Re: the menstrual cycle. I have been extremely resistant to all things relating to luteal phases and ovulation week and glowing and PMS and that whole world because to me it felt like another way to primalify (word?) and mysticize women into some baser, natury creature ruled by ancient or bodily forces like the moon or blood or "intuition". I know it's not one and the same but it feels like a way to gather up all of a gender and say hey if you are a person who is having periods, you're less rational this one week. You are hotter this week. You are weaker this week. And we try and sweeten the deal by saying it's linked to women's knowledge, intuition, the glow, all this stuff. I am really curious about the scientific side of it but also a little afraid because I really don't want it to be true- it feels like another thing that will be wielded against women, you know?
I totally get what you're saying, and think I've had the same reservations. As I'm writing the article on it, I will get into the cultural context as well, ie the idea of traditional masculine/feminine and using "science" to say it's "just a fact." My understanding of the research is that it isn't coherent with this idea of women have to exercise based on xyz hormones. If anything, the thing many people worried about wellness on tik tok should care more about is the hormonal changes from not getting enough energy from calories to fuel intense workout programs. Most people probably don't need to worry about that, either, though female athletes or highly, highly active people do (it's an idea called REDS, or relative energy deficiency syndrome, that can happen in athletes).
Rest assured, the online mythification and selling of the idea of cycle syncing does not seem to be in line with the science and clinical academics involved at this point.
Re: the menstrual cycle. I have been extremely resistant to all things relating to luteal phases and ovulation week and glowing and PMS and that whole world because to me it felt like another way to primalify (word?) and mysticize women into some baser, natury creature ruled by ancient or bodily forces like the moon or blood or "intuition". I know it's not one and the same but it feels like a way to gather up all of a gender and say hey if you are a person who is having periods, you're less rational this one week. You are hotter this week. You are weaker this week. And we try and sweeten the deal by saying it's linked to women's knowledge, intuition, the glow, all this stuff. I am really curious about the scientific side of it but also a little afraid because I really don't want it to be true- it feels like another thing that will be wielded against women, you know?
I totally get what you're saying, and think I've had the same reservations. As I'm writing the article on it, I will get into the cultural context as well, ie the idea of traditional masculine/feminine and using "science" to say it's "just a fact." My understanding of the research is that it isn't coherent with this idea of women have to exercise based on xyz hormones. If anything, the thing many people worried about wellness on tik tok should care more about is the hormonal changes from not getting enough energy from calories to fuel intense workout programs. Most people probably don't need to worry about that, either, though female athletes or highly, highly active people do (it's an idea called REDS, or relative energy deficiency syndrome, that can happen in athletes).
Rest assured, the online mythification and selling of the idea of cycle syncing does not seem to be in line with the science and clinical academics involved at this point.