SYSTEMATIC REVIEW article
Front. Sports Act. Living
Sec. Women in Sport
This article is part of the Research TopicBridging the Knowledge Gap: Enhancing Research on Women's Participation in SportsView all 12 articles
Female trail running: a systematic scoping review
Provisionally accepted- 1University of Barcelona, National Institute of Physical Education of Catalonia, Barcelona, Spain
- 2School of Sport Sciences, UiT The Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø, Norway
- 3School of Health, University of the Sunshine Coast, Sippy Downs, Australia
- 4Sunshine Coast Hospital and Health Service, Nambour, Australia
- 5School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia
Select one of your emails
You have multiple emails registered with Frontiers:
Notify me on publication
Please enter your email address:
If you already have an account, please login
You don't have a Frontiers account ? You can register here
Trail running's popularity among women is increasing, yet research addressing the unique physiological demands, performance factors, and injury patterns in this population remains limited. This scoping systematic review aimed to map the existing research landscape on female trail runners, synthesize current evidence across physiological, nutritional, injury, and performance domains, and identify critical knowledge gaps to guide future investigations. A systematic search was conducted across four major databases (EBSCO, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science) up to December 2024. Eligible studies were original peer-reviewed articles reporting sex-specific data on female trail runners within the above domains. Methodological quality was assessed using the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) checklist. Results from the 22 included studies (pooled sample ≈ 2,476 participants), predominantly published in the last decade, primarily focused on physiology and biomarkers (10 studies) and nutrition and body composition (6 studies), with fewer investigations into injuries (4 studies) or performance (3 studies). These studies indicated significant exercise-induced physiological stress and highlighted links between nutrition, body composition, and performance outcomes. However, a recurring limitation was the pervasive inconsistency in reporting participant characteristics, especially evident for key female-specific factors such as menstrual cycle status and hormonal contraceptive use, which were sparsely detailed. Furthermore, considerable heterogeneity in methodologies and the poor reporting of race characteristics and environmental conditions limited the synthesis of actionable insights. Most included studies (21 out of 22) demonstrated good methodological quality. In conclusion, while the research on female trail runners is growing, its practical application and the ability to draw robust conclusions are constrained by widespread reporting inconsistencies and a notable lack of depth in female-specific physiological data. Further progress in this field relies on the adoption of standardized reporting guidelines and a concerted effort to conduct robust, longitudinal investigations. Future studies should address hormonal influences, energy availability, effective training methodologies, and targeted injury prevention strategies tailored to female trail runners, ultimately to optimize their health, well-being, and athletic potential.
Keywords: female athletes, Exercise physiology, Menstrual Cycle, Athletic Performance, sportsnutrition, injuries
Received: 29 Aug 2025; Accepted: 13 Nov 2025.
Copyright: © 2025 Espasa-Labrador, Sandbakk, Cebrián-Ponce, Irurtia, Carrasco-Marginet and Osborne. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
* Correspondence: John Owen Osborne, john.owen.osborne@uit.no
Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
