At What Point in the Menstrual Cycle Are the Pelvic Floor Muscles at Their Weakest?

Pelvic floor muscle (PFM) strength is a critical factor for optimal pelvic floor function. Fluctuations in strength values based on different phases of the menstrual cycle (MC) could signify a need for a paradigm shift in evaluating, approaching, and planning training. This research aims to examine and contrast the pelvic floor muscle strength during different phases of the menstrual cycle. A prospective observational study employing digital assessment with the modified Oxford scale and vaginal dynamometry measurements was performed, in order to assess the baseline strength and the contraction strength of the PFMs in eumenorrheic females at three different phases of the MC: the early follicular phase (EFP), the late follicular phase (LFP), and the mid-luteal phase (MLP). During two complete cycles, tympanic temperature and body weight were measured and the urinary luteinizing hormone concentration was tested to determine the time of ovulation. In total, 216 dynamometric measurements of PFM strength were obtained from eighteen nulliparous women (25.72 ± 5.03 years). There were no differences between the baseline strength (p = 0.886) and the contraction strength (p = 0.756) with the dynamometric speculum. In the post hoc analysis, the baseline strength, contraction strength, and strength showed no significant differences between MC phases. As no differences in PFM strength in women were found, the PFMs do not seem to be weaker at any time during the menstrual cycle. It appears that the assessment, establishment, and monitoring of a PFM training program could be initiated at any point in the cycle.

Metabolic impact of current therapeutic strategies in Polycystic Ovary Syndrome: a preliminary study.

PURPOSE: To investigate the metabolic impact of currently used therapies in polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS). METHODS: This is an observational, retrospective and transversal protocol. A small cohort of 133 patients, aged 14-48 years, diagnosed with PCOS was divided into four experimental groups: 1) untreated PCOS patients (n = 51); 2) PCOS patients treated with one of the following therapies (n = 82): a) combined oral contraceptives (COC, n = 35); b) metformin (n = 11); and c) inositols (n = 36). RESULTS: Although only < 10% of patients included in this cohort can be strictly encompassed in the development of metabolic syndrome, approximately 20% had insulin resistance. In PCOS patients, COC treatment modified the hormonal profile and worsened lipid parameters (increasing cholesterol and triglyceride levels) and insulin resistance, whereas inositol therapies improved significantly insulin resistance and glycosylated hemoglobin, reducing cholesterol and triglyceride levels. In these women, obesity was associated with greater alterations in lipid and glycemic metabolism and with higher blood pressure levels. PCOS patients with phenotype A presented vaster alterations in lipid metabolism and higher values of glycosylated hemoglobin as well as blood pressure compared to other PCOS phenotypes. CONCLUSIONS: Results in this paper suggest that inositol therapies (alone or combined with COC) are the most useful therapies with the best benefits against PCOS symptoms. Thus, integrative treatment may become a more efficient long-term choice to control PCOS symptoms. Furthermore, obesity can be considered as an adverse symptom and calorie restriction a key element of combined treatment in PCOS, not only for fertility management but also in long-term metabolic sequelae.