Menstrual Cycle and Mindset: How Athleticism Shapes the Cognitive Landscape of Female Performance

For decades, the menstrual cycle has been a cautionary footnote in sports science—often seen as a biological wildcard that complicates research designs and muddles performance data. But a new study challenges long-held assumptions, revealing a more nuanced picture of how menstrual phases influence cognition—and how athleticism may play a far larger role than hormones alone.

Conducted with 54 naturally menstruating females aged 18 to 40, this investigation tracked cognitive function, mood, and symptomology across four key menstrual phases: menstruation, late follicular, ovulation, and mid-luteal. Participants, stratified by their level of athletic participation—from inactive to elite—completed a validated battery of cognitive tasks targeting attention, inhibition, and spatial timing. Contrary to common belief, performance did not deteriorate during menstruation. In fact, cognitive variability appeared more tightly linked to activity level than to hormonal phase. Reaction times and accuracy were highest around ovulation, when estrogen peaks, and notably slower in the mid-luteal phase, characterized by elevated progesterone.

Yet, this hormonal arc was overshadowed by the sharper contrast between active and inactive participants. Across tasks, those who were physically inactive performed significantly worse than their active, competing, or elite counterparts—regardless of cycle phase. The magnitude of these differences was striking: inactive participants lagged by up to 105 milliseconds in reaction time and made over twice as many impulsive errors compared to active participants.

Interestingly, elite athletes showed the greatest cognitive fluctuation across phases, with notably poorer performance during the mid-luteal stage. While this may reflect higher hormone sensitivity or even subclinical cycle disruptions related to intense training, hormone levels were not directly measured. These findings suggest that the physical demands of elite-level sport might create a unique hormonal-cognitive interaction not seen in recreationally active individuals.

One of the most revealing aspects of the study was the disconnect between perception and performance. Over half of participants believed their cognitive function declined during menstruation, citing brain fog, fatigue, and low mood. But their actual test scores told a different story—no measurable decline was observed in attention, inhibition, or timing accuracy. This perceptual gap highlights a persistent cultural bias that equates menstruation with diminished capacity—a belief that may be psychologically more burdensome than any biological reality.

Mood assessments echoed these findings. Participants reported lower energy ("Drive") and contentment ("Serenity") during menstruation, yet these emotional states did not predict or correlate with cognitive performance. This incongruence suggests that while hormonal shifts may influence subjective experience, they do not necessarily impair cognitive control or executive function in measurable ways.

The broader implications of this study extend beyond female athletes. It underscores the cognitive dividends of physical activity, reinforcing the well-documented link between exercise and executive function. More provocatively, it calls into question long-standing narratives around menstruation as a liability in high-stakes environments—whether in athletics, academia, or the workplace.

Despite its strengths, including a randomized crossover design and phase-specific testing validated by ovulation kits, the study had limitations. Hormonal assays were not conducted, athletic classification was self-reported, and testing was done remotely—limiting environmental control. Furthermore, the study did not include participants using hormonal contraceptives, an important comparison group for future research.

Still, its core message is clear: while menstrual cycle phases do produce modest cognitive fluctuations, these effects are neither uniform nor inherently detrimental. More critically, lifestyle factors like physical activity have a more pronounced impact on cognitive performance than hormone-driven cycles. These findings should encourage clinicians, coaches, and athletes alike to rethink outdated assumptions and shift the conversation toward empowerment, not limitation.

In an era increasingly attentive to female-specific research, this study offers timely evidence that challenges stigma and elevates scientific understanding. Performance isn’t just about biology—it’s about how we train, how we feel, and perhaps most importantly, what we believe.