Dear WHOOP Team,
I’d like to share some constructive feedback regarding the current recovery scoring system, particularly in relation to cycle-related physiological changes.
As a menstruating user, I’ve noticed that WHOOP relies on a 14-day baseline to assess recovery metrics such as HRV, resting heart rate, and skin temperature. While this may work well for users with relatively stable biometrics, it poses challenges for those of us whose values fluctuate naturally throughout the menstrual cycle.
During the follicular phase, HRV tends to be higher and resting heart rate lower - these values are then used to establish a “healthy” baseline. As I enter the luteal phase, my HRV drops and my resting heart rate increases - which is biologically normal - yet WHOOP interprets this shift as poor recovery, sometimes even suggesting medical attention. Toward the end of the luteal phase, WHOOP seems to “learn” the new pattern, and the recovery scores become less extreme. Then, when the values improve again with the onset of menstruation, WHOOP interprets this as an unusually strong recovery, even though it’s simply part of a predictable cycle.
This approach feels misleading and, at times, pathologizing. It fails to account for the cyclical nature of female physiology and can be emotionally discouraging, especially when the app flags normal hormonal changes as signs of poor health.
A recent coaching message included the phrase: “Be careful not to let these values become your norm.” As a female athlete, I find this wording inappropriate and misleading. It suggests that natural physiological values during certain menstrual phases (like elevated resting heart rate or lower HRV) are abnormal or undesirable, when in reality they are a healthy and expected part of the female cycle. This kind of language feels dismissive and fails to acknowledge that for women, cyclical variation is the norm, not an exception.
I strongly recommend that WHOOP ensures its product communication and coaching reflect the normalcy and importance of menstrual cycle physiology for women, avoiding wording that pathologizes or devalues these natural changes.
I would love to see WHOOP:
• Use a rolling baseline that spans the full menstrual cycle (e.g., 28–35 days),
• Compare metrics within cycle phases rather than across them,
• Contextualize recovery scores based on known hormonal patterns,
• Avoid generic health warnings that don’t consider individual cycle data.
I value WHOOP and find it incredibly helpful in understanding my body. That’s why I believe more nuanced, cycle-aware algorithms would make the platform even more empowering and inclusive.
Thank you for listening and for your continued innovation.