Connect with us

News

“Impact without infrastructure”: Why elite sport is still failing female physiology

Published

on

As a new global study exposes systemic gaps in how elite sport manages menstrual health, those behind it explain how current systems are failing women and why it’s time for a fundamental redesign of high-performance care. 

While menstrual health is almost universally recognised as a critical factor in women’s performance, few professional sports organisations have the systems or structures in place to address it, according to new research. 

Drawing on data from international practitioners and athletes across various sports, including football, rugby, basketball, and hockey, in Europe and North America, the research quantifies what many in women’s sport have long suspected. 

While the menstrual cycle is perceived to influence performance, recovery, and availability, a systematic approach to understanding, measuring, and managing it still lags far behind. 

A global blind spot 

The study, conducted by sports science and performance intelligence company, Kitman Labs.

found that 88 per cent of support staff working in professional settings are aware of the potential effects of the menstrual cycle on performance, but 86 per cent of elite female athletes report receiving no menstrual-specific support.

Researchers describe the pattern as “impact without infrastructure,” a situation in which awareness of menstrual health’s importance far outpaces the systems, technology, and education required to support it. 

“This study puts numbers behind what practitioners have been telling us for years,” said Anne Makinen, lead author and performance strategist at Kitman Labs. 

“Even though many seem to understand that menstrual health has an impact on athlete performance and injury risk, most organisations still can’t see it, measure it, or manage it.

The result is a blind spot in athlete care and competitive performance.”

Among professionals who responded to the study, only 49 per cent reported that their organisations systematically track menstrual cycle data, and fewer than one in five organisations have any formal policy or workflow addressing menstrual health.

The majority (71 per cent) of support staff view menstrual cycle-related communication as very important, yet less than half of the athletes report conversations taking place. 

And only 26 per cent of practitioners work with systems that they deemed suitable for assessing the effect of the menstrual cycle on health and performance.

Built for men

Cultural discomfort, stigma, or lack of confidence were all cited as barriers to action.

However, the study also highlights the imbalance in what it calls the ‘gendered sporting context’ – a legacy of male-defined systems, research, and coaching models that were never redesigned for female physiology.

Women differ significantly from men in anatomy, body composition, cardiovascular and respiratory responses, thermoregulation and beyond, all of which influence tolerance to internal and external load, explains Makinen.

Yet elite sport continues to be underpinned by male physiological models.

“This manifests in training load prescriptions, testing protocols, and injury management practices,” Makinen tells Femtech World.

“Most existing frameworks have been developed from research conducted on men and are routinely applied to female athletes without accounting for sex-specific physiological differences.”

Hormonal fluctuations across the menstrual cycle also modulate exercise responses and adaptations, yet these factors are largely absent from male-derived models.

Makinen says this can lead to inaccurate estimations of recovery time and adaptation windows, increasing the risk of non-functional overreaching or stagnation, and neglecting phases where symptoms or heightened injury susceptibility may temporarily affect optimal loading.

Testing protocols widely regarded as gold standards, such as VO₂ max assessments, repeated sprint tests, and strength evaluations, have also been validated primarily in male populations and adopted for women without sex-specific normative ranges or consideration of menstrual cycle phase. 

“This introduces biological variability that can obscure true performance changes or misrepresent an athlete’s capacity,” Makinen says. 

“Even pre-participation health screenings often fail to incorporate female-specific considerations, prompting calls for revised protocols that address this gap.”

Injury management further illustrates this, she says.

Female athletes exhibit distinct injury epidemiology influenced by anatomical, biomechanical, and hormonal factors, including pelvic structure, ligament laxity, and neuromuscular control. 

But rehabilitation guidelines and return-to-play criteria frequently overlook hormonal milieu, bone health, and symptom burden, increasing the risk of premature return or prolonged recovery.

Conditions such as low energy availability, menstrual dysfunction, and compromised bone health remain insufficiently addressed within current frameworks, and practitioners are often forced to make critical decisions without vital physiological data.

“Ultimately, reliance on male physiological models represents a missed opportunity to optimise female athlete performance and safety,” Makinen says.

“Reviews of female athlete physiology advocate for sex-specific resistance and neuromuscular training, tailored loading strategies, and hormonal management approaches.

“Without these adjustments, elite sport perpetuates practices that are not only suboptimal but potentially harmful for female athletes.”

The data gap

Increasing numbers of female athletes are turning to apps for menstrual cycle tracking, but elite practice also requires the ability to link menstrual cycle data to training loads, testing, wellness, and return-to-play decisions. 

Many respondents described an urgent need for standardised data systems, practical education resources, and technological integration that embed menstrual variables into everyday workflows. 

“Few systems offer interoperable, athlete-centric dashboards combining medical, biometric, and performance data, which reduces actionable use by support staff,” says Makinen. 

“There is no technical barrier to collecting this data”, Makinen says.

“The only thing missing is a clear decision from governing bodies and federations to prioritize it and mandate the capture of the requisite information.”

The FASE framework 

The findings call for a fundamental redesign of high-performance systems through a female physiological lens. 

To enable a cultural shift, organisations need a systematic approach to female athlete support, otherwise their impact is limited,” Makinen continues. 

“The study also points to a cultural transition moment in women’s sport: to dismantle the gendered sporting context with a lingering stigma around the menstrual cycle, a collective effort is called for to create supportive environments and systems to operate in it.”

The study identified seven support considerations for a Female Athlete Supportive Environment (FASE), namely education, communication, training & performance, medical, wellness, resources, and research.

This underlines the need for an individual approach to athletes’ training and performance, including safe and secure tracking and monitoring of the menstrual cycle, proper screening tools for cycle function and dysfunction, and integrated wellness tracking, such as recovery, sleep, and nutrition, to be tailored to each phase of the cycle. 

The model also calls for educational interventions that address the physiology of the menstrual cycle and its impact on the athlete, for regular, staff-initiated conversations to help women feel more comfortable discussing their cycle with their team, and for access to menstrual products, specialist medical practitioners, and appropriate gear.

Beyond this, Makinen also highlights the need for more longitudinal data monitoring and collection, and future research to understand the impact of hormonal phases and fluctuations on health and performance.

“The FASE framework gives clubs a structure to begin, from basic education modules to staff conversations and screening protocols.

“This doesn’t require advanced tech, just commitment,” Makinen explains.

“Awareness and education are powerful first steps, and staff-initiated, normalised conversations mark the beginning of a genuine, taboo-breaking culture shift.”

High stakes for women’s sport 

In many senses, the menstrual health blind spot in elite sport mirrors the broader state of women’s healthcare, with innovation outpacing implementation, and evidence struggling to penetrate systems designed without female physiology in mind.

As investment and professionalism in women’s sport accelerates globally, the researchers warn that if menstrual health remains unmanaged, teams and governing bodies risk falling behind, competitively, ethically, and medically.  

“This isn’t about placing blame,” said Stephen Smith, founder & CEO of Kitman Labs. 

“It’s about performance risk and organizational evolution. Women’s sport has been forced to rely on male-dominated physiological models and research.

If women’s sport is going to advance, its frameworks must be rebuilt through a female lens — grounded in evidence, not assumption.”

As the study notes, overcoming the inertia of the gendered sporting context – and rebuilding sport systems around female data and physiology – will define the next frontier of competitive advantage in women’s sport.

“The stakes are clear,” added Smith. 

“You can’t claim to optimize performance if you’re ignoring the data that defines half your athletes.

“This is about redefining what world-class looks like and we’re committed to collaborating with our partners to help establish that.”

Menopause

Apple Health adds menopause and perimenopause tracking

Published

on

Apple announced menopause and perimenopause tracking for its Health app at WWDC 2026, with symptom logging and cycle alerts for some users.

The update expands the app’s cycle tracking beyond fertility and menstrual periods.

If logged cycle patterns suggest a user may be experiencing perimenopause, the app will send a notification prompting a conversation with a doctor.

However, this perimenopause-specific cycle deviation notification is only for users aged 40 and over and is not intended to replace a doctor’s diagnosis or treatment.

Stacey Ford, Apple’s vice-president of OS management, said users will also be able to log menopause and perimenopause symptoms in the Health app.

Educational content will also be available to help users learn more about these life stages and understand changes in their bodies.

Every year, about 2 million women enter perimenopause, the stage before menopause when levels of the hormone oestrogen decline.

According to a February 2025 survey involving 4,432 participants aged over 30, more than half of women aged 30 to 35 experienced moderate or severe perimenopause symptoms.

The findings suggest perimenopause does not affect only older adults.

About 6,000 women in the US enter menopause every day, according to the Society for Women’s Health Research.

Given the number of women affected by perimenopause and menopause, the update broadens the Health app’s scope.

The app launched in 2019, meaning it has gone seven years without these women’s health tracking features, which could help users better understand their bodies and prepare for informed conversations with doctors.

Continue Reading

Pregnancy

£50m initiative aims to tackle disparities in maternal healthcare

Published

on

A £50m maternity consortium will bring together UK clinicians, researchers and communities to tackle the most critical gaps in maternal care.

Funding from the National Institute for Health and Care Research has established the NIHR Inequalities Challenge: Maternity Disparities Consortium under the leadership of the University of Birmingham and Newcastle University.

Higher education bodies, NHS organisations, community groups and voluntary organisations from across the UK will work together through the programme.

The NIHR has committed £50m over five years to support research led by clinicians, researchers and communities across the consortium.

Professor Joht Singh Chandan, consortium co-lead for research at the University of Birmingham, said: “National attention on maternity safety and equity has never been greater, but ambition must now be matched by evidence and implementation.

“Through this consortium, we will work across the UK to understand what works, for whom and in what contexts, and to ensure that research leads to practical changes in care for the women, babies and families who need them most.”

The launch comes at a pivotal moment for UK maternity care, with growing national attention on improving safety, equity and women’s experiences of care.

The government’s renewed Women’s Health Strategy highlights the need to improve care before and between pregnancies for underserved communities.

Against that backdrop, the consortium will generate the evidence, interventions and research capacity needed to help turn national ambition into practical improvements for women, babies and families.

University of Birmingham is leading work to improve maternity care pathways across the antenatal, intrapartum and postnatal periods.

Antenatal care covers pregnancy before labour, while intrapartum care refers to care during labour and birth.

The consortium will examine how women and families can be better supported before pregnancy and between pregnancies.

This includes improving access to advice and care that can help people prepare for pregnancy, manage existing health conditions and reduce risks before they build up.

Other research will focus on improving care during pregnancy, birth and the early weeks after birth.

This will include work on major causes of poor maternal health, such as high blood pressure, diabetes in pregnancy, obesity, perinatal mental health and complications during recovery after birth.

Professor Judith Rankin OBE, consortium co-lead for research and capacity development at Newcastle University, said: “This funding represents a critical opportunity to make the step change we need to improve outcomes for women and their babies.

“Alongside the research, the Consortium will be investing in tomorrow’s research leaders today to ensure we have the capacity to deliver on improving pregnancy outcomes, access to, and experience of, care.”

Continue Reading

Insight

Peers call on UK government to review fertility and surrogacy laws

Published

on

Peers have called for law reform after two House of Lords debates on fertility treatment, surrogacy, embryo research and declining birthrates.

The first debate was put forward by crossbench peer Baroness Ruth Deech, who previously chaired the UK’s fertility regulator, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority.

She discussed proposals from the HFEA to reform the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act, along with proposals from the Scottish Law Commission and the Law Commission of England and Wales to reform the Surrogacy Arrangements Act.

She called for parliamentary scrutiny of possible changes to regulatory powers, consent rules, donor information and future scientific developments.

Baroness Deech said: “Parliament should plan by setting up a Select Committee to examine the HFEA’s proposals to expand regulatory powers, simplify consent rules, modernise donor information provisions and create a flexible framework for future scientific developments.”

Former fertility professionals were among those contributing to the debate.

Professor Lord Robert Winston, a Labour peer who founded the IVF service at Hammersmith Hospital in London, said: “Infertility is not a disease; it is actually a symptom of something wrong.”

Professor Baroness Geeta Nargund, a Labour peer, current HFEA member and former medical director of CREATE Fertility, disagreed.

She said: “Infertility is a disease, as stated by the World Health Organisation.”

Liberal Democrat peer Baroness Caroline Pidgeon highlighted regional differences in access to NHS-funded fertility treatment.

She cited figures from the Progress Educational Trust’s NHS Fertility Funding Tracker showing that only two of England’s 42 integrated care boards comply with the recently updated fertility guideline published by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence.

Integrated care boards are local NHS organisations responsible for planning and funding healthcare services in their areas.

Baroness Pidgeon said many boards were offering only a partial IVF cycle rather than a full cycle as defined by NICE.

A full IVF cycle generally includes ovarian stimulation, egg collection and the transfer of all suitable fresh and frozen embryos created during treatment.

Crossbench peer Professor Baroness Clare Gerada, a former president of the Royal College of General Practitioners, said: “The proportion of NHS-funded IVF cycles has fallen to just under 30 per cent, the lowest level since 2008.”

She added that, in relation to IVF, “the NHS system has collapsed”.

Liberal Democrat peer Lord Monroe Palmer said it was “very ironic that it is difficult for many patients to access publicly funded fertility treatment in the very country where IVF was originally pioneered”.

Conservative peer Edward Howard, Earl of Effingham, also raised concerns about the NICE fertility guideline.

He said: “Access remains highly variable across England, because ICBs are not required to implement that guidance.”

He described the situation as “a clear gap between guidance and enforceable entitlement”.

Baroness Deech called for “automatic record sharing between clinics and the NHS central records system”.

Baroness Nargund supported this and linked the ambition to the Single Patient Record in the government’s Ten-Year Health Plan for England and the Health Bill currently before Parliament.

Baroness Pidgeon said such ambitions were at odds with the exceptional degree of medical secrecy that currently applies to IVF.

She also pointed to “a clear desire for the HFEA to be able to permit patients to give generic consent for the use of their embryos in research”.

Patients cannot currently give broad consent for unspecified future research involving their embryos.

Responding for the government, Labour peer Baroness Judith Blake said “immediate legislative reform” was not possible because “the legislative programme for this Parliamentary session is very full”.

Baroness Deech replied: “It might well take some years, but the Government really needs to set up that Select Committee and do the legislative scrutiny right now.”

A second debate on related issues followed immediately afterwards.

Baroness Nargund asked the government “what assessment they have made of the UK’s declining birthrates in an ageing population”.

She also said: “We still have a postcode lottery for IVF provision, with nearly 70 per cent of ICBs funding only one cycle of treatment.”

Responding for the government, Labour peer Lord Philip Wilson said: “The Government are committed to improving fair and equitable access to fertility services, recognising the significant emotional and health impacts of infertility.”

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2025 Aspect Health Media Ltd. All Rights Reserved.