Talk:Menstrual cycle/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Citation 59

I thought you all checked all these sources? Can I timestamp this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.234.94.99 (talk) 19:47, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Strike The Moon-Tales

I think strictly, mathematically, speaking, the fact that a lunar cycle is 28 days, combined with this variable "science", logic dictates that there might be one (or realistically several) women that speak or read English have a cycle that closely mimics a lunar cycle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.234.94.99 (talk) 19:50, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Strike all the illogical, erroneous moon-tales from this article. They are unsupported. The lunar phase of the urban legend even contradicts tales mentioned in one of the links mentioning moon-phases. The other moon-link is useless as well as it drops you at a search and not a specific reference.

You call this Space Age Medicine? Hmmmmppft72.251.0.19 09:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.251.0.19 (talk • contribs) 09:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree about this. I do think it's a good point that perhaps the reason that the moon doesn't seem to affect modern women's menstrual cycles is because of the urban lifestyle. But the point seems moot, as either way the moon doesn't seem to have anything to do with modern menstrual entrainment. I'm not sure what procedure policy dictates for removal of this section, but if someone knows then I think it would be well-advised to move forward with removing this section. Ehb 17:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ehb (talk • contribs) 4 June 2007 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, the influence of the moon on menstrual cycles is known. It's very simple: light affects the pituitary. However, in order to get enough light to stimulate ovulation, women must be not only in non-urban environments but *always sleeping outdoors*. There used to be a research abstract about a study done on this (women with irregular cycles slept with the light on - it needs a lot of light, I have no idea how they managed to sleep - for three days when they should be ovulating, and this generally regulated their cycle length) at the Apollo Health website, but for some reason they have less information up at the moment, although there is some at http://www.apollolight.com/irregular_menstrual_cycle.html (now with a fair amount of information I'd mistrust, unfortunately, such as the theory that women not on the Pill are naturally in phase with the moon, but I think the original study was still valid - can anyone find it?). Anyway, this is a real relationship between lunar cycles and menstrual cycles, and I'm guessing it would have been influential during evolution, but since humans have been living indoors for a very long time now, and with enough light pollution that the moon makes little difference to the amount of nighttime illumination, this no longer affects women's cycles. Anyone who is living a modern urban life and thinks that the moon is affecting their cycles, libido or anything else is living in dreamland. As far as I can tell, this would be a suitable section for the article:

The average menstrual cycle is 29 days, the same length as the lunar cycle. When humans were still living and sleeping outdoors, with no light pollution to obscure moonlight, it is probably that the full moon coincided with ovulation, since light stimulates the pituitary, and that this will have been relevant during evolution. Some studies have shown that sleeping with a strong light on (at least 50W three feet away from the bed) for three days at the time of expected ovulation can regulate the length of irregular or long cycles. However, since modern humans sleep indoors and there is so much light pollution that the moon makes little to no difference to the amount of nighttime illumination, lunar cycles now make absolutely no difference to menstrual cycles. There are various myths around that the moon can influence fertility, libido or cycle length, but they are all incorrect as applied to modern lifestyles. Strong light can indeed alter circadian rhythms and menstrual cycles, which is why shift workers are prone to menstrual irregularities, and bright light therapy (as used for Seasonal Affective Disorder or depression) in the daytime may also affect menstrual cycles.

I'm having trouble finding research, Google searches keep pulling up all the nonsense myths instead. Here's the best I can do so far, sorry that they're abstracts rather than full articles:

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a714014296~db=all

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.ncoimage.neco.edu/pubmed/17601857?dopt=Abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.ncoimage.neco.edu/pubmed/17597228?dopt=Abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.ncoimage.neco.edu/pubmed/17290302?dopt=Abstract

Elettaria (talk) 13:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Elettaria (talk • contribs) 13:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The medical consensus seem to be that it's just a coincidence. I'm removing the association made in the article.

http://academic.evergreen.edu/curricular/astro/astro2001/projects/luna/menstruation/mencycle.htm http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/2056/is-the-human-menstrual-cycle-related-to-the-lunar-cycle http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1348/whats-the-link-between-the-moon-and-menstruation Mihaiam (talk) 20:04, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

The sources cited above are from 2 Internet forums and a 2001 dated blog for a state college's Astronomy class, in my opinion none of these would be considered reliable sources for a medical consensus re: a possible (or not-possible) lunar correlation. Shearonink (talk) 20:35, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

A started parenthesis lacking closing parenthesis

"two become dominant (non-dominant" in the introduction this parenthesis is never closed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.177.174.137 (talk) 19:34, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

An editor had removed the closing part of the parentheses on March 16, 2013; it was likely a WP:TEST EDIT. I meant to revert around that time, but I forgot due to being busy with other matters. I added back the closing part minutes ago. Thanks for bringing that back to my attention. Flyer22 (talk) 20:01, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Suggested deletion

I just moved

The average age of menarche is about 12.5 years in the United States, 12.72 in Canada, 12.9 in the UK and 13.06 ± 0.10 years in Iceland.

from the lede to the first section of the article, because it is too detailed, in my opinion, for the lede. I actually think it's too detailed for this article and it belongs in Menarche where it is already covered, but will wait to see what others think. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:24, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

You've already removed it from the lead and placed it lower in the article, and I don't mind. I think it's fine lower in the article, however. As for it being in the Menarche article as well, it's in the lead of that article...just like it was in the lead of this one. And just like I agree that it's too detailed for the lead of this article, it can be argued that it's too detailed for the lead of that article. 12-13 are the average ages for menarche, and the "12.5" type of specificity is not needed for either lead. Flyer22 (talk) 14:44, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Then again, the Menarche article, right before giving such specificity, states: "The worldwide average age of menarche is very difficult to estimate accurately, and it varies significantly by geographical region, race, ethnicity and other characteristics. Various estimates have placed it at 13.[1][2] Some estimates suggest that the median age of menarche worldwide is 14, and that there is a later age of onset in Asian populations compared to the West." Flyer22 (talk) 14:50, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Production of hCG

I have amended the last paragraph of the 'Luteal Phase' section, regarding hCG production, for greater accuracy. A small part of the article overall but as a lab medicine professional one I felt needed clarification! FlowersAndFilth (talk) 13:47, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

The average menstrual cycle is not 28 days

I propose to add a short paragraph on the menstrual cycle in relation to the moon. It makes clear that while no statistical association between the moon and human menstruation has been documented in any extant population, this is not necessarily the end of the matter. From a deep-time evolutionary perspective, many reputable primatalogists and other scientists have considered the possibility that seasonal, tidal and other forms of synchrony may have had an adaptive basis in the past, just as they continue to have an adaptive basis among certain extant primate species.Altg20April2nd (talk) 11:36, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Again, please read the literature. Menstrual cycles are not 28 days in length. Research has found over numerous studies that cycle are between 29 to 30 days on average. Please cite exactly which studies found 28 days.--I am One of Many (talk) 22:15, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Note: The above about 28 days is in response to this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 22:25, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I am One of Many , I did read the literature, which source are you talking about specifically? I just looked briefly at one of the sources used by Altg20April2nd, which is the study by Chiazze et al. (1968). I won't go into too much detail except to say that the quantitative results from this study needs to be presented and interpreted with caution as it is very context specific. On. p. 379 for example, the authors state "When only those cycles between 15 and 45 days are considered.... the average length drops to 28.1 days...." In any event, this would too long and unnecessarily complex for the lead (WP:lead). Plus, WP recommends the use of secondary sources (WP:V) as the use of primary sources often results in original research (WP:OR). The broad scientific consensus is 28 days (e.g., WebMD.com, university textbooks (Sherwood and Silverthorn, which are listed in this article), and peer-reviewed articles (e.g., Wilcox et al. (2000)). Unless, mainstream sources say it is 29.1 days, we should be following WP policy and rely only on up-to-date mainstream and reputable secondary sources, which states the average to be 28 days. danielkueh (talk) 22:33, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

The WebMD is not a good source. They site no scientific research. The second article is not a study on the length and variability of menstrual cycles and it does not say the average length is 28 days. It is also not a review article. The 28 days is a convenient fiction for explaining the phases of the menstrual cycle and the timing of hormonal and physiological processes. One is not doing original research if you report the results and conclusions drawn in a scientific research article. Original research occurs when we draw our own conclusions from the research or provide interpretations. Just stating the results is what an encyclopedic article should do.--I am One of Many (talk) 22:45, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

While not a great source, depending on the context, WebMD is not a bad source; it's accepted by WP:MEDRS as one of the sources that may be fine to use; WP:MEDRS states: "Peer reviewed medical information resources such as WebMD, UpToDate, Mayo Clinic, and eMedicine are usually acceptable sources in themselves, and can be useful guides about the relevant medical literature and how much weight to give different sources; however, as much as possible Wikipedia articles should cite the more established literature directly." Flyer22 (talk) 22:51, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Flyer22. danielkueh (talk) 22:59, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Just stated this at WP:MED; also stating it here: Apparently, Atlg20April2nd has been adding the 29.5 days information since 2010; obviously, it was removed before recently as well. Flyer22 (talk) 23:08, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

What she added was correct if we are basing the length of the menstrual cycle on scientific research. And WebMD should not be used as a scientific source. Even common medical advice is questionable.--I am One of Many (talk) 23:22, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I follow WP:MEDRS when it comes to WebMD and sources like it. To that guideline, it and sources like it are fine as scientific sources. It's just that they usually are not great sources and certainly aren't ideal sources. Flyer22 (talk) 23:37, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree, that if nothing else is available, then you have to go with WebMD, but we are not stuck with WebMD. We can use actual scientific articles. I would be happy with at least stating that 28 days is the "textbook" length, but scientific research reveals considerable variability [1]. I think it is important for women to read this article and not think that they are not normal because they don't have 28-day cycles, which almost no woman has.--I am One of Many (talk) 23:45, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

When I cite WebMD on Wikipedia, it's often or usually (I can't decide which at the moment) in conjunction with a primary source (or primary sources) or a review source (or review sources)...whether a journal or a book; it serves as a laysummary source, and is especially useful when a primary or review journal source is behind a paywall or when a book's contents are not accessible (or fully accessible) online. Flyer22 (talk) 00:10, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

IamOneofMany, the study inserted by Atlg20April2nd needs to be interpreted AND presented with care. Granted, if you take the average of all the cycles (including outliers) in the study, it averages to 29.1 days with considerable variability (a standard deviation of 7.46 days). If you take an average from just 95 percent of the sample (between 15 to 45 days), the average is 28.1 days with lower variability (3.95 days). This is not a trivial. You cannot just throw out some number from a study without providing sufficient context. Especially, when that number is at variance with mainstream consensus. danielkueh (talk) 23:40, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

There are a couple of ways to handle it without interpretation. The first is to include exactly what you say above, which illustrates the variability and that the length may not be exactly 28 days. Or, just go with the overall mean for the study. Either would be fine and not OR.--I am One of Many (talk) 23:51, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

There are two fundamental problems. First, the WebMD source does not cite any scientific sources. Second, it does not claim to report what the average cycle length is in actual human populations. This is the "textbook" length, a fiction for ease of explanation. While I don't agree with all the content Altg20April2nd added previously, the sources on menstrual cycle length were correct.--I am One of Many (talk) 23:15, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I am One of Many, I'm confused, which population is WebMED referring to when the site says "Although the average cycle is 28 days, it is normal to have a cycle that is shorter or longer." Certainly not non-human primates. danielkueh (talk) 23:24, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I suggest for now using [2] as a source. It states that the 28-day menstrual cycle is the "textbook" length but it is actually extremely variable. I would be happy to go with that. Are you able to download the article for free?--I am One of Many (talk) 23:48, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

IamOneofMany, can you give me a link to PubMed or Google Scholar? That way, I can take a look using my institution's proxy server. I am certainly open to including a description of the variability of the 28-day average provided that it is described in the "Length" section. It is just too detailed and lengthy for the lead section. I also recommend looking at this article (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6743609) for some context (not to be used in this article). danielkueh (talk) 00:01, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

This search should turn find it on Scholar [3]. I'm at my institution too and it show up as a link I can download.

Thanks for the link. Let's start with the linklead. Here's my proposed change for the lead:

"In humans, the length of a menstrual cycle varies greatly between women (ranging from 25 to 35 days), with 28 days designated as the average length."

Again, I am open to going into greater detail, but I think the Length section is the best place for that. danielkueh (talk) 00:19, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

That would be more accurate and probably better than stating any particular mean. I would also suggest adding:

"In humans, the length of a menstrual cycle varies greatly between women and with age (ranging from 25 to 35 days), with 28 days designated as the average length."

[my suggested addition in bold] and I would cite this classic source [4] as well.--I am One of Many (talk) 00:32, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Feel free to edit it. If not, I can make the changes later. We can also discuss the "Length" section later as well. danielkueh (talk) 00:40, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree. The length section needs some thought. Just a little more emphasis on normal variability and probably a sentence on how mean variability changes with age.--I am One of Many (talk) 01:07, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good but I would leave out the greatly as in my opinion 10 d is not that great and have it as "In humans, the length of a menstrual cycle varies between women (ranging from 25 to 35 days), with 28 days designated as the average length."Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:14, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Flyer22: The idea that the human menstrual cycle is 28 days seems to be little more that a popular convention or myth, based on convenience in fitting to the modern western notion of a four-week calendrical month. The four-week month is artificial and has nothing to do with human evolution, being a recent calendrical invention. I know of no scientific statistical study or survey which has come up with the figure of 28 days for the human female menstrual cycle. Every study has come up with somewhere between 29.2 and 29.5 days. In younger women, during their most fertile years, the length tends to be closer to 29.5, while in later years it typically becomes shorter and shorter. It is mainly owing to the inclusion of short cycles (e.g. 27 days) in later years that studies often produce an average of somewhat less than 29.5 days. Many biologists would consider that what matters most in terms of human evolution and human nature is the length of the cycle during the most fertile years of life. This turns out to parallel quite closely the length of the synodic lunar cycle - 29.5 days. As for the idea of not using careful studies conducted a few decades ago, why not? As long as more recent studies are included as well, that's surely OK. I would query the idea that in recent years, the length of the human menstrual cycle has changed. I would be interested to know where this strange idea has come from? I know of no scientific study which would even concede that such a thing is possible. Individual cycle lengths are of course variable. Age at menarche is also culturally variable, being influenced by such factors as exposure to artificial light. But for the entire human species to change from one average cycle length to a shorter one within the course of a few decades would be genetically inexplicable, wouldn't it?Altg20April2nd (talk) 14:48, 6 July 2013 (UTC)Altg20April2nd (talk) 20:54, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I researched this issue a while back and am frustrated that I can't find my research. Anyway, my research matched that of Altg20. Gandydancer (talk) 21:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I am now thinking that we can do better than just providing a mean. In the classic paper by Trelorar et al. [5] , Tables IV and V provide the mean and standard deviations respectively for women by age. We could either create a table with the means and standard deviations, or a graph. Either would just be re-descriptions of published data and so would not be original research. Such a table or figure would provide the most accurate information available on the length of the menstrual cycle.--I am One of Many (talk) 21:56, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello again, Altg20April2nd. With regard to using studies as old as the ones you were using, I went over that at WP:MED; Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#Use up-to-date evidence is clear that we should generally use the more recent studies when both the old and recent studies are available. There are exceptions mentioned there, but there is no valid reason to use a study as old as 1937, or other very old ones, unless we are using that in the context of explicitly stating how studies on this topic have varied over time, or in some other contextual way that signals the age of the source; in other words, for historical information. Flyer22 (talk) 00:41, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment. While I don't mind the idea of describing the variability of the menstrual cycle in detail, I wish to caution editors about the use of the primary literature. It is not as simple as just picking and presenting a grand average. If you look very closely at the classic studies (e.g., Gunn et al., Chiazze et al.), you will notice that 1) the sample distributions in those studies are skewed and are never normal, i.e., bell-shaped curve, 2) there is a greater variability when the average is taken at 29 days and less variability when taken at 28 days, 3) the so called 28 day average is often the modal number and 4) other high quality and acceptable sources designate 28 days as the average. So presenting just one average number from a small set of studies without any context is very misleading and simplistic. Cherry picking a set of numbers, etc often leads to original research (WP:OR) or POV pushing, which is against WP policy. Again, we should follow WP policy and stick primarily to mainstream secondary sources that are representative of the mainstream literature. danielkueh (talk) 00:55, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this is the same debate that raged at Haymarket affair for a year. Even if new research suggests that most mainstream sources are wrong, we need to stick with reporting what the predominance of reliable mainstream sources say. Once the mainstream consensus changes, then and only then do we adopt that change. In other words, we are a conservative tertiary source, not a cutting-edge secondary source. In the meantime, we are free to present all the nuances and discussion of disagreements in the article body. Kaldari (talk) 00:03, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Focus / tone

I was a little surprised that in the very first paragraph, this article talks about the menstrual cycle as if it was some kind of dysfunction or disease, describing it in terms of "symptoms" that "interfere with normal life". The menstrual cycle isn't something that happens to women on certain days of the month (that would be menstruation itself); the existence of a menstrual cycle is "normal life" for women between puberty and menopause. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 00:36, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:Class assignment

Note: Per this discussion at Talk:Estrous cycle, a class is currently working on this article. This is seen, for example, when it comes to edits by Smandalia (talk · contribs) and Nisep (talk · contribs). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:09, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Human sexuality module

AH2960, BF2510 and I would like to use the topic of Menstrual cycle effects on shopping, eating and mating habits. ( BD441 (talk) 12:46, 29 January 2016 (UTC)) BD441 (talk) 12:46, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I plan to add the section on effect of the menstrual cycle on eating habits. I have compiled a preliminary bibliography of some sources I may end up using:

• Bowen, D. J., & Grunberg, N. E. (1990). Variations in food preference and consumption across the menstural cycle, Physiology & Behaviour, 47, 287-291.
• Buffenstein, R., Poppitt, S. D., McDevitt, R. M., & Prentice, A. M. (1995). Food intake and the menstrual cycle: A retrospective analysis, with implications for appetite research, Physiology & Behavior, 58, 1067–1077.
• Cohen, I. T., Sherwin, B. B., & Fleming, A. S. (1987). Food cravings, mood, and the menstural cycle, Hormones and Behaviour, 21, 457-470.
• Dye, L., & Blundell, J. E. (1997). Menstrual cycle and appetite control: implications for weight regulation,Human Reproduction, 12, 1142-1151.
• Gong, E. J., Garrel, D., & Calloway, D. H. (1989). Menstrual cycle and voluntary food intake, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 49, 252-258.
• NcNeil, J., Cameron, J. D., Finlayson, G., Blundell, J. E., & Doucet, É. (2013). Greater overall olfactory performance, explicit wanting for high fat foods and intake during the mid-luteal phase of the menstrual cycle, Physiology & Behaviour, 112-113, 84-89.
• Saad, G., & Stenstrom, E. (2012). Calories, beauty, and ovulation: The effects of the menstrual cycle on food and appearance-related consumption, Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22, 102-113.
• Zellner, D. A., Garriga-Trillo, A., Centeno, S., & Wadsworth, E. (2004). Chocolate craving and the menstural cycle, Appetite, 42, 119-121.

AH2960 (talk) 14:16, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I plan to add a section to menstrual cycle effect on mate choice, this is a preliminary bibliography for the sources that might be used:

• DeBruine, L., Jones, B. C., Frederick, D. A., Haselton, M. G., Penton-Voak, I. S., & Perrett, D. I. (2010). Evidence for menstrual cycle shifts in women’s preferences for masculinity. Evolutionary Psychology, 8, 768–775.
• Flowe, H. D., Swords, E., & Rockey, J. C. (2012). Women’s behavioural engagement with a masculine male heightens during the fertile window: Evidence for the cycle shift hypothesis. Evolution and Human Behavior, 33, 285–290. doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav. 2011.10.006.
• Gangestad, S. W., Simpson, J. A., Cousins, A. J., Garver-Apgar, C, E., & Christensen, P. N. (2004). Women’s Preferences for Male Behavioral Displays Change Across the Menstrual Cycle. Psychological Science, 15, 203-207.
• Gangestad, S.W & Thornhill, R. (1998). Menstrual cycle variation in women's preferences for the scent of symmetrical men. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 265, 927-933.
• Gildersleeve, K., DeBruine, L., Haselton, M. G., & Frederick, D. A., Penton-Voak, I. S., Jones, B. C. & Perrett. (2012). Shifts in Women’s Mate Preferences Across the Ovulatory Cycle: A Critique of Harris (2011) and Harris (2012). Sex Roles, 69, 516-524.
• Havlicek, J, Roberts, S.C & Flegr, J. (2005). Women’s preference for dominant male odour: effects of menstrual cycle and relationship status. Biology Letters, 1, 256-259.
• Jones, B. C., DeBruine, L. M., Perrett, D. I., Little, A. C., Feinberg, D. R., & Miriam, J. L. S. (2008). Effects of Menstrual Cycle Phase on Face Preferences. Archives of sexual behaviour, 37, 78-84.
• Kuukasjärvi, S. et al. (2004) Attractiveness of women’s body odors over the menstrual cycle: the role of oral contraceptives and receiver sex. Behavioural Ecology, 15, 579–584.
• Little, A. C., Jones, B. C., & Burriss, R. P. (2007). Preferences for masculinity in male bodies change across the menstrual cycle. Hormones and Behavior, 31, 633–639.
• Millar, M. (2013). Menstrual cycle changes in mate preferences for cues associated with genetic quality: The moderating role of mate value. Evolutionary Psychology, 11, 18–35.
• Peters, M, Simmons, L.W & Rhodes, G. (2009). Preferences across the Menstrual Cycle for Masculinity and Symmetry in Photographs of Male Faces and Bodies. PLoS ONE, 4.
• Puts, D. A. (2006). Cyclic variation in women’s preferences for masculine traits: Potential hormonal causes. Human Nature, 17, 114– 127.

BF2510 (talk) 15:22, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I plan to add a section to menstrual cycle effect on shopping habits, way women dress and self-esteem. A preliminary bibliography for the sources that might be used are listed'

• Pine, K. J., & Fletcher, B. C. (2011). Women’s spending behaviour is menstrual-cycle sensitive. Personality and individual differences, 50(1), 74-78.
• Boezio, A. (2012). I’m Too Sexy (Exciting, Sophisticated, and Sincere) For My Brands: Menstrual Cycle Effects on Attitudes Toward Brand Personalities (Doctoral dissertation, Concordia University). Chicago
• Durante, K. M., Griskevicius, V., Hill, S. E., Perilloux, C., & Li, N. P. (2011). Ovulation, female competition, and product choice: Hormonal influences on consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(6), 921-934.
• Saad, G., & Stenstrom, E. (2012). Calories, beauty, and ovulation: The effects of the menstrual cycle on food and appearance-related consumption. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22(1), 102-113.
• Haselton, M. G., Mortezaie, M., Pillsworth, E. G., Bleske-Rechek, A., & Frederick, D. A. (2007). Ovulatory shifts in human female ornamentation: Near ovulation, women dress to impress. Hormones and behavior, 51(1), 40-45.
• Durante, K. M., Li, N. P., & Haselton, M. G. (2008). Changes in women's choice of dress across the ovulatory cycle: Naturalistic and laboratory task-based evidence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.
• Hill, S. E., & Durante, K. M. (2009). Do women feel worse to look their best? Testing the relationship between self-esteem and fertility status across the menstrual cycle. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35(12), 1592-1601.
• Röder, S., Brewer, G., & Fink, B. (2009). Menstrual cycle shifts in women’s self-perception and motivation: A daily report method. Personality and Individual Differences, 47(6), 616-619.
• Luschen, M. E., & Pierce, D. M. (1972). Effect of the menstrual cycle on mood and sexual arousability∗. Journal of Sex Research, 8(1), 41-47.

BD441 (talk) 16:23, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Human Sexuality

We will be adding information about the effects of menstrual cycle length on sexual behaviour frequency in premenopausal women. (Cutler, Garcia and Kreiger, 1978). We will also add information about ovulatory cycle effects on tip earnings by lap dancers (Milly, Tybur, Jordan, 2007). We will also discuss the effects of menstrual cycle shifts on womens mate preferences and face perception (Penton-Voak et al 1999). (Swifty1995 (talk) 18:20, 16 February 2016 (UTC))

We will also use sources such as; Menstrual cycle, trait estrogen level, and masculinity preferences in the human voice. (Feinberg et al., 2006), and Ovulatory shifts in human female ornamentation: Near ovulation, women dress to impress. (Hasleton et al., 2007). Belieber1995 (talk) 18:30, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

We will also write about the effects of fragrance on female sexual arousal and mood (Graham, Janssen and Sanders, 2000). We will also look at sexual function and how it is affected in both homo-and heterosexual women during their menstrual cycle (Burleson, Trevathan and Gregory, 2002). (Rmwillis5 (talk) 18:36, 16 February 2016 (UTC))

Similarly, in contrast to total amount of sexual activity, we will also discuss the increase in female-initiated sexual behaviour during ovulation (Adams, Gold, & Burt, 1978). Moreover, we will touch on research suggesting that women are more attracted to their partner and are more attentive of their needs during ovulation (Gangestad, Thornhill, & Garver, 2002). BigPapa1995 (talk) 11:41, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi. As you may have seen, our group is covering similar aspects of the menstrual cycle as your group. We plan to cover the effect of stages of the menstrual cycle on mate choice, shopping (including how women dress) and eating habits. I see that some of this overlaps with the things you have mentioned, so thought it would be best to outline what we were doing to prevent any overlap! Perhaps you could look more specifically at impact of the pill or studies on primates rather than humans? We have posted our bibliographies which you can look at to ensure there is no overlap in our additions to the article. Hope that sounds ok :) AH2960 (talk) 18:07, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Regarding mate choice, the specific aspects we will discuss will be voice, masculinity, personality/behaviour, face type/symmetry as well as body type (so generally a shift in women's preferences for these factors). BF2510 (talk) 00:11, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi. We will no longer be doing this for our project. (Swifty1995) —Preceding undated comment added 18:50, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Feedback: Spending habits section.

Feedback: Under the spending habits section, a sentence on why these differences in spending occur would be really interesting. Similarly, a sentence on why the products women buy change across the cycle would be useful to fully explain the topic. Rcuf235 (talk) 10:09, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Review and copy-edit for Wikipedia Assignment VI: Suggestions for improvement

I have a few comments for improving this article for Human Sexuality. Firstly, this article is a featured articles, therefore it has been identified as one of the best articles produced by Wikipedia. Even so, it can still be improved. Firstly, you could possibly consider combining ‘Etymological’ and ‘The Mood’ in to one section. Under the ‘Work’ section, it may also be interesting to explain why the practice is controversial. Maybe explain the other side of the argument to ensure that it is not biased. I also copy-edited the section ‘Spending habits’. The sentence ‘women's product choice also differs across the menstrual cycle’, is unclear, as it sounds like it refers to sanitary products. I therefore changed this to ‘Women’s food and clothing choice also appears to differ across the menstrual cycle.' On a positive note, it is really interesting how it explains how the menstrual cycle can affect so many different disciplines, and it has been presented in an objective and unbiased way. Swifty1995 (talk) 10:23, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Peer Review:

I think the article is great: really informative, well organised and quite interesting. My main suggestion would be to add some scientific research into why women's ability to work may or may not be impaired when menstruating. It would also be interesting to discuss, from an evolutionary point of view, changes in the duration of menstruation depending on the pheromones the woman menstruating is exposed to (e.g. there are studies that show that when exposed to higher levels of androgens than female hormones, the duration of menstruation shortens significantly). Really great article though, well done!! Robotsbackspaceraomeow (talk) 21:04, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Peer Review and Copy Edit Wikipedia Assignment VI: Shopping Habits Section

Overall, I think the new shopping habits section is an interesting addition to the page as it is something that has not been previously discussed in the article and it's beneficial to learn about how different behaviours change during a woman's cycle. The research used in this section has also been selected well as it is all highly relevant to the section. As well as this,you have used all the research appropriately as you simply just state the findings of the research and do not incorrectly interpret anything yourself from this research.

However I think the spending section could be improved slightly in several ways. Firstly, I think more research on the differences between pill users and non-pill users would be beneficial to add so it can been seen clearly whether there are differences in women's spending habits depending on whether they take the pill or not. I also think the section would be improved by adding explanations for why the changes in spending habits you have described occur across the menstrual cycle. Some explanations for why food choice and clothes choice differ within cycles would also be interesting to include. This would then mean that people can learn how spending habits, and food and clothes choice differ but would also be able to understand why these differences actually occur.

EmPhillips (talk) 13:18, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Peer Review and Copy Edit Wikipedia Assignment VI: Some suggestions

My main suggestions for improvement revolve around the structure of the article.

1. There are some repetitions in the article, the phrase “the average age of menarche is 12–15.They may occasionally start as early as eight, and this onset may still be normal. This first period often occurs later in the developing world than the developed world” appears twice, once in the introduction (it is worded just slightly differently here) and again in “Onset and frequency” section. The same is true for the phrase “length variation between eight and 20 days in a woman is considered as moderately irregular menstrual cycles Variation of 21 days or more is considered very irregular” being repeated in the “onset and frequency section”. I suggest you edit this so the phrases are no longer repeated.

2. I would suggest adding a citation to the phrase “The average age of menopause in women is 52 years, with anywhere between 45 and 55 being common” to make it more reliable.

3. You could create a separate section in “mood and behaviour” for how women’s behaviour and preference towards men changes, possibly including some information on how women’s cycle stages shape male mating behaviour.

4. As the “Work” section is pretty bare, you could note the Bristol company “coexist” is planning to create an official “period policy” designed to allow women (if needed) to take time off during their menstrual cycle.

Overall, I found this page to be very interesting and highly informative. All research and experimental findings are appropriate and relevant to the article. The “Society and culture” and “shopping habits” sections were a great addition, they prevent the article from being overly scientific.

Francesca alyse (talk) 13:38, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Peer Review

Could remove the sentence that says " Alternatively, research has also been conducted on how the attractiveness of the female voice changes across the menstrual cycle." and instead go straight into explaining that this was found. Also, could explain what the pill is, maybe give its medical name for more clarity. Otherwise a really good section. Psundx (talk) 14:43, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! I will makes changes to the paragraph based on the points you've brought up, they're very useful! BF2510 (talk) 17:43, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Human sexuality module - Eating behaviour

As part of my university module, I have added the section 'Eating behaviour'. I would appreciate if people could have a look and give me any suggestions for improvement and/or feedback. Thanks! --AH2960 (talk) 12:14, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

We be best to stick we recent high quality secondary source per WP:MEDRS. Some of the sources are old primary sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:05, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Ok, will bare that in mind should I find something else to add. Thanks for your help and for editting the sources in this section!--AH2960 (talk) 15:33, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

New Mate Choice subsection

The content below was added in these two difs; imported from this sandbox.

This content is sourced to a bunch of old primary sources as well as some popular press. Sourcing for this kind of content needs to follow WP:MEDRS. There is also some really dicey broad generalizations like the frst three sentences: "Behaviour towards potential mating partners changes during different phases in the cycle. Fertile woman show preference for males with good gene traits. (which is actually repeated)." and it goes on from there. This kind of biology-determining-behavior stuff is really dicey in general and needs to be handled with nuance, and very much sourced to reviews that are published high quality journals and textbooks to avoid the FRINGEy stuff that creeps into this.

Also this is a WP:FA and adding chunks of text like to FAs is not good; FAs need to be edited conservatively.

Mate choice

Behaviour towards potential mating partners changes during different phases in the cycle. Fertile woman show preference for males with good gene traits. Fertile woman show preference for males with good gene traits. Near ovulation women are found to have increased physical attraction and interest in attending social gatherings with men. When nearing ovulation in the cycle, women with partners experience more mate guarding (dependent on good gene indicators). During the midcycle, increases in mate guarding has been found (for less attractive women). Pair bonded women report their partner as being more attentive when they are nearing ovulation. When fertility is low and on cycle days where progesterone is increased, women report high commitment to their current relationship. On the other hand, during ovulation, women also report having more fantasies and sexual interest in non partners but not in their own partner. They also feel more attraction to non partners when they are fertile as well as engaging in more extra-pair flirtation. Women display a preference for extra pair copulation when they are in the fertile phase of the cycle, despite this happiness in relationships does not change across the cycle.

During the different phases of the menstrual, women's preferences for voice pitch changes. Women seeking a short term mating partner, prefer a male with a low voice pitch, especially during the fertile phase of their cycle. Additionally, a preference for masculine male voices is found in women during the late follicular phase. However, other research has found that only women with high pitched voices themselves found a more masculine voice attractive, and this was not related to which phase of the menstrual cycle she was in. Alternatively, research has also been conducted on how the attractiveness of the female voice changes across the menstrual cycle. During their most fertile phase of the menstrual cycle, female’s voices are rated as significantly more attractive. This effect is not found with women on the pill.

Women’s preference for male’s body odour changes across the menstrual cycle. During the fertile phases of the menstrual cycle, males who score highly on a dominance scale are preferred by females. This effect however is dependent on relationship status, with single women the effect is less pronounced. In regards to women's smell across the cycle, men have been found to use olfactory cues in order to know if a woman is ovulating. Men report rate women who are ovulating are rated as more attractive, by rating their odours. Men demonstrate preference for the scent of fertile women. Additionally, during their most fertile phase of the menstrual cycle women show preference for the odour of symmetrical men.This effect is not found for women on the pill.Not only do they demonstrate a preference for symmetrical men's scent but also, during the late follicular and ovulatory phases women prefer the scent of masculine men. The scent of andostenone is highly preferred by women during the peak of their fertility in the menstrual cycle. Moreover, women demonstrate preference for men with a scent that indicates developmental stability.

Preferences for facial and bodily features in mates also change across the cycle.There has been no difference found in preference for long term mating partners during the menstrual cycle, however, those seeking a short term relationship were more likely to choose a partner with more masculine features than usual. This was found to be the case especially during the woman’s high conception risk stage and when salivary testosterone was high.However, when women are in the luteal (non fertile) phase, they prefer men (and females) with feminine faces. A preference is also shown for self resembling faces and apparent health in faces during the luteal phase of the cycle. Apparent health preferences was found to be strongest when progesterone levels were high. During the fertile phase of the cycle, women seeking a short term partner, seem to demonstrate a preference for taller and muscular males.As well as facial masculinity, women also show preferences of males with masculine bodies at peak fertility.Mixed research has been found regarding facial and body symmetry preferences throughout different phases of the cycle.

References

-- Jytdog (talk) 23:06, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

In addition to the above, the text is very badly written, sometimes to the extent of incomprehensibility. For example: "Men report rate women who are ovulating are rated as more attractive, by rating their odours." Eric Pode lives (talk) 07:35, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello @Jytdog: and @Eric Pode lives:. I understand the vigilance being shown in ensuring the article remains top quality. I would like to thank the other editors for their interest in the article and their efforts to improve it.

Concerns have been raised about the sourcing of the above section, perhaps it would be possible to talk them through and discuss which sources in particular are primary? For example The Evolutionary biology of human female sexuality is cited 11 times; would that count as using a textbook as a source? Similarly of the first four sources, would "Shifts in Women’s Mate Preferences Across the Ovulatory Cycle: A Critique of Harris (2011) and Harris (2012)", "Meta-analyses and p-curves support robust cycle shifts in women’s mate preferences: Reply to Wood and Carden (2014) and Harris, Pashler, and Mickes (2014)", and "Effects of Menstrual Cycle Phase on Face Preferences" count as review articles?

Issues like tweaking the prose could be something that's worked out with a proof read. Can the text be collaboratively honed so that it's ready to go in the article? Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 15:59, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Please do read WP:MEDRS. If you don't understand anything there, I would be happy to explain.

You will find it to be tedious to determine whether each of those sources are reviews or primary, since the students didn't cite PMIDs. The importance of citing PMIDs is explained in the training material. If you don't understand the importance of PMIDs, I can explain that to you.

The conceptual problems are way deeper than "tweaking prose". If you look at the history of interactions that these students have had with other volunteers in the editing community, you will see that the issues raised by those editors are the same that I have raised. (this was a nice surprise to me and says something very positive about the maturity of the project) Jytdog (talk) 17:09, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

• The real issue is not WP:MEDRS but rather (1) it does not belong in this article, (2) we already have articles that cover this topic: Evolutionary psychology, Mating preferences, Sex differences in psychology, Sexual selection in humans, and others, and (3) its poorly written, a poor interpretation of that literature, and a bit fringe. --I am One of Many (talk) 15:08, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

psychological research section

This is about this series of diffs which did a bunch of complex things; the resulting content is below.

As with the section above, this paints way too broad a brush, and many of the sources are here are primary. for starters. This is an FA.

Psychological research

Research is emerging on how a woman's menstrual cycle impacts choices, and behaviours, in her life.

Spending habits

Economic spending patterns of women may change with the phase within their menstrual cycle. One area of spending that has been found to be impacted is the control of spending across the phases. Among non-pill users the luteal phase corresponds to increased impulsivity in spending behaviour, which decreases during the follicular phase.

Research into control of spending habits across the cycle observed a significant degree of variability with regard to bidding behaviour across the menstrual cycle within both pill users as well as naturally cycling non-pill users. One study examined self-control of spending across the cycle with regard to bidding behaviours. It was found that when a woman experiences a natural cycle bids are significantly more, than the bids of men, across the whole cycle except for the ovulatory phase. The research has produced mixed results with non-pill users demonstrating a flat pattern of bidding behaviour across the menstrual cycle.

Research has also investigated how women's food and clothing choice also appears to differ across the menstrual cycle. A study found that food related consumption is greater than appearance related consumption in the luteal phase, where as in the fertile phase appearance related consumption is greater. The fertile phase lead to a significant increase for sexy and attention grabbing items of clothing but does not significantly impact consumption of make-up related products. It was additionally found that the hormonal changes that accompany the different phases of the menstrual cycle, specifically progesterone and oestrogen, have the same pattern as money spent on food related consumption and appearance related consumption respectively.

Clothing choice

The choices women make regarding attire have been found to differ according to their position within the menstrual cycle. Women use their appearance in the same way a deer usesantlers for intra-sexual competition, rather than how a peacockuses his tail for courtship. A pair of studies found that women are seen to prefer clothing that is more revealing and sexy when that are at peak fertility. This is demonstrated within hypothetical situations as well as deliberate outfit choices. Additionally such appearance enhancing behaviours are more prevalent when primed by attractive rivals. One aspect of ornamentation difference around ovulation that has been found is the amount of skin that is shown, for example a skirt at high fertility where pants had been worn at low fertility.

Interpersonal relationships

An increase in negative interpersonal relationships has been observed in women, especially during PMS, with an increase in undesirable social behaviour and increased passivity. When PMS is experienced in the luteal phase an increase in negative interpersonal interactions has been observed.. Some women have have been observed to decrease their social behaviours, becoming more withdrawn, during the luteal phase. PMS symptomatology has been described by 60% of women in one study to include social problems, with a desire for an increase in time alone occurring during the luneal phase.

References

-- Jytdog (talk) 07:26, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

The Moon

User:Morgangrizzle the content you want to add here doesn't comply with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you don't understand why, please ask. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 02:51, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Templates

As per the advice to editors on the article page, I am indicating here that I have added the new women's health navbox template - see the Women's health project page which is being progressively added to women's health pages. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 17:29, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Human biology and biology of a few other mammals

I have changed the opening paragraph to emphasise that the article is mainly about human biology, along with a small number of other mammals. It had not previously been clear in the opening of the article that the menstrual cycle mainly refers to human biology rather than to a wider group of animals. Boleslaw (talk) 15:13, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

It was already covered in the lead. The lead does not need to say it twice. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:35, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

My edit of this article was to emphasise that this article is about human biology. I ensured that I did not cause the information about other animals to be repeated within the opening section. I moved this information to the opening paragraph, thus removing it from later in the opening section. My edit thus did not 'say this twice' in the opening section.

I think that the fact that the article pertains to human biology should be noted within the first paragraph. I see that you have reverted my edits. By doing this, you have removed altogether from the opening section the important information that this is about human biology. I think that my edit should stand.

I also think that the opening section would be more readable if it dispensed with the use of brackets.

My suggestion :

"The menstrual cycle is a regular natural change that occurs in the female reproductive system of humans and a few other mammals. It involves changes in the uterus and ovaries that make pregnancy possible."

With this edit, the details of which other animals have this process can be put later in the article, and the opening sentence does not have information in brackets, which is poor use of English. Boleslaw (talk) 16:52, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

We discuss the other animals in which it occurs in the 4th paragraph. Much of the biology is shared between animals. The lead is the opening section.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:23, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Menstrual cycle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131016101334/http://www.med.monash.edu.au/ob-gyn/research/menorr.html to http://www.med.monash.edu.au/ob-gyn/research/menorr.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:29, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Menstrual cycle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090725031743/http://education.yahoo.com/reference/gray/subjects/subject/3 to http://education.yahoo.com/reference/gray/subjects/subject/3

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:51, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Menstrual cycle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111123084938/http://www.womenshealth.gov/publications/our-publications/fact-sheet/menstruation.cfm to http://www.womenshealth.gov/publications/our-publications/fact-sheet/menstruation.cfm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.cks.nhs.uk/menopause
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121015160702/https://www.epilepsy.com/EPILEPSY/provoke_menstrual to http://www.epilepsy.com/epilepsy/provoke_menstrual
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091009184052/http://journals.indexcopernicus.com/fulltxt.php?ICID=442883 to http://journals.indexcopernicus.com/fulltxt.php?ICID=442883

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:44, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Counter argument to lunar influence removed

I removed the following from the "Society and Culture/The Moon" section: "Other scholars counter, however, that the Dogon — unlike ancestral African hunter-gatherer populations — are polygamous, meaning that reproductive synchrony would not be expected on theoretical grounds."

I'm happy for this to go back in somewhere, but it's not at all an argument against the idea that the moon has no influence on the menstrual cycle in humans (the cited paper does not include the words "moon" or "lunar", and mostly seems to deal with "seasonal synchrony") and to therefore use it as a counter-argument in this exact context must be classed as original research at best. A better place for it would be the reproductive synchrony article - that concept includes (but is wider than) the idea of lunar influence, though that article does not currently include any claims of lunar influence on humans.

Loxlie (talk) 20:48, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Menstrual cycle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150628073755/http://www.womenshealth.gov/publications/our-publications/fact-sheet/premenstrual-syndrome.html to http://www.womenshealth.gov/publications/our-publications/fact-sheet/premenstrual-syndrome.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150626134338/http://www.womenshealth.gov/publications/our-publications/fact-sheet/menstruation.html to http://www.womenshealth.gov/publications/our-publications/fact-sheet/menstruation.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150626134338/http://www.womenshealth.gov/publications/our-publications/fact-sheet/menstruation.html to http://www.womenshealth.gov/publications/our-publications/fact-sheet/menstruation.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:24, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

How women/menstruators cope with the blood

Seems like a glaring omission not to talk or even mention how women through the ages have delt with their monthly flow. I am aware there are several other pages that deal with this in depth, but i feel there need to be a short summary paragraph that LINKS IN with all/most of these other pages (rags/tampons/pads/cups/sponges)..... I am putting my hand up to write it. Cilstr (talk) 13:08, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Women in groups myth

Is there any research supporting the notion of menses of females in groups converging ?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tumadoireach (talk • contribs) 05:02, 17 March 2011

I read that it's just a myth but don't have that reference available right now. EMsmile (talk) 06:49, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

phases of menstruation cycle.

There are 4 phases of menstrual cycle which includes: (A)PROLIFERATIVE PHASE;This is also known as post menstrual phase,pre-ovulatory phase or proliferative phase. It starts on the 4th day after menstruation and continues upto the 14th day. It is characterised by mucous secretions and the body prepares itself for ovulation. The changes that occurs in this phase are controlled by hormone progesterone.

(b) SECRETORY PHASE:This is also known as post ovulatory or pre-menstrual phase. It takes place from the 15th day to the 28th day. Characterised by thickening of the endometrium,increased production of mucus,vascuralisation of thu uterine ligning and the body is ready for implantation of the fertilsed ova.

(C) MENSTRUAL PHASE: This is the last phase of menstrual cycle. It takes place after the ova has not been fertilised after a period of tim e. There is vasoconstriction of the blood vessels taking blood to the endometrium. This results in necrosis of the endometrium. The non-functional non vascuralised endometrium is shed off together with tfhe unfertilised ova as the menstrusl flow.

CONTENTS OF THE MENSTRUAL FLUID: It consists of; -Mucin. -Blood. -Debris of the endometrium. -Unfertilised ova. -Some lymphocytes.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.202.206.37 (talk • contribs) 14:38, 23 January 2009

clarifying that this is about the human menstrual cycle

The title of the article doesn't say so, but this article seems to be only about the menstrual cycle in humans. I assume that the term doesn't actually refer only to humans. I'm not a biologist, so I'm probably not the right person to make the relevant edits, but I think this should be stated somewhere in the lead.--2605:E000:87C5:1200:5100:E718:46F8:B9AB (talk) 02:45, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the opening of this article is insufficiently clear that it is mainly about humans. I tried to make a change to improve this but it was reverted. The details are here : Talk:Menstrual_cycle/Archive_2#Human_biology_and_biology_of_a_few_other_mammals Boleslaw (talk) 02:29, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

It's already stated in the lead (at the end), and I think that most readers will be able to infer it, given that the lead talks about "women" so much. I've added a link to the Estrous cycle at the end of the lead, which might make it even more obvious. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:59, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Suggested page move

I think we should rename this page Human reproductive cycle. The reason is the the menstrual cycle and the ovarian cycle, although concurrent, are treated in my sources as separate events. The move would allow these cycles to be described separately and will further distance this article form the more focussed Menstruation. Note that ovarian cycle back-links to this article. Graham Beards (talk) 13:26, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Hmmm, not sure. Isn't "menstrual cycle" correct as per WP:Commonname? Also it says: The menstrual cycle comprises the ovarian and uterine cycles. How would you thus describe them separately? I am a complete lay person though, don't have much of a clue about the different terms. Would consult Wikipedia to educate myself. :-) There's an article called Female reproductive system - sounds similar but it's system, not cycle. EMsmile (talk) 13:53, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Strictly speaking the uterine cycle is the menstrual cycle. The article already separates the two. We can leave a redirect from Menstrual cycle. Graham Beards (talk) 14:04, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

And Female reproductive system is an anatomy article. Graham Beards (talk) 14:07, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

As a source-based solution, I agree with Graham’s proposal (noting that very little of the other discussion on this page is based on how sources treat the topics). However ... Graham ... as a non-biologist, that means I am not entirely clear on the scope of the new article and would need you to be better spell out what goes here and what goes there ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:55, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

@Tom (LT): for another anatomy opinion ... Tom, would you mind having a glance at the entire talk page (sorry :) as we attempt to sort out this article (which had become medicalized in a negative way) from menstruation, in terms of anatomy relative to medicine? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:57, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

The article should remain titled "Menstrual cycle." That's what it's about and it's what the sources call it. Renaming can only lead to confusion and mix in things that don't need to be here. The Human reproductive system and Female reproductive system pages already exist. At this point, we should just merge the menstrual cycle and menstruation pages. LearnerB (talk) 17:11, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Which sources are you referring to, specifically? Have you consulted textbooks? Because my searches on that topic were not very fruitful, and Graham is consulting textbooks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:16, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi. Well, first, I know about the topic, but I know that alone is not good enough for Wikipedia. Second, the sources in the article use the term "menstrual cycle" and so do sources in general (when looking to see that) and a few biology text books I have at home. I looked at Tom (LT)'s user page. I think he can corroborate what EMsmile and myself have said about the typical term. "Human reproductive cycle" would be taken to be broader. LearnerB (talk) 17:39, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Shall we let Tom speak for themselves? And "Human reproductive cycle" gets 133,000,000 Google hits, whereas as "menstrual cycle" garners 59,900,000. Human reproductive cycle is also the name given in the textbooks I have. Indeed, Tortora "Principles of Anatomy and Physiology" says under a section headed The Female Reproductive Cycle, "The ovarian cycle is a series of events in the ovaries that occur during and after the maturation of the oocyte. The uterine (menstrual) cycle is a concurrent series of changes in the endometrium of the uterus tot prepare for the arrival of a fertilized ovum.." Can we stick to what sources say? (And curtail the sexism).Graham Beards (talk) 18:13, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Why did you say something about sexism? I didn't notice any sexism in the discussion here? EMsmile (talk) 02:10, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

"Human reproductive cycle" would in my mind also include men (like from the start of their fertility to the end). If anything shouldn't it be "Female human reproductive cycle"?. And wouldn't that overlap too much with Female reproductive system, or would you set it up to become a sub-article of Female reproductive system? - I am by the way in favour of merging "menstrual cycle" into "menstruation", unless there is a heap of content missing from it at this stage that would still need to be added. The way it currently stands, it is not so long that a merger wouldn't be possible. - And would a proposed renamer involve adding lots more content, and if yes, then on what? Would "menstrual and ovarian cycles" work as an article title? EMsmile (talk) 02:11, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

EMsmile, see 20:44, 24 February 2021 (UTC), a post made after Graham began corrections. In all fairness, I may have thrown the first gender jab, relating to the older work that initially damaged this article, and for that I apologize. That kind of damage was done to other articles as well, so there was no need for me to single it out as male editing. Where we are now is that we are fortunate to have Graham willing to bring a scholarly focus back to a featured article, and I hope we can let him work, deferring “what goes where” decisions until the text is cleaned up. It would be helpful to have a look at WP:MEDMOS in terms of sorting menstrual dysfunction and menstrual disorders out of the prominent organizational structure they now have at menstruation. First, discuss menstruation; separate section for complications ... right now, menstruation is still treating it like a dysfunction. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:17, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Oh, OK, fair point. It didn't feel like "sexism" to me, more like a heated debate amongst some friends. :-) I think what you were referring to in your initial remarks is related to Gender bias on Wikipedia which is a very real problem and could affect a topic like menstruation (luckily, like you said, if we all stick to reliable sources it shouldn't be much of an issue here). And I think that's a good proposal: let's step back for a few days while Graham does some more scholarly work on this article (if he has time, thanks Graham). Also to let the dust settle and give some new editors time to ponder about this. Then, once the menstrual cycle article is improved enough, come back to the discussion of a possible merger with menstruation or a name change. Then after that, continue to clean up menstruation. And ultimately, get them both to WP:FA status but that's a long term goal. :-) EMsmile (talk) 02:31, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

This one is already FA, and has the potential to remain so. While menstruation would require considerable effort to bring to even GA. I cannot be a lot of help with content until FedEx decides to release my computer from its weather-delayed warehouse and let it continue on its way to repair in Texas, so I am grateful for whatever Graham can do ! Apologize for the snippiness of my iPad typing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:01, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

But since you are motivated, User:SandyGeorgia/Achieving excellence through featured content ;) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:11, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that's a good name. "Human reproductive cycle" sounds like babies are born, then they go through puberty, then they make the next generation of babies – a scale of decades, not weeks. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:54, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

As a layperson, I agree with the point made by User:WhatamIdoing. EMsmile (talk) 12:49, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi, User: Graham Beards. There's been comments (one from you too) implying that this article suffered partly or mostly because it only or mostly had men editing it. So if we throw around the word "sexism", I wouldn't say that only what I said counts as that, but I don't agree that highlighting the perspective women can bring to these pages and that men and women will often have a different perspective on a gendered topic (or other topic) is sexism. Wikipedia wants more women because they offer something different. Wikipedia says there's a gender bias because of that difference. If you look in the edit history of that page, even occasional editing tries to obscure information about the gender gap, but editors like User:Mx. Granger won't let it happen.

I am more than happy to let Tom (LT) speak for himself, but why do you keep implying that I don't know what the article is about when I do or that I'm not sticking to what the sources say when I am? The sources use the term "menstrual cycle." There are those that also use "human reproductive cycle", but they are often broader in scope and few of them exist. Since Google was invoked, I encourage editors to look at Google searches and see for themselves. See what terminology is actually being used (which terms are being used more often). For the few of them using "human reproductive cycle", it's not uncommon to see them talking about both the male and female reproductive systems, which we already have articles on.

For accuracy reasons, we can't get caught up in Google hits. They are misleading and, as a result, useless for this because there isn't much on the menstrual cycle when looking it up in scholarly searches under that term ("human reproductive cycle"). "Menstrual cycle", on the other hand, returns a lot more material and material that is actually focused on the topic. "Menstrual cycle" is specific and precise. It is more recognizable and allows readers to immediately know what the article is about.

You said "And Female reproductive system is an anatomy article." But then you pointed to the "Principles of Anatomy and Physiology" book, which goes to show that "menstrual cycle" is also an anatomy article in some regards. I think that both the anatomy and biology wikiprojects should be notified to discussions on this talk page so that they can help out. I don't think that we should defer to any one editor. We should be collaborating, which we are sort of doing already. LearnerB (talk) 20:20, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Could we please stay off of the gender issues here? I have already apologized for being the one to open that door.

OK, since uterine cycle is menstrual cycle, but this article covers the entire cycle, but others object to renaming it for various reasons, might we come up with other ideas for how to more accurately name this article, since it covers the whole cycle— ovarian and uterine? Those suggestions should be based on how the sources treat the material rather than our personal views on one subset, eg menstruation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:57, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I just want to second this opinion. I'm thankful we have an active editor trying to improve this article regardless of their gender. Thanks Graham. --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:37, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I’m thankful we have so many editors, period (no pun), showing up to work on a Featured article! In the last year, six medical FAs were defeatured because nobody cared to show up, so I’m thrilled and grateful that all of you are helping, men and women alike!

Graham, PlanetCare expressed early on that they wanted to look at readability; are we far enough along that they should be pinged back? Or is there still big work to be done? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:54, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Sandy, I think I am nearly done for now. I have responded to the rest of the Prose questions above. Apart from waiting for another book to arrive, which I need just to double-check what I have already written, I don't have anymore to write. Graham Beards (talk) 15:02, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

"Human reproductive cycle" is misleading and Googling phrases is not the way to go here, per WhatamIdoing and LearnerB. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:18, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

I am also very sceptical of using Google as a tool. Graham, if I search for "Human reproductive cycle" without quotes, I get 141 million hits, which is similar to your 131 million, but in the top 10 results, only one (this) mentioned "human reproductive cycle" in the result snippets, and indeed that article does discuss ovarian and menstrual cycles as separate things, but enjoys also being able to discuss them together. The problem is that without quotes, google is returning results for "human", "reproduction", and "cycles", though strongly preferring articles covering all three. But look at the result snippets and the words that it bolds: "menstrual cycle" is emboldened. That indicates Google has added a synonym to your search, and included "menstrual cycle". If I put quotes round the phrase "Human reproductive cycle", I get only 258 thousand results, vs 12 million for "menstrual cycle" in quotes. At a 50× level of difference in result numbers, we can be more confident which is the most important phrase. I think "menstrual cycle" is a more than frequent enough topic of discussion to deserve its own encyclopaedia article with that name. Clearly "ovarian cycle" is separate-but-linked and maybe deserves its own article too. I can see the attraction of discussing both together, or at least referring to the other while discussing one. But this isn't a strong enough case to eliminate "menstrual cycle" as an article topic. The textbook you cite, Principles of Anatomy and Physiology, calls the topic "The Female Reproductive Cycle", which is not the same as "Human reproductive cycle", and doesn't have the same ambiguity with the cycle-of-life that WAID mentions. -- Colin°^Talk 10:46, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Colin. I did quote from the book above, but clearly this is not one of my better ideas.Graham Beards (talk) 12:06, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

With regard to the title I personally think that 'menstrual cycle' would be more appropriate. Occasionally it is tempting to view anatomical or physiological areas from a functional standpoint i.e. menstruation is to do with reproduction so "reproductive cycle" is more appropriate. However the vast majority of cycles do not feature any reproduction. I think most people have a very clear understanding of what menstrual cycle refers to. In contrast I think reproductive cycle is quite a broad area and there is likely to be more ambiguity as to what it encompasses (e.g. physiology and behavior? male and female? parents and embryo? etc.). --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:37, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Cheat code

This page has gotten really big. If you are struggling with finding the right spot to insert your comment, I recommend trying a new tool, especially if your name starts with "Sandy" and ends with "Georgia". Just click this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Menstrual_cycle?dtenable=1 and then see if you get [reply] buttons after each signature. Click one of those and see if you like the mini-editor.

This is a one-time secret code, so it will go away if you reload the page (click the "Talk" tab at the top) and won't appear on any other pages. Ping me (which is easy in the tool's visual mode) or stop by my talk page if you want to have this set up in your account for all talk pages. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:14, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: Best thing since sliced bread. Know at least one editor— who likes to reply to every post even when they have nothing to say— we will regret giving it to. My computer has been stalled in TX FedEx warehouse since last Wednesday; this saves clicks. Cannot see what advanced button does. To whom do I send love letters? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:35, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

The advanced button is to write an edit summary and to watch/unwatch the page. FemkeMilene (talk) 21:38, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

There may eventually be some other stuff in the Advanced space. (If you click on the "Advanced ▿" and nothing happens, then ping me, and I'll go file a bug report for you.) The designer has some ideas about how to make our lives easier. Imagine, for example, pinging people by default, without having to type their names, and then there's a "Actually, this time, don't bother pinging anyone" button in the Advanced space.

Love letters go to the mw:Editing team. I know the PM will see anything you post at Wikipedia talk:Talk pages project, and you can reach the designer at User talk:JKlein (WMF).

If you want to make this happen everywhere, instead of just on this page/when you click that link, then your options are to wait until the Beta Feature gets out (next week, I hope, but there are no guarantees), to manually add the secret code to the end of the talk page's URL (and reload) every time you want to use it, or to copy the "Happiness" lines at the top of m:User:Whatamidoing (WMF)/global.js into either your own /global.js file at Meta-Wiki (which will enable it at all the wikis), or into your /common.js file here (e.g., User:SandyGeorgia/common.js) (will only work here at the English Wikipedia). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:51, 8 March 2021 (UTC)