SHOP BEST SELLERS
Shop our best selling products
Type: Performance Supplements
Protein Powder
Type: Performance Supplements
Electrolytes - Stick Packs
Type: Performance Supplements
Electrolytes
Type: Performance Supplements
Creatine Monohydrate
Type: Core Supplements
Source Magnesium
Type: Core Supplements
Vitamin D3 & K2
Type: Body Essentials
Raw Elements Shampoo
Type: Body Essentials
Raw Elements Conditioner
Type: Body Essentials
Raw Elements Tallow Soap (Lemongrass)
Type: Performance Supplements
Raw Honey
Type: Body Essentials
Raw Tallow Sun Balm
★★★★★ 1,000+ 5 Star Reviews
Pure ingredients
Raw ingredients. Ancient wisdom. Modern results. Every product contains only what nature intended:
- Grass-fed tallow rich in bioavailable nutrients
- Raw honey and adaptogenic herbs in their purest form
- Regeneratively sourced proteins, never denatured
- Zero synthetic additives or lab-made fillers
Small-batch wellness our ancestors would recognize. Because when you honor nature's integrity, your body knows the difference.
Purely Natural, Perfectly You
Let customers speak for us
Trust this product! We’ve been deceived by so many products labeled CLEAN but these guys put their money where their mouth is. Sleeping noticeably better after 2 weeks of consistently taking it!
Taste great and mixes well into a smoothie
It's a bit more liquidity than the usual body wash but overall its nice. Smells good and makes my body soft.
It's a bit thick but its still nice and it smells really good. I feel as though it cleans my scalp well
It's a nice consistency, makes my hair really shiny and moisturized and smells amazing.
Love it
The best protein powder I have ever tried
The best electrolytes I ever tried
It's nice and smells really good.
used on baby
Great product
Best Shampoo ever made! Makes my hair lush and thicker! This shampoo is top notch and a must have!
Love the smell
Always looking for a clean alternative for supplements. Great Taste. Excited to try other flavors.
I’ve used the shampoo & conditioner 3 times now and my hair is so soft, manageable and clean! Lovin’ it
Why PÜRISHH?
Pure Ingredients
Handpicked and ethically sourced from trusted, natural farms.
Effective Results
Each product is designed to protect, nourish, and enhance your skin’s natural balance.
Holistic Wellness
Embrace a balanced lifestyle with supplements and creams that work in harmony with your body.
Frequently Asked Question
What makes PÜRISHH products different from conventional supplements or skincare?
What makes PÜRISHH products different from conventional supplements or skincare?
Our mission is to return to the raw, unprocessed power of nature. Every product is formulated with 100 % natural ingredients and no synthetic preservatives, fillers, or dyes. For example, the Raw Honey Butter contains whipped Wagyu beef tallow, cold‑pressed olive and coconut oils, mango butter, raw honey and beeswax – it moisturizes deeply and can even replace conventional lotion. The Raw Tallow Sunbalm uses grass‑fed tallow, non‑nano zinc oxide and organic oils to provide mineral sun protection while nourishing the skin. Our Protein Powder combines grass‑fed whey and hydrolyzed collagen with organic superfoods to deliver 26 g of easily digestible protein with zero added sugar. Across their range, Purishh keeps ingredient lists short and transparent, using only what is necessary to support health and well‑being.
Are PÜRISHH’s ingredients ethically and sustainably sourced?
Are PÜRISHH’s ingredients ethically and sustainably sourced?
Yes. The founders emphasize sustainable sourcing and ethical treatment of animals and land. Tallow for the skincare range is hand‑sourced from 100 % grass‑fed, Wagyu, halal cattle in New Zealand, ensuring humane slaughter and optimal nutrient quality. Olive and coconut oils are single‑origin, cold‑pressed. The whey in Purishh protein powder comes from grass‑fed cows raised without hormones or antibiotics, and the collagen is hydrolyzed for better absorption. These practices mean customers receive products that are both pure and sustainable.
Why does PÜRISHH use beef tallow in its skincare products?
Why does PÜRISHH use beef tallow in its skincare products?
Grass‑fed beef tallow is biocompatible with human skin; its fatty‑acid profile closely resembles natural sebum, so it’s absorbed efficiently. Properly rendered tallow is a vitamin powerhouse, naturally supplying vitamins A, D, E, and K that support cell turnover, immune function, and antioxidant protection. Tallow also contains oleic, stearic and palmitic acids that strengthen the skin’s barrier, calm inflammation and maintain moisture. Grass‑fed tallow offers a high concentration of conjugated linoleic acid (CLA), an anti‑inflammatory fatty acid. These nutrients collectively help Purishh’s Raw Honey Butter and Raw Tallow Sunbalm to moisturize, nourish and protect the skin without clogging pores or causing irritation.
How is PÜRISHH protein powder different, and why is it easy to digest?
How is PÜRISHH protein powder different, and why is it easy to digest?
Many conventional protein powders use cheap sources and add artificial thickeners or sweeteners that cause bloating and digestive discomfort. Purishh starts with grass‑fed whey processed via cold‑filtration, which preserves natural enzymes and bioactive peptides that aid digestion. It also adds hydrolyzed bovine collagen to support joints, skin and gut health. The powder uses organic monk fruit for sweetness and contains no carrageenan, gums, sucralose or artificial preservatives, so it mixes smoothly and is gentle on the stomach. Each serving provides 26 g of complete protein with only 1 g of fat and zero sugar, making it suitable for keto, gluten‑free and non‑GMO diets.
What are PÜRISHH Electrolytes, and how do they support hydration?
What are PÜRISHH Electrolytes, and how do they support hydration?
PÜRISHH’s Electrolytes formula offers clean hydration without the artificial colors and preservatives found in many sports drinks. Each serving includes over 800 mg of unrefined Himalayan salt, providing sodium and trace minerals, plus magnesium malate and potassium chloride. Organic fruit powders (raspberry or lemon‑lime) and monk fruit sweetener give a natural flavor without sugar. The formula helps replenish electrolytes lost through exercise, supports muscle function, and is keto‑friendly.
What is Raw Shilajit, and how should it be used?
What is Raw Shilajit, and how should it be used?
Raw Shilajit is a resin harvested from high‑altitude Himalayan rocks. It forms from decomposed plant material and is rich in minerals and fulvic acid. Traditionally used as an adaptogen, Shilajit helps boost energy, improve stamina and support overall health. Purishh provides 100 % pure Himalayan shilajit. Users typically dissolve a pea‑sized amount in warm water, tea or milk. Due to its potent minerals, start with a small dose and consult a healthcare professional if you have existing medical conditions.
What is the Ishh Leaky Gut Protocol?
What is the Ishh Leaky Gut Protocol?
The Ishh Leaky Gut Protocol is a step‑by‑step program designed to help restore gut health naturally. It includes dietary recommendations, lifestyle tips and natural supplements to support the intestinal lining. The protocol focuses on removing irritants, replenishing beneficial bacteria and repairing the gut barrier. It is not a medical treatment, so customers with chronic digestive issues should consult a healthcare professional before starting.
How should I store PÜRISHH products?
How should I store PÜRISHH products?
Store supplements and protein powders in a cool, dry place away from direct sunlight. Skincare products like Raw Honey Butter and Raw Tallow Sunbalm are natural and free from artificial stabilizers; keeping them at room temperature helps maintain texture. If you live in a hot climate, refrigerating tallow‑based balms can prevent melting. Always use clean hands or a spatula to avoid introducing bacteria.
When will my order ship, and how long will delivery take?
When will my order ship, and how long will delivery take?
We ask customers to allow 2–3 business days for processing and production before an order ships. Once dispatched, average transit times are 7–10 business days; however, natural disasters, holidays and weather can cause delays. Free standard shipping is offered on orders over US$150 (or equivalent), and shipping costs for smaller orders are calculated at checkout. PÜRISHH cannot guarantee exact delivery dates because delivery is ultimately the responsibility of the shipping carrier.
Can I subscribe and save on regular purchases?
Can I subscribe and save on regular purchases?
Yes. We offer a subscription program for most of our products. Subscribe and save up to 30 % OFF your first delivery. You can choose delivery intervals (e.g., monthly). Subscriptions auto‑renew, but you may skip or cancel at any time through your account.
Are PÜRISHH products allergen‑free or suitable for special diets?
Are PÜRISHH products allergen‑free or suitable for special diets?
PÜRISHH formulates products without common synthetic additives, but some items may contain potential allergens. The protein powder contains whey (a dairy product) and collagen derived from bovine sources; it is unsuitable for vegans or those with dairy allergies. The Electrolytes formula is gluten‑free, sugar‑free and keto‑friendly. Always review ingredient lists carefully and consult your healthcare provider if you have specific allergies or dietary restrictions.
Where are PÜRISHH products made?
Where are PÜRISHH products made?
PÜRISHH sources ingredients globally, such as New Zealand Wagyu tallow and Himalayan shilajit, but manufactures products in small batches under rigorous quality control. By keeping production small and hands‑on, PÜRISHH can maintain freshness and ensure every batch meets the highest standards.
PÜR Insights
Strength Training After 40: The Supplement Questions Worth Asking
Strength Training After 40: The Supplement Questions Worth Asking If you started lifting in your 40s, or came back to it after years away, you've probably noticed how fast the supplement conversation shows up. Someone at the gym swears by their pre-workout. An ad promises "anabolic support." A podcast recommends five things you've never heard of. The volume of recommendations tends to run in the opposite direction from the evidence behind them. You don't need to evaluate every product on the shelf. A handful of questions, asked in the right order, sorts out most of them. This post walks through those questions and the research behind each one. Some of the answers point toward a supplement. More of them point somewhere else, and a couple point toward things worth avoiding entirely. First, why strength training is worth doing at all The case for lifting after 40 doesn't depend on anything you can buy. The World Health Organization's 2020 guidelines on physical activity, published by Bull and colleagues in the British Journal of Sports Medicine, volume 54, pages 1451 to 1462, recommend that adults do muscle-strengthening activities at moderate or greater intensity, involving all major muscle groups, on two or more days a week. The WHO rated this a strong recommendation supported by moderate-certainty evidence. For older adults, the guidelines go a step further. As part of their weekly activity, older adults should do varied multicomponent physical activity that emphasizes functional balance and strength training, at moderate or greater intensity, on three or more days a week, to enhance functional capacity and prevent falls. The review behind the guidelines found high-certainty evidence that balance and functional exercises reduce the rate of falls. A 2022 systematic review and meta-analysis by Momma and colleagues, also in the British Journal of Sports Medicine, reported that muscle-strengthening activities are associated with lower risk and mortality across major non-communicable diseases. One more detail from the WHO work is worth knowing. The review found no evidence supporting a dose-response association with higher volumes of muscle-strengthening activity for health outcomes. In other words, the target is two or more sessions a week done properly, not living in the gym. Question 1: Is the training itself actually in place? This comes first because it determines whether any supplement has something to work with. Supplements that help with strength training work on the adaptation to training, not in place of it. We went through the evidence on this in detail in our post on muscle loss in midlife. The short version is that in research on older adults, resistance training consistently does the heavy lifting, and nutrition makes it work somewhat better. Where the two have been compared directly, adding nutritional support to a training program often produced little or no extra benefit over the training program alone. So before anything else, check the basics against the WHO baseline. Are you training all the major muscle groups, legs, hips, back, chest, core, shoulders, and arms, at least twice a week? Is the effort genuinely moderate or harder? The WHO describes moderate intensity, on a scale relative to your own capacity, as usually a 5 or above out of 10. Are you gradually asking your muscles to do a bit more over time, whether that's more weight, more reps, or harder variations? If the answer to any of those is no, fixing it is the highest-return change available to you, and nothing in a tub substitutes for it. Question 2: Is your protein handled before anything else? Protein is the one nutritional input with a direct, well-established role in building and maintaining muscle, so it belongs ahead of any supplement in the queue. We've covered protein after 40 separately, so this is just the part that matters most for training. The total amount matters, but so does how it's spread across the day. The PROT-AGE Study Group, in its 2013 position paper by Bauer and colleagues in the Journal of the American Medical Directors Association, described a higher per-meal threshold for older adults, roughly 25 to 30 grams of protein per meal containing about 2.5 to 2.8 grams of leucine. That recommendation was written for people over 65, but the underlying point, that a meal needs enough high-quality protein to register as an anabolic signal, is a useful habit to build earlier. If you use a protein powder, think of it as a way to make a low-protein meal count, usually breakfast, rather than as a performance product. And source matters here. For the specific job of clearing a per-meal leucine threshold, a whey-dominant protein does it more efficiently than a collagen-dominant one. Our own blend leans toward collagen, and we'd rather tell you that than let you assume it's optimized for this particular purpose. Question 3: What exactly was measured, in whom, and how big was the effect? Once training and protein are in place, this is the question that filters the rest of the shelf. It has three parts. What was measured. Strength, muscle size, physical function, and lab markers are four different things. A supplement can move one without moving the others. Plenty of products cite studies showing a change in a blood marker or a signaling pathway, which is not the same as showing you'll lift more or move better. In whom. A great deal of sports supplement research is done in young, trained men. Results in that group don't automatically carry over to a 45-year-old woman who started lifting last year, or to a 60-year-old man returning after a long break. How big. A statistically significant result can still be small. The confidence interval tells you how precise the estimate is, and whether it plausibly includes no effect at all. Creatine is a useful worked example, because it's the supplement most people in this position ask about, and because the evidence in older adults is genuinely good but narrower than the marketing suggests. A systematic review and three-level meta-analysis of resistance training plus creatine in older adults found a significant improvement in muscle strength compared with training alone, with a Hedges' g of 0.31, a 95 percent confidence interval of 0.18 to 0.45, and moderate certainty of evidence. The same analysis found no statistically significant effect on muscle mass, with a confidence interval of negative 0.09 to 0.78, or on physical function, with a confidence interval of negative 0.08 to 1.03. Run that through the three questions. Measured: strength, yes; mass and function, not significantly. In whom: older adults, which is relevant. How big: small, but with a confidence interval that stays clear of zero. That makes creatine a reasonable addition if strength is your goal and you set realistic expectations. We sell creatine monohydrate, and that's the honest version of the case for it. Question 4: Could it actually work against your training? This is the question almost nobody asks, and it's the one with the most surprising answer. Exercise produces reactive oxygen species, molecules often described simply as oxidative stress. The intuitive move is to neutralize them with antioxidant supplements. But researchers increasingly view some of these molecules as signals that help tell muscle to adapt. Blocking the signal could, in principle, blunt the response. A randomized placebo-controlled trial by Bjørnsen and colleagues, published in the Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports in 2016, volume 26, pages 755 to 763, tested this directly. Thirty-four men aged 60 to 81 followed the same strength training program, three sessions a week for 12 weeks. Half took 500 milligrams of vitamin C and 117.5 milligrams of vitamin E before and after training, and half took a placebo. The placebo group gained more. Rectus femoris thickness, a front thigh muscle, increased by 3.4 millimetres in the placebo group compared with 1.9 millimetres in the supplement group, and leg lean mass rose by around 5 percent versus around 2 percent. The paper's title states the conclusion: vitamin C and E supplementation blunts increases in total lean body mass in elderly men after strength training. Not every measure differed between groups, but the ones that did all pointed the same way. The authors suggested that high-dose antioxidants may suppress the signaling that activates hypertrophy pathways. A follow-up analysis from the same research group, published by Stunes and colleagues in the European Journal of Applied Physiology in 2017, is titled plainly: high doses of vitamin C plus E reduce strength training-induced improvements in areal bone mineral density in elderly men. The evidence isn't one-sided, and it's worth saying so. A 2014 study by Paulsen and colleagues in the Journal of Physiology found that vitamin C and E supplementation altered protein signaling after a strength training session, but not muscle growth over 10 weeks of training. An earlier study by Bobeuf and colleagues in healthy older adults reported a significant gain in lean mass only when resistance training was combined with vitamin C and E. A 2020 review of this literature in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health also cautioned that findings in older adults may not represent athletic populations. So this isn't settled. What can be said is that there's no good evidence that high-dose vitamin C and E supplements help strength training, and there's a well-designed trial suggesting they can blunt gains in older men. These studies tested high-dose supplements, not antioxidant-rich food, which is a separate question. If you're taking high-dose C and E specifically to help your training, the research doesn't support it. Question 5: Is it doing a job your food already does? Branched-chain amino acids, sold as BCAAs, are one of the most common strength training supplements, and they're a clean example of this question. The three branched-chain amino acids are leucine, valine, and isoleucine. A multimillion-dollar supplement category has grown around the idea that taking them on their own stimulates muscle protein synthesis. Robert Wolfe of the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences examined that claim in a 2017 review in the Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition, volume 14, article 30, titled "Branched-chain amino acids and muscle protein synthesis in humans: myth or reality?" His reasoning is straightforward once laid out. Building new muscle protein requires all the essential amino acids, not just three of them. If you take only BCAAs, the other essential amino acids have to come from breaking down existing muscle protein. That puts a hard ceiling on how much new protein BCAAs alone could drive, and Wolfe notes that even his theoretical estimate of that ceiling is an overestimate. His conclusion: the claim that consumption of dietary BCAAs stimulates muscle protein synthesis or produces an anabolic response in human subjects is unwarranted. Complete protein, from food or a quality powder, already contains the branched-chain amino acids along with every other essential amino acid your muscle needs. If your protein intake is in good shape, a standalone BCAA product is paying for a subset of something you're already getting in full. The broader habit is worth keeping. Before buying an isolated ingredient, check whether your diet already supplies it in a more complete form. For a lot of products, it does. Question 6: Is it only what the label says it is? This is the question that matters most for the strength training category specifically, because the documented problems are concentrated here. A 2018 study by Tucker and colleagues at the California Department of Public Health, published in JAMA Network Open, volume 1, issue 6, analyzed the FDA's Tainted Products Marketed as Dietary Supplements database from 2007 through 2016. It found 776 supplements containing unapproved pharmaceutical ingredients, from 146 companies. The three most affected categories were sexual enhancement at 45.5 percent, weight loss at 40.9 percent, and muscle building at 11.9 percent. The muscle building findings are specific. Of 92 adulterated muscle building products, 82, or 89.1 percent, contained synthetic steroids or steroid-like ingredients. Seventy-three contained undeclared anabolic steroids or steroid-like substances. Across all 776 products, 157, or 20.2 percent, contained more than one unapproved ingredient. The authors wrote that adulteration with active pharmaceutical ingredients does not happen by accident. One more detail cuts against a common reassurance. Twenty-eight products were named in more than one warning issued more than six months apart, and of those, 67.9 percent contained new unapproved ingredients in the later warnings. A product being pulled and brought back doesn't mean the problem was fixed. An accompanying editorial by Pieter Cohen in the same issue was titled "The FDA and Adulterated Supplements: Dereliction of Duty," which gives a sense of how the research community read these findings. For practical purposes, the pattern suggests where to be most skeptical: products marketed with aggressive muscle building language, claims of anabolic, steroid-like, or hormonal effects, and proprietary blends that don't disclose amounts. Single-ingredient products with clear documentation are easier to evaluate. For people who need extra assurance, such as competitive athletes subject to drug testing, certification programs such as NSF Certified for Sport exist specifically to screen products for banned substances. It's worth being precise about our own testing here. Our lab reports cover things like potency, microbial safety, and, for some products, heavy metals. They are not banned-substance screens, and we're not going to suggest they are. What that leaves Worked through in order, the questions produce a short and fairly unglamorous list. Training comes first, at the WHO baseline of two or more sessions a week covering all major muscle groups at a genuine effort level, with balance and functional work added as you get older. Protein comes second, with attention to how it's distributed across meals, and a leucine-dense source if clearing that per-meal threshold is your goal. Creatine monohydrate is the one addition with a consistent, if modest, strength benefit alongside training in older adults, supported by moderate-certainty evidence. Standalone BCAAs add little if your protein intake is adequate. High-dose vitamin C and E aren't supported for training and may blunt gains. And products sold with steroid-like or hormonal muscle building claims are the part of the market where adulteration is most documented. We don't sell a standalone BCAA product or a high-dose vitamin C and E supplement, so we have no stake in those two answers either way. The honest summary Strength training after 40 is well supported on its own terms. The WHO recommends muscle-strengthening activity on two or more days a week as a strong recommendation, adds multicomponent balance and strength work for older adults to help prevent falls, and found no evidence that higher training volumes add further health benefit. Supplements sit downstream of that. Asking what was measured, in whom, and how big the effect was turns creatine into a reasonable, modest option for strength rather than a transformation. Asking whether something could interfere turns up a randomized trial in which high-dose vitamin C and E blunted muscle gains in older men, alongside other studies that found smaller or no effects. Asking whether your food already does the job makes standalone BCAAs largely redundant, per Wolfe's 2017 review. And asking whether a product is only what its label says points straight at the muscle building category, where 89.1 percent of the adulterated products in the FDA's database contained steroids or steroid-like ingredients. That's fewer products than most people expect to end up with. It's also a list you can actually defend, which is more than can be said for most of what's on the shelf.
Learn more
Hydration and Hormonal Shifts: What Changes, What Doesn't
Hydration and Hormonal Shifts: What Changes, What Doesn't Few areas of women's health carry as many confident claims with as little measurement behind them as hydration. You retain water before your period. Your hormones mean you need more electrolytes than men. Hot flashes are quietly dehydrating you. Some version of each shows up in marketing aimed at women from their twenties through menopause. The underlying biology is real. Estrogen and progesterone do act on the systems that control thirst and fluid balance, and menopause does change how the body handles heat. But when researchers have actually measured fluid retention, plasma volume, sweat rates, and electrolyte losses, the picture that comes back is much quieter than the claims. Hormones shift some of the body's set points. On average, they change very little about how much water and sodium you end up holding onto. This post walks through both halves: what the research shows changes, and what it shows doesn't. How the body regulates water in the first place A quick grounding, because everything else depends on it. Your body keeps the concentration of your blood, called plasma osmolality, within a narrow range. When it rises, meaning your blood is getting slightly more concentrated, two things happen. You get thirsty, and your brain releases arginine vasopressin, usually shortened to AVP, which signals your kidneys to hold onto water. Sodium balance runs through a related system, with aldosterone signaling the kidneys to retain sodium. As Nina Stachenfeld, one of the leading researchers in this area, has put it, thirst and fluid-regulating hormones respond to both osmotic and volume stimuli. The key word for this post is threshold. Thirst and AVP release don't switch on the moment anything changes. They switch on once plasma osmolality crosses a certain point. And that point, it turns out, isn't fixed. What changes: estrogen moves the set point Much of what's known here comes from Stachenfeld's work at the John B. Pierce Laboratory and Yale University School of Medicine. Her 2008 review in Exercise and Sport Sciences Reviews, volume 36, issue 3, pages 152 to 159, summarizes the core finding: estradiol lowers the operating point for osmoregulation of AVP and thirst, and it increases plasma volume. In plain terms, when estrogen is higher, you start feeling thirsty and conserving water at a slightly lower level of blood concentration than you otherwise would. Your body defends a slightly different target. The research behind this was carefully designed. In a study published in the Journal of Applied Physiology in 1999, Stachenfeld and colleagues took nine women with an average age of 25 through 150 minutes of dehydrating exercise, followed by 180 minutes of drinking freely. Each woman was tested six times in a randomized crossover design: twice in the early follicular phase, twice in the midluteal phase, and after four weeks each of combined estrogen-progestin and progestin-only oral contraceptives. A design like that compares the same women under different hormonal conditions, instead of comparing different women with each other, which removes a lot of noise. Later work went further. To separate estrogen's effects from progesterone's, researchers used a gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist to temporarily suppress both hormones, then added each back in controlled amounts to mimic different phases of the cycle. That isolates the hormones in a way a natural cycle can't. Progesterone turned out to behave differently from estrogen. A 2001 study by Calzone and colleagues, Stachenfeld among them, in the American Journal of Physiology is titled plainly: progesterone does not alter osmotic regulation of AVP. Progesterone has been observed to affect fluid retention through aldosterone and AVP pathways, and may increase plasma volume independent of estrogen, but a 2021 paper in Frontiers in Sports and Active Living notes that the precise mechanism remains unclear. What this looks like in daily life is subtle. A lower threshold means thirst and water conservation start a little earlier when estrogen is high. That's the body adjusting its target. It is not the body losing control of its fluid balance, and that distinction matters for everything that follows. What doesn't change: how much water you actually hold This is the part that rarely makes it into marketing, and it comes from the same researchers who established the mechanism. In the same 2008 review, Stachenfeld wrote that although reproductive hormones alter the homeostatic set points for body fluid, total body water and sodium content are only mildly affected. The set point moves. The total amount of water and sodium in your body mostly doesn't. A 2022 review from the University of Stirling, by Rodriguez-Giustiniani, Rodriguez-Sanchez, and Galloway in the European Journal of Sport Science, volume 22, issue 5, looked across the research on menstrual cycle hormones and fluid balance and reached a clear conclusion. Despite evidence that estrogen can influence the osmotic threshold for AVP release, and that progesterone can influence aldosterone production, these actions do not appear to influence fluid retention, plasma volume changes at rest and during exercise, or electrolyte losses. The review went further on exercise. Estrogen-dominant phases, such as the late follicular phase, promote heat dissipation. Progesterone-dominant phases, such as the mid-luteal phase, promote heat conservation and a higher basal body temperature. But the authors found these responses do not consistently lead to any change in observed sweat rates, heat stress, or dehydration during exercise. And the literature does not support any difference in fluid retention during post-exercise rehydration across different phases of the cycle. That's a strong set of null findings, and it deserves to be stated as clearly as the mechanism usually is. On average, across the studies reviewed, where you are in your cycle does not meaningfully change how much fluid you retain, how much you sweat, or how many electrolytes you lose. Two honest qualifiers come with it. First, the review authors point out that hormonal fluctuations vary a great deal between individuals, and that women with especially large fluctuations could experience disturbances that averages would hide. They call for more research in exactly that group. Second, premenstrual bloating is a common and genuine experience. The research here is about measured fluid balance, and it doesn't claim to explain every sensation people describe as bloating. What it does say is that a large, measurable swing in body water across the cycle isn't what the average data shows. Where cycle phase can matter: long endurance events There's one specific situation where the research points to paying closer attention, and it runs against the usual advice. Exercise-associated hyponatremia, a dangerous drop in blood sodium during prolonged exercise, is driven largely by drinking more fluid than you're losing, sometimes combined with sodium lost in sweat. We've covered it in detail elsewhere. The relevant point here is a 2009 study by Stachenfeld and Taylor, summarized in the Stirling review, which examined whether sex hormones influence water and sodium regulation in women at high risk of this condition during endurance exercise. More fluid was retained, and more sodium lost, when both estradiol and progesterone were elevated. The authors suggested that when both hormones are elevated, as in the luteal phase, monitoring fluid and electrolyte balance during long-duration endurance events is particularly important, especially for women susceptible to symptomatic hyponatremia. Notice which direction that points. The concern is holding too much water relative to sodium. For most people, that means the priority during a long race or training day in the luteal phase isn't drinking more. It's not overdrinking. What changes after menopause: the thermostat narrows Menopause brings a different kind of shift, centered on heat rather than thirst. Hot flashes are the most common symptom of the menopausal transition. In a 2005 review in the American Journal of Medicine, Robert Freedman of Wayne State University noted that they occur in about 75 percent of perimenopausal and postmenopausal women in Western societies. A 2014 review by Freedman in the Journal of Steroid Biochemistry and Molecular Biology describes a hot flash as a rapid and exaggerated heat dissipation response, made up of profuse sweating, peripheral vasodilation, and feelings of intense internal heat. The mechanism Freedman's research identified is specific. Your body normally holds core temperature inside a neutral zone between two thresholds: an upper one that triggers sweating and a lower one that triggers shivering. Small temperature changes inside that zone get handled quietly, mostly by adjusting blood flow to the skin. In a study published in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology in 1999, volume 181, pages 66 to 70, Freedman and Krell compared 12 postmenopausal women who had hot flashes with 8 who didn't. In women with symptoms, the zone between the sweating and shivering thresholds, measured by rectal temperature, was essentially gone, at 0.0 degrees Celsius, compared with 0.4 degrees in women without symptoms. Sweat rates were about twice as high in the symptomatic women, 0.06 versus 0.03 milligrams per square centimetre per minute. During exercise, every woman with symptoms had a hot flash and none of the women without symptoms did. The authors concluded that hot flashes may be triggered by small elevations in body temperature acting within a reduced thermoneutral zone. With almost no buffer, a minor temperature rise that another woman's body would absorb without noticing tips straight over the sweating threshold. Estrogen is part of this, but not all of it. Freedman's 2005 review notes that although hot flashes accompany the withdrawal of estrogen at menopause, the decline in estrogen levels is not sufficient to explain their occurrence. Elevated central sympathetic activation, acting through alpha-2 adrenergic receptors in the brain, appears to contribute to narrowing the zone, and more recent reviews also point to increased neurokinin B signaling. It's a brain-level change in temperature control, not simply a hormone deficit. What that means for hydration after menopause This is exactly where marketing tends to run ahead of the evidence, so it's worth being precise. Hot flashes and night sweats involve real sweating, so they involve real fluid loss. That part is simply true. But the studies above characterize how hot flashes work. They don't quantify how much total fluid a typical woman loses to them across a day or night, and none of the research reviewed here shows that hot flashes cause clinically significant dehydration or that electrolyte supplements reduce them. So the defensible version is modest. If you're having heavy night sweats, replacing that fluid makes sense, and for most people water and ordinary meals cover it. Nothing in this research suggests hot flashes create a special electrolyte requirement. The more useful practical point comes straight from the mechanism. If hot flashes are triggered by small rises in core temperature within a narrowed zone, keeping your environment cool is a logical, low-risk step. Freedman's 2014 review notes that peripheral cooling ameliorates hot flashes. A cooler bedroom, lighter bedding, and a fan go after the trigger itself instead of the aftermath. The same review also states that hot flashes account for some, but not all, of the sleep disturbance reported during menopause. If your sleep is badly disrupted, it's worth raising with a clinician, whatever is behind it. So do women need different electrolytes? Pulling it together, the honest answer is: not because of hormones alone. The menstrual cycle shifts thirst and AVP thresholds, but the best available review finds no consistent effect on fluid retention, plasma volume, sweat rates, or electrolyte losses. Menopause changes heat regulation, but the research reviewed here doesn't establish a hormone-driven electrolyte requirement from it. That leaves women with the same reasons to use electrolytes as anyone else: prolonged heavy sweating, hot conditions, long endurance efforts, and certain eating patterns such as very low carbohydrate diets, which increase sodium excretion through a separate mechanism we've covered elsewhere. The one hormone-specific consideration the research does support is the endurance point above, and it's about avoiding overdrinking in the luteal phase, not adding more. We sell an electrolyte product, and we think it's genuinely useful in the situations just listed. We don't think the research supports telling women they need it because of their hormones, so we're not going to. What's worth doing In everyday life, drink to thirst. Hormones shift when thirst kicks in, but they don't break the system, and for healthy adults thirst is a reasonable day-to-day guide. For long endurance events, especially in the luteal phase, watch for overdrinking rather than underdrinking. Weighing yourself before and after a long session is a simple way to check whether your intake roughly matches what you actually lost. If night sweats are frequent, keep your sleeping environment cool and replace fluid normally. There's no need for anything special. And pay attention to changes that don't fit this picture. Persistent, unusual thirst is worth mentioning to a doctor, because it can have causes that have nothing to do with hormones. The honest summary Estrogen genuinely lowers the threshold at which your body triggers thirst and releases vasopressin, and it increases plasma volume. Progesterone doesn't alter osmotic AVP regulation, though it acts through other pathways that aren't yet fully understood. That much of the popular story is real. What doesn't hold up is the idea that these shifts translate into large changes in how much water or sodium you carry. Stachenfeld, whose work established the mechanism, describes total body water and sodium content as only mildly affected. A 2022 review of the menstrual cycle research found no consistent effect on fluid retention, plasma volume, sweat rates, electrolyte losses, or post-exercise rehydration, while noting that women with unusually large hormonal swings may be exceptions. Menopause narrows the body's thermoneutral zone to almost nothing in women with hot flashes, which is why small temperature rises trigger sweating. That's a real change in heat regulation. It isn't evidence of a special hydration or electrolyte need. The practical takeaways are unexciting and well supported: drink to thirst, avoid overdrinking during long efforts in the luteal phase, keep cool if hot flashes are an issue, and don't buy anything on the premise that your hormones require it.
Learn more
Brain Fog in Midlife: Separating Mechanism from Marketing
Brain Fog in Midlife: Separating Mechanism from Marketing Walking into a room and forgetting why. Losing a word you use every day. Rereading the same paragraph three times. Women describe this in almost identical terms during their 40s and early 50s, and for a long time the standard response was some version of "it's stress" or "it's just getting older." That response turned out to be partly wrong. There is now good longitudinal evidence that something measurable happens to cognition during the menopause transition. There is also good evidence about what that something is, how large it is, and how long it lasts. That evidence is considerably more reassuring than the worry it tends to produce, and considerably less useful to supplement marketing than the marketing would like. This post covers what the research actually measured, what it points to as contributing factors, and how the most common "brain fog" products hold up against it. "Brain fog" is a description, not a diagnosis Start with the term itself. Brain fog is not a medical diagnosis. It has no diagnostic criteria, no agreed definition, and no test. Researchers studying it generally use the phrase subjective cognitive complaints, meaning what people report experiencing, and they measure it separately from objective cognitive performance, meaning what people actually score on standardized tests. That distinction matters more than it sounds. A subjective complaint is real. It describes a genuine experience. But it doesn't tell you which mechanism is behind it, and very different causes can produce the same feeling. Poor sleep produces it. Anxiety produces it. Depression produces it. So can thyroid problems, anemia, certain medications, and plain overload. A product sold "for brain fog" is sold for a feeling, which means it can be marketed to almost anyone without claiming to treat anything specific. What the best longitudinal data found The most important research on this comes from the Study of Women's Health Across the Nation, known as SWAN, a multicenter, multiethnic, community-based study that has followed a large cohort of US women through the menopause transition. The key analysis was published by Gail Greendale and colleagues in Neurology in 2009, volume 72, pages 1850 to 1857. They followed 2,362 women over four years and repeatedly tested three cognitive domains: processing speed using the Symbol Digit Modalities Test, verbal memory using the East Boston Memory Test, and working memory using Digit Span Backward. When cognitive testing began, the women's mean age was 50. The design is worth understanding, because the finding depends on it. When people take the same cognitive test several times, they normally get better at it. This practice effect is expected in midlife and shows up reliably in healthy adults. Here is what SWAN found. Women who were premenopausal, early perimenopausal, or postmenopausal improved with repeated administration of the processing speed test, with a p-value at or below 0.0008. Women in late perimenopause did not improve, with a p-value of 0.2. Verbal memory showed a similar perimenopausal decrement. And after the transition, improvement rebounded to premenopausal levels. The authors concluded that perimenopause was associated with a decrement in cognitive performance, characterized by women not learning as well as they had before, and that these difficulties may be time-limited. The detail that changes how this should feel Read that finding carefully, because the popular version of it is not quite what the study showed. A later progress report from the SWAN investigators, led by El Khoudary and published in 2019, spelled out the distinction directly. The perimenopause effect was subtle. It showed up as the absence of a learning effect, not as a drop. As the report puts it, even in perimenopause, test scores did not drop. They simply did not improve during that stage. Not getting better and getting worse are different things. What was measured during the transition was a temporary loss of the usual improvement with practice, and it recovered afterward. The same report noted that approximately 60 percent of midlife women report problems with memory during the transition. So both facts hold at once. The complaint is common and real. The measured change is modest and appears to be temporary. Researchers reviewing this literature have described these changes as occurring without indicating neurodegenerative disease. If you're in your 40s and worried that losing words means something is going badly wrong, this is the most relevant finding available, and it is a reassuring one. Not every study agrees, and that's worth knowing It would be easy to present SWAN as the final word. It isn't, and the literature is honest about that. In a 2010 follow-up paper in the American Journal of Epidemiology, Greendale and colleagues summarized the small body of longitudinal research available at the time. Two of three published longitudinal studies corroborated women's perceptions. The Kinmen Women-Health Investigation found a perimenopause-related deficit in verbal memory. A two-year substudy at SWAN's Chicago site found that processing speed and working memory were unaffected by the transition. The larger four-year analysis across all seven SWAN sites found the transient decrement described above. A 2023 structured review in Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience noted that there has been insufficient research to determine whether these effects are time-limited, and suggested that studies with more repeated assessments across a wider age span would help settle the question. The fairest summary is that the best evidence points toward a modest, domain-specific, probably temporary effect, with some disagreement between studies about exactly which domains are affected. The mechanism question: is it just hormones? The obvious explanation is estrogen. Estrogen acts on the brain, including regions involved in memory, and its levels fluctuate and then decline across the transition. That is a plausible mechanism, and it is where most marketing starts. The evidence complicates it. An earlier cross-sectional SWAN analysis by Luetters and colleagues, published in the Journal of Women's Health in 2007, volume 16, pages 331 to 344, examined whether menopause stage and circulating levels of estradiol and follicle-stimulating hormone were related to cognitive performance. The title states the result: they were not. That was a cross-sectional analysis, so it can't rule out effects that show up over time within individuals. But it does mean the simple story, where a lower estrogen number on a blood test equals worse memory, isn't supported by that data. The transition is clearly involved in some way, since the effect appears during perimenopause and resolves after it. Exactly how is not settled. What SWAN points to as contributors This is the part of the research that usually gets skipped, and it is arguably the most useful. SWAN's own published guidance on memory and cognition notes that sleep and mood problems increase during the menopause transition. It states plainly that lack of sleep is linked to poor memory and difficulty focusing, and that depression and anxiety impair effort and performance on cognitive testing. SWAN women with depressive symptoms performed less well on tests of processing speed. The 2019 progress report found that among women who had no anxiety before the transition, anxiety symptoms became more likely across it, rising from early to late perimenopause and then declining after menopause. It also found that perceived health below very good, and at least one upsetting life event in the past year, carried greater risk of anxiety symptoms than menopause stage did. Life circumstances mattered at least as much as hormonal stage. Put those together and a practical picture emerges. Several things that impair thinking become more common during exactly this window. Sleep gets disrupted, including by night sweats. Anxiety becomes more likely. Mood shifts. Each of these independently makes it harder to concentrate and remember. Whether they fully explain the cognitive effect or sit alongside a direct hormonal one is still being worked out. But they are real, they are measurable, and unlike estrogen levels, many of them can be addressed directly. Separating the transition from aging There is a second thing happening in midlife, and it's easy to confuse with the first. SWAN has also tracked cognitive aging beyond the transition. According to SWAN's published summaries, age-related declines appear in processing speed in the early 50s, in memory around age 58, and in working memory around age 61. The transition-related memory changes appear to be reversible, while persistent declines only become apparent well after menopause. The rate of that longer-term decline isn't the same for everyone. SWAN reports that financial hardship was consistently associated with accelerated cognitive decline. Diabetes, elevated fasting glucose, central obesity, hypertension, and poor heart health were associated with the rate of decline in processing speed. That list is notable for what's on it. The factors associated with how quickly thinking slows with age are largely cardiometabolic and social, not nutritional gaps that a capsule would close. SWAN is careful here too. Its guidance notes that controlling blood pressure, glucose, and weight is important for overall health, and that whether controlling them also lessens cognitive decline is being tested in ongoing clinical trials. That is the right level of confidence, and it's a higher standard than most brain supplements hold themselves to. Where marketing enters The gap between a common, distressing, poorly defined complaint and a modest, temporary, multi-factor explanation is exactly the space supplement marketing fills. So it's worth checking the most common claims against the most rigorous evidence available. Ginkgo biloba. Ginkgo is the most studied memory supplement in the world, and it has been tested in the largest trial of its kind. The Ginkgo Evaluation of Memory study, co-funded by several arms of the US National Institutes of Health, followed 3,069 community-dwelling older adults with normal cognition or mild cognitive impairment. Participants took 120 milligrams of ginkgo extract twice daily or a placebo, across four clinical sites over eight years. The primary results, published by DeKosky and colleagues in JAMA in 2008, volume 300, pages 2253 to 2262, found ginkgo did not reduce the incidence of dementia or Alzheimer's disease. A secondary analysis by Snitz and colleagues in JAMA in 2009, volume 302, pages 2663 to 2670, followed participants for a median of 6.1 years and found ginkgo did not slow the rate of cognitive decline. This trial studied older adults, not women in midlife, which limits how directly it applies. But it is the most rigorous test ever run on the most heavily marketed memory supplement, and it found nothing. If ginkgo had a meaningful effect on memory, a trial of that size and length was well placed to detect it. Creatine. Creatine has become a popular brain fog recommendation, especially for midlife women, and we've covered the evidence in detail elsewhere. The short version: the European Food Safety Authority's expert panel reviewed 21 human intervention studies in 2024 and concluded that a cause-and-effect relationship between creatine supplementation and improved cognitive function had not been established. The mechanism is plausible. The trial evidence isn't there yet. Magnesium. Magnesium, particularly the L-threonate form, is marketed for menopausal cognitive symptoms. The researchers running a clinical trial currently investigating magnesium L-threonate for menopausal symptoms state in their own trial registration that research on its effect on overall menopausal symptoms is rare. Products are being sold on a question the investigators themselves describe as largely open. We sell creatine and a magnesium complex that includes L-threonate. None of the above changes the reasons they can be worth taking, which we've written about separately. But neither is an established treatment for brain fog, and we're not going to describe them that way. Why mechanism isn't enough Every product above has a plausible mechanism. Ginkgo affects blood flow. Creatine supports cellular energy in the brain. Magnesium participates in nerve signaling. Estrogen acts on memory regions. All of this is real biology. In each case, the step from "this is involved in the relevant biology" to "taking this improves the thing people actually care about" either failed when it was tested or hasn't been tested well. That step is the entire difference between mechanism and marketing. A mechanism tells you something might work. Only a controlled trial tells you whether it does. In this area, the trials that exist have mostly been disappointing, and the complaint being targeted is common enough and vague enough that a product can sell well without ever closing that gap. What's worth doing instead Based on what SWAN and related research actually identify, the more defensible priorities are fairly unglamorous. Treat sleep as a cognitive issue, not just a comfort issue. SWAN's guidance links lack of sleep directly to poor memory and trouble focusing. If night sweats or insomnia are breaking up your nights, that's worth raising with a clinician, and it may do more for your thinking than any supplement. Take mood and anxiety seriously. Depressive symptoms were associated with slower processing speed in SWAN, and anxiety becomes more likely across the transition. Both are treatable, and treating them is likely to help cognition along the way. Keep an eye on the cardiometabolic basics that SWAN associates with long-term decline, including blood pressure, glucose, and central weight, while understanding that the trials testing whether controlling them protects cognition are still running. Hormone therapy is a separate medical decision with its own body of evidence. It belongs in a conversation with a clinician, not in a supplement brand's blog, so we're leaving it out here. And watch for the one pattern SWAN specifically flags. Its guidance advises that if memory changes come on suddenly, they should be reported to a primary care provider. Gradual, on-and-off word-finding trouble in your late 40s fits the research pattern described above. A sudden change doesn't, and deserves a proper evaluation. The honest summary Brain fog in midlife is a real and common experience. Around 60 percent of women report memory problems during the menopause transition, according to SWAN. The best longitudinal evidence, SWAN's four-year study of 2,362 women, found a modest effect. During late perimenopause, women didn't show the usual improvement with repeated testing, and that improvement came back after menopause. Scores didn't fall. They stopped rising, temporarily. Not every study agrees on which cognitive domains are affected, and researchers note that more work is needed to confirm the effect is time-limited. The mechanism isn't as simple as circulating estrogen, which SWAN found was not related to cognitive performance in a cross-sectional analysis. The factors SWAN does identify, including disrupted sleep, anxiety, depressive symptoms, and life stress, are common during this window and can be addressed. Against that background, the most marketed products don't hold up well. The largest trial of ginkgo found no effect on dementia or cognitive decline. EFSA found cause and effect not established for creatine and cognition. Researchers studying magnesium L-threonate for menopausal symptoms describe the existing research as rare. That's a less exciting message than most brain fog content offers, and a more useful one. The measured change is smaller than the fear around it. Much of what drives the experience is sleep, mood, and stress. And right now the evidence supports addressing those directly more than it supports buying anything, including from us.
Learn more