Exploring PMS is a great idea, but The Period Brain can be simplistic

The vintage brain
Sarah Hill Vermilion (United Kingdom); Harvest (we)

When I lived with my parents, my mother said that she could always say when my period approached: I made a descent into the snack closet a little more frequently and I became much more irritable. I remember that all hell is unleashed when she accidentally bought chicken breasts instead of thighs one night that I had to cook.

These explosions are typical of premenstrual syndrome, or PMS, a current condition which is at the center of the book Period brain: the new science of the reason why we pms and how to fix it. Author Sarah Hill, who has also written on the effects of birth control on the brain, explains how readers can reduce symptoms of PMS, with particular emphasis on lifestyle changes.

Women’s health has been neglected by the scientific community for decades, and Hill – which has a doctorate in evolutionary psychology and directs a Laboratory of Health and Relations at the Christian University of Texas – should be well placed to fill these voids. Too often, however, his arguments fall flat.

At one point, it partially attributes the PMS to the fact that women are invited to consume around 2000 calories per day on average, when research suggests that it really needs an additional 140 calories during the luteal phase of their cycle – the moment when an egg moves to the uterus before a period, which coincides with the moment when PM occurs. Hill maintains that by getting out of these guidelines, we develop desires and a concern for food, then puffs, worsening us.

At the risk of being anecdotal, I do not know women who count the calories to this extent, or who would refuse a snack of 140 calories – less than the amount you get with a handful of raw vegetables with houmous – if that is what they thought that their bodies needed. It seems to me that Hill is largely simplified to the excess of the beginning of the PMS.

And even if it certainly refers to a lot of scientific research, Hill rarely provides details on the number of participants in a given study or the duration of a tested intervention. Sample sizes are particularly important to know, because small ones can lack a lot of genetic variation.

The potential influence of genetics on PMS is something that Hill simply addresses. Although no gene linked to PMS has been identified, we know that the condition is more common in identical twins than in fraternal twins, which suggests that it has a strong genetic component. We are also convinced that there is a genetic element with other aspects of the menstrual cycle, such as its length and when the menopause occurs, it is therefore not surprising that PMs were added to this list.

Hill frequently recommends reducing symptoms through poorly tested supplements, making more sun or varying our exercise diet through the menstrual cycle (and to be fair, there could be something for the latter). But that would be good if she recognized that the debilitating effects felt by so many people could be because of their genetics, rather than a less than perfect lifestyle.

One thing on which I agree with Hill is the need for more research at different stages of the menstrual cycle to understand how it affects the metabolism of drugs or the body’s response to psychological interventions such as therapy. I also agree that it might be easier for us to face mood swings if we remember that they could be a natural response to fluctuating hormones. Maybe a rationalization by me could have avoided chicken.

I did not get out of The vintage brain With “bulbs” moments on how to relieve PM. But each book published on Women’s Health represents another step towards reducing the stigma of conditions such as PMS and could encourage more research, which, of course, can only be good.