Does the menstrual cycle change training performance?

In a 2025 systematic review of 19 hormone-verified studies (279 women), 58% reported a significant menstrual cycle phase effect on at least one performance outcome, but the direction and size of the effect varied between studies. Maximum and explosive strength were largely unaffected, and the authors flagged a medium to high risk of bias.

What does the best-controlled research show?

Schlie et al., Journal of Applied Physiology 2025 included only studies that measured 17β-estradiol, progesterone and luteinizing hormone, rather than assuming phases from the calendar. The 19 studies were small (a mean of 13.9 participants), and elite athletes were under-represented.

The early follicular phase was unfavourable for VO2 max in one study and for peak power in two, submaximal ventilation was lower in that phase, and neuromuscular coordination was better around ovulation. The authors said the mix of phases and populations complicates analysis and advised approaching conclusions about cycle effects critically.

An earlier systematic review and meta-analysis of 78 studies by McNulty et al., Sports Medicine 2020 reached a similar place: performance might be trivially reduced in the early follicular phase (effect size -0.06, 95% credible interval -0.16 to 0.04), and the authors classified the quality of evidence as low.

What did a six-phase study of 18 athletes find?

Niering et al., Scientific Reports 2026 tested 18 eumenorrheic athletes (aged 18 to 30) across six cycle phases, using urinary LH tests to locate ovulation. Half-squat performance peaked in the late follicular phase and at ovulation and was lowest in the late luteal phase. Handgrip strength was highest in the late luteal phase, the opposite pattern.

Fatigue and depression scores were higher, and vigor lower, in the late luteal phase. No phase effect appeared for motivation, sleep quality or perceived exertion. At the individual level, half-squat performance was negatively associated with depression scores (r = -0.60).

The authors noted the small sample, uncontrolled training load, nutrition and sleep, and that results may not apply to women using hormonal contraception or with irregular cycles. They concluded that rigid phase-based prescriptions may be less appropriate than individual patterns. Group averages, like population reference ranges, can hide the person-to-person spread.

The bottom line

• A 2025 systematic review of 19 hormone-verified studies (279 women) found 58% reported phase effects, with inconsistent direction and a medium to high risk of bias.
• A 2020 meta-analysis of 78 studies estimated a trivial reduction in the early follicular phase (effect size -0.06), with low-quality evidence.
• A small 2026 study (18 athletes) found task-dependent patterns, which the authors read as favouring individual tracking over fixed phase rules.