Blog of the Society for Menstrual Cycle Research

Coming Off The Pill: A Mind Map Guide

March 7th, 2012 by Laura Wershler

Everybody can use a good map to help them get to where they’re going. Why not women heading to the land of non-hormonal contraception?

In my post on January 11, 2012 I asked if coming off the pill was a growing trend. I proposed to write a series of posts about the issues associated with the decision to stop using hormonal birth control.  For the purposes of this discussion assume that “coming off the pill” refers to quitting any method of hormonal contraception including the pill, patch, ring, shot, implant or Mirena intrauterine system.

As I was preparing a list of possible topics, I realized that one way to represent the complexity of issues involved in this decision is with a mind map: “a diagram used to represent words, ideas, tasks, or other items linked to and arranged around a central key word or idea.” It also occurred to me that readers could then add to this schematic, filling in important points based on personal or professional experience. So I got out my colored markers, did a little brainstorming and came up with Coming Off the Pill: Mind Map 1.0. I invite readers to comment, offering additions under the key headings I’ve noted and suggesting other categories that should be included.  Could this become a talking, planning or process guide for women considering the transition to non-hormonal birth control methods?

If you’ve thought about or been through the experience of quitting hormonal contraception, or if you’ve helped others through the experience, please contribute to the development of Coming Off The Pill: Mind Map 2.0 by posting your comments and suggestions. (I’ve already thought about other headings I could have included.) Besides providing me with a guide for writing future posts, what other ways can you imagine this mind map might be used?

Post to Twitter Post to Plurk Post to Yahoo Buzz Post to Delicious Post to Digg Post to Facebook Post to MySpace Post to Reddit Post to StumbleUpon

Sex Ed for Teens: Where’s the Mucus?

February 24th, 2012 by Laura Wershler

Guest Post by Lisa Leger

Teen girls are getting pregnant, in part, because they don’t understand their menstrual cycles. It’s time for sexual health educators to step up and teach girls the primary sign of fertility.

A recent report by The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on teen pregnancy in the U.S., based on a survey of close to 5,000 young mothers who got pregnant unintentionally, found that half of them had not used birth control.  When questioned further, a third of those said that they didn’t think they could get pregnant. Their reasoning ties in with previous research findings that girls who get pregnant in their teens have misconceptions about their menstrual cycles. They don’t seem to understand how ovulation works and are failing to correctly identify the fertile days in their monthly cycles.

Photo by Acaparadora // CC-BY-SA-2.5

My colleagues in sexual and reproductive health education should take notice. These findings reveal a knowledge gap in sex education: Teens don’t know about the easy-to-spot sign of fertility that precedes ovulation – cervical mucus secretions. Let’s fix it by adding one simple phrase to our sex ed classes: “When you have mucus, you can get pregnant.”

We would also need to explain the ovarian cycle, how estrogen promotes cervical mucus production, the role of mucus in sperm survival and how to check for it. This is arguably among the most useful information young women and men could receive before leaving high school.

If girls had this knowledge then I believe that at least some of them would more accurately identify fertile days in their cycles and at least some unintended pregnancies would be prevented. When a girl knows that mucus on the toilet tissue means she is fertile and able to get pregnant, she may be empowered to avoid intercourse, insist on a condom if she has sex, or know if she needs to seek out emergency contraception. Or she may decide to just hang out with her girl friends. I’m not saying that fertility awareness is a magic wand. Of course, many factors influence our decision-making. But teens are capable of making wise choices when they have accurate information on which to base them.

I’ve talked to many public health nurses throughout my 20-year career as a fertility awareness instructor. They usually quibble about the effectiveness of fertility awareness as a birth control method and seem reluctant to mention the existence of cervical mucus for fear that “a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing.” They worry that some students, if taught fertility awareness, might screw it up, thinking they were “safe” when they were not. But the CDC report tells us that garbled understanding about how ovulation works is doing more harm than good.

I hasten to reassure my public health colleagues that I am not proposing we teach teenagers natural birth control. What I’m proposing is the awareness part, that we correct this critical gap in teenagers’ knowledge by explaining that mucus is an obvious sign of fertility.

I won over my local sex educator to this idea by showing her the evidence-based Justisse Method of Fertility Awareness User’s Guide. She now teaches the meaning of mucus in her ovulation lessons.I predict her students will benefit. When they feel that slippery wetness when wiping, they will remember that it has something to do with being fertile. When they see clear, stretchy mucus on the tissue, they will know it’s a fertile day. It seems obvious that reducing confusion about the fertile phase would result in fewer unplanned pregnancies among girls who are currently confused about when they’re safe and when they’re fertile.

Instead of withholding useful information about what cervical mucus means, let’s tell teens that avoiding sex when they observe mucus can prevent pregnancy.

SMCR member Lisa Leger teaches the Justisse Method of Fertility Awareness & Body Literacy and is a Natural Health Consultant on Vancouver Island.

Post to Twitter Post to Plurk Post to Yahoo Buzz Post to Delicious Post to Digg Post to Facebook Post to MySpace Post to Reddit Post to StumbleUpon

Is Coming Off the Pill a Growing Trend?

January 11th, 2012 by Laura Wershler

The Internet abounds with articles, posts and forum discussions about coming off the birth control pill. Women are looking for information and advice. Many are trying to get pregnant, others are just done with hormonal contraception.

It’s a topic that interests many of us connected to the Society for Menstrual Cycle Research (SMCR) because of

Created at an a menstrual arts and crafts event, Andrea, 25, said this piece depicts the multiple emotions she feels around menstruation. Photo by Laura Wershler

how the pill and other forms of hormonal contraception impact the menstrual cycles of the women who take these medications. Some of us are experts in menstrual cycle function and dysfunction, most are advocates for healthy, positive menstrual cycle experiences from menarche to menopause.

A recent blog post at nomoredirtylooks.com on the topic of quitting the pill caught our members’ attention.  Re: Cycling blogger Elizabeth Kissling included the post in Weekend Links on November 19.

A young woman in Paris was looking for advice and comments from other blog readers about how to manage the effects of coming off the pill. Siobhan O’Connor, the blog co-editor, shared Paris girl’s story with a graceful, inclusive invitation to readers:

There’s no judgment—implicit or explicit—on anyone who is on or has been on birth control pills. Some people love them, some people have to take them for medical reasons, some people abhor them. Here, we want to talk candidly about what happens when you go off them. Because, whoa. That can be hectic.

The post drew over 80 comments, with a few coming from SMCR members. What struck me was how many women:

1)  had already ditched the pill or were planning to
2) expressed a desire for the return of regular, normal menstrual cycles
3)  were concerned about their skin (it often breaks out after quitting the pill).

SMCR member, endocrinologist and guest blogger Dr. Jerilynn Prior answered the concerns about acne and bad cramps in a comment posted on November 22, and included a link to Centre for Menstrual Cycle and Ovulation Research website where readers can find information about all things related to menstrual cycle health.

Holistic Reproductive Health Practitioner Geraldine Matus, another member, commented on November 26 that it was concerns and experiences like those expressed by posters that prompted her and colleague Megan Lalonde to write the guide: Coming Off the Pill, the Patch, the Shot and Other Hormonal Contraception.

I invited No More Dirty Looks readers to visit this blog to learn more about the menstrual cycle and the issues raised by their online discussion.

Regular visitors to re: Cycling know that we cover a broad range of topics, but bloggers frequently address hormonal contraception as it relates to women’s health issues.

Check out this sampling from the re: cycling archive:

Several of the women who responded to the Paris girl post at nomoredirtylooks.com expressed eagerness to reclaim healthy, ovulatory menstruation and a willingness to learn how to  manage their fertility without the aid of hormonal contraception.

I’ll read for the cure, but I won’t drink the pink Kool-Aid

October 19th, 2011 by Laura Wershler

OPINION

Every October it’s the same thing:  Buy pink, think pink, drink the pink Kool-Aid.  All in pursuit of (mostly) the cure for breast cancer.

Forget the cure. I’m much more interested in preventing the disease. As such, I’ve refused for years to walk or run for the cure to breast cancer. Not only am I concerned that too little of the money raised by such events is being spent on prevention research, I also don’t like what can only be called the commodification of breast cancer.  For more on this check out thinkbeforeyoupink, a program of Breast Cancer Action.

In addition to these concerns, I find some of the breast-cancer fundraising and awareness-building activities being promoted this year to be nothing short of cringe-worthy.

I certainly won’t be attending boobyball 10 next month.  This auspicious event is put on by Rethink Breast Cancer, a Canadian non-profit geared to building awareness in the under-40 crowd. Too bad Rethink’s booby fetish seems more appropriate for the under-12 set.

And I won’t be wearing an “I love boobies” bracelet anytime soon.  Nor will students at a middle school in Kelowna, British Columbia, where the bracelets were recently banned because the message was deemed “offensive.” I’d ban the $3.99 over-priced plastic wristbands just for being silly.

The bracelets, along with other silly “I love boobies”  promotional products, are sold by keep-a-breast.org, the mission of which “is to help eradicate breast cancer by exposing young people to methods of prevention, early detection and support.”

Although I’m sure both of these organizations mean well, I want to scream, “Enough already!”  I know I don’t fit either org’s demographic, but still, enough already.

What I will attend, this evening, and with some hesitation, is the inaugural Read for the Cure event in Calgary.  For $90 I’ll enjoy wine and nibbles, hear three Canadian female authors read from their work, and take home three books by these featured writers.

Marina Endicott is one of three featured authors at Read for the Cure in Calgary, Alberta on October 19.

Read for the Cure is a Canadian endeavor launched in Toronto in 2006 by two women from the same book club who had recently completed treatment for cancer.

“Acknowledging the important role of reading in their lives, and the wonderful support they had received from their fellow members during their treatment, they saw an opportunity to harness the energy of enthusiastic book clubs and readers to raise funds for cancer research.”

I love books, I love my own book club, and I’m going to the event with a dear friend whose mother died of breast cancer.

While breaking my self-imposed boycott of cancer-related fundraising events, I plan to ask a few questions of my fellow attendees:

What’s your take on the mammography screening controversy?

Are you aware of the connection between healthy ovulatory menstruation and breast health?

What do you know about vitamin D and cancer prevention?

I’m also hoping to engage representatives from the Alberta Cancer Foundation and the Cancer Research Society — the two recipients of the event’s proceeds — in discussions about the current research projects they’re funding.  Do they know about the Breast Cancer Prevention Study being conducted by Grassroots Health to explore the association between vitamin D levels and breast cancer?

Tonight, my drink of choice will be red wine. Here’s to a fun evening.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Post to Twitter Post to Plurk Post to Yahoo Buzz Post to Delicious Post to Digg Post to Facebook Post to MySpace Post to Reddit Post to StumbleUpon

Hold the Eggs When Ovulating

August 11th, 2010 by Elizabeth Kissling

Fascinating new research from the National Institutes of Health finds that women’s cholesterol levels correspond with cyclic changes in estrogen levels. Total cholesterol levels can vary by as much as 19% over the course of the cycle.

The researchers found that as the level of estrogen rises, high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol also rises, peaking at the time of ovulation.

In a typical cycle, estrogen levels steadily increase as the egg cell matures, peaking just before ovulation. Previous studies have shown that taking formulations which contain estrogen — oral contraceptives or menopausal hormone therapy — can affect cholesterol levels. However, the results of studies examining the effects of naturally occurring hormone levels on cholesterol have not been conclusive. According to the NIH’s National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute, high blood cholesterol levels raise the risk for heart disease.

. . . .


In contrast, total cholesterol and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels — as well as another form of blood fat known as triglycerides — declined as estrogen levels rose. The decline was not immediate, beginning a couple of days after the estrogen peak at ovulation.

These findings provide another reason for girls and women to learn to track their cycles, so their blood tests can be interpreted more precisely.

It also gives more weight to the frequent assertion of members of the Society for Menstrual Cycle Research that menstruation matters — and is worthy of our study — in part because it is not an event isolated in the uterus and vagina, but a complex part of the endocrine system that has effects on health and well-being throughout a woman’s body.

Post to Twitter Post to Plurk Post to Yahoo Buzz Post to Delicious Post to Digg Post to Facebook Post to MySpace Post to Reddit Post to StumbleUpon

New Technology, Same Mistakes

July 22nd, 2010 by Elizabeth Kissling

Screen shot from iOvulation appWe’ve written previously about some of the apps for tracking menstruation and PMS, but this new iPhone/Pad app for tracking ovulation is problematic.

iOvulation is an application that calculates the time of ovulation and generates your personal fertility calendar. Simply enter the length of your menstrual cycle and the date of your last period, and iOvulation will calculate your fertile days.

The web site suggests it useful both for trying to conceive and for trying to prevent conception. However, I wouldn’t recommend the latter, as its algorithm appears to predict ovulation based on dates of menstruation: “The ovulation dates are calculated based on normal menstruation calculation logic for women having regular periods.”

In other words, it perpetuates what Toni Weschler, author of Taking Charge of Your Fertility: The Definitive Guide to Natural Birth Control, Pregnancy Achievement and Reproductive Health and Cycle Savvy: The Smart Teen’s Guide to the Mysteries of Her Body, labeled the two biggest myths about menstruation in this interview with Scarleteen: (1) the idea that ovulation occurs on Day 14, and (2) A normal menstrual cycle is 28 days.

Also of interest is how squeamish the creators appear to be about sex and reproduction: the web site refers to “unprotected i*********e” and notes that the probability of conception is calculated “based on your ovulation time and other factors such as lifespan of the egg and s***m”. (For those of you unaccustomed to the practice of concealing obscenity with asterisks, that’s “intercourse” and “sperm”.)

As someone who studies and teaches sociolinguistics and writes about menstruation, I’ve seen a lot of euphemistic language over the years. But marking intercourse and sperm as unfit for print is a first.

Post to Twitter Post to Plurk Post to Yahoo Buzz Post to Delicious Post to Digg Post to Facebook Post to MySpace Post to Reddit Post to StumbleUpon

Does your birth control method stop your cycle?

April 20th, 2010 by Chris Hitchcock

It’s starting. With the approaching 50th anniversary of the birth control pill, there will be a flood of anniversary celebrations and reviews of birth control methods. Which is good. We should have those discussions more often. Just say “no” (on the part of parents who don’t want to hear about it) is a big contributor to unwanted teen pregnancy.

Today’s Wall Street Journal is running an article called The Birth-Control Riddle. The riddle is apparently the high rate of unwanted pregnancy, despite the availability of a range of effective birth control methods. And, as befits the Wall Street Journal, each birth control method is accompanied by a price tag, so you can make an informed consumer decision.

But what I noticed was that there is no real awareness of what we at SMCR feel is an important consideration: Does your birth control method stop your cycle?

Some methods do – they deliver progestins and/or estradiol in high enough doses to act on the parts of the brain that normally make the hormones that talk to the ovaries that stimulate growth of a follicle, then trigger its release. This is a complex, whole body system, that normally we only notice because of uterine effects (that would be menstrual bleeding or pregnancy). And as a culture we have fairly casually accepted the idea that it is optional, and perhaps even optimally replaced by a pill made by a drug company.

When addressing the (no longer so) new extended use cycle-stopping contraceptive options, the WSJ glibly explains that “Experts say there is no health reason that women need to have a period if they are not ovulating or building up uterine lining each month.” In other words, so long as your uterus is not endangered (by pregnancy or endometrial cancer), there is no worry. Never mind that both estrogen and progesterone act on receptors throughout the body (bone, skin, blood vessels, brain, gut, breast), or that the synthetic estrogens and progestins don’t quite act in the same way, and we don’t quite completely understand how yet. And it’s just a change of schedule, so what difference can it make that your tissues are stimulated for 12 (or 52) weeks at a time instead of 3 before they get a break?

The problem is, with changes in the schedule of delivery and the reduction in hormone-free time, we really won’t know whether there are any consequences for a while. Oral contraceptives are taken by healthy young women, so the base rate of problems is low, and you need large numbers to measure the rates of serious side effects. I haven’t heard any further about the post-marketing surveillance studies for blood clots (venous thromboembolism) that the FDA asked Lybrel to conduct following its 2007 approval. But those 5-year followup data should be out around 2013. It will be interesting to see whether they are published, or just submitted as a report to the FDA. I’m guessing that will depend on whether the company likes the story they tell.

Will the new PMDD please stand up?

February 21st, 2010 by Chris Hitchcock

The American Psychiatric Association has pushed back their timeline for the 5th version of the Diagnostic and Statistics Manual. The new psychiatric bible was originally scheduled to come out in 2011, but has now been delayed to 2013 .

Initial drafts have been posted to the web page, but the controversial and provisional (that is, not yet officially accepted) diagnosis of premenstrual dysphoric disorder (PMDD) does not yet appear ready for comment. Which is a shame, because traditionally SMCR and its members have had a lot to say about PMDD, and we’re looking forward to the opportunity to consider and critique its new incarnation. Here’s a recent post as an example.

PMDD was first introduced in the DSM-III-R as Late Luteal Phase Dysphoric Disorder. The “late luteal” was meant to include cycling women who did not bleed, for example, those with a hysterectomy but preserved ovaries, but was criticized because “luteal phase” implies ovulation, and assessing ovulation was not part of the diagnosis.

Paula Caplan (e.g. this article) and other members of the SMCR were vocal in their challenge to the psychiatric label. Paula Caplan wrote a book about her experiences with the DSM process (They Say You’re Crazy), and the SMCR produced the following position statement:

June 2001 / Resolution #1: PMDD and Sarafem
Whereas the Society for Menstrual Cycle Research has since 1977 been the pre-eminent organization that focuses on scientific research on the menstrual cycle;

Whereas there is no empirical evidence that there is premenstrual illness that is separate or different from other forms of depression or anxiety or responses to stressful life circumstances;

Whereas there is good empirical evidence the Premenstrual Dysphoric Disorder does not exist;

Whereas the widespread use of Sarafem and related drugs results in both the masking of real causes of women’s suffering and the production of negative drug effects;

Therefore, be it resolved the the Society for Menstrual Cycle Research calls upon the Food and Drug Administration

a) to reconsider its approval of Sarafem for the treatment of “Premenstrual Dysphoric Disorder” and

b) to enjoin Eli Lilly from airing or publishing advertisements for Sarafem to lay and professional audiences until such reconsideration is completed.

In the end, The FDA approved Sarafem (Prozac, re-colored lavender and repackaged, with a brand new patent and a new lease on life) for the treatment of this newly minted psychiatric disorder; a panel from the European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products declined to follow suit, recognizing that PMDD was not a widely accepted diagnostic label in Europe, and concluding that

There was considerable concern that women with less severe premenstrual symptoms might erroneously receive a diagnosis of PMDD resulting in widespread inappropriate short- and long-term use of fluoxetine [Prozac].

Psychiatrists in the USA require an official DSM label to be paid by insurance companies for the services they provide to women with cyclic mood issues; insured treatment-seeking women in the USA require those who hold the medical purse strings to recognize their distress. And having an entry in the DSM meets both of those needs.

Here are some points that I think are helpful to start a discussion:

  1. We acknowledge that some women, at some times in their lives, experience significant increases in negative mood and physical symptoms around the time of menstrual bleeding, that for some these changes are extreme and seriously interfere with their lives, and that this experience needs to be recognized and treated.

Time-limited opportunity! Don’t delay!

February 2nd, 2010 by Elizabeth Kissling

Cartoon: I can't believe I forgot to have childrenThere’s been quite a bit of internet buzz during the last week or so about a study conducted at University of St Andrews and Edinburgh University by Tom Kelsey, in which he and his colleagues develop a computer model of how a woman’s supply of eggs declines over time. The scaremongering accompanying news reports of this study is reminiscent of the 1980s kerfuffle about how women over 40 were more likely to be killed by a terrorist than to be married. Some headlines are proclaiming “Women lose 90% of eggs by age 30″ and advising women who want to be parents to act quickly. Some are even recommending fertility screening analogous to cancer screening.

Before you ladies under 30 rush off to get impregnated, let me point out a few things. First, this study is a computer model. It is not definitive evidence that women cannot conceive after 30. Second, there has been ongoing new research in the last several years that suggests mammals may be able to produce new ova, contrary to conventional doctrine that females have a fixed reserve of egg cells enclosed in the ovaries at birth. Although there are many skeptics, there is still a great deal that is unknown about how the ovaries work.

Third, it only takes one egg cell to make a baby.

Post to Twitter Post to Plurk Post to Yahoo Buzz Post to Delicious Post to Digg Post to Facebook Post to MySpace Post to Reddit Post to StumbleUpon

Definitions That Fall Short

January 11th, 2010 by Chris Bobel

The Boston Women's Health Book Collective, 2005. Simon & SchusterThe definitive women’s health sourcebook, Our Bodies, Ourselves written by the Boston Women’s Health Book Collective  is undergoing revisions for its 40th anniversary (and 9th) edition. Lots of folks in the women’s health community are involved in the revision and that’s a good thing—multiple voices, multiple perspectives.

I am among those reviewing  the chapter on Sexual Anatomy, Reproduction, and the Menstrual Cycle in collaboration with others, such as health educator and activist,  Esther Morris Leidolf, founder of  the MRKH organization (MRKH=Mayer Rokitansky Kuster Hauser Syndrome, a.k.a. congential absence of the vagina) For years, Esther has been nudging me to be more inclusive in my research, writing and teaching of people with variant sexual anatomy. And she did it again.

While reviewing the content on MENOPAUSE in this chapter, she questioned the definition of this biosocial transtion used (that is, the cessation of menstruation, specifically, 12 months after the last menstrual period (LMP)).

She asked: What about women who don’t menstruate?

What about women who may not have vaginas or others with variant sexual anatomy that prevents menstuation. Many of these women still  experience other menopausal symptoms, such as hot flashes and mood swings.

Our current definition of menopause excludes such women and that’s a problem; it leaves women who do not menstruate OUT.

The assumption of menstruation for ALL women is a pervasive problem and it runs deep.

Culturally-speaking it is common to collapse womanhood with menstruation. But there women who don’t menstruate (there’s some athletes, anorexics, women on continuous contraception, and post-menopausal women as well as those with variant sexual anatomy, as referenced above) and the list goes on). And they are still women, of course. And there’s gender queer folks, intersex folks and transgender women who do not menstruate, too.

In other words, not ALL women menstruate and not ONLY women menstruate.

This overlooked fact leads us to sloppy definitions that exclude. I want to be more mindful of this. Defintions are helpful, even imperative–they help us make sense of our world. But they also draw boundaries that quickly become fences that keep people out.  That’s another, even bigger problem and one that cannot be easily resolved. Still, as Esther wisely points out, its important to be ever mindful of how we define ourselves and others.


Post to Twitter Post to Plurk Post to Yahoo Buzz Post to Delicious Post to Digg Post to Facebook Post to MySpace Post to Reddit Post to StumbleUpon

Early menarche, late menopause and breast cancer – what’s the whole story?

December 10th, 2009 by Laura Wershler
Mammograms showing healthy (left) and (right) cancerous breast. Courtesy of the National Cancer Institute.

Mammograms showing healthy (left) and (right) cancerous breast. Courtesy of the National Cancer Institute.

Can having too many menstrual cycles give you breast cancer?  That’s what one might conclude from two unrelated articles that appeared in national newspapers this week.

First was Nicholas D. Kristof’s Op-Ed in the New York Times. Kristof had recently attended a symposium exploring whether certain common chemicals are linked to breast cancer and other ailments. The role of estrogen – both the real thing our bodies produce and the pseudo-estrogens – in breast cancer was his major example.

The real thing:

One theory starts with the well-known fact that women with more lifetime menstrual cycles are at greater risk for breast cancer, because they’re exposed to more estrogen. For example, a woman who began menstruating before 12 has a 30 percent greater risk of breast cancer than one who began at 15 or later.

The pseudo-estrogens:

One class of chemicals that creates concern — although the evidence is not definitive — is endocrine disruptors, which are often similar to estrogen and may fool the body into setting off hormonal changes. This used to be a fringe theory, but it is now being treated with great seriousness by the Endocrine Society the professional association of hormone specialists in the United States. …These endocrine disruptors are found in everything from certain plastics to various cosmetics.

(Do you ever wonder, like I do, why the birth control pill is not considered an ‘endocrine disruptor’ when that is exactly what it is?)

The second mention of the connection between too many periods and breast cancer came in dietician Leslie Beck’s Food For Thought column in Canada’s Globe and Mail. She was reporting on a new study showing that women with breast cancer need not shun soy:

By acting like weak forms of the body’s own estrogen, some experts have worried that soy isoflavones could possibly promote cancer growth.  That’s because certain risk factors for breast cancer, such as beginning your menstrual period before age 12 or starting menopause after 55, are related to the length of time breast cells are exposed to the body’s own circulating estrogen. It’s thought that estrogen can promote the growth of breast cancer cells.

It’s reasonable to think that the both the writers and readers of these articles (and the many more that have surely mentioned this connection) might assume from this information that too many menstrual cycles means too much estrogen, therefore too many menstrual cycles must be a bad thing.  What they don’t know is that not all menstrual cycles are created equal. It’s not necessarily about quantity, it’s about quality.

Common belief is that all menstrual cycles are ovulatory. (Unless, of course, you are using a hormonal birth control method that suppress ovulation like the pill, patch or ring.) In other words, the assumption is that if get your period you must have ovulated. This assumption is challenged by UBC endocrinolgist Jerilynn Prior, MD, and Scientific Director of the Centre for Menstual Cycle and Ovulation Research (CeMCOR). In her article Is Ovulation (and are normal Progesterone levels) Important for the Health of Women?, Dr. Prior has this to say about the connection between ovulation, menstruation and breast cancer:

Use of Birth Control Pill Declining in Canada

November 25th, 2009 by Elizabeth Kissling

re:Cycling readers may be interested in this story in the current issue of Macleans about the declining interest in oral contraceptives among Canadian women, particularly among women in their 20s who’ve been using The Pill for a decade.

[O]ral contraceptive prescriptions in Canada levelled off in 2008, reports pharmaceutical industry analyst IMS Health Canada. Health care workers are seeing a growing demand for non-hormonal methods. Spurred by concerns about their health, the environment, or even frustration with family doctors, who sometimes seem to push the pill as a modern-day cure-all, Canadian women are looking for other options.

The report echoes a couple of recent discussions here at re:Cycling, such as our guest post from Holly Grigg-Spall and Laura Wershler’s response, guest post from Moira Howe about the quiescent uterus, and discussion of risks of YAZ.

And Dr. Jerilynn Prior, scientific director of the Centre for Menstrual Cycle and Ovulation Research (and past president of the Society for Menstrual Cycle Research) is quoted in the article: “There’s an emotional identity attached to achieving your own menstrual cycle, and being able to read your body,” she says. “When you’re on the pill, it’s the doctor who’s controlling your cycle. You don’t own it.”

It’s good to see this issue getting some attention in mainstream media.

[via Sexual Health Access Alberta]

Post to Twitter Post to Plurk Post to Yahoo Buzz Post to Delicious Post to Digg Post to Facebook Post to MySpace Post to Reddit Post to StumbleUpon

Readers should note that statements published in re: Cycling are those of individual authors and do not necessarily reflect the positions of the Society as a whole.