Reducing the frequency of menstrual periods

[neutrino_cannon]

http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/ANSWERS/2003/ANS01251.html


If the primary intent here is to reduce menstrual period frequency, why is it being marketed as a birth control pill?

[Prospero]

You're getting some facts confused. All birth control pills can effectively get rid of the menstrual cycle simply by skipping the placebo, which is what allows the period to take place while on the pill. This BC is nothing special except that they're marketing it for 12 week cycles as opposed to 28 day cycles. It's the same type of hormones and everything. They're just making a big deal out of something that's been somewhat common knowledge for years. If a woman were to entirely skip taking the placebo pills, she'd never have a period, ever. Here they're just extending it; nothing special. It is amsuing, however, that they're marketing it as something new and exciting.

[neutrino_cannon]

Aren't all oral contraceptives based on the same group of hormones?

I bow to your superior knowlege, do continue.

[HopkinsMedStudent]

Originally posted by neutrino_cannon
Aren't all oral contraceptives based on the same group of hormones?

I bow to your superior knowlege, do continue.

Yes. oral contraceptives use a combination of progestin + estrogen.

These hormones stimulate the pituitary gland to release less FSH (follicle stimulating hormone) and LH (luteinizing hormone).

FSH and LH are required for ovulation, so the pill effectively suppresses ovulation.

The pill also reduces glycogen storage in the endometrium, inhibiting the wall of the uterus from transforming into its usually highly perfused, thickened state. This inhibits attachment of the embryo to the uterine wall.

[Wyvern]

This isn't any different from typical BC pills except that they're eliminating the placebo tablets for two months. You can do the same thing with your current pills. Your gynecologist will tell you that. She will tell you that if you're going on vacation - or some other special event - and you want to skip a period, just skip the placebo's that month.

I have no idea if this could be harmful in any way. I haven't heard anything negative but I also don't know if there is any long term research. Do you medical or bio people have any info?

This new pill is just marketed "new" to get customers and money. It's good that you brought this up. This is the perfect place to discuss it.

[MoeFaux]

No, it's not harmful to skip a period.
This new pill may actually be something new and not just a marketing ploy. The hormone levels may be different.
In some cases, if you were to skip the placebo pills on a "regular" pill, you may still have a little spotting. This new pill may just have altered the hormones enough to eliminate that.

[Dilettante]

There's some evidence that the harm attributed to birth control pill actually comes from having more periods than a woman not on the pill would be expected to have statistically. In societies without birth control women have far fewer periods over a lifetime. Women with some medical conditions (or very low body fat) may not even get periods, and that isn't what they complain about.
It may be very healthy not to have periods at all.

[Chareen]

Gosh, if you go to the doctor for only having 4 periods a year they put you on birth control to force monthy periods siting increased risk of uterine cancer due to lack of menses. Hmmm... me thinks they just like to play with menstration. Kind of like man taming fire maybe?

[kitsune]

Women are supposed to have periods. Most doctors don't worry if you are on a regular quarterly cycle. I've had several doctors try to poo-pooh my own gynecological problems with the "well, it's perfectly to healthy for a woman to have a period once every 3 months".

I do know that when doctors stop periods for any length of time, they usually limit it, unless the woman has a hysterectomy. I'm not entirely sure why, though.

Ah Dunno. Sounds interesting, and sounds like it could be beneficial for some women.

[Eos of the Eons]

Not having 12 -14 periods a year wil not increase any type of cancer. Women used to have like one a year...and after having a kid and nursing them, they could go years without having one. If you nurse a kid up to 3 years, then you could go 3 years without having a period.

I hate them. They are smelly and messy and wreck my clothes. Not only that, but intimacy during that time is tougher because you are feeling icky and bloated and have some form of pms.

4 times a year sounds like a paradise to me! I'm trying to get off the pill though by having another tubal ligation. I'll see what that does to my periods. It caused them to quit altogether last time because I got pregnant. I had only 1 period that year, 3 and a half weeks after my tubal.

sighs.

[Chareen]

Well, I'm going to stick with my doctor's advice on that all the same. I never had regular periods, I went from age 16 to 27 having one light period a year *if* that often. Seems to me that is potentially dangerous. Though I agree actually having periods is disgusting. My first real period after going on the pill had to be one of the worst experiences of my life.

[Eos of the Eons]

Well, that's certainly not good if you want to have kids, but yours is a condition that is unusual can't really be compared to what happens to women when they take the pill.

[Chareen]

True, That is very much a concern I have. Doc says that fertility clinics are great for people in my situation. But I'm not in the social situation currently that I need to worry about concieving anytime soon.

I don't know if I agree that my situation is different. At least not concidering how doc explained it being that the lack of shedding of the uterine lining is what increases the risk for uterine cancer. Seems to me that the cause of no menses wouldn't make a difference. I could see that irregular hormone levels might cause problems but my hormones are at regular levels, they just don't cycle properly.

[Eos of the Eons]

Well, then I'm jealous:D

Hmm, which doc? Are there some papers you can point us to? I just never really thought about, and it is just not covered in my anatomy text.

[Chareen]

The doctor is my primary physician. Just typical neighborhood doctor. I've not seen any specialists about it.

I do not have any information except what was provided by the doctor. I can look around on the net though. I'd be interested to find out if doc is full of malarky. I'd sure like a good excuse to come back off the pill and go back to no periods.

This being a woman is for the birds.

[exarch]

I'm definitely out of my leage here, but just a few thoughts:

First of all, there is a lot of speculation going on about what does and does not cause cancer, so if that is the only reason to subject yourself to a dozen 4-day sets of pain and discomfort a year, I would suggest finding out if it's really worth it.

Also, if you seem to be getting 1 light period per year, wouldn't it make more sense to try and induce a period ever couple of months (if such a thing is possible ofcourse), rather than trying to force your body into the "normal", regular pattern?

I know a few women who say that without the pill their period is very irregular and much worse, but I can imagine that it isn't an improvement for everyone.

[Dr. Imago]

Originally posted by Chareen
Gosh, if you go to the doctor for only having 4 periods a year they put you on birth control to force monthy periods siting increased risk of uterine cancer due to lack of menses. Hmmm... me thinks they just like to play with menstration. Kind of like man taming fire maybe?

There is some evidence that not having your menses or having menses without ovulating increases the risk of uterine cancer, not decreases it. Essentially, you're manipulating estrogen levels in the body. This is going against what nature wants to do. Of course, this isn't by itself a bad thing.

Every month, your uterine lining sloughs off. Any potentially bad cells in there essentially get "washed out".

I'm not convinced that this new pill, although convenient both for sexually active women as well as men, is a good option. Longitudinal study will tell. Could be bad, could be good. No one really knows at this point. Short term data says it's okay, thus the approval.

My advice: Play with your endocrinology at your own risk.

-TT

[Cleopatra]

Do less menstrual circles mean less PMS effects?

What I am asking is if a woman chooses to skip a circle does it mean that she won't suffer from the PMS syndrom during this particular circle?

[Eos of the Eons]

You get pms because you suddenly have a drop in progesterone in order to lose the uterine lining. If you aren't getting your period you aren't going through this fluctuation-thus no pms until you do stop taking the pill in order to get this drop that leads to menses.

Progesterone is what maintains your uterus until an egg gets fertilized. Then HCG from the baby maintains it, and I don't know what stops your period while nursing-the non rise of LH and FSH due to breastfeeding?

[Chareen]

Exarch: I agree, and concidering oxygen is a free agent I think we are all doomed.

Third: I did say increase. When you say some, how much, how credible and how much of an increased risk is there?

Cleo: I can only speak from my own experience from when I was not on the pill, I only got full PMS when I would also menstrate, though I would get very light symtoms at various times. I only assume that is because my hormones were off cycle. I don't think that would happen with someone who was on a drug which regualted the hormones.





Originally posted by Cleopatra
Do less menstrual circles mean less PMS effects?

What I am asking is if a woman chooses to skip a circle does it mean that she won't suffer from the PMS syndrom during this particular circle?

[Cleopatra]

Ok thank you.

Here is the next question. Why should we intervene in our nature? Since the females of our species have a 28 days ( the most common) circle, why do we attempt to reduce those circles if there is no pathological reason?

[LuxFerum]

to make the pharmacy industry happy

[exarch]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Here is the next question. Why should we intervene in our nature? Since the females of our species have a 28 days ( the most common) circle, why do we attempt to reduce those circles if there is no pathological reason?I thought they found that women living closely together started having synchronozed menstrual cycles.
Women studying bonobo monkeys in a Belgian zoo found that they even synchronozed with the bonobo females. Obviously, there must be a powerfull advantage for a group to have all its females go through it at the same time that it can even affect different species.

[Eos of the Eons]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Ok thank you.

Here is the next question. Why should we intervene in our nature? Since the females of our species have a 28 days ( the most common) circle, why do we attempt to reduce those circles if there is no pathological reason?

Hey, where did my post go?

I'll try again.

There was the point that females are cycling now more than ever in the history fo humanity. They also never cycled for long periods at a time due to pregnancy and nursing. After they started cylcing again, they got pregnant again.

I'll use my mom as an example. She went into pre-mature menopause at 40 because there was no man around.

How natural is it to be cycling continuously?

[exarch]

Originally posted by Chareen
I can only speak from my own experience from when I was not on the pill, I only got full PMS when I would also menstrate, though I would get very light symtoms at various times. I only assume that is because my hormones were off cycle. I don't think that would happen with someone who was on a drug which regualted the hormones.I think PMS and menstruation are both the result of your hormones going wild. The pill keeps the hormones on a steady level, and so you'll neither have menstruation or the accompanying PMS while inbetween cycles.

(Edited to add: but who am I to think I know it all, right?)

[Eos of the Eons]

It's not the hormones going wild. When the egg is released there is the corpua luteum that produces the progesterone that keeps the uterus intact until a certain number of days is up or the egg is fertilized.

If no egg is fertilized the progesterone drops as the corpus luteum stops producing the progesterone.

This drop, and how much, can affect women. I'm not sure why it affects some more than others, or how some seem to stay more balanced at this time of progesterone drop, but it is surely that time when pms starts and then ends as another egg matures and another corpus luteum starts producing more progesterone.


In the case of the pill, the progesterone drops after the 21 days-when women start taking the sugar pills or stops taking them altogether for seven days.

The progesterone drops for them just like the progesterone drops for women not on the pill.

Hormones gone wild? No, just not being there.

The uterine lining is maintained by the progesterone. When it drops, the lining is shed.

It doesn't shed when the corpus luteum is gone during pregnancy because the hormone HCG is produced once the egg is fertilized and the blastocyste attaches to the uterine lining and all that.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons

There was the point that females are cycling now more than ever in the history fo humanity.

And how that is explained? Is it because we live longer so the fertility period is prolonged or it's because we give birth to less children?

They also never cycled for long periods at a time due to pregnancy and nursing. After they started cylcing again, they got pregnant again.

I think that this is exactly what Nature requires from species;to breed!

I'll use my mom as an example. She went into pre-mature menopause at 40 because there was no man around.

I am not sure I got this. Do you mean that this happened to her because she breeded only once?

How natural is it to be cycling continuously?

What do you mean continuously? I thought that it was the most normal thing. Skipping a circle is the indication that something is going wrong ( unless you are pregnant of course).

exarch, yes this is true, I don't know how the picture changes with different species livining together but women that live in the same environment tend to synchronize their circles. Poor Arabs! :)

[Eos of the Eons]

Eh? The doctor told her that hormones are affected when man hormones are no longer around as you get older. This allows the female body to begin menopause sooner than women with a man around. My mom was ticked off, and she had 3 kids when my dad was around and they were married.

I'm wondering about the comment about 'necessary to breed'. Well yeah. BUT when a woman is nursing she doesn't cycle, and when pregnant she doesn't cycle, and THAT made for very few cycles in her lifetime.

Now we cycle a whole heck of a lot, and that has never happened before. So how can it be 'natural' to be cyclying so much in our lifetimes now? It just didn't happen before.

Sure something is wrong when a cycle is skipped when not pregnant or nursing. But cycles never happened as much for women as they do now because of the said reasons.

Continuous cycling is a modern phenomena due to women having control over their fertility. That's all good, but we have to look at having x amount of continuos cycles we have now compared to all the other women in history who had wayyyyy less cycles.

This 12 cylces in a year was never happening to women before because most women did get married and have children without any control over their fertility. Having 12 cycles in a year would have been unusual.

So that said, we WERE historically maintaining uteruses for much longer in a given year than we are now. Old maids stopped cycling sooner than married women then and now.

So, we are having more cycles now than ever before in our lifetimes, so how can that be considered natural? 4 in a year is statistically more in with what women historically had, if not much less (like 2 cyles in 3 years).

[Chareen]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Ok thank you.

Here is the next question. Why should we intervene in our nature? Since the females of our species have a 28 days ( the most common) circle, why do we attempt to reduce those circles if there is no pathological reason?

I would say, because we can.

In my case, supposedly it's to reduce my risk of cancer. For the average woman... ??? I don't know. I don't like messing with my cycles even for a good reason, though, I know plenty of women who would love to reduce the frequency of their cycles. I don't agree that it's a good idea.

[exarch]

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons
It's not the hormones going wild. When the egg is released there is the corpua luteum that produces the progesterone that keeps the uterus intact until a certain number of days is up or the egg is fertilized.

If no egg is fertilized the progesterone drops as the corpus luteum stops producing the progesterone.

This drop, and how much, can affect women. I'm not sure why it affects some more than others, or how some seem to stay more balanced at this time of progesterone drop, but it is surely that time when pms starts and then ends as another egg matures and another corpus luteum starts producing more progesterone.

-- snip --

It doesn't shed when the corpus luteum is gone during pregnancy because the hormone HCG is produced once the egg is fertilized and the blastocyste attaches to the uterine lining and all that.I guess I had the basic idea right then. The pill introduces certain hormones, the moment those are no longer present, all hell breaks loose :)
I guess that would also explain why certain women have different responses to different types of pill (using progesterone or HCG) and the lack thereoff during the placebo period.

But if the claim is that not shedding the Uterine lining every so often is bad, so why is this not a bad thing when a woman is pregnant (and it doesn't get "shed" for almost 10 months?

[Eos of the Eons]

Originally posted by exarch
I guess I had the basic idea right then. The pill introduces certain hormones, the moment those are no longer present, all hell breaks loose :)
I guess that would also explain why certain women have different responses to different types of pill (using progesterone or HCG) and the lack thereoff during the placebo period.

But if the claim is that not shedding the Uterine lining every so often is bad, so why is this not a bad thing when a woman is pregnant (and it doesn't get "shed" for almost 10 months?

Exactly my point too! Historically women maintained their linings a heck of a lot more compared to now (prenant and nursing) for years at a time, not just 4 months at a time. So why is it considered not natural to maintain them nowadays?

[Cleopatra]

Eos of the Eons

I see. One more question. What time frame are we talking about? When you say that now we have more circles than the past where do you place this past? Are you talking about our grandmothers maybe?

Chareen

I am always talking about the average woman. I agree with you; interfering in the Natural process just out of convenience doesn't sound right to me.

I cannot forget a woman from Chile I have met in England, she was a victim of extreme tortures. She has told me that while she was imprisoned she was talking courage by the fact she didn't stop menstruating, meaning that she felt that her health wasn't that damaged.

I have heard similar stories from my grandmother and her friends, women that have survived concentration camps; it's amazing how something that is a "messy" situation for us is an inspiration of courage to other women.

[exarch]

Originally posted by Chareen
I would say, because we can.

In my case, supposedly it's to reduce my risk of cancer. For the average woman... ??? I don't know. I don't like messing with my cycles even for a good reason, though, I know plenty of women who would love to reduce the frequency of their cycles. I don't agree that it's a good idea.I'm discussing menstruation with a bunch of women, I must be insane :)

There are a lot of people who take medication to restore chemical imbalances to counter all kinds of psychological afflictions, so why would it be bad to even out your hormone levels and reduce the monthly cycle to a three-monthly cycle? There's probably a much higher risk for cancer when regularly going to a tanning salon than to take the pill. I get the impression that a lot of people out there (christian right maybe?) are trying to make up reasons against it because they disagree with allowing a woman to control her own body for the same reason they don't like condoms or other birth control systems.

Noble as their intentions may be, in the end they're only hurting a lot of people.

[Eos of the Eons]

Yeah, I'm talking about before the era of the pill. And I'll tell you, not cycling due to pill taking is not the same at all due to health concerns (not enough food, trauma, etc.) It's just not the same.

And I'll also turn it around in that women trying to conceive are not at all relieved by their periods because it could mean they have no eggs at all. That is a huge concern. You can also cycle while under a certain amount of stress, but getting pregnant under that same stress is much harder. It's a safety catch, not getting pregnant while under such stress, it wouldn't be good for the baby. Having the period isn't the best indication of good health.

So you can look at it one way or another, but what is the real concern here about cycling 4 times a year. I just can't really see it. I'm also all for it, and would be willing to be guinea pig #1 all the way :D

There's probably a much higher risk for cancer when regularly going to a tanning salon than to take the pill.

I don't think you're insane exarch, your interest is admirable and I think you're clearly very smart.

Add to the salon-smoking, dieting, etc. There are much worse things than cycling 4 times a year.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons
Yeah, I'm talking about before the era of the pill. And I'll tell you, not cycling due to pill taking is not the same at all due to health concerns (not enough food, trauma, etc.) It's just not the same.

Yes I understand that.

So you can look at it one way or another, but what is the real concern here about cycling 4 times a year. I just can't really see it. I'm also all for it, and would be willing to be guinea pig #1 all the way :D

I am so conservative that I can make you scream! :)

Also, I am against interventions in Nature not for religious reasons, of course, exarch! I am against such practices the way I am against Genetically Modified Products, for example.

[Dilettante]

I get the impression that a lot of people out there (christian right maybe?) are trying to make up reasons against it because they disagree with allowing a woman to control her own body for the same reason they don't like condoms or other birth control systems.

Noble as their intentions may be, in the end they're only hurting a lot of people.

I'd like to suggest the science fiction story "Even the Queen", by Connie Willis. It's available in a lot of anthologies.

Cleopatra,
I hope you're not against eyeglasses too, are you? I jist fimd thqt O cam't tupe as wel; witjoyt thrm/

[exarch]

Originally posted by Dilettante
I'd like to suggest the science fiction story "Even the Queen", by Connie Willis. It's available in a lot of anthologies.

Cleopatra,
I hope you're not against eyeglasses too, are you? I jist fimd thqt O cam't tupe as wel; witjoyt thrm/Good point, what about health (light) food and products, and food additives and vitamins?

I'm sure there's far more unhealthy stuff to eat than salad or tomatoes that were genetically altered so they don't die at the first hint of cold, or have less problems with worms or insects.

Just because mankind intervened and improved on something nature made doesn't mean it's automatically going to end bad simply because we "had the audacity to think we could do it better". Maybe we can do it better, in case of genetically altered products it's mostly giving evolution a helping hand, not DNA resequencing or anything. And you're not going to develop mutations from eating it.

Heck, even using soap to wash yourself is going against nature, because in the beginning, there was only water, and no clothes either ...

[BillyJoe]

Cleopatra,


...um.....what's a menstrual circle?


and......um......should we be drinking unpasteurized milk as well.....straight from the cow?


BJ:cool:

[Cleopatra]

1.Glasses : We use glasses to correct an error , an abnormality in the function of the eye--visual focusing in our example.

2. Food supplements: We use vitamins and supplements in order to cure pathological symptoms like anaemia we don't intervene, we use them to bring the levels of iron in blood back to normal, for example.

I think that the consumption of vitamins with no particular reason has accepted severe criticism lately.

3.Pasteurized milk : Animals don't produce milk in order that humans consume it, you know...

The breast milk doesn't need to be pasteurized. If people want to consume products that are intended to feed other species I guess that they have to intervene in the Nature but this is not what we are discussing here.

The examples all of you brought are not about interfering in Nature but about correcting an anomaly.

We are not discussing here about the use of such a pill as a therapeutic method, we are talking about reducing periods to healthy women.

If such a pill is not used to correct an anomaly or to cure an illness then it's a clear intervention to Nature.

[Eos of the Eons]

We intervened with nature with the pill and are having more periods than we ever were intended to have. In that, we can use the pill to bring the amount of periods we have in our lifetime closer to what was 'normal' (since I'm taking it anyway).

So if I'm taking it anyway to get so many periods in my lifetime, it makes sense to stop doing that and take the pill so that we get clsoser to what is normal and probably more healthy (considering loss of blood and pms EVERY month hardly feels healthy) 4 times per year.

If you're not taking the pill and are fine with more periods and another method of birth control, then that's fine. I am on the pill and am tired of the every month rollercoaster that drives me and therefore everyone else in the household crazy.

:)

[MoeFaux]

Everything I've read says that stopping your cycle with the pill is safe and may even be better than menstruating.
If you'd like a good read about the female body that talks a bit about this, I suggest "Woman, an Intimate Geography" by Natalie Angier, a pulitzer prize winning author.
It's a very pleasant read and it has a lot of great informaiton.

[Eos of the Eons]

Thank you! I love great references, and I've never heard of that author before

[exarch]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
2. Food supplements: We use vitamins and supplements in order to cure pathological symptoms like anaemia we don't intervene, we use them to bring the levels of iron in blood back to normal, for example.

I think that the consumption of vitamins with no particular reason has accepted severe criticism lately.I'm not talking about that kind of food additives, I'm talking about colorants and taste enhancers. Things called E621, E627, E631, beta-caroteen, etc... and that's just from the side of a packet of instant soup. Most of our food is loaded with stuff like that, and I don't know if there's anything "natural" about them.