Which?’s menopause review puts libido, testosterone and supplement claims in context. Read its main findings, limits and practical questions.
On 29 October 2026, Which? published a consumer review of menopause claims as an episode of The Health Reset. It brought together discussion of low libido and other symptoms with questions about hormone replacement therapy (HRT) and supplements. Its central value is a distinction that can get lost when symptoms and products share the same page: recognising a concern is not the same as proving a treatment works.
The episode covers perimenopause and menopause through expert interviews and findings reported by Which?’s researcher. For readers sorting through claims about sexual wellbeing, it offers a way to separate an experience worth discussing from a promise that needs evidence.
A change in desire need not be dismissed because a product claim is weak. Equally, taking that change seriously does not make every proposed hormone or supplement an appropriate answer. Those are separate questions throughout this update.
The episode features NHS GP Dr Amir Khan and consultant dermatologist Dr Emma Wedgeworth alongside Which? nutritionist and research lead Shefalee Loth. Erica McKoy presents the discussion, with Loth credited as principal researcher and writer.
The scope is broad: libido sits alongside sleep problems and anxiety as well as discussion of HRT and supplements. Collagen and creatine are also covered. The format combines clinicians’ accounts of symptoms and treatment choices with a consumer researcher’s assessment of product claims.
The product sample matters for understanding the review. Loth says Which? examined about 26 menopause supplements and 80 active ingredients. Those figures describe the scope of the product assessment.
That structure gives the episode two jobs: explaining concerns that may arise around menopause and examining claims made about possible solutions. Keeping those jobs separate helps make sense of the findings.
Dr Amir Khan told Which? that testosterone may be considered for women with low libido after other approaches have not worked. He said the evidence does not support its use for many other menopause symptoms discussed in the episode, including brain fog. That is a narrower claim than presenting testosterone as an answer to menopause generally.
Dr Emma Wedgeworth drew attention to sexual discomfort. She noted that pain during sex or recurrent urinary infections can affect willingness to have sex. She also raised vaginal oestrogen as a possible subject for discussion with a healthcare professional.
These points place desire and comfort in the same conversation without treating them as the same thing. A useful distinction is whether the concern being discussed is interest in sex or discomfort that affects willingness. Both deserve clear language rather than being folded into a single hormone claim.
Loth reported limited evidence for many of the supplement ingredients reviewed. She also said some products contained ingredients at levels that did not match those used in clinical trials. An ingredient name on a label therefore needs to be connected to the actual claim and the research behind it.
Loth said some supplements in Which?’s review cost up to 20 times as much as similar standard multivitamins. The practical question raised by that comparison is what evidence supports the additional expense. A menopause label alone does not answer it.
Wedgeworth told Which? that she sees no good evidence for oral collagen as a skin treatment and does not routinely recommend it to her patients. This part of the discussion concerns skin claims rather than sexual desire. Keeping the promised outcome in view is important across the episode.
Which?’s publication is a consumer review with expert commentary. It is not a newly published clinical trial or a formal treatment guideline. It does not report a patient population or a follow-up period for measuring treatment outcomes.
The retrieved article provides a transcript and selected review findings rather than the underlying clinical studies or a full methods report. It does not include a complete product list or product-by-product dataset. That limits independent checking of the supplement assessment.
The reported price comparison applies to some products in the review rather than the entire market. Limited evidence for ingredients does not establish that every supplement is ineffective for every person or purpose. Likewise, Wedgeworth’s collagen assessment is a practitioner’s view rather than a complete systematic review supplied in the article.
The discussion of testosterone supplies no trial-level effect estimates and does not show how likely a particular person is to benefit. Nor does the transcript establish a single cause for sleep problems or anxiety. These are important boundaries between acknowledging a symptom and showing that a proposed treatment changes it.
For libido, the episode itself identifies discomfort as another influence on willingness to have sex. Its format does not measure the relative contribution of hormones and other factors. The sound conclusion is a broader conversation rather than a precise explanation for any reader’s experience.
The US Office on Women’s Health lists sleep problems and mood changes alongside genital and urinary symptoms as possible menopause concerns. That supports Which?’s wider symptom picture. It also provides a useful comparison with a discussion focused only on libido: sexual concerns can sit within a larger set of experiences.
On HRT, the Office on Women’s Health says benefits and risks depend on factors including age and health history as well as the formulation used. Which?’s discussion of different HRT preparations fits that individual approach. Neither a blanket claim of safety nor a blanket claim of unsuitability captures that guidance.
The Grove Medical Group’s NHS page similarly lists sleep problems and anxiety or low mood among possible menopause experiences. It includes vaginal dryness and discomfort during sex. The overlap matters because the consumer review is most useful when read alongside established symptom information rather than as a replacement for it.
For sexual wellbeing, this is also a reason to keep comfort distinct from desire. The source discussion supports asking about both rather than assuming one word describes the whole concern.
The practical value of the review is a clearer set of questions, not a decision about which treatment to use. A troubling change in desire can be discussed as a concern in its own right. The Which? episode gives room for that conversation without making libido a test of how well someone is managing menopause.
A clinical discussion can include what has changed and whether discomfort is also present. The Grove Medical Group’s NHS information advises speaking to a GP about symptoms that are new or worrying or affecting daily life. Individual treatment choices belong in that discussion with a qualified healthcare professional.
When a treatment claim appears, the first question is which outcome it addresses. Evidence about skin is not evidence about libido. A discussion of one sexual concern is not support for claims about every other menopause symptom. Our guide to assessing testosterone evidence offers further context for reading those distinctions.
For supplements, the review points towards specific questions rather than broad confidence or blanket dismissal:
These questions are about assessing a claim. They are not instructions to adjust a dose or choose a product. In particular, a higher price should prompt a question about supporting evidence rather than settle a health decision.
There is also value in putting a desire change in context before attaching a treatment label to it. Describing the concern clearly leaves room to discuss comfort and other symptoms alongside interest. It avoids making a product the starting point for a conversation that is really about wellbeing.
Return to the page where symptoms sit beside treatments. Read it as two separate questions: what concern deserves attention, and what evidence supports the proposed response? Which?’s review is most useful when it helps readers keep both in view.
Naming a libido concern and identifying the evidence behind a treatment claim give a discussion two clear starting points. Sexential’s writing helps adults aged 35 to 65 make sense of desire and arousal through calm explanations that connect biology with real-life context, keeping general education separate from personal medical decisions.
Follow Sexential for thoughtful guidance on desire, sexual function, hormones, confidence, relationships and intimacy. Explore new articles and evidence-aware resources for sexual wellbeing across adulthood.
Learn how blood flow, nerves, hormones, medicines and emotional context shape erections, and what clinicians may assess when changes persist.
An October 2026 editorial links erectile concerns with broader health assessment. Read how its argument fits EAU guidance and clinical evaluation.
Learn why researchers measure desire, arousal, comfort and satisfaction separately, and why midlife screening scores are not personal diagnoses.
Explore practical resources on desire, function, hormones, confidence, intimacy and sexual wellbeing.
Read the Blog
