Men, Women, and the Truth About Survival in the Wild
Do men really have an advantage in the wilderness? Are women naturally better at some survival skills? Or are we bringing old ideas about masculinity and femininity into the woods with us? The research offers a more complicated, and more interesting, answer.
We start by putting a man and a woman at the edge of a wilderness trail. They are provided a backpack, a map, a knife, a few matches, and no cell service. Popular culture already seems to know what happens next.
The man takes the map. The woman worries about supplies. He builds the shelter. She gathers food. He confronts the threat. She is cautious. He knows which way is north. She gets lost. It’s the story-line of an eighties romantic comedy.
These assumptions are so familiar, so ingrained in our culture that they can feel less like stereotypes than common sense. Outdoor culture has long associated toughness, navigation, risk-taking, mechanical competence, and physical strength with men, while associating caution, cooperation, nurturing, and attention to detail with women.
What happens when we take those assumptions into the laboratory, onto the trail, and into the backcountry?
The answer is not simple. It’s neither “men and women are exactly the same” nor is it “men are naturally suited to the wilderness and women are not.” There are genuine, average differences between the sexes in some physical and cognitive abilities. Those differences are highly task-dependent, overlap substantially between individuals, and often tell us much less about a particular person’s outdoor competence than our popular stereotypes suggest. [1][2]
In some circumstances, the biological differences matter enormously. In others, they matter surprisingly little. Yet, in others, what looks like a biological difference may actually be a difference in experience, confidence, training, equipment, opportunity, or willingness to take a particular risk.
In other words, the wilderness does not simply test whether someone is male or female. It tests what an individual is capable of, what they know and what they can actually do.
Myth: Men Are Simply “Better in the Outdoors”
Research is fairly unambiguous regarding the physiological advantage of men. On average, adult men have greater absolute muscle mass, strength, power and speed than adult women. A 2023 review found that sex differences in strength become pronounced around puberty and are generally larger in upper-body than lower-body strength. The American College of Sports Medicine concluded that adult men typically outperform women in activities requiring strength, power and speed, with the size of the difference depending substantially on the event. [1][2]
That matters in the wilderness.
Imagine a situation requiring someone to carry a heavy pack, drag an injured companion, chop wood, climb over an obstacle, or move a large object. If two people are otherwise similarly trained, the average male physiological advantage in absolute strength can be consequential. However, “men are stronger” is not the same proposition as “men are better at wilderness survival.”
Survival is a bundle of skills, and strength is only one of them. Within strength-related tasks, the picture becomes more complicated when researchers account for body size, fitness, and the way the task is performed. A 2024 systematic review of load-carriage research found that many apparent physiological differences between men and women became smaller when oxygen consumption was expressed relative to physical characteristics. The review also found limited evidence for sex differences in several aspects of loaded walking biomechanics. [3]
Military research provides an especially useful, real-world comparison, because soldiers are actually asked to perform outdoor tasks while carrying substantial loads. In a study of British Army recruits completing a 9.7-kilometer loaded march, women experienced greater cardiovascular strain and perceived exertion. The men experienced a greater loss of knee-extensor maximal force, while the impairment in jumping performance was similar between the sexes. [4] Another military study of male and female soldiers performing loaded treadmill exercises found no sex difference in time to exhaustion despite differences in absolute aerobic capacity. [5]
The lesson is important: physiological differences can change the demands of a task without determining who will ultimately succeed at it.
The Backpack Problem
A wilderness scenario often contains the overlooked variable of the equipment itself.
Suppose a 40-pound backpack is given to a 120-pound person and a 200-pound person. The backpack weighs the same, but it represents dramatically different percentages of each subject’s body mass. Load carriage has become an important field for studying sex differences in the military. A 2022 scoping review found that women can experience greater biomechanical and physiological consequences from military loads, including increased injury risk. However, the researchers also emphasized a major limitation to the study, which is that much of the existing load-carriage research has historically been conducted on men. Relatively few studies have used actual military personnel and realistic equipment. [6]
That distinction matters, because if an item of equipment was designed around a male body, and then handed to a smaller person, discomfort or reduced performance does not necessarily demonstrate an intrinsic limitation of women. It is more a demonstration of poor equipment design. Recent military research increasingly emphasizes this point. Body size, fitness, load distribution, equipment fit and training all influence load-carriage performance and injury risk. [7]
In other words, rather than focusing on whether women are capable of carrying the gear, the consideration should be was the equipment intelligently designed to be used by all of those who are being asked to perform with it.
The Question of Endurance
This is where the stereotype gets particularly interesting.
Outdoor recreation frequently involves long-duration activities rather than any requiring maximum strength, such as hiking, backpacking, paddling, distance running, climbing approaches, and long days in difficult terrain. While men generally possess advantages in absolute aerobic capacity and several measures of endurance performance, particularly after puberty, endurance is not simply a contest of maximum oxygen consumption.
Fatigue resistance, pacing, body mass, movement economy, training status, and task duration are also important factors. Research on loaded marching illustrates this point. In the British Army study mentioned above, women experienced greater cardiovascular strain but demonstrated greater resistance to loss of maximal knee-extensor force following the march. [4] A 2024 review of load carriage similarly found that once physiological responses were adjusted for physical characteristics, evidence for broad sex differences became considerably less straightforward. [3]
Statements such as “men have better endurance” are too blunt to be useful.
“Men and women differ, on average, in several physiological characteristics relevant to endurance, but performance in a particular outdoor task depends on the interaction of sex, body size, fitness, training, equipment, terrain and task demands,” is a more scientifically defensible statement. One, it is less dramatic, and two, it is also closer to the evidence.
The Map-and-Compass Question
The idea that men are naturally better navigators is one stereotype that refuses to die. This one has a kernel of truth, but the kernel is considerably smaller and more complicated than the stereotype.
A major 2019 meta-analysis combined 694 effect sizes from 266 studies involving more than 19,000 participants. On average, male participants performed better on large-scale navigation tasks, with an overall effect in the small-to-moderate range. [8]
A newer systematic review published in 2026 reached a broadly similar conclusion for certain forms of spatial strategy. Across 21 studies published from 2014 through 2024, men showed advantages in several allocentric navigation measures, including some measures of route efficiency, directional accuracy and target retrieval. However, the review also found that results depended heavily on task complexity, environmental familiarity, age and the precise type of spatial strategy being tested. [9]
This last point is crucial. “Navigation” is not one skill. A person can be good at reading a topographic map and be poor at remembering landmarks. Someone else can have an excellent internal sense of direction and still manage to struggle to rotate a map mentally. Another person may navigate superbly in familiar terrain, but become disoriented in an unfamiliar landscape.
Furthermore, people don’t always utilize the same strategies. Research comparing men and women found differences in navigation style. While men have sometimes been more likely to use cardinal directions and abstract spatial representations, women have more often used landmarks and egocentric descriptions such as left and right. [10]
That does not automatically mean one strategy is superior. If you are hiking through a landscape with distinctive rock formations, streams, ridgelines and trees, remembering landmarks may be extremely useful. The wilderness gives you terrain, not a standardized spatial-ability test.
The Stereotypes Enter the Woods
The other reason to be cautious about interpreting apparent differences in navigation ability is that people do not perform in a social vacuum. Researchers have repeatedly investigated whether awareness of gender stereotypes can affect performance on spatial tasks. In one experiment involving a novel visuospatial test, women performed at levels statistically indistinguishable from men when participants were told that the test did not produce gender differences. The authors concluded that expectations surrounding spatial ability could influence performance. [11] A broader meta-analysis found that stereotype-threat effects on spatial performance were not consistently significant across the literature, however, illustrating an important caution; stereotype effects exist in some circumstances, but they are not a universal explanation for sex differences in spatial performance. [12]
This is precisely why outdoor stereotypes deserve scrutiny.
Tell a novice woman that “women are bad with maps,” and a navigation error becomes evidence supporting the stereotype. Tell a novice man that “real men never get lost,” and he may be less willing to admit that he is lost. The first person may lose confidence. The second may delay asking for help. Neither response is particularly useful in a survival situation.
Risk: Men Are Daredevils
Here the stereotype receives considerably more support from the research.
Research across many domains found average sex differences in risk-related behavior. A meta-analysis of 741 effect sizes from 277 studies found that men scored higher on sensation-seeking measures on a behavioral risk-taking task, while women were more sensitive to punishment. [13]
A real-world extension of that finding is provided by outdoor recreation. A 2026 study examining outdoor-recreation risk perceptions using data from more than 5,000 respondents found gender differences in attitudes toward activities involving climbing, ropes and heights. In that study, women generally reported lower willingness to challenge themselves, greater concern about injury or damage, and greater sensitivity to several dimensions of perceived risk. The researchers also found that these differences varied with age and parental status, suggesting that risk attitudes are not simply fixed biological characteristics. [14]
The last finding is especially revealing. We expect a relatively stable difference if “men are natural risk-takers” were the whole explanation. Instead, the picture is influenced by social roles and life circumstances with an important distinction between risk tolerance and competence. A person who climbs an unstable cliff without adequate protection is not necessarily more capable than the person who refuses. They may simply be more willing to accept the consequences of failure.
In a survival situation, unnecessary risk can be a liability. The competent outdoorsperson isn’t thinking about how brave they are feeling, they are considering what could happen if this goes wrong.
The Woman Alone in the Wilderness
Personal safety is another dimension of outdoor risk that is almost entirely absent from stereotypical discussions of “survival skills.”
Women who spend time outdoors face risks that men do not experience in exactly the same way, including concerns about sexual harassment and gender-based violence. Research on women participating in outdoor recreation has repeatedly identified fear of violence and personal safety as constraints on participation. [15][16]
A U.S. Forest Service analysis of national recreation-survey data found that women were more likely than the comparison groups examined to report constraints involving personal safety, inadequate facilities and information, financial limitations and outdoor pests. [17] More recent research continues to document the role of safety concerns in women’s participation in hiking and overnight recreation. Studies of women hikers have described how concerns about vulnerability, harassment and being alone can affect decisions about when, where and with whom women recreate. [15][18]
This creates an interesting paradox.
The stereotype says women are less adventurous because they are more fearful.
Imagine two people walking alone through a remote area, and one has never had to consider the possibility of sexual assault. The other has. Their risk calculations are not being made from the same starting point. Calling the second person’s behavior simply “risk aversion” obscures an important distinction between perceived risk and experienced risk.
Wilderness Punishes Overconfidence
This is where some supposedly masculine survival traits become less obviously advantageous. While confidence can help, overconfidence can kill. The willingness to push through adversity can help, however, the inability to recognize when a situation has become dangerous can hurt.
Physical strength can be enormously useful, as can patience, communication, preparation, observation and the willingness to turn around. None of these qualities belongs exclusively to either sex. Therefore, the most effective survival team would probably look less like a gender stereotype and more like a collection of complementary competencies.
One person may be exceptionally strong, while another may be a better navigator. Someone may understand weather patterns, another may have wilderness medical training. Someone else may be skilled at reading terrain, and yet another may remain calm under pressure.
In a survival situation, the question should not be about sex, but, “Who can do what?”
Experience Changes the Equation
Experience is one of the most overlooked variables in discussions of gender and outdoor ability. A person who has spent 20 years backpacking is likely to possess an enormous practical advantage over someone who has spent 20 minutes outdoors, regardless of sex. While this may seem obvious, many comparisons between men and women are effectively comparisons between different histories of opportunity.
Outdoor researchers have documented gender-related differences in access, expectations, confidence and participation. Studies of women’s outdoor experiences describe social expectations, safety concerns, unequal opportunities and assumptions about competence as potential constraints on skill development. [16][19]
Get Robert Hensley’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
It creates a feedback loop:
- A culture assumes boys will be adventurous.
- Boys receive more encouragement to climb, explore, camp and take mechanical risks.
- They accumulate more outdoor experience.
- They become more confident.
- Their greater experience is interpreted as evidence of innate male ability.
- Girls receive fewer opportunities to develop the same skills.
- By adulthood, the difference may be real.
However, it is a real difference in experience. It is not proof of an innate difference in capacity.
The same principle works in reverse. A woman who grew up camping, climbing, paddling or hunting may possess dramatically more outdoor competence than a man who has never slept outside. Individual experience overwhelms many population-level averages.
Survival Skills Are Learned
There is a simple thought experiment that exposes the weakness of many gender stereotypes:
Take a man who has never used a compass and a woman who has completed a wilderness-navigation course. Give both of them a map and compass. Who should we expect to navigate better?
The answer is not controversial: the person with the training has the obvious advantage.
The same applies to fire building, shelter construction, water purification, wilderness medicine, route planning, weather interpretation, river crossings and emergency signaling. These are all learned competencies.
Research into wilderness first-aid education illustrates the point. A study of participants in Wilderness Medicine Institute courses examined knowledge, self-efficacy and skill retention among a mixed-gender group of outdoor participants. [20]
The implication is that survival skills can be taught. Therefore, training is one of the most important variables in outdoor competence, as well as being one of the variables most easily overlooked when people explain behavior through gender.
Real Biological Differences
When challenging stereotypes, there is a temptation to swing to the opposite extreme, which claims that men and women are biologically identical. The evidence does not support this claim either. Men and women differ, on average, in body composition, muscle mass, strength, aerobic capacity and some aspects of thermoregulation. Those differences can matter in demanding environments. [1][2][21]
Heat and cold provide good examples. Research has identified sex-related differences in sweating, body morphology, and responses to environmental heat and cold. The differences are not as simple as “men tolerate heat better” or “women get colder.” Body size, body composition, metabolic heat production, clothing, hydration, acclimatization and hormonal factors all interact with environmental stress. [21][22] Indeed, a recent experimental study of men and women exercising for 90 minutes in 40°C heat found that men produced more metabolic heat and had higher sweating and cardiovascular responses, while changes in core temperature were similar between the sexes. [23]
There is a recurring theme in this field study. Different physiological responses do not necessarily produce different outcomes. Two bodies can solve the same environmental problem through different mechanisms.
Female Survival Advantages
Where popular culture exaggerates male advantages, it also creates an opposing myth that women possess secret survival superpowers. Women are sometimes portrayed as naturally more resilient, more cooperative, better at conserving resources, more observant, or more emotionally intelligent under pressure.
These characteristics have value. However, there is not good scientific justification for turning them into universal female survival traits. Human beings vary enormously within each sex. And cooperation, communication, patience and attention to detail are not biological property rights belonging to women.
They are human skills. The same can be said for aggression, courage, mechanical ability and spatial reasoning. Labeling them as masculine or feminine can become a self-fulfilling limitation.
The Appalachian Trail
Long-distance backpacking is particularly revealing. It combines many of the qualities people associate with wilderness competence. A prospective study of Appalachian Trail backpackers compared the experiences of men and women who hiked at least seven days. Among the 280 participants who completed the follow-up questionnaire, women and men reported broadly similar experiences with several categories of injury and illness. Women did, however, experience substantial menstrual changes during prolonged hiking, an issue that is often invisible in discussions of wilderness performance. [24] The study also found that men were more likely to reach their intended hiking goal in that particular cohort.
While this sample does suggest a real sex difference, the study does not demonstrate that men possess an innate “wilderness gene.” It does not establish that women are incapable of completing long-distance trails. It describes the outcomes of a particular group of experienced hikers undertaking a particular challenge. This distinction between a result and an explanation is essential.
Confusing Averages with Individuals
If a study finds that men score higher than women on a particular spatial-navigation test, it tells us something about populations. However, it tells us almost nothing definitive about the next man and woman we meet on a trail.
Why?
Because distributions overlap. Averages can differ while thousands or millions of individuals fall outside the average pattern.
The same is true for strength. The average man is stronger than the average woman in many measures of absolute strength. However, plenty of women are stronger than plenty of men. The same is true of navigation, risk tolerance, endurance, technical skill and outdoor experience.
This is why gender is a poor substitute for assessment. If we want to know who should carry the heavier pack, test load-carrying ability. If we want to know who should navigate, assess navigation skill. If we want to know who can lead a climbing pitch, evaluate climbing competence. If we want to know who will cope best with cold, consider clothing, acclimatization, body characteristics, fitness and actual environmental conditions. It is the measured capabilities of the individual that matters.
So, Who Wins?
The research does not reveal a single male “outdoor advantage” or a single female “survival advantage.” Instead, it reveals a collection of differences. Men, on average, have substantial advantages in absolute strength, power and speed. [1][2] Men also show average advantages on many measures of large-scale spatial navigation, although the magnitude depends on the task and environment. [8][9] Men tend to exhibit greater sensation seeking and some forms of risk-taking. [13]
Women can experience greater physiological strain during certain load-carrying tasks, particularly when loads represent a larger fraction of body mass. [3][6] At the same time, women have demonstrated fatigue resistance in some loaded-march research, and differences in physiological strain do not always translate into differences in task performance. [4] Women also face outdoor constraints that men may encounter less often, particularly concerns about personal safety, harassment, social expectations and access. [15][17][18]
Both sexes are affected by training, experience, equipment, confidence and the social expectations attached to gender. The resulting picture is considerably more interesting than the old battle-of-the-sexes story.
The Real Wilderness Test
Go back to the beginning. Imagine the same scenario again. A man and a woman are stranded several miles from the trailhead. The temperature is dropping.
One person knows how to navigate. One knows first aid. One knows how to construct a shelter. One understands the weather. One has more physical strength. One remains calm. Neither has all the skills.
Suddenly, the question “Which sex is better at survival?” becomes meaningless. Survival does not award points for masculinity. The mountain does not care who is supposed to be good with a map. A river does not care whether you are supposed to be brave. A storm does not care about gender roles. What matters is whether the people involved possess the knowledge, physical capacity, judgment, equipment and teamwork required by the situation.
There are genuine biological differences between men and women. Biology, however, is not destiny, and stereotypes are not measurements. The strongest conclusion the evidence allows is that men and women are different in some abilities relevant to outdoor recreation and survival, and neither sex can be reduced to those averages, and neither sex owns the wilderness. The most capable person in the backcountry is not necessarily the strongest man or the most cautious woman. It is the person who has prepared for the problem in front of them.
[1]: Nuzzo, J. L. (2023). “Narrative Review of Sex Differences in Muscle Strength, Endurance, Activation, Size, Fiber Type, and Strength Training Participation Rates, Preferences, Motivations, Injuries, and Neuromuscular Adaptations.” Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 37(2), 494–536.
[2]: Hunter, S. K., et al. (2023). “The Biological Basis of Sex Differences in Athletic Performance: Consensus Statement for the American College of Sports Medicine.” Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise. The consensus concludes that adult men are typically stronger, more powerful and faster than women of similar age and training status, with differences varying by event.
[3]: Lenton, G. K., et al. (2024). “A systematic review of the physiological and biomechanical differences between males and females in response to load carriage during walking activities.” Applied Ergonomics, 114, 104123.
[4]: O’Leary, T. J., et al. (2018). “Sex differences in neuromuscular fatigability in response to load carriage in the field in British Army recruits.” Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport. The study involved 23 men and 19 women completing a 9.7-km loaded march.
[5]: Larsson, H., et al. (2022). “Cardiorespiratory responses of load carriage in female and male soldiers.” Applied Ergonomics, 101, 103710.
[6]: Oliver, M., et al. (2022). “Biomechanical and physiological effects of female soldier load carriage: A scoping review.” Applied Ergonomics, 105, 103837. The review identified only 18 eligible studies and noted substantial gaps in occupationally relevant research.
[7]: Sessoms, P. H., et al. (2025). “Novel approaches to evaluate characteristics that affect military load carriage.” BMJ Military Health. The review emphasizes fitness, body composition, equipment characteristics and training as important determinants of load-carriage performance and injury risk.
[8]: Nazareth, A., Huang, X., Voyer, D., & Newcombe, N. S. (2019). “A meta-analysis of sex differences in human navigation skills.” Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 26, 1503–1528. The meta-analysis included 694 effect sizes from 266 studies and found an overall male advantage of approximately d = 0.34–0.38, with substantial variation by task and environment.
[9]: García-Navarra, S., Solares, L., & Mendez, M. (2026). “Sex differences in the use of spatial strategies in humans: An updated systematic review of the last decade.” Behavioural Brain Research, 508, 116227. The review included 21 studies published between 2014 and 2024 and emphasized the influence of task complexity, environmental familiarity, cognitive load and individual factors.
[10]: Dabbs, J. M., Chang, E.-L., Strong, R. A., & Milun, R. (1998). “Spatial Ability, Navigation Strategy, and Geographic Knowledge Among Men and Women.” Evolution and Human Behavior, 19(2), 89–98. The study found differences in navigation strategies, with men more often using abstract cardinal-direction approaches and women more often using landmarks and egocentric descriptions.
[11]: Campbell, S. M., & Collaer, M. L. (2009). “Stereotype Threat and Gender Differences in Performance on a Novel Visuospatial Task.” Psychology of Women Quarterly, 33(4), 437–444. In the experiment, women did not differ significantly from men when the gender stereotype was explicitly nullified.
[12]: Flore, P. C., & Wicherts, J. M. (2015/2016). “Does stereotype threat influence performance of girls in stereotyped domains? A meta-analysis” and related meta-analytic work on stereotype manipulation and spatial performance. The broader literature indicates that stereotype effects are variable rather than a universal explanation for spatial sex differences.
[13]: Cross, C. P., Copping, L. T., & Campbell, A. (2011). “Sex differences in impulsivity: A meta-analysis.” Psychological Bulletin. The analysis included 741 effect sizes from 277 studies and found higher male sensation seeking and behavioral risk-taking, while also finding sex differences in punishment sensitivity.
[14]: McLean, A., Spennemann, D. H. R., & Bonda, J. (2026). “An investigation of gender, parenthood, and marital status on perceptions and attitudes toward risk in outdoor recreation.” Journal of Leisure Research. The study analyzed responses from 3,241 men and 1,906 women and found that gender differences in outdoor risk attitudes varied with parental status and age.
[15]: McAnirlin, O., & Batts Maddox, C. (2020). “‘We have to be a little more realistic’: women’s outdoor recreation experiences in a community hiking group.” Annals of Leisure Research. The qualitative study identified vulnerability, navigation, cultural expectations and fear of being alone as important themes in women’s outdoor experiences.
[16]: Wesely, J. K., & Gaarder, E. (2004). “The Gendered ‘Nature’ of the Urban Outdoors: Women Negotiating Fear of Violence.” Gender & Society, 18(5). The study examined women’s experiences of fear, vulnerability and strategies for negotiating outdoor recreation.
[17]: Johnson, C. Y., Bowker, J. M., & Cordell, H. K. (2001). “Outdoor Recreation Constraints: An Examination of Race, Gender, and Rural Dwelling.” Southern Rural Sociology, 17, 111–133. The national recreation-survey analysis found women more likely to report constraints including personal safety, inadequate facilities and information, insufficient funds and outdoor pests.
[18]: Heuwinkel, K., & Pillmayer, M. (2025). “#MeToo in hiking activities — Which risks exist for (solo) female hikers? Methodological reflections to approach sexual harassment and gender-based violence.” Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism, 52, 100978.
[19]: Warren, K., & Loeffler, T. A. (2006). “Factors that influence women’s technical skill development in outdoor adventure.” Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning, 6(2), 107–119. The authors identify gender-role socialization, perceived competence, technical conditioning, sexism, spatial ability and risk-taking as interacting influences on women’s technical-skill development.
[20]: “An Examination of Wilderness First Aid Knowledge, Self-Efficacy, and Skill Retention.” The study examined participants in Wilderness Medicine Institute courses, including a mixed-gender sample of wilderness first-aid students.
[21]: Yanovich, R., Ketko, I., & Charkoudian, N. (2020). “Sex Differences in Human Thermoregulation: Relevance for 2020 and Beyond.” Physiological Reviews. The review examines sex-related differences in cardiovascular, thermoregulatory and heat-stress responses and emphasizes the importance of environmental and physiological context.
[22]: Giersch, G. E. W., et al. (2020). “Menstrual cycle and thermoregulation during exercise in the heat: A systematic review and meta-analysis.” Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport. The authors note that research on exercise in the heat has historically been heavily male-dominated.
[23]: “Sex differences in the thermoregulatory and cardiovascular response to exercise in hot environmental conditions.” American Journal of Physiology-Regulatory, Integrative and Comparative Physiology (2025). In a 90-minute treadmill-walking experiment at 40°C, men produced more metabolic heat and had higher sweating and cardiovascular responses, but core-temperature changes were similar between sexes.
[24]: “Gender Differences among long distance Backpackers: A prospective study of Women Appalachian Trail Backpackers.” The prospective study followed Appalachian Trail hikers and found broadly similar rates of several musculoskeletal problems and gastrointestinal illness between women and men, while documenting frequent menstrual changes among menstruating women during prolonged hiking.
