(no subject)

[garillama.livejournal.com]

It's only one study, but according to this article, there's no side effect for women skipping their periods while on the pill:

http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=15631


According to the article, the whole "3 weeks on, 1 week off" arrangement was only conceived so the Catholic Church would approve of the pill (they did, until 1968, but only for medical reasons, not BC). It was originally supposed to be sold by the bottle and taken continuously!


Very interesting...

Comments

[stratyllis.livejournal.com]

It lies. You need your period to build up bone density. Want osteoporosis later in life?

[garillama.livejournal.com]

Really, how? I've never heard that before. I know that Depo Provera (which pretty much stops your period/give you only 4 periods a year) can break down your bone density, but I was under the impression that the density loss is due to the high levels of progesterone in Depo, and not the skipping of periods.

[stratyllis.livejournal.com]

No, it's not having a regular hormone cycle that causes you to loose bone density.

[garillama.livejournal.com]

From the research I've done (and I'll admit, it's not very in-depth), the general consensus seems to be that it's the estrogen in your body that helps your bones absorb calcium and remain dense. As most forms of HBC contain doses of estrogen that are higher than that in your body (which is how they work), it seems that they might even have a positive effect on calcium absorption. That speculation is just my guess, of course. I don't have any sources to back it up.

The problem with Depo is that it's progesterone only, and doesn't dose you with estrogen. I feel rather one-tracked, always coming back to Depo, but that's the only one I've heard that has any effect on bone density. In fact, the government is apparently running clinical studies (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct/show/NCT00117260;jsessionid=C48A66E0E225A2074BA7EC81A00B0623?order=9) on whether Seasonale, the "four periods a year" pill can treat low bone density. I couldn't find any follow-ups on that, but according to the site, the study won't be done until August of 2007.

As for having a regular hormone cycle, being on hormonal birth control at all is already playing with that. As we all know, very few women fit with the perfect "average" 28 day cycle, so going onto a 28 day cycle with birth control messes with a woman's cycle. Also, from what I understand, the "period" is actually "withdrawal period," a result of not taking the hormones that week. I guess my point is that since it's not a "real" period, and not a part of the natural cycle anyway, it's shouldn't have much impact on the body.

Of course, I think that a lot more research needs to be done on this, as there's so much we don't know about hormonal birth control, and even women's bodies.

[bellabrigida.livejournal.com]

Eh. This is a crazy article. Most of it is opinion and someone with an obvious agenda and some weird thing about everything being a Catholic conspiracy or something about Big Brother.

Blah.

Periods or not, the cycle's been around for a while. It's got a purpose. Hell, we've only had hormonal birth control since the 60's. That gives us one generation on the pill, maybe two. Let's see what happens a few generations in.

[garillama.livejournal.com]

I saw it less as one big conspiracy theory and more as saying that, since the 28 day cycle of the pill is only an arbitrary schedule based on cultural ideals, there isn't much need for it.

I don't think that every woman should immediatly go out and get on birth control and never have a period again, I just think that a lot of women aren't informed that it's a choice at all, and feel that skipping periods is messing with nature. Being on birth control at all is messing with nature, it doesn't matter whether you're on a cycle of 28 days or 3 months.

Just my take on the article :)

[bellabrigida.livejournal.com]

I'm glad you didn't, but I suspect that's because you are capable of critical thinking. ;)

I'm not saying that you are saying is a conspiracy, but that this article has that very definite bend. That said, I don't know how much of it is cultural ideals versus an idea of natural biology.

Being on birth control is messing with nature, but it's messing with nature to a different degree. Having a different hormonal cycle that still has the same hormones, the same flux pattern, etc. is different than creating an entirely new cycle where things function differently.

It's an interesting article, all told, I just wish that it was from a more scientific standpoint than, "I'd rather not have my period and I asked 20 women and they said 'hell yes!'"

Blah. But either way, it's good to see something stimulating here than the usual period questions. It's good to have a little dialogue whether or not we all agreee, you know?

[garillama.livejournal.com]

I'm glad you didn't, but I suspect that's because you are capable of critical thinking. ;)

I do like to think so ^_^ Yes, the article was quite biased, but it IS The Stranger! I suppose I should have thought of that before I posted, but I just get so excited sometimes ;)

To me, going from regulating your cycle with birth control to skipping your periods doesn't feel like such a big step. Most women don't conform to the "average" 28 day cycle, so squeezing your body into that is a pretty drastic thing! And since, from what I gather, periods while on HBC aren't "real" periods, but "withdrawal bleeding" (they sure feel real enough to me, lol), they really don't seem necessary to me. Of course, that's completely personal, I know a lot of women have a personal attachment to their periods, and not getting one would be quite unsettling.

There was a one year clinical study on skipping periods in the article, but it did get rather buried under all of the shouting, I'm afraid :)

And I'm always up for a little friendly debate, provided it's open-minded and informed :)