The objective of this study was to validate two indirect methods for estimating the extent of menstrual blood loss against a reference method to determine which method would be most appropriate for use in a population of young adult women. Thirty-two women aged 18 to 29 years (mean +/- SD; 22.4 +/- 2.8) were recruited by poster in Dunedin (New Zealand). Data are presented for 29 women. A recall method and a record method for estimating extent of menstrual loss were validated against a weighed reference method. Spearman rank correlation coefficients between blood loss assessed by Weighed Menstrual Loss and Menstrual Record was rs = 0.47 (p = 0.012), and between Weighed Menstrual Loss and Menstrual Recall, was rs = 0.61 (p = 0.001). The Record method correctly classified 66% of participants into the same tertile, grossly misclassifying 14%. The Recall method correctly classified 59% of participants, grossly misclassifying 7%. Reference method menstrual loss calculated for surrogate categories demonstrated a significant difference between the second and third tertiles for the Record method, and between the first and third tertiles for the Recall method. The Menstrual Recall method can differentiate between low and high levels of menstrual blood loss in young adult women, is quick to complete and analyse, and has a low participant burden.