Click any moment to jump to that point in the video
Dr. Hill acknowledges that many women choose to stay on hormonal birth control, sometimes until menopause, because they value the predictability it offers by flattening hormonal cycles. She notes it's a valid option available in modern times.
Dr. Sarah Hill explains the driving question behind her research: why so many women experience significant discomfort during the second half of their menstrual cycle, and why this widespread experience seems to contradict evolutionary principles.
Dr. Sarah Hill discusses the mystery of why women often feel terrible and experience 'self-loathing' during the second half of their menstrual cycle, and how she sought to uncover the evolutionary reasons behind this widespread experience.
Dr. Sarah Hill outlines the two primary reproductive tasks of the female body: first, to attract a partner and conceive (driven by estrogen), and second, to facilitate implantation and carry a pregnancy to term (driven by progesterone).
Dr. Sarah Hill highlights how progesterone, often overshadowed by estrogen and testosterone, is crucial for the second phase of the menstrual cycle, guiding women's brains and behavior to facilitate pregnancy.
Dr. Sarah Hill explains how progesterone in the luteal phase makes women sleepier and less motivated to go out, encouraging them to be 'homebodies.' This behavior is an evolutionary adaptation, making women more introspective and focused on safety during a vulnerable period when they might be pregnant.
Dr. Sarah Hill explains what happens during the first half of the menstrual cycle, known as the follicular phase. She details how rising estrogen levels make women feel amazing, increasing their energy, sexual desire, and attraction to men, all in service of reproduction.
Dr. Sarah Hill explains the adaptive reasons behind women's behavior during the first half of their cycle. Estrogen optimizes women for attraction and sex, making them their 'sexiest, most energetic' selves and enhancing their ability to discern between high-quality and lower-quality mates.
Dr. Sarah Hill explains the neurological impact of high estrogen levels during the fertile phase. She describes how estrogen causes neurons to sprout new dendritic spines, making the brain more sensitive to the environment and exceptionally sharp at distinguishing fine-tuned differences in partner quality, a crucial adaptation for conception.
Dr. Sarah Hill addresses the 'spicy topic' of the ovulatory shift hypothesis and its replication challenges. She discusses how research on women's partner preferences across the cycle, particularly regarding masculine traits, has seen mixed results, but asserts that the totality of evidence suggests there's 'something there.'
Dr. Sarah Hill clarifies what aspects of the ovulatory shift hypothesis are robustly supported by research. She states with confidence that increased sexual motivation, feeling sexier, and smelling sexier are well-replicated. Furthermore, the best longitudinal studies show a heightened preference for cues related to masculineization and testosterone, despite some replication failures often attributed to methodological issues.
Dr. Hill discusses a fascinating study where men were shown silhouettes of walking women and unconsciously found women at their highest fertility to be most attractive, demonstrating subtle, non-visual cues of ovulation.
Dr. Hill explains that the second half of the menstrual cycle (luteal phase) is metabolically expensive, as the body prepares for possible pregnancy by building the endometrial layer. This leads to increased hunger, higher body temperature, and a natural shift towards energy conservation and less outward-facing activities.
This segment challenges the common perception that women's hormones are less predictable. It explains how men's testosterone levels, while having a daily cycle, are highly reactive to environmental stimuli like winning a competition, seeing an attractive woman, or even being near weapons, making their behavioral responses less predictable day-to-day compared to women's more cyclical hormonal patterns.
This clip explores how hormonal birth control can lead to 10-20% lower relationship satisfaction in women. It attributes this to mental health impacts (depression/anxiety from lack of a calming neurosteroid) and the suppression of natural sexual desire and attraction fueled by estrogen, effectively 'turning the volume down' on crucial aspects of a romantic relationship, potentially masking an authentic part of a woman's self.
This clip discusses the hypothesis that women in demanding careers may experience burnout more quickly due to their natural hormonal cycles, which are less suited to an "always-on" workflow compared to men's more stable hormone levels. It cites research indicating higher burnout rates for women.
This clip explains why women are more susceptible to burnout in the second two weeks of their menstrual cycle due to physiological changes like increased heart rate and difficulty sleeping. It also explores the hypothesis that women might make career decisions, like resigning, more frequently during this phase due to heightened sensitivity to social threats and a stronger need for boundaries.
Chris discusses how hormonal birth control flattens a woman's natural hormonal cycles, potentially leading to a "reduction of her authentic self" by preventing her from experiencing the full range of insightful opportunities that come with natural hormonal changes throughout her life, right up until menopause.
Chris proposes the idea that birth control could be seen as a "performance-enhancing drug" for women in the workforce, allowing them to be "on" for 28 days a month. Dr. Hill counters that it doesn't enhance performance; rather, it shifts women permanently into the less energetic second half of the cycle, preventing the "hard-charging gusto" of the first two weeks.
Chris poses a critical question: given that every woman experiences a menstrual cycle, why is women's biology, particularly hormonal cycles, so profoundly understudied, and why does comprehensive research in this area not already exist?
Dr. Hill describes fascinating studies, including t-shirt and even panty liner experiments, revealing that men unconsciously prefer the scent of women at high fertility, leading to increased testosterone and cortisol. This highlights the subtle biological cues in human attraction.
Dr. Hill explains that estrogen acts like "miracle grow in the brain," enhancing learning and memory, particularly around high fertility due to its effect on dendritic spines. She suggests that women on hormonal birth control, by flatlining their hormones, may lose out on these significant cognitive benefits.
Dr. Sarah Hill argues that science and medicine have historically treated women as 'small, less hairy versions of men,' failing to account for their cyclical hormones. This oversight, she contends, leads to women being 'mishandled' and contributes to conditions like PMS.
Chris discusses the current trend, particularly among some women on the left, to deny biological sex differences, often asserting that women are "the same as men but somehow better." He asks if this approach is ultimately self-defeating given the biological realities being discussed.
Dr. Sarah Hill explains how, after ovulation, progesterone dominates the luteal phase, making women more emotionally sensitive and increasing the amygdala's sensitivity to threat. She uses the analogy of a 'finely tuned smoke detector' to describe how women's brains lower their threshold for perceiving danger during this vulnerable period, optimized for potential pregnancy.
Dr. Sarah Hill explains fascinating research showing how high estrogen levels during the fertile window enhance women's ability to detect subtle differences in male testosterone levels through scent and facial features. She uses a 'wine connoisseur' analogy to illustrate how women become more discerning of potential mates during this phase, a metabolically expensive but reproductively advantageous trait.
Dr. Hill reveals that even when women are included in research studies, only about 20% of those studies actually analyze sex differences. The vast majority of researchers still lump men and women together, operating under the flawed assumption that they are physiologically the same, leading to significant gaps in understanding women's health.
Chris Williamson summarizes Dr. Sarah Hill's explanation, clarifying that women aren't directly seeking high testosterone, but rather the underlying robust immune system it signifies. A man's ability to produce high testosterone despite its immunosuppressive effects indicates a surplus immune capacity, making it an attractive 'good genes' marker.
Dr. Hill critiques the "reasonable person standard" in law, particularly concerning sexual harassment, arguing that it's often based on a "reasonable man" and fails to account for how women and men perceive harassment differently. She emphasizes that recognizing sex differences is crucial, not to establish superiority, but to acknowledge distinct realities and achieve greater societal progress.
Dr. Hill discusses how "old school feminism" often denied biological sex differences, making women feel like failures if they pursued traditionally female roles. She contrasts this with a "new feminism" or "true feminism" that embraces biological sex as important but not limiting, defining, or prescriptive, allowing for differences without judgment.
Dr. Sarah Hill explains the significant challenge in comparing hormone levels between women due to extreme variability. She illustrates with an analogy of income ranges, showing how a 'normal' test result for estrogen can be so broad as to be unhelpful, leading to frustration and a lack of clear understanding for women about their own bodies.
Dr. Hill explains how women's brains become more attuned to potential threats, both external and relational, during the luteal phase. This heightened sensitivity, illustrated with a partner staying late at work example, is an adaptive mechanism to ensure safety and support for potential pregnancy, emphasizing the historical need for a supportive community and partner.
Dr. Hill explains that while sex is metabolically costly and less frequent during the luteal phase, human women still engage in it. This non-conceptive sex is primarily driven by a desire for pair bonding and connection, activating brain regions related to attachment (e.g., oxytocin), crucial for securing partner investment during potential pregnancy.
Dr. Hill argues that PMS often feels worse than it needs to because women lack a proper 'blueprint' for their cyclical bodies, instead being treated as 'small men.' This leads to unoptimized self-care routines that don't account for changing caloric needs, recovery demands, and hormonal shifts, such as progesterone being catabolic.
Dr. Hill explains that an "evolutionary mismatch" between our historical environment and modern lifestyles contributes to worse PMS. Lifestyle factors like bad diets, lack of sleep, insufficient sunlight, and no exercise increase inflammation, eroding the body's resilience to the significant hormonal swings of the luteal phase (progesterone peaking 10x higher than estrogen).
Dr. Hill agrees that society often assumes "male equals superior" and "female equals broken," particularly regarding hormonal cycles. She explains that her book aims to change this narrative, emphasizing that having cycling hormones is not lesser and could even be considered better, a perspective that has been overlooked due to the male-centric view of being.
This clip argues that the prevailing narrative of women being 'more hormonal' or unpredictable stems from men's biology being studied first, setting a 'normal' standard. If women's biology had been understood first, men with their single primary hormone might have been viewed as 'too simple,' highlighting a bias in how we perceive hormonal complexity and decision-making.
This moment highlights the crucial role of education in understanding women's hormonal cycles for both genders. It emphasizes that for men, gaining this knowledge is not just about being a 'menstrual ally' but a practical pathway to becoming a better partner, friend, and father, ultimately leading to more fulfilling and informed relationships.
This clip explains how the birth control pill fundamentally alters a woman's natural hormonal cycle. Instead of waxing and waning between estrogenic ('sex kitten') and progesteronic ('earth mother') states, the pill uses synthetic progestins to flatline hormone production, suppressing natural estrogen and progesterone. This creates a constant 'hormonal deja vu' that profoundly affects a woman's thoughts, feelings, and overall experience of the world.
This segment explains a critical difference between synthetic progestins in birth control and natural progesterone. Unlike progesterone, progestins do not produce allopregnanolone, a calming neurosteroid vital for mental health. This deficiency is linked to a significant 40% increase in depression risk, especially in teenagers, highlighting a major unexamined mental health experiment.
Dr. Hill explains her motivation for writing her book: many women who stopped using birth control felt great during the estrogen-dominant first half of their cycle but "lost in the woods" during the second. She aims to provide a much-needed guidebook for this often-ignored second half, as cultural conversations (like on TikTok) predominantly focus on estrogen, leaving women without resources for the full 28-day experience.
This segment explores a compelling, yet unresearched theory: the widespread use of hormonal birth control by women could be contributing to the global decline in men's testosterone. Given that male testosterone is known to respond to female fertility cues, the chronic suppression of female fertility signaling might have a significant, 'nonzero effect' on male hormone levels.
This clip reveals a fascinating biological phenomenon: men's testosterone levels naturally decrease when they enter long-term relationships and even further when they become fathers and engage in caregiving. This 'break tapping' mechanism is adaptive for maintaining pair bonds. With birth control enabling women's mass entry into the workforce and more egalitarian parenting, increased male childcare is inadvertently contributing to lower male testosterone, leading to a humorous lament from the host.
Dr. Hill explains that historically, medical science operated under the assumption that male and female bodies were identical except for reproductive organs, a concept she calls "bikini medicine." It was deemed easier to study men due to the absence of pregnancy and hormonal cycles, leading to the flawed practice of studying men and then misapplying those findings to women, who were seen as "smaller men with boobs."
Despite political pressure to include women in research, Dr. Hill explains that scientists tried to fit female subjects into male-centric models instead of studying them authentically. This led to women being studied only during the first nine days of their menstrual cycle (when hormone levels are low) to make them "maximally like men," or even ovariectomizing female mice to completely remove hormonal influence, effectively removing women's biology from the research.
Dr. Sarah Hill explains the evolutionary hypothesis that testosterone serves as a 'good genes marker' for men. She details how testosterone is immunosuppressive, meaning that a man's ability to develop high testosterone levels and masculine features, despite this suppression, indicates a robust immune system capable of handling pathogens and parasites.
Chris argues that the "soft bigotry of male expectations" causes some women to denigrate their own sex's innate tendencies, viewing roles like motherhood as "domestic servitude" rather than valuable contributions. He criticizes the push for women to use birth control to flatten their cycles and be more "predictable" like men, suggesting this narrative makes women feel "insufficient" or like "broken men" rather than whole individuals.
Dr. Hill provides compelling examples of how ignoring biological sex differences leads to tangible harm. She highlights that depression rates are twice as high in women, while autism is twice as high in men, making it absurd to study them together without considering sex. She also points out that seat belts were designed for men and don't adequately protect female bodies, underscoring the risks of this denial.
Dr. Hill provides actionable advice for women to better understand and manage their hormonal cycles. She recommends tracking personal responses to hormonal changes (energy, sexual desire, mood, sleep) over several cycles. This self-awareness, combined with strategies from her book, can help women support their needs in different phases, communicate effectively, and experience their cycle as "riding a wave instead of falling off a cliff."
Dr. Hill suggests that due to the luteal phase's emphasis on pair bonding, women engaging in casual sex during this time may find it harder to avoid emotional entanglements. The brain's natural drive for connection could interpret a one-night stand as a bonding experience, making it a high-risk time for "catching feelings."
Dr. Sarah Hill reveals how hormonal shifts across the menstrual cycle can change immune responses and drug metabolism, leading to a premenstrual worsening of symptoms for conditions like asthma, autoimmune diseases, and even making ADHD medication less effective. Understanding these changes, she argues, can alleviate unnecessary misery.
Dr. Hill asserts that denying biological sex differences is "100% self-defeating" for women. She argues that the belief that liberation comes from ignoring biological sex has led to significant problems, including medical research tested primarily on men being misapplied to women, resulting in 8 out of 10 prescription drugs being pulled from the market due to unanticipated side effects in women.
Chris introduces his concept of "the soft bigotry of male expectations," arguing that some modern women implicitly assume male activities are inherently more desirable. He critiques a re-assessment of hunter-gatherer data that purportedly showed women doing as much big game hunting, revealing how the data was manipulated to downplay the significance of traditionally female roles like gathering, which he sees as a form of "reverse sexism."
Dr. Sarah Hill recounts a famous study that found naturally cycling strippers earned significantly more money during their high fertility window (when estrogen was high) compared to other times in their cycle or to women on birth control. This illustrates estrogen's powerful effect on attractiveness and social engagement.
Dr. Hill argues that for political reasons and scientific convenience, hormonal influence on behavior has been downplayed, leading to a "mass delusion" that women's hormones don't matter. This has resulted in the mismanagement of women in science and medicine, with very little known about how women respond to treatments, anesthesia, or drugs during the second half of their menstrual cycle, highlighting a critical gap in medical knowledge.
Dr. Sarah Hill explains that increased hunger and food cravings during the luteal phase are not a sign of weakness but a biological necessity. She reveals that women's basal metabolic rate increases by 8-11% in the second half of their cycle, meaning they need an extra 150-200 calories per day, a fact often ignored by general nutritional guidelines.