Seasonale--follow up

I thought there were other medications for bad cramping/periods? My sister takes them if she has a real bad month. She said it works great. I can't remember the name of it though. I haven't had a real bad month since HS and I didn't start BC until I was 22. I'm just very skeptical about these pills giving you only 2-3 periods a year. If it's not natural, I'm very wary of it. I know my being on BC is not natural either but I still get my period every month. I also know every women are different, too. Just be careful on these things, ok?? Have a GREAT weekend! Take care.

Lisa
 
Maximus, that is GREAT!!!!! I may consider this for my own health. My periods are back with a vengeance. x( There are certainly other options, but for me personally I would be most comfortable with OCs.

I understand the concern regarding secondary amenorrhea (amen is right for those with unbearable periods! :)), but women in the US experience an “unnatural” number of menstrual cycles and exposure to hormones when compared with women in less affluent societies. For example, women form an African tribe were found to experience 15 years of lactational amenorrhea, 4 years of pregnancy, and ONLY 48 lifetime menstrual cycles. Compare this to US women who have 450 total lifetime menstrual cycles. According the current research, several female reproductive health problems are linked to the frequent cycles, such as ovarian cysts, endometriosis, ovarian cancer, & uterine cancer to name a few. Just something to consider.

Take care!

Autumn
 
i understand the concerns people have about not having periods being not good for us. but take this into consideration. we have our periods because we release an egg every month and therefore build up the lining in the uterus. when on birth control, eggs are prevented from being released, and therefore the lining does not build up. it's like women on depo, it's been around a long time and people don't make a big deal that women on depo have no periods, but suddenly it different when it's done with a pill? it's not. and when women on depo have what we call 'depo periods' it is there body flushing what it needs to flush. in this case old blood. so basically, yes the hormones will stop your periods, BUT you body WILL flush out what it needs to flush out when it needs to flush it out. there is no big build up. hope that wasn't too confusing.
maddie
 
Autumn,
I'm sorry but I do not agree with you about U.S women and African tribe women. There's a HUGE difference. About 99% of africans don't really have nutrients therefore it causes them to have less periods. Look at the female gymnastics. They starve themselves so they can be quicker and lighter to win but their periods either never comes or is very late. Women in the US have a different lifestyle. We are spoiled when it comes to food, medicine, etc....These people do not have what we have. What about poor people in Mexico? South America? They have more food than Africans and have more babies. Also, we do not know what kind of herbs the African tribe women eat either. Sometimes herbs can do things to your body. I know some women have more hormones than others which causes for bad periods, etc.... I just don't like it when people compare US and other countries for something like this because their country is not like our country AT ALL. If you compared US to Germany, then it makes more sense. Know what I mean?

Hope you're having a great weekend. I have to get back to you soon. I've been real busy!

Lisa
 
Actually, it's not specifically a US thing at all. It's Westernized, modern society (including Germany, for eg) vs the more "traditional" (not a value judgement--just a convenient way to refer to it) society in which researchers *speculate* that the human reproductive system evolved. Although nutrition does play a role in the onset of puberty, as you point out, women in these "traditional" societies also get fewer periods because they tend to breast feed their babies for years--breast feeding can suppress menstruation. Women in more modern, Westernized countries, on the other hand, tend not to breast feed for years, and typically return to menstruating sooner after giving birth than do women in *certain* "traditional" societies.

So the long story short is that Westernized women--including American women--tend to have more years of menstruation than do women following more traditional living patterns. I don't think that those statistics are controversial--it's a straight comparison of Westernized women (US or otherwise) versus *certain* (not all) traiditional societies.

The controversial part is the theory that all those years of menstruation may be related to the health problems that Autumn relates because the human reproductive system wasn't designed for it, based on this comparison with societies that researchers theorize may closely represent the ancient way of life in which our reproductive systems evolved. They of course may be wrong about that assumption, but it's an interesting theory that might be worth considering in an attempt to find ways to reduce the incidence of these modern diseases. I don't know about women in South America--perhaps they live more modernized lives, even though they are poor. Or, it could be that they represent a different "traditional" way of life and it might be worth investigating their customs to see if we can leaern anything that might help solve these problems for women living a Westernized way of life. :)
 
What Bunbun said! :) It is widely accepted that exposure to hormones increases the risk for various diseases. In fact, I received an educational activity from USC that states "a variety of health problems ARE related to frequent ovulation and menstruation. These include increased risk of ovarian cancer, ovarian cysts, endometriosis, and anemia assoicated with hevy menses." It is also widely accepted within the gyn medical community that hormonal contraception reduces the risk of ovarian cancer (40-80%), endometrial cancer (50%), and anemia from heavy menses.

Hey Lisa! You'll have to take your argument to family planning experts. The information is from Speroff, Glass, & Kase the authors of Clinical Gynecology, Endocrinology, & Infertility. This is a text used by med students and one that was required for the NP program I attended, I rarely provide information that is simply MY opinion or summary of research and always cite when it is just that. Since this is often a required text, I would assume the points you have raised were considered before such stats would be included. I trust the authors since the rest of the information in the text is reliable as it is a foundation for family planning clinics.

The concern was regarding periods of amenorrhea and what is natural. My point was that the number of menstrual cycles, ovulations, and ovarian hormone exposure US women experience is not necessarily natural. It is a consequence of the society we live in that you describe as a different lifestyle. Yes, US women can decide when and if we have children, if we want to breastfeed, etc.

As for the African tribe women, I see your perspective, but that doesn't explain 15 years of lactational amenorrhea and 4 years of pregnancy (which would be 3.75 children if the pregnancy goes to term). You have raised some questions though. Can you site your statistic that “99% of africans don't really have nutrients therefore it causes them to have less periods”? Explain how they have 15 years of lactational amenorrhea? It stands to reason that if US women were "natural" we would spend most of our reproductive years pregnant & in lactational amenorrhea. :) This would limit the number of menstrual cycles.

How do the poor people in Mexico & South America relate to the number of natural menstrual cycles? This raises several questions before a comparison can be made. In the words of Bunbun, are these traditional societies? How many reproductive years? Life expectancy? How many lifetime menstrual cycles do these women have? How many years of pregnancy? How many years of lactational amenorrhea? Do these women have amenorrhea not related to lactation? What about the food? You say they have more babies, how is this important in this discussion? Do they have more babies because they don’t breastfeed therefore they don’t have lactational amenorrhea? How many more babies? Do they contracept? If there is amenorrhea not related to lactation, how many are overweight? This is only the beginning of questions that would need to be answered.

Anyway, the point is that it is not natural to have approximately 450 lifetime mentrual cycles.

Autumn :)

Edited to correct my stats. :)
 
We live in an industrialized country and I agree we can't be compared to less developed nations. What we know about nutrition is recently discovered. Not too long ago the average Joe struggled to be well-fed and the phenomna of obesity, and indeed bing poperly fed, is something new we need to deal with and understand.


From a simple biological standpoint, we are designed to procreate and taking contol of that has advantages and risks. Opting to have no children and few children is a fairly new phenmenon for women but biologically, it's what our bodies are meant to do and it takes a long time for the body to adapt these changes. Medical technology has given us contol but, again, with risks because we are interrupting the natural flow.

One of the risks of having children later in life, having no childen, as is common these days in the developed world, is the exposure to more etrogen over a life time. Historically women have spent most of their fertile years either pregnant or nursing. As a result, they averaged about 150 periods between puberty and menopause, compared with 400 in developed countries today. The Pill was introduced in 1960.

There are risks in using the Pill . Reducing the number of periods you have in a year exposes women to extra estrogen, and taking estrogen increases a woman's risk of suffering a blood clot or stroke--particularly if she smokes or has high blood pressure. Estrogen may also boost a woman's risk of developing breast cancer, that's still unclear.

Short of sterilization, the pill is the most effective method but as wonderful as fewer periods sound, I would have to think long and hard about reducing periods to 4 times per year. That said, I have never had symptoms which were as extreme as many women experience.

I also saw yesterday that men are at risk of having too much iron which can put the cardiovascular system at risk. Women have reduced risk because of menstruation. Women who reduce or eliminate periods need to watch their iron intake and be certain not to get too much.

I had a tubal in 1998 so pregnancy is not a problem and boy, it would be nice to not have a period but I remain commited to being as natural as I can. We are exposed to xenoestrogens in this polluted modern world and it's all much more complicated than we realize.

My caution is know the risks and take care to minimize other facators if you opt to elminate periods. Keeping the diet natural and minimizing exposure to environmental toxins, etc. All helpful if you decide it is worth it to give Mother Nature a kick in the pants!



Bobbi http://www.handykult.de/plaudersmilies.de/chicken.gif "Chick's rule!"

Tell me, what it is you plan to do with your one wild and precious life? Mary Oliver
 
Bobbi, it is so nice to "see" you on the boards. I always enjoy reading your posts! You raise legitimate concerns and questions. There is still much to be learned about the risks of OCs. For example, it is thought that a significant amount of women who experience blood clots while taking OCs is related to clotting factor mutations. It is also important mention that estrogen is not the only hormone women are exposed to during a menstrual cycle. There are benefits to using hormonal contraceptives and I encourage any woman to review the pakage insert to read the risk, benefit, side effects, etc. Perhaps I can accept the information regarding the African tribe based on everything else I have studied and read. I just don't want people to assume that I am throwing out one piece of text to support an idea. I have spent a little time studying this subject, and I strive to provide evidenced based information. ;) As I said, if it is my opinion or my summary of research I will state that, though I think I will stay out of these topics from now on, which I had planned to do but it is so difficult. :)

Rereading through these posts I thought amenorrhea unrelated to contraception should be addressed, as I would hate for someone to assume it is safe and healthy for any and all women to experience amenorrhea. If anyone experiences amenorrhea, you should see your health care provider. In some cases, such as PCOS, women may experience amenorrhea and exposure to UNOPPOSED estrogen (no progestin or progesterone to block estrogen). This UNOPPOSED exposure increases risk for various gyn diseases ie., uterine cancer. Take care and be healthy!

Autumn
 
Hi, Autumn. Sometimes I wonder if I don't confuse these things am much as clarify them. The study I cited was based on ancestral and aborigine studies. I find myself thinking about how much the world has changed and how quickly quite often in regard to women's issues. It's all so much more complex than studies can cover. I had my first child at 26 and nursed all three. From a biological standpoint, 26 is old and 3 children few. Thank heaven, I was not born when the average age for motherhood was around 13. Having the ability to control reproduciton is a huge issue for women and, I think, very important in light of the changes that have taken place in the last 40-50 years. Would that the evolution of our reproductive systems could keep up so that we should not have to face questions like these. Women's roles have changed drastically since the fifties but our bioloigical mechanisms need time to catch up. It is important to know that the Pill and controlling periods and the risk of pregnancy has it's risks as does delaying or opting against motherhood. Humans are but animals and biology has prerequisties in regard to procreation. Societal changes have delayed motherhood and, indeed, given the option to say no to motherhood and that is wonderful for empowering women but it has risk factors as unfair as that may be. In the end, women must do what works for them. I hope technology can give women safe, effective ways to control reproduction while minimizing the risks of changing what Mother Nature intended. You would think that old bag would be a feminist. Given time, she will be! :)
Bobbi http://www.handykult.de/plaudersmilies.de/chicken.gif "Chick's rule!"

Tell me, what it is you plan to do with your one wild and precious life? Mary Oliver
 
<Sometimes I wonder if I don't confuse these things am much as clarify them.>
Bobbi, I know I am guilty of this. It is difficult to discuss complex topics on discussion forums. Such topics are better left discussed in person.

I’ve had time to think, and I simply don’t agree that the comparisons cited aren’t applicable. The question/concern I was addressing was the safety and naturalness of select types of amenorrhea. I want to stress a few points in my original response.

1) 15 years of lactational amenorrhea is natural. Lactational amenorrhea is a result of breastfeeding… not poor nutrition or herbs. US women do not have 15 years of lactational amenorrhea because most don’t breastfeed for years. It is not because US women have better nutrition, access to medicine, etc.
2) Amenorrhea related to pregnancy is natural.
3) The 48 menstrual cycles during a REPRODUCTIVE lifetime means years of amenorrhea. Remember that US women have longer reproductive years. US women begin menstruating younger, have fewer pregnancies, breastfeed less, etc. The difference in our longer reproductive years is due to our lifestyle, but is this necessarily natural? Safe?

Basically, the uterus does not need to “flush” every 28 days… that sounds like the uterus is a toilet. :) Here are some links to information. The second link is interesting… especially “why 28 days?” and “what is natural?” It addresses the same points I would, so why rewrite it? ;)

http://thewelltimedperiod.blogspot.com/2004/07/skip-period-with-triphasic-pills-you.html
http://www.arhp.org/files/extregh&s.pdf
http://www.arhp.org/media/pressreleases/99-092.cfm
http://www.noperiod.com/FAQ.html

BTW, I am just sharing the evidence that is out there that your medical professional may refer to provide your medical care.

Autumn
 
"Doesn't the uterus hav to slough off eventually as no not have build up?"

No, it dosen't. As long as you take the Pill there is no uterine build up.

"I'm thinking there's a reason a women's body has periods."

Yes, there is: in order to allow a pregnancy to implant. If a woman doesn't want to become pregnant, there's no known reason to have a monthly period.

"I just don't know how you get around that chemically and why it hasn't been done until now."

It's been done since the advent of the Pill. For as long as a woman is taking the Pill (3 months, 8 years, etc.) she does NOT have a menstrual period. [The monthly bleeding episode experienced by Pill users is called withdrawal bleeding, and it's a fake period. It has nothing to do with the real period; it's a chemically induced bleeding.]
 
I never stayed with the Pill very long because it created a state of perpetual PMS and I always seemed extra neurotic on the Pill. Diaphrams are the worst! Do you remember the Today sponge? That episode of Seinfeld about being spong worthy? :) It was my perferred method and very effective for me until they took it off the market. And then along came that unplanned third child and a tubal ligation! I do think it's wonderful to be in control the way we can but I was never upset about not using the pill because I don't like the idea of manmade hormones either. Interestingly, when I had my worst bout of anorexia and dropped below 100 pounds on my 5' 7" inch frame, I never experienced amenorehea although I did at a point when I exercised like a maniac but kept my weight much higher than the low point.

To quote you: "The difference in our longer reproductive years is due to our lifestyle, but is this necessarily natural? Safe?" I agree with that since I am fascinated by the rapid change the Industrial Revolution has forced on us and know that there's no way we can adapt physiologically in such short time periods. So, while having 400 plus cycles may not be normal or safe, are there not consequences related to using manmade hormones to simulate the states our ancestors experienced as a matter of course? There may be a trade off there. I think for me, letting my cycle run its natural course, is preferable to using synthetic hormones and as far as I know bio-identical hormone therapies cannot be provided in the convenient form of the Pill because natural progesterone cannot be delivered orally. I know the doses have gotten very low but I remain fearful about synthesizing natural hormones. I swear there's a hippy living inside me! :) Do you think the Pill is completely safe even with the synthetic hormones? As dazzling as medical technology can be and as liberating, as controlling reproduction is, our bodies are so complex and it's my hope that we can have reproductive freedom free of risks borne of synthesizing the hormonal levels of pregnancy and lactation as it used to occur naturally. I loves my progesterone! :)

My mother had 15 pregnancies but in the 50's when most of her kids were born, bottle feeding became the preferred method and she did not nurse most of us. But she was pregnant for something like 11 years of her life. The rubber condom came along in the 1840s but it dates back thousands of years. I remember reading that sheeps bladders were used. We have come a long way! I think it's awesome to be able to exchange information like this. I have two teen daughters and it's exciting how different it is for them coming into young womanhood than it was for me in the late 70's and so, so different than it was for my mother in the late 30's, early 40's and as we all know, chick's rule and these are the most important discussions we can have. I think I am really lucky that my cycle is more of a nuisance than anything but it is impressive, I think, that I can spin my head a full 360 degrees for several days before it arrives. I could have starred in the Exorcist and saved them a ton of money on special effects! ;) I'm babbling, aren' I? Shutting up now! :)
Bobbi http://www.handykult.de/plaudersmilies.de/chicken.gif "Chick's rule!"

Tell me, what it is you plan to do with your one wild and precious life? Mary Oliver
 
Ugh, the last part of the text didn't came through:

[The monthly bleeding episode experienced by Pill users is called withdrawal bleeding, and it's a fake period. It has nothing to do with the real period; it's a chemically induced bleeding.]
 
Any woman who uses a [combination] hormonal bc method stops having periods for the entire time she uses the method. Since the patch and the ring are relatively new methods, we don't have enough long-term studies for these methods. However, for the Pill, we have over 35 yrs of f/u: no evidence Pill users risk health. On the contrary, evidence points to significant benefits: significant decrease in risk of ovarain, uterine cancer; decrease PID risk; improved bone density, acne; possible improved fertility; etc.
 
The comparison is not between countries; it's between types of societies (industrialized vs. agricultural, etc.) For example, researchers looked at the !Kung (nomadic), the Dogon of Mali (don't use bc), and the Hutterites of North America (have 10.6 children per family). Overall women in these societies experience their first period at around 16 yo, breastfeed their children for extended intervals (years), and have about 100 periods during their lifetime.

Compare this with the typical pattern of women in industrialized societies: first period at around 12.5 yo, no/less frequent breastfeeding (about 8 times/24 hrs, compared to 48 times per 12 hrs), and have about 450 periods during their lifetime.
 
"Medical technology has given us contol but, again, with risks because we are interrupting the natural flow."

Ironically, taking the Pill and eliminating the monthly period allows modern women to return to a more natural state of prolonged menstrual suppression.

"Reducing the number of periods you have in a year exposes women to extra estrogen,"

Not sure if you mean reducing the number of fake yearly periods in Pill users? If you do, then women aren't necessarily exposed to extra estrogen. It all depends on the regimen/dosage use (i.e., a regular regimen, higher dose Pill brand vs. an extended, low-dose brand).
 
I understand that. It's the type of hormones I have questions about, synthetic as opposed to bio-identical. As I understand it, and this may have changed since I have been sterile for 7 years and quit using the Pill early on because I felt strange when I was on it, the hormones are man made and I think natural is better, especially in the highly toxic world of the present. I avoid hormones and antibiotics in foods and all that jazz. I am playing the devil's advocate since I have never tried any of these newer pills and not getting pregnant was my only interest. Reducing the number of periods safely would be fabulous although I am no longer in danger of an unplanned pregnancy. So I guess it's the type of extrogen women are exposed to I question. The horse pee estrogens. How are the synthetics made and from what and how does that affect the body are my questions and it's difficult to find the answers because it's highly technical, the language is unfamiliar and it's confusing and raises as many questions as it answers. Stuff like that. :)
Bobbi http://www.handykult.de/plaudersmilies.de/chicken.gif "Chick's rule!"

Tell me, what it is you plan to do with your one wild and precious life? Mary Oliver
 
"Estrogen may also boost a woman's risk of developing breast cancer, that's still unclear."

Studies found that a woman's risk of breast cancer is increased if she menstruates frequently. [The theory is that the increased number of menstrual cycles increases the brest cells' exposure to the estrogen made by the body. Because estrogen accelerates breast cell activity, there is a greater risk of random genetic errors that can lead to cancer. Interesting theory.]

In contrast, some Pill users studies (1996) found that there is a slightly increased relative risk of breast cancer *diagnosis* in current Pill users compared to never-users, but that the increased absolute risk due to Pill use is extremly small. For example, over one year, among 10,000 women aged 25 to 29 who use the Pill, the number of breast cancer diagnoses would increase from 3.5 to 4.3.

In 2002, a large U.S. study found that for women aged 35 to 64 who use the Pill (both current and former users), there is no increased risk of breast cancer, even for Pill users with a family history of breast cancer.

"Short of sterilization, the pill is the most effective method"

Actually, implants, and the IUD are far more effective vs. the Pill.

"I would have to think long and hard about reducing periods to 4 times per year."

As I mentioned before, once you start using the pill, and for as long as you use it (years), you do not have a menstrual period. [Seasonale, and the other extended use regimen don't reduce the number of periods. They shift the frequency of the fake period; an entirely different proposition in terms of risks/benefits.]

"I also saw yesterday that men are at risk of having too much iron which can put the cardiovascular system at risk. Women have reduced risk because of menstruation. Women who reduce or eliminate periods need to watch their iron intake and be certain not to get too much."

Studies have shown that higher iron levels aren't associated with an increased risk of heart disease. Menstruating women are chronically iron-defficient/anemic; reducing/supressing the period only restores the balance. [No need to to watch iron intake unless you suffer from hemochromatosis--an inherited disease of excessive buildup of iron in various body organs. Too much iron can be toxic, but, because we can only absorb about 10% of the iron we take in, unless you have this gene defect, you can't accumulate iron.]
 
Less than 24 hours ago, Sanjay Gupta reported on CNN that there's a correlation between high iron intake and heart disease. I haven't searched out sources but I consider him credible and I stand by that caution. There are a number of studies that suggest that there is a correlation as well as some that don't. Too much iron is something I don't worry about but I might if I had fewer periods since, regardless of heart disease, it's not good to have too much of anything. Deficiency may be more common but you can get too much iron, including women who menstruate. The percentage of people who store too much may be low but it exists and in spite of having a very heavy menstrual cycle and a diet with little or no red meat, I have never been anemic Iron is not easily depleted. Ten percent may be all that is bio-available but it's still easy to come by particularly if you are conscious of your diet. Many people over eat sources of iron and over supplement and it's not just people with hemochromatosis. It may not kill them but too much of anything is not a good thing. Men and menopausal women are at risk for too high stores. I can't think of too many nutrients that can't be taken in excessively.

I find a correlation between iron and heart disease particularly interesting because heart disease, not breast cancer, is a much greater threat to women, so it bears mentioning. We could discuss heredity too but most women start their family history of breast cancer and it's not nearly as threatening as it seems to be. As I said, heart disease is a much greater threat.

IUD's can be expelled, cause perforations, infections and miscarriages. Remember, I come from a point of view that is going to suggest naturalness as much as possible. I think the Pill gives control and it's very simple to stop using it if it turns out to be wrong for a woman. Not so IUD's and Implants. I have known several women with the implants and they hated them and they wreaked havoc with hormonal balance and it was a pain in the behind to deal with the removal and the side effects were long lasting. I think the Pill is the BEST method short of sterilization. I should have said that rather than "effective" but neither IUD or Implant would have been something I would have chosen for myself for birth control. I am curious if a pill can be developed which completely simulates the natural way women's bodies once were not at risk of anything from disease to side effects. Still, I'll take now since my life expectancy is higher and I can control my reproducive destiny. I guess I should have clarified that and I was not thinking in terms of reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies thoughout this discussion anyway. I menstruate approximately every 29 days and if I opted to reduce the number of times my period came, whether or not it was "false period", I would call it a period as does my sister who uses the Pill. I am opting to continue my real menstrual cycle and not to have a false period every 4 months. I understand the distinction. I am not quite getting your point by point response to my post. Remember, we are expressing our opinions. Mine are based on information I have gathered and I do look for credible sources. I am not an anthropologist and, as Autumn pointed out, the subject is far more complex than discussion boards can fully cover. There is no real ideal method at this point. Controlling your cycle because it affects your quality of life and controlling it because you don't want children are different matters and this discussion is evolving as they often do.
Bobbi http://www.handykult.de/plaudersmilies.de/chicken.gif "Chick's rule!"

Tell me, what it is you plan to do with your one wild and precious life? Mary Oliver
 
"I am not quite getting your point by point response to my post."

:), no point, just force of habit.

Re high iron intake and heart dz: here's an overview study (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=8935217), a more focused one here (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12394323), and, last but not least, a very elegant coronary angiography study (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12616808)

"Deficiency may be more common but you can get too much iron,
including women who menstruate."

You can get too much iron if there's pathology involved; otherwise, for a healthy female it's not the norm. [The WHO considers iron deficiency the #1 nutritional disorder in the world. It affects more than 30% of the world's population--that's over 2 billion people--particularly women of reproductive age and preschool children. In the U.S. about 7.8 million teenage girls and women suffer from iron deficiency, of which 3.3 million have the more severe form (anemia).]

[WHO. National strategies for overcoming micronutrient malnutrition. Document A 45/3, 1992; WHO. Battling iron deficiency anemia. September 03, 2003; CDC. Recommendations to prevent and control iron deficiency in the United States. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, April 03, 1998/47(RR-3);1-36.]

"Deficiency may be more common but you can get too much iron,
including women who menstruate. The percentage of people who
store too much may be low but it exists"

True, but we're talking about representative (population) effects, not individual/exception to the rule ones.

"I guess I should have clarified that and I was not thinking in terms of reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies thoughout this discussion anyway."

Got it; I was referencing effectiveness. [Just one point about the IUD side effects you mentioned: they're very rare. Because of that, when you compare the safety of using an IUD vs. pregnancy, using an IUD has a better risk profile.]

"I menstruate approximately every 29 days and if I opted to reduce the number of times my period came, whether or not it was "false period", I would call it a period as does my sister who uses the Pill. I am opting to continue my real menstrual cycle and not to have a false period every 4 months."

Maybe I wasn't clear, allow me to try again. If a woman doesn't use the Pill, she has a menstrual period every, say, 28 days. If she uses the Pill, she suppresses the period: she stops having menstrual periods for the entire time she uses the Pill. What she has, while using the Pill, is withdrawal bleeding once a month. It doesn't matter what you call the real period and withdrawal bleeding; they're two distinct processes/mechanisms. If a woman is on the Pill, she cannot opt to continue her real menstrual cycles; she no longer has them [the Pill hormones inhibit the ovarian/uterine cycle necessary to cause a period.] The only thing a Pill user can do, if she wishes to, is to shift the frequency of withdrawal bleeding [since this bleeding isn't caused by the natural ovarian/uterine cycle, but rather by dosage manipulation of the exogenous Pill hormones, the Pill user can easily change its frequency by changing the Pill dosage/regimen.]

"There is no real ideal method at this point."

Could not agree with you more! This is why, when it comes to both pregnancy control, as well as period control, women need to be fully informed. The only way to insure a woman elects the method best suited to her unique needs is for her to have complete and correct information. [/soapbox]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Our Newsletter

Get awesome content delivered straight to your inbox.

Top