Abstract
Objective To compare fitness and body composition between transgender and cisgender individuals.
Design Systematic review and meta-analysis.
Data sources PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and SportDiscus databases were searched in June 2024, supplemented by manual citation reviews.
Eligibility criteria Inclusion criteria comprised studies of transgender individuals comparing physical fitness/body composition pre-to-post gender-affirming hormone therapy (GAHT) or vs. cisgender controls, with quantitative outcomes reported.
Results Fifty-one studies (6,434 participants) were analyzed. Transgender women (TW) exhibited comparable fat mass to cisgender women (CW), but higher than cisgender men (CM). TW showed greater lean mass than CW, but lower than CM. Upper- and lower-body strength were similar between TW and CW, but lower than CM. TW and CW had similar VO2 peak, but TW exhibited lower values than CM. Transgender men (TM) exhibited similar fat mass to CW, but higher than CM. TM showed higher lean mass than CW, but lower than CM. Upper-body strength was higher in TM than CW, but lower than CM. GAHT in TW increased fat mass, reduced lean mass and upper-body strength, with no differences in lower-body strength over 1–3 years. TM demonstrated reduced fat mass and increased lean mass, upper- and lower-body strength post-GAHT. Risk of bias was moderate for most studies, with limited observations for specific outcomes (e.g., VO2 peak).
Conclusion While TW exhibited higher lean mass than CW, their physical fitness was comparable. Current evidence is limited but does not justify blanket bans based on assumptions of inherent athletic advantages for TW over CW.
WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN ON THIS TOPIC
The inclusion of transgender women in female sports categories remains a highly contentious subject.
Existing studies suggest that gender-affirming hormone therapy (GAHT) alters body composition in transgender individuals, but evidence on functional performance outcomes (e.g., strength, endurance) remains inconsistent.
Policies advocating blanket bans on transgender women (TW) in female sports often cite residual advantages from prior testosterone exposure, despite limited empirical support for sustained performance disparities post-GAHT.
WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS?
This systematic review and meta-analysis synthesizes data from 51 studies (6,434 participants), demonstrating that, while TW showed higher absolute lean mass than cisgender women (CW), there are no significant differences in upper/lower-body strength or VO□peak after 1–3 years of GAHT.
These findings challenge the validity of blanket bans predicated on assumptions of inherent athletic superiority of TW over CW.
Transgender men (TM) exhibit body composition and strength metrics intermediate between CW and cisgender men (CM) post-GAHT.
Critical research gaps are identified, including a lack of long-term GAHT data, underrepresentation of transgender athletes, and inconsistent controls for confounders (e.g., training history, puberty blocking). Future studies must prioritize sport-specific performance metrics and longitudinal designs to inform equitable policies.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
Authors were supported by Sao Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP) and Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES).
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors.
