Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Thursday April 20 2017, @02:56AM   Printer-friendly
from the to-sync-or-not-to-sync dept.

A team of researchers made up of the group behind the fertility app Clue and a group at Oxford University have tested the popularly held notion that when women live or work in close proximity for a span of time, they find their menstrual cycles begin to sync with one another. But as researchers note in their article on the Clue website, such notions appear to be completely false.

It is a commonly held notion that women who live or work together, or just spend a lot of time together, find their menstrual cycles syncing. There was even a study done in 1971 by Harvard researcher Martha McClintock tracking the menstrual cycles of female colleges students sharing a dorm. But, as the researchers with this new effort note, no other studies have found it to be true, and McClintock's work has been discredited. But sill the myth persists. To perhaps put an end to the debate, the researchers conducted a test trial with women who use the Clue app—1500 women responded to their request for assistance in a trial and out of those, 360 pairs of women were selected for inclusion. Each were in a close relationship with another woman over an extended period of time. Because the app helps women track and share their period information, the data was already available; all that was needed was for the users to share it with the researchers.

The researchers looked back three menstrual cycles for each of the pairs to see if any alignment was occurring and report that 273 of them actually had cycles that diverged—just 79 were seen to converge. They note that women who were living together were no more aligned than the other pairs. This, they insist, is further proof that the entire idea is a myth with no basis in reality.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by DBCubix on Thursday April 20 2017, @02:04PM (1 child)

    by DBCubix (553) Subscriber Badge on Thursday April 20 2017, @02:04PM (#496857)

    Following up on the parent's insights w.r.t. proximity; the other glaring error was that three cycles is a really insufficient time period. Had this paper come across my desk I would have rejected it on the methodology alone.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Insightful=2, Interesting=1, Total=3
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 1) by Roger Murdock on Friday April 21 2017, @03:02AM

    by Roger Murdock (4897) on Friday April 21 2017, @03:02AM (#497199)

    I think the idea was to see if sync'ing of the cycles had ALREADY occurred, not if it was in the process of occurring. One cycle probably would have been enough.