott (31:09):
Yeah, so, so really fortunate to to
be working with an amazing teamat UEFA.
So they're driving manyprojects.
They had their medicalconference last week and a whole
day dedicated to the women'sgame, which was was fantastic.
So again, more trailblazers.
So, yeah, I've been reallyfortunate to be part of the UEFA
panel and we're working on aconsensus statement.
(31:32):
It's written to you know, landin elite women's in football,
but actually they won't mind mesaying this it would be useful
to any sport really, and youknow any organisation.
So it's bringing together lotsof different people from whether
it's sports science, medicine,policymakers, you know, funders,
and trying to write down whatit not just how we look at
(31:58):
menstrual cycles, so likephysical measurements of
menstrual cycles within football.
But you know why are we lookingat them?
You know what's important, howdo we measure them, who accesses
that data, how that data isused.
So it's actually a really sortof holistic wraparound and so so
, as I say, we're working onthis consensus.
(32:18):
It's it's almost done and wetook a really robust approach to
that.
So we we generated what we callstatements and then we all
voted on them.
So it's really been quite arigorous scientific process and
then the idea is, of course,that this will go out, and we've
done it with, again, a spectrumin mind of, we understand, in
women's sports, and the same istrue for women's football Some
(32:41):
football clubs have a lot ofmoney and some less so, and so,
again, you don't want to come inwith policies or
recommendations that require,you know, a lot of money,
resources, et cetera, et cetera.
We want to be able to make surethat we can offer something to
everybody across the women'sgame.
So, yeah, so it's coming soonand hopefully will be really
(33:02):
useful.
Of course, the job is not donebecause, not least, we know that
not all women have a menstrualcycle, so there are other, you
know, guidelines to be made forthose with menstrual dysfunction
or, you know, during pregnancy,and so on and so on.
So it's part of a wider agenda.
So that's exciting.
And then it'll be interestingto see how that's received, how
(33:23):
the clubs deal with it, what theplayer feedback is, and so on.
So that's interesting.
And then you mentioned about ACLinjuries and first and foremost
, I'll say that, whilst I'vebeen really fortunate again to
be involved in quite a fewstudies relating to ACL injuries
, I'm not a physiotherapist overmedicine, so I don't have
genuine expertise in the ACLitself.
(33:44):
But where I always come in,know, come in, is, as you said,
you know, there's been a lot oftalk around whether or not
estrogen is obviously one of themost prevalent and potent
female hormones, whether or notthat is one of the key
contributors to a non-contactACL injury.
And here we could just go offand for the first time in this
(34:05):
interview I'm actually going tobe.
I'm going to be concise.
There's a dichotomy.
Right now, the research evidencespeaks to an increased risk of
ACL injury associated with thepeak in estrogen, and that is
usually around the mid cycle.
That's one sort of school ofthought.
Then, if you ask about thelived experiences, those
firsthand experiences of whetherthey're football players or
(34:28):
athletes who are other athletes,who who ACL injuries are
prevalent for, they would say no, no, that that it's happening
when you're menstruating andthat's actually when estrogen is
really low.
So both cannot be true and youknow so it's.
It's really really interestingto look at that and say OK, in
controlled laboratory settingsit seems to be one school of
(34:50):
thought and in the field, if youpardon my football pun, it
seems to be at an entirelydifferent time.
What would I say I would saythat, having worked with some
football clubs who have had ACLinjuries, unfortunately
certainly their players have notsustained them in the same
phase or all in the one phasebeing menstruation.
So even that sort of what we'rehearing, that more anecdotal or
(35:14):
sort of applied data thatdidn't hold up in in some of the
instances I've seen.
And then, if I was to be reallycritical of the research
evidence, there are many, manypapers talking about that high
estrogen risk.
But the frustrating thing hereis so you can find as many
papers that about that highoestrogen risk.
But the frustrating thing hereis so you can find as many
papers that say there isn't, andso all in the answer is we just
(35:35):
don't know.
And if you were to ask me myopinion based on theoretical you
know what's the physiology hereor the endocrinology here?
I personally don't think thatyour oestrogen concentration is
going to be the biggestpredictor or your highest risk
factor for an uncontacted ACLinjury.
But watch this space.
Who knows what's going to comenext?
Sue Anstiss (35:57):
It's like we're looking for a silver bullet,
aren't we?
I think people want to findthat thing because we want to
find the solution and share that, and that's it isn't it, it's
the quick fix or the quicksolution or the quick answer.
Professor Kirsty Elliott (36:10):
And again, where I have seen some
really eloquent work and papersrecently is around that gendered
environment.
And again, not my area ofexpertise but could share, I
think, broadly what's reallyresonated with me in this space.
And you know it's aroundlooking at that whole
environment.
You know we understand thatthere's a higher risk right now
(36:31):
in women than in men for theseACL injuries and of course you
go, oh, that's a sex difference.
What's the difference betweensexes?
Oh, ovarian hormones.
But actually if you forgot aboutthat, really zoomed in,
approach and you zoomed out andwent well, hang on a minute, if
we looked at how we train womenfootballers and when did they
start playing and what coachingdid they have and facilities and
(36:52):
so on and so on, I think thereare answers there bigger, bigger
influences there in thatparticular space and bigger
challenges.
But again, they're going totake money and long-term plans
to to make it equitable.
And I do again, if you wereasking me to theorize and not
now as a scientist and as aphysiologist, but my best guess
(37:15):
if the experience of boys andgirls and men and women was more
equitable, I think that riskfactor for women would come down
and wouldn't be far off therisk in men.
But that's just a personalopinion yeah, no, it's
fascinating, isn't it?
Sue Anstiss (37:30):
and I I spoke to um laurie youngson on the podcast
as well too, from ida boots.
So there's the kind of piecearound shoes and the grip and
the playing surfaces and, as yousay, so many different
components.
But it's fascinating and it'llbe interesting if we can look
back in 30 years, when thingshave equalized more in terms of
training and the categories andprotocols, to see where we are.
(37:51):
We'll come back and listen, seeif you're right, kirsty See you
in another two decades.
Professor Kirsty Elliott (37:55):
That'd be lovely.
Sue Anstiss (37:58):
And in terms of other kind of major
misconceptions around femaleathletes that exist in sport
today.
Are there other things that you, if you had a huge pool of
funding, is there anything you'dreally like to go and research?
Professor Kirsty Elliott (38:10):
Yeah, I think one of the sort of
biggest misconceptions right nowis around menstrual cycle phase
based training.
We're hearing a lot around.
You should train a specific wayat a various phase and point of
your menstrual cycle, and thereisn't a body of high quality
research evidence that supportsthat, and so obviously you can
(38:32):
imagine the scientists are sortof behind the scenes wringing
their hands saying how has thisbecome a thing?
Because where has it come from?
What is it based on?
And so we'd very much like forthat to go away.
And so if you had a blank checkand you were giving me lots of
money, I'd certainly be lookingto undertake high my study.
(38:53):
What I will stress and is superimportant is I will change my
(39:13):
opinion.
If that study then shows weshould be doing face based
training, I will absolutelychange my opinion.
So there's two points to this.
One, it needs to go away rightnow because there's no evidence
to support it.
But two, we must always, asscientists, stay open to the
possibility that if we were toget funding and independent labs
again, we would love to seethat replication of data from
independent labs.
(39:33):
You don't want to just see itonce and go.
Every woman should do thisbecause this happened in one lab
in 10 women.
So I think if we did get thefunding and we could do it and
take a high quality approach,and we could do it in
multi-centres and see aboutreplication of data, then if
there's still no evidence tosupport it, it really needs to
go away.
And if there is evidence, thenof course we all need to change
our narratives.
I don't think it's worth therisk of doing it now, just on
(39:57):
the off chance.
There is because I thinkadopting this approach is again
we talked about limiting women'scapability.
If you adopt this menstrualcycle phase-based approach right
now, you're limiting yourpotential, because there are
actually better trainingprinciples that women could do
to accelerate their health,their performance and so on.
So I would say stick with thegood principles of training
(40:17):
right now.
Let us investigate this andwe'll come straight back to you.
Let you know one way or theother.
But I don't think we should bechasing that down in real time
now when there's no evidence tosupport it.
Sue Anstiss (40:29):
Yeah, very interesting.
You talk there aboutreplicating studies and I know
collaboration has been reallyimportant to you and at the
Institute as well too.
So I'm interested to explorethat whether obviously we all
want more funding in this space,but how much is it important to
have that collaboration betweendifferent institutions and
sports bodies?
Professor Kirsty Elliott (40:46):
I am a huge fan of collaboration.
I think we're better together.
You know, I do think there'sstrength in numbers all the
cliches that you can think of, Imean.
Of course, you have to findgood partners who've got a
similar sort of ethos.
Don't get me wrong.
I don't think we shouldcollaborate in an echo chamber.
I welcome collaboration that ischallenging.
I love a good check andchallenge.
(41:07):
So I think diversity of mindsetis really important, but I
think we need to have a commonset of standards and goals and
morals.
And so, no, I'm a big fan ofcollaboration, and collaboration
either on sort of projectswhere we're sort of data
collecting and that sort ofthing, but also collaboration in
terms of developing andbuilding a trusted network,
(41:34):
whilst I, you know, think ourcentre of excellence is
brilliant.
Of course, I'm going to say thatI'm biased and you know we're
very, as I say, fortunate towork with UKSI and all the staff
and expertise that brings in.
You know we're a big group andwe've got lots of cool, good
stuff happening, but we can't doit all and we don't know
everything.
I'm going to give you onespecific example.
I hope it's okay and name checkIn our center, we don't do
anything around breast health orbras, and we know that our
(41:57):
colleagues, our lovelycolleagues at University of
Portsmouth, are experts.
You see you're nodding, you knewwhat I was going to say.
So therefore, you know, part offor us at the center is about
building that trusted networkand if somebody happens to land
in with us they've heard aboutus and they ask and they want
whatever, I am absolutelysignposting them.
That is true collaboration.
To say no, we don't do that,but our colleagues at University
(42:20):
of Portsmouth do thatbrilliantly and let us connect
you.
So you know, collaboration canlook different, you know,
depending on the setting, but Ido think it's so important and
again, if we're truly toaccelerate and amplify the
development of women's sport, wecannot do that in silos.
Excellent.
Sue Anstiss (42:40):
I mentioned in the introduction, didn't I, that
you've been involved withdesigning pregnancy exercise
interventions for many, manyyears.
So I'm interested in whereyou've seen the biggest changes
in kind of attitudes andapproach to women exercising in
pregnancy.
And I know you.
You have worked with differentpopulations too, so any advice
that you might share today foractive women.
Uh, you know exercising duringpregnancy and how that's changed
(43:02):
, I feel even in my own lifetimelifetime, but you know, in the
last 20 so years or so that'sreally changed yeah, absolutely
no.
Professor Kirsty Elliot (43:10):
There's been a huge change recently,
and you know I would probablystart my answer the same way as
you did.
I was thinking about, you know,when I had my boys, and my boys
are 17 now and it's very, verydifferent landscape.
And again, I guess my ownexperience and and it's that
duality that you're just talkingabout earlier is, you know,
there was a version of me as anathlete, then as a researcher in
(43:32):
sports science and then as apregnant woman and all those
sort of mindsets coexisting,going.
What should I do?
17 years ago, the attitude wassit down and put your feet up
like don't move, and so, um, youknow, and there was no advice
on anything right through fromacceptable weight gain, you know
what was a healthy weight gain,you know that weight management
(43:52):
afterwards, you know whatshould you lose and how should
you lose that, how do you stayactive during pregnancy, all
those things.
So actually there was nothing,and so couple that with my, I
guess, researcher career, whichis slightly longer than my
motherhood.
I think the change has beenrapid and quite recently, and so
now I think there's been a realchange in mindset that women
(44:14):
who were active before theybecame pregnancy shouldn't be
told to go home and sit downbecause they're pregnant, and I
think that's a huge leap.
You know, I see the researchcoming out of Canada as being
world leading, with MargieDavenport Individually.
Margie is a great researcherbased out of Canada and is
obviously shaping the fieldworldwide.
But equally, canada as acountry have put out some great
(44:35):
resources to their athletes, youknow, before most other
countries.
So, no, it's great to see thatchange of mindset around.
If you're active beforehand,then we're going to try and find
solutions to keep you active,you know, during your pregnancy,
and then again to look at andinterrogate more what the return
to sport is.
And so again, that idea ofplease, you know, sit down for
(44:56):
six weeks after you've had ababy.
You know, realistically, whatdoes that look like.
And of course, there areexceptions to every rule.
We're not being flippant orglib.
There will be contraindications, there will be people who
absolutely need to and must sitdown and put their feet up, but
in the main, I think we've gotto swap, you know, the exception
and the rule type balance.
I'm really glad to see thatshift in.
(45:18):
You know, those who are activecontinue to be active at quite a
high level and those boundariesare being pushed all the time,
but in the right settings.
Settings and maybe those whoare inactive starting some
activity during pregnancy.
So they're the two biggestthings but, yeah, they're big
strides and I think that'sreally exciting.
And, of course, the number of atthe elite level sports women
(45:40):
having babies during theircareer yes, please, more of that
.
That that's fantastic.
And you know we're reallyfortunate to work with faith pro
around pre, during and postpregnancy sort of guidelines, um
, across the football community,and part of that work was the
athlete voice and to hear fromthese women you know, who've had
children during their careersand have come back.
(46:02):
Yes, more of that.
And you know we talk aboutresearch and labs and all of
that sort of thing.
That's research, hearing fromthe women, from their
experiences.
You know we talk about researchand labs and all of that sort
of thing.
That's research, hearing fromthe women, from their
experiences.
You know that's reallyimportant research and making
sure their voices are heard andthose things are actioned and
those changes are made is soimportant.
Sue Anstiss (46:20):
You've clearly had an extraordinary career within
the world of sports science, butI wonder how would you
encourage more young womenlooking for those careers today
coming into sports science?
Professor Kirsty Elliott (46:33):
oh, that's a big question and I feel
it's a really important one.
Um, go for it, you know,absolutely go for it.
Find your people, make theconnections, find your people
and I don't know if this is agood way to describe it, but
elbows out, you know.
Stand in this space and take upthe space and and and recognize
(46:57):
and advocate for yourself andand your career in your space
within, within sports science,but if that work is also around,
you know, developing women'ssport, yeah, elbows out, go for
it.
I think now, gosh, I hope, Ihope there are less barriers, I
hope some of those you knowbarriers have been broken down.
But I just think, hold yourground, find your people and be
(47:20):
visible.
Sue Anstiss (47:21):
Yeah, be visible it does feel like it's a positive
time.
I meet amazing young women atuniversities and it does feel in
terms of PhDs I'm constantlyhearing about PhDs, and not just
on the physiology and thesports science side, but in all
areas of women's sport andresearching that equality piece
it does feel like it's not agood time to be in in science,
but that does feel like it's thecase it is, there are
(47:44):
undoubtedly more opportunities.
Professor Kirsty Elliott (47:45):
So, yeah, I think, embrace them, but
it comes with someresponsibility as well and be
ready for that responsibility.
Still now, we don't tend toembed a lot of content within
our sport and exercise sciencedegrees on women's physiology or
these key anatomical orphysiological or sociological or
psychological female specificconsiderations, and so what I
(48:09):
would say is, you know, findyour people, find your space,
take the space, but that comeswith responsibility and it is
probably going to involve someupskilling.
And you know, I think certainlymy PhD students have found that
, you know, they're prepared insome aspects for their PhD
journey, but, you know, thefirst six months or so they are
going back to textbooks fortheir physiology and
(48:30):
endocrinology and maybe that wasa little unexpected to them.
So there's going to be, I think, some upskilling because it's
not yet, you know, reallyembedded in our sort of, you
know, degree and master'straining, and so, yeah, it is
extra work, but, as I say, ofcourse, of course this goes
without saying it's so worth it.
And you know, I think you know,we need more people with
(48:52):
expertise and experience in that.
So, yeah, please come in, filla space, level up and keep going
.
Sue Anstiss (49:08):
And finally, kirsty , if there was one key message
that you'd hope people might,take away from the big body of
work that you've done.
Professor Kirsty Elliott (49:12):
What would that be?
It would be that women'sphysiology is different from
men's physiology.
That's the obvious.
But those differences areinteresting and they shouldn't
be avoided.
They shouldn't be avoided, theyshouldn't be written off as too
complicated or too timeconsuming.
It's interesting and it'simpactful and it's so worthy.
(49:36):
That would be it.
It would be.
Come into this space andembrace it.
This is a great area to work inand don't be distracted by the
challenges.
Every area of science, everyarea of life so know this comes
with its own challenges.
So I think, come in and embraceit, dive in with both feet and
(49:57):
I think that people will find ita really interesting area.
And, sticking up onto the otherquestion that you asked me, in
a really interesting career.
Sue Anstiss (50:14):
Thank you so much to Kirsty for such a fascinating
conversation.
If you'd like to hear from moretrailblazers, there are over
200 episodes of the GameChangers that are free to listen
to on all podcast platforms orfrom our website at
fearlesswomencouk.
Along with leading sportsscientists and academics like
Kirsty, other guests haveincluded elite athletes, coaches
, entrepreneurs, broadcasters,journalists and CEOs all women
(50:39):
who are changing the game insport.
As well as listening to all thepodcasts on our website, you
can also find out more about theWomen's Sport Collective, a
free, inclusive community forall women working in sport.
We now have over 10,000 membersacross the world, so please do
come and join us.
The whole of my book Game On theUnstoppable Rise of Women's
(51:01):
Sport is also free to listen toon the podcast.
Every episode of series 13 isme reading a chapter of the book
.
Thank you once again to SportEngland for backing the Game
Changers and the Women's SportCollective with a National
Lottery Award, and to Sam Walkerat what Goes On Media, who does
such a fantastic job as ourexecutive producer.
(51:22):
Thank you also to my lovelycolleague at Fearless Women,
kate Hannan.
To my lovely colleague atFearless Women, kate Hannan.
You can find the Game Changerson all podcast platforms, so
please do follow us now to makesure you don't miss out on
future episodes.
Do come and say hello on socialmedia or you'll find me on
LinkedIn and Instagram at SueAnstis the Game Changers
(51:46):
fearless women in sport.
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Therapy Gecko
An unlicensed lizard psychologist travels the universe talking to strangers about absolutely nothing. TO CALL THE GECKO: follow me on https://www.twitch.tv/lyleforever to get a notification for when I am taking calls. I am usually live Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays but lately a lot of other times too. I am a gecko.