Over the last 10 years, working in strength and conditioning and high-performance environments, I have learned that the human body does not always behave according to the neat models we create around it.

The menstrual cycle is a good example. Hormones fluctuate. That is not the debate. The more important question is whether those fluctuations consistently produce meaningful changes in performance and whether they justify changing an athlete's entire training programme. Too often, we see biological variation and immediately try to turn it into a training prescription. But before changing the programme, perhaps we should first ask: what is actually changing in the athlete?

Key Takeaways and Points

1. Hormones fluctuate. Performance does not necessarily fluctuate in the same way.

At the beginning of the cycle, estradiol and progesterone are low. Estradiol gradually rises through the follicular phase and peaks before ovulation. Ovulation is associated with a luteinizing hormone surge. During the luteal phase, progesterone and estradiol are moderately elevated before both decline again toward the end of the cycle. The hormonal pattern exists. But a change in hormones does not automatically mean a predictable change in strength, power, coordination, or performance. A biological change is not automatically a performance change. That distinction is important.

2. We should be careful about turning physiology into a universal training rule

A common approach is to recommend:

• Higher training volume and intensity during the follicular phase

• Lower volume and intensity during the luteal phase

• Increased protein intake during the luteal phase because progesterone is considered “catabolic”

The problem is that these recommendations often sound more certain than the evidence allows. The idea that estradiol is strongly anabolic is largely influenced by research involving the removal or absence of ovarian hormones. Evidence that naturally higher estradiol levels during a normal menstrual cycle consistently produce superior strength or muscle adaptations is lacking.

So the question becomes:

Are we responding to what the athlete is actually doing, or to what we assume the hormones should be doing?

These are not always the same thing.

3. The calendar is not the athlete

The standard model is familiar:

• 28-day cycle

• Ovulation on day 14

• First two weeks = follicular phase

• Next two weeks = luteal phase

It is neat. The human body rarely is. The follicular phase can range approximately 10-22 days, while the luteal phase can range approximately 7-17 days. Cycle length and ovulation timing can also vary within the same athlete. So if we prescribe one programme for the first two weeks and another programme for the next two weeks, there is a simple problem:

How do we know that the calendar actually represents the athlete's physiology?

A calendar is easy to follow. That does not make it an accurate measurement tool.

4. If phase matters, then phase identification matters

If we genuinely believe training should be organised around hormonal phases, then accurately identifying those phases becomes important. Simply counting days is not enough. Ovulation needs to be identified more accurately, such as through detection of the luteinizing hormone surge using appropriate urine or blood testing. Multiple cycles should also be tracked and mapped. Otherwise, we may be making highly specific training decisions based on a very rough assumption.

The more precise the intervention, the more precise the measurement should be.

5. There is no consistent rule for how every athlete will perform

Current evidence does not allow us to confidently say that a particular menstrual cycle phase will consistently improve or reduce acute strength performance in all women.

Why?

• The research is limited.

• Any effect may be small.

• Individual differences are substantial.

• Group averages can hide individual responses.

An average can be scientifically useful. But an average athlete does not exist. One athlete may experience severe symptoms and reduced training quality. Another may feel different but perform exactly the same. Another may experience no meaningful change at all. This is where coaching begins. Not with the average. With the athlete in front of you.

6. Just because something can be periodised does not mean it needs to be

It is possible to build a phase-based system around:

• Cycle length

• Ovulation

• Hormonal phase

• Symptoms

• Training response

But possibility and necessity are not the same thing. Reducing training volume or intensity for a large portion of every month simply because the athlete has entered a particular phase may reduce the overall training stimulus without providing a meaningful benefit. The question should not be:

Can we change the programme?

The better question is: What problem are we trying to solve by changing it?

7. Symptoms may be more useful than the phase label

A more practical approach is to track the athlete rather than automatically reacting to the phase.

This includes:

• Mapping the menstrual cycle

• Recording symptom timing

• Recording symptom severity

• Monitoring training performance

• Monitoring recovery

• Comparing subjective feedback with objective training data

Symptoms may occur during the late luteal phase, before menstruation, or during the early follicular phase, particularly during the first few days of menstruation. Some athletes may experience very few symptoms. Even within the same athlete, symptoms can vary from one cycle to another.

So instead of saying: “You are in this phase, therefore your performance should decrease.”

Perhaps we should ask: “What actually happens to your performance during this period?”

8. Look for patterns before creating rules

One difficult session does not establish a pattern. One difficult cycle does not establish a pattern. Before changing a programme, look for repeatability.

For example:

• Is session RPE consistently higher during a particular period?

• Does the athlete repeatedly struggle to complete the same work at the same load?

• Is there a measurable reduction in performance?

• Do specific symptoms repeatedly affect training quality?

If the same pattern appears repeatedly across multiple cycles, then you have something useful. Not a theory. A pattern. And patterns are far more useful for coaching than assumptions.

9. Adjust the session when necessary not automatically the entire month

If symptoms genuinely affect training, adjustments may be appropriate.

This could involve:

• Reducing volume

• Modifying intensity

• Changing exercise selection

• Adjusting the session objective

• Rescheduling training when appropriate

But an athlete may only need an adjustment for one or two sessions. That is very different from automatically reducing training for an entire phase. The size of the intervention should match the size of the problem.

10. The hormonal context matters

Before making any assumption about menstrual-cycle-based training, coaches need to understand the athlete's context.

For example, whether the athlete:

• Has a natural menstrual cycle

• Uses hormonal contraception

• Is pregnant

• Is in perimenopause

These situations involve different hormonal environments. So applying the same framework to everyone simply because they are female makes little sense.

11. Do not let complexity replace good coaching

It is easy to become fascinated by variables that appear highly scientific. Menstrual cycle phase. Supplements. Nutrient timing. Small physiological fluctuations. These things can be interesting. But interesting does not always mean important.

Meanwhile, the larger variables remain:

• Appropriate training

• Progressive overload

• Recovery

• Nutrition

• Sleep

• Consistency

• Individual monitoring

Sometimes we spend too much time trying to optimise the variables at the edge while ignoring the variables in the centre.

12. Individualisation does not mean creating more rules

True individualisation is not about designing a new programme for every theoretical hormonal change. It is about understanding how a specific athlete responds to training.

That means considering:

• Goals

• Training history

• Symptoms

• Preferences

• Training data

• Performance outcomes

• Feedback over time

The athlete is not a hormonal phase. The athlete is a complex system that adapts, compensates, responds, and changes. A training programme should therefore not be built around what we expect the athlete to do. It should evolve around what the athlete actually does.

Conclusion

The menstrual cycle may influence performance in some athletes. But hormonal fluctuation alone is not enough reason to prescribe universal training changes. Measure the athlete, observe the patterns, understand the symptoms, and only intervene when there is a real and repeatable reason to do so. The goal of coaching is not to fit the athlete into a model. The goal is to understand when the model fails to explain the athlete.

Aadhithya N R        
High Performance Coach