Why a Woman’s Menstrual Cycle Can Influence Athletic Performance
- 3 days ago
- 13 min read
Shaun Provost is a women’s health and performance expert, endurance athlete, and founder of Live Unbreakable. With more than 16 years of coaching experience and 34 certifications, she helps women transform their health through strength training, hormone education, and lifestyle coaching.
For decades, sports science was built around male physiology and then generalized to everyone else. Women were often excluded from research because the menstrual cycle was considered a “complicating variable,” as if the presence of ovarian hormones made female athletes too difficult to study rather than more important to understand. Women do not need to be coached like smaller men. The result is that many active women, from recreational lifters to endurance athletes to elite competitors, have spent years trying to make sense of performance fluctuations in bodies that were never adequately represented in the data.
Now the pendulum has swung in the opposite direction. Social media has turned menstrual-cycle training into a neat four-phase prescription, lift heavy here, deload there, avoid intensity at this point, schedule your hard sessions at that point. It is a compelling narrative because it gives women an explanation for why they do not feel identical every day of the month. But the science is not that clean, and oversimplifying it does female athletes a disservice.
The better question is not whether the menstrual cycle matters. It does. When I talk about women’s hormones and their impact on athletic performance, I am not only talking about whether someone feels stronger on day 12 versus day 24. I am talking about whether she has enough energy availability to support the hormonal environment required for long-term performance, resilience, and health.
Estradiol (the primary growth and reproductive hormone that builds the uterine lining, supports ovulation, strengthens bones, protects the heart and brain, and plays a major role in energy, mood, libido, and muscle recovery) and progesterone (the hormone responsible for maintaining the uterine lining for pregnancy, balancing estrogen's effects, promoting relaxation and sleep, supporting mood, and helping regulate the menstrual cycle) both affect physiology in meaningful ways, and those changes can influence how training feels, how recovery unfolds, and how an athlete responds to heat, fuel demands, sleep disruption, pain, and stress. The real question is how much those hormonal fluctuations affect measurable performance outcomes such as strength, speed, power, and endurance, and whether those effects are large and consistent enough to dictate training for every woman. The answer, based on current evidence, is more nuanced than most headlines suggest.
To understand that nuance, it helps to start with the physiology. In a typical ovulatory menstrual cycle, estradiol and progesterone rise and fall across the month. During the early follicular phase, which includes menstruation, both hormones are relatively low. Estradiol then rises during the mid-to-late follicular phase and peaks around ovulation. In the luteal phase, progesterone rises substantially, estradiol rises again to a lesser extent, and both eventually decline if pregnancy does not occur. These hormonal shifts are not just reproductive events. Estradiol, progesterone, luteinizing hormone, and follicle-stimulating hormone interact with the central nervous system, skeletal muscle, connective tissue, metabolism, fluid balance, body temperature regulation, and even pain perception. That means the menstrual cycle is not simply about bleeding or cramping, it is a repeating endocrine rhythm with systemic effects.
Estradiol is often the hormone most discussed in relation to athletic performance, and for good reason. It has been associated with potential benefits for muscle function, glycogen sparing, vasodilation, satellite cell activation, and connective tissue turnover. It may also influence substrate utilization by shifting the body slightly toward greater fat oxidation under certain conditions. In theory, that could support endurance work and recovery, and it may partly explain why some women report feeling more powerful, coordinated, or resilient during the late follicular phase or around ovulation. Progesterone, by contrast, tends to increase resting body temperature, influence ventilation, alter fluid regulation, and potentially increase perceived exertion in some women, particularly during the mid-luteal phase. Again, that does not mean the luteal phase is bad or that performance automatically drops, but it does mean that the physiological environment is different.
The problem is that a different physiological environment does not automatically equal a predictable performance outcome. That distinction matters. We can observe hormonal fluctuations. We can identify plausible mechanisms by which those hormones may affect muscle, metabolism, or thermoregulation. But when researchers try to determine whether women are consistently stronger, faster, or more aerobically capable in one phase of the cycle than another, the results become mixed very quickly.
Strength is one of the clearest examples. Popular fitness messaging often suggests that women should push their heaviest lifting in the follicular phase and back off in the luteal phase because hormonal conditions are supposedly more favorable for force production and muscle gain. Yet the best current evidence does not strongly support a universal, phase-based approach to resistance training. A 2023 umbrella review by Colenso-Semple and colleagues concluded that current evidence does not show a meaningful influence of menstrual-cycle phase on acute strength performance or on adaptations to resistance training. The authors were careful not to claim that hormones are irrelevant. Rather, they highlighted that the available research is too inconsistent and methodologically limited to justify broad prescriptions about when women should lift heavy or expect better hypertrophy outcomes. Similar caution appears in systematic reviews and meta-analyses examining strength-related measures across the cycle, which generally find either trivial differences or results that are too inconsistent to support strong conclusions.
That does not mean no woman experiences changes in strength across her cycle. It means the group-level data do not currently justify telling every female athlete that her squat, deadlift, Olympic lifts, or hypertrophy response should be programmed around the same cycle template. Some women absolutely feel more coordinated, explosive, or neurologically “on” at certain points of the month. Others feel no meaningful difference at all. Still others may feel physically capable but are dealing with cramps, bloating, headaches, sleep disruption, or low motivation that affect their training quality more than the muscle tissue itself. From a coaching standpoint, those are not the same thing, and they should not be treated as the same thing.
Power, speed, and neuromuscular performance are similarly complicated. Some literature suggests there may be favorable conditions for explosive output or coordination around ovulation, when estradiol is high, and progesterone is still relatively low. Some studies have reported improved jump performance, sprint performance, or neuromuscular coordination during the late follicular or ovulatory window. Other studies have found minimal differences. A recent systematic review focused on higher methodological standards reported that some performance-related outcomes may vary by cycle phase, with neuromuscular coordination potentially improving around ovulation, while maximal and explosive strength appear largely unchanged. That is useful, but it is still far from a universal rule. It tells us that cycle phase may be one variable worth observing, not that every speed session, race rehearsal, or testing day should be dictated by an app.
Endurance performance introduces another layer. The conversation here often focuses on fuel use, body temperature, and cardiovascular strain rather than raw force production. Estradiol appears to influence substrate metabolism, potentially encouraging greater lipid oxidation and glycogen sparing in some settings, while progesterone can increase ventilatory drive and elevate core temperature. For endurance athletes, especially those training or racing in the heat, this matters. The luteal phase may increase thermal strain, alter fluid regulation, and raise perceived exertion for some women. That does not mean an athlete suddenly loses fitness during the luteal phase. It means the same pace, power, or heart-rate target may feel harder if body temperature is slightly higher, sleep is worse, hydration needs are greater, and premenstrual symptoms are in the mix.
This is where coaching women well requires more sophistication than simply saying “your hormones make you slower.” Sometimes the limiting factor is not a reduction in aerobic capacity itself but the accumulation of small stressors that influence performance expression. If an athlete is in the late luteal phase, sleeping poorly, craving more carbohydrates, retaining fluid, and feeling more emotionally taxed, her threshold run may feel harder. That does not necessarily mean her physiology is broken or that she is underperforming because she is female. It may mean her recovery capacity, symptom burden, and fuel needs have shifted for a few days. Those are not semantics. They change how you intervene.
There is also a distinction between objective performance and the subjective experience of performance. This is one of the most important points in the entire discussion. Many women do not need a journal article to tell them they feel different across the month. They already know. They know when they feel springy under the bar, when their pace comes easily, when their tolerance for high intensity is lower, and when cramping, breast tenderness, headaches, GI changes, or mood shifts make training feel like a grind. The fact that the literature does not show large universal decrements in performance across the cycle does not invalidate those experiences. It simply means that symptom experience is highly individual and may not map neatly onto the average response in a study cohort.
That individual variability is one of the biggest reasons menstrual-cycle research is so difficult to interpret. Not all women have the same cycle length. Not all women ovulate regularly. Not all women have the same estradiol or progesterone concentrations, even if they are classified in the same “phase.” Some women are using hormonal contraception, which changes the endocrine picture entirely. Others have underlying hypothalamic dysfunction, polycystic ovary syndrome, endometriosis, thyroid dysfunction, perimenopausal changes, or chronic low energy availability, all of which can influence symptoms and performance. Even among eumenorrheic women with regular cycles, the severity of symptoms varies enormously. Two women can both be in the luteal phase and have completely different training experiences.
Research methodology has also been a persistent problem. Many earlier studies estimated cycle phase based on calendar counting rather than actually confirming hormone status with blood sampling or ovulation testing. Sample sizes have often been small. Athletes from different sports and training backgrounds are frequently lumped together. Outcomes vary from maximal strength to sprinting to mood to thermoregulation, which makes broad conclusions difficult. A woman’s performance on a countermovement jump, a five-kilometer run, a repeated sprint test, and a heavy deadlift should not be assumed to respond identically to hormonal changes. Yet much of the public conversation treats “performance” as one thing. It is not.
The athlete population itself matters too. A recreational lifter training three days per week, a CrossFit athlete doing high-volume mixed-modal work, and a long-course triathlete balancing swim-bike-run volume with strength training are not experiencing the same training stress or asking the same things of their physiology. In endurance sports in particular, the menstrual cycle does not operate in a vacuum. Chronic under-fueling, inadequate carbohydrate intake, poor sleep, psychological stress, travel, and high training load can all alter hormone function and menstrual health. In that context, cycle symptoms may be less about normal monthly fluctuation and more about a body that is not recovering well.
This is where the conversation around women’s performance often gets flattened into something far too simplistic. We talk about the cycle as though it only changes training response, when in many athletes, the more urgent issue is whether the cycle is being disrupted by the training environment itself. Low energy availability is one of the most important examples. When a woman is not eating enough to support training demands and basic physiological function, the body can downregulate reproductive hormone production. Menstrual dysfunction, including luteal phase defects, anovulation (meaning no egg is released from the ovary), oligomenorrhea (infrequent menstrual periods), or amenorrhea (the absence of menstrual periods), is not a performance optimization strategy. It is a red flag. In endurance sport and aesthetic-driven fitness culture, this is still routinely normalized. Women are praised for being disciplined while their bodies are quietly telling them that the cost of that discipline is too high.
That matters because estradiol is not just a fertility hormone. It plays a role in bone health, vascular function, connective tissue, and recovery. Chronic suppression of reproductive function can increase the risk of stress injuries, impair recovery, and create downstream consequences that affect both health and performance. So when I talk about women’s hormones and athletic performance, I am not only talking about whether someone feels stronger on day 12 versus day 24. I am talking about whether she has enough energy availability to support the hormonal environment required for long-term performance, resilience, and health.
This is one of the reasons I am cautious about cycle syncing as a blanket recommendation. There is nothing wrong with helping women identify patterns and use those patterns to make smarter decisions. In fact, I think body literacy is one of the most underused tools in female performance coaching. If an athlete consistently notices that her highest-quality lifting sessions happen in the mid-follicular phase, that matters. If she repeatedly struggles with heat tolerance, GI symptoms, or sleep in the late luteal phase, that matters. If her period is so painful or symptomatic that it meaningfully compromises training, that matters too, and it deserves clinical attention rather than dismissal.
But there is a major difference between using cycle awareness to improve decision-making and using social-media cycle syncing as if it were a hard law of female physiology. Women do not need another rigid system that tells them they are doing training wrong if they deadlift in the luteal phase or run intervals during their period. The goal should be to create flexibility within structure. Know the broad physiology. Track symptoms, performance trends, and recovery markers. Adjust when the data from your own body repeatedly support an adjustment. Do not force a template onto an athlete whose lived experience does not match it.
So what does that look like in practice? First, stop treating the menstrual cycle as either irrelevant or all-powerful. It is neither. It is one physiological variable among many, but it is an important one because it affects more than reproduction. Coaches working with women should know whether an athlete is naturally cycling, using hormonal contraception, dealing with irregular cycles, or noticing recurring symptom patterns that affect training. This is not overreach, it is basic athlete profiling. If you are willing to ask about sleep, injury history, GI issues, resting heart rate, and race schedule, you should be willing to ask about menstrual health too.
Second, track the right things. A cycle-tracking app alone is not enough. I want athletes to look at symptom patterns alongside training performance, recovery, and fueling. How is sleep in the late luteal phase? Are certain sessions consistently feeling harder? Is there a recurring drop in motivation, coordination, or heat tolerance? Is the athlete craving more carbohydrates because training demand is high and progesterone is affecting appetite, or is she simply under-fueling year-round and noticing it more premenstrually? Are heavy sessions truly worse during menstruation, or is the issue unmanaged pain and low iron status? Good coaching requires asking better questions than “What day of your cycle are you on?”
Third, address the controllable variables before blaming hormones for everything. Many women do not have a hormone problem. They have a recovery problem, a fueling problem, a stress problem, or a symptom-management problem. If an athlete is doing high-volume endurance work while under-eating carbohydrates, sleeping six hours a night, stacking caffeine on top of chronic fatigue, and wondering why the luteal phase feels terrible, the answer is not a prettier cycle-syncing calendar. The answer may be adequate carbohydrate intake, more aggressive hydration and sodium strategies, a realistic deload structure, better sleep hygiene, and enough total energy intake to support training. Menstrual symptoms can absolutely influence performance, but those symptoms are often magnified by the rest of the environment.
Fourth, respect that symptom burden can justify modification even when physiology says performance “should” be fine. This is where evidence-based coaching sometimes gets misapplied. A study showing no average drop in maximal strength across the cycle does not mean a woman with severe dysmenorrhea should be shamed for adjusting her training on day one of her period. Science should inform coaching, not erase the athlete in front of you. If someone has recurrent, debilitating symptoms, the solution is not to tell her to toughen up because the literature is mixed. The solution is to investigate, support, and individualize.
Finally, zoom out beyond one month. Athletic performance is built over seasons, not single sessions. The real power of menstrual-cycle awareness is not that it lets women micromanage every workout. It is that it gives context. It helps athletes notice when normal fluctuation becomes dysfunctional. It can reveal patterns in recovery, symptom burden, or energy availability. It can support more honest conversations about pain, bleeding, fatigue, and body literacy in a sports culture that still too often treats women’s physiology as an inconvenience.
Women do not need to be coached like smaller men. They also do not need to be coached as though their hormones make them fragile. They need coaches, clinicians, and performance professionals who can hold both truths at once, ovarian hormones do affect physiology, and the practical impact on performance is highly individual. There may be phases of the cycle that feel better for certain athletes and certain training qualities. There may also be no meaningful pattern at all. Both are valid.
The future of women’s performance coaching should be less about forcing every athlete into a cycle-syncing template and more about integrating physiology with context. Understand the hormones. Respect the symptoms. Protect energy availability. Track patterns long enough to know whether they are real. Then coach the athlete in front of you, not the infographic.
If we want to improve performance in women, the answer is not pretending the menstrual cycle does not exist. It is also not pretending that it dictates everything. The answer is better research, better coaching, better clinical screening, and a more intelligent understanding of how female physiology actually interacts with training stress. That is a much less marketable message than “train with your hormones,” but it is far more useful to the women trying to perform well in the real world.
Read more from Shaun Provost
Shaun Provost, Women’s Health and Performance Expert
Shaun Provost is the founder of Live Unbreakable and a women’s health and performance coach with more than 16 years of experience in fitness, nutrition, and hormone health. She is passionate about helping women build strength, improve confidence, and create sustainable habits that support long-term wellness. As an endurance athlete and educator, Shaun combines science-backed coaching with a relatable, empowering approach that makes health feel achievable in real life. Through her writing, she aims to educate, inspire, and help women feel truly unbreakable.
References:
Blagrove RC, Bruinvels G, Pedlar CR. Variations in strength-related measures during the menstrual cycle in eumenorrheic women: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport. 2020;23(12):1220-1227. doi:10.1016/j.jsams.2020.04.022.
Colenso-Semple L, D’Souza AC, Elliott-Sale KJ, Phillips SM. Current evidence shows no influence of women’s menstrual cycle phase on acute strength performance or adaptations to resistance exercise training. Frontiers in Sports and Active Living. 2023;5:1054542. doi:10.3389/fspor.2023.1054542.
McNulty KL, Elliott-Sale KJ, Dolan E, et al. The effects of menstrual cycle phase on exercise performance in eumenorrheic women: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Medicine. 2020;50(10):1813-1827. doi:10.1007/s40279-020-01319-3.
Meignié A, Duclos M, Carling C, Orhant E, Toussaint JF, Antero J. The effects of menstrual cycle phase on elite athlete performance: A critical and systematic review. Frontiers in Physiology. 2021;12:654585. doi:10.3389/fphys.2021.654585.
Ekberg S, Morseth B, Larsén KB, Wikström-Frisén L. Does the menstrual cycle influence aerobic capacity in endurance-trained women? Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport. 2023. doi:10.1080/02701367.2023.2291473.
Kiwior J, Malina M, Liszka W, Kosiń K, Polak A. The influence of sex hormones and the menstrual cycle on women’s athletic performance: A literature review. Wiadomości Lekarskie. 2025;78(11):2433-2441. doi:10.36740/WLek/211463.
