Is Cold Plunging Bad for Women?

Is cold plunging bad for women? The science says no

Over the past few months, a new claim has started circulating online. That cold plunging is bad for women. That it disrupts hormones, spikes cortisol too aggressively, and should be avoided altogether by females.

It is a bold claim. It is also one that spreads quickly, because it sounds protective and authoritative. But when you slow it down and look at the actual evidence, it does not hold up.

We want to be clear from the start. This is not about defending cold exposure at all costs. It is about defending evidence, nuance, and responsible health messaging. Because saying something is not suitable for everyone is very different from claiming it is harmful for an entire sex.

The idea that cold exposure is bad for women usually stems from a misunderstanding of stress. Cold is a stressor, that part is true. But stress is not inherently damaging. In physiology, there is a critical distinction between chronic stress and acute, controlled stress. Exercise is a stressor. Heat exposure is a stressor. Fasting is a stressor. When applied appropriately, these stressors improve regulation rather than break it down.

Cold exposure sits firmly in this category. It is what researchers call a hormetic stressor. A short, deliberate challenge followed by recovery that trains the body to adapt more efficiently over time. This is not a fringe idea. It is a foundational principle of human physiology.

When people argue that cold exposure spikes cortisol and therefore must be harmful for women, they are ignoring how the stress response actually works. Yes, cold exposure causes a temporary rise in cortisol. That is expected. But that rise is brief. It does not linger. Over time, regular cold exposure is associated with improved stress tolerance and better nervous system regulation.

This is no different from exercise. A workout raises cortisol acutely. No credible professional would argue that exercise is therefore dangerous for women.

One of the strongest bodies of research in this area comes from [Susanna Søberg], whose work focuses on cold exposure, metabolism, and stress regulation. Importantly, her research includes women. Her findings consistently show that short duration cold exposure improves metabolic health, insulin sensitivity, and stress adaptation when practised sensibly.

There is currently no high quality evidence showing that brief cold exposure of one to three minutes disrupts female hormones or menstrual cycles. What does disrupt hormones is chronic energy deficiency, over training, poor sleep, and sustained psychological stress. Those factors exist independently of cold exposure.

Blaming cold plunging for outcomes caused by broader lifestyle stressors is not scientifically accurate. It conflates correlation with causation and ignores context.

This is where responsible guidance matters.

Not everything is suitable for everyone. Cold exposure included. Some individuals should avoid it or seek medical advice, particularly those with specific cardiovascular conditions or circulatory disorders. That is sensible, adult guidance.

But to jump from individual suitability to declaring that cold exposure is unsafe for all women is a completely different claim. And it is one that does not stand up to scrutiny.

We would never apply this logic elsewhere.

Veganism is not suitable for everyone.  

HIIT workouts are not suitable for everyone.  

Fasting is not suitable for everyone.  

Yet no credible professional would claim these practices are inherently damaging to an entire sex. Doing so would be misleading, irresponsible, and unsupported by evidence.

The same standard must apply here.

Cold plunging is not mandatory. It is not a cure all. And it is not appropriate for everyone. But the idea that it is bad for women as a group is not supported by the science.

Fear based messaging helps no one. It pushes people away from tools that, when used correctly, can support metabolic health, stress regulation, and mental resilience.

Cold exposure does not need defending. It needs context, nuance, and evidence.

And right now, the evidence does not support the claim being made.