Patricia Gosálvez told that for some time now talks about how to organize the work agenda according to the phase of the menstrual cycle have been the order of the day. There are different approaches and different discourses, but the general idea is the same: “do social tasks when you are ovulating and reserve planning and solitude tasks for your period days.”
We knew that ‘cyclical productivity’ swept TikTokWhat we didn’t realize was that he was already proselytizing among the management class throughout the country. And we shouldn’t be surprised. A priori, the idea sounds like empowerment and militant feminism. The question, however, is whether it makes any sense.
But… what exactly are we talking about? In general terms, we can see it as a work adaptation of something that has been talked about for quite some time: the cycle syncing. A self-care practice in which things like diet, exercise routines, or lifestyle habits are adjusted to match the hormonal fluctuations of the menstrual cycle.
Applied to the workplace, the month is divided into four phases and tasks are distributed: planning is reserved for bleeding, during the follicular phase work is brought forward, ovulation are “ideal days to negotiate, ask for a raise and everything that needs power and security” and the luteal phase is fantastic for detailed work.
It sounds good, but it’s a bluff. Especially since the model assumes a hormonal cycle that most women don’t really have. In general, cycle syncing is right that there is an infradian hormonal cycle (that is, with a period longer than one day), but it jumps to the idea that it is a closed scheme that is easy to program without a break in continuity.
In fact, there are two large systematic reviews on this sort of thing that do not support the ideas of cyclical productivity. According to the latest meta-analysis from 2025there is no robust evidence that cognitive performance (neither attention, nor memory, nor executive function, nor spatial ability) changes over the cycle.
On the other hand, the most robust studies of physical performance also find that the cycle effect is “trivial”.
This does not mean that menstruation does not have an impact very significant in the lives of women and that pain in many cases is a huge problem. It doesn’t even mean that PMS doesn’t exist. What this means is that the hormonal cycle does not seem to serve to schedule tasks with that level of detail in the general population.
But it does have a problem. And behind the façade of ’empowerment’, the truth is that there is a very problematic message that “women’s competence fluctuates with hormones.” It is something that reinforces stereotypes and, as we have seen, is a lie. As the endocrinologist Carme Valls said to Gosálvezis an idea that “makes women too biological, too animal.” And he does it without contributing too much.
Above all, because as Valls continues, in a normal cycle the variability is minimal: “40% of women hardly feel anything.” That is to say, although from an individual point of view knowing the cycle is very useful, from a population point of view it introduces noise. The problem is not the initial intuition, nor the idea that talking about the rule is good. The problem is the promise of productivity associated with it. A promise that, as we see, in general terms has no relationship with reality.
Image | Annika Gordon
GIPHY App Key not set. Please check settings