ArticlePhysiological reports2025
Steroid anabolic and catabolic hormones in highly and recreationally trained female athletes across the menstrual cycle.
Article in Physiological reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Steroid anabolic and catabolic hormones in highly and recreationally trained female athletes across the menstrual cycle.Physiological reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Sex hormone fluctuations across the normal menstrual cycle (NMC) may affect women's performance and health, but literature is sparse on the estradiol (E2) impact on anabolic and catabolic hormones and well-being in female athletes. We therefore measured in 21 NMC anaerobically trained female athletes: 12 highly (HT) and nine recreationally (RT) during late luteal/early follicular (Low E2) and late follicular/peri-ovulatory (High E2) phases: DHEAS, DHEA, androstenedione (A4), testosterone (T), sex hormone-binding globulin (SHBG), cortisol, free androgen index (FAI = T/SHBG), and their relative ratios. Body composition and well-being, assessed by positive and negative affects (PANAS), were determined in parallel. In High versus Low E2, subjects showed a significant percentage increase in T, A4 (p < 0.001) and FAI (p < 0.05), with high A4/T correlation (r = 0.78), without any change in the other parameters. While no group difference was detected in hormone concentrations, HT versus RT subjects presented higher muscle mass and positive affects and lower FAI (p < 0.05). In conclusion, T and A4 were modulated across NMC, probably resulting from a variable ovarian contribution, but without inducing any change in the anabolic/catabolic balance, regardless of the physical training level. However, high anaerobic training may enhance T sensitivity in view of the FAI, body composition and well-being outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.