seasonal birth control pill- only 4 periods a year? healthy

[Angela Mac]

I have just seen an advertisement for a new birth control pill, that promises only 4 periods a year (break through bleeding occurs also). But how can this really be healthy? It just doesn't sound logical to me & surely it must do something foul to the reproductive system. OB/GYN is not my speciality, but this does not sound like a healthy choice to me. Appreciate input- please

[HmarieD]

The commercial says "Who says you have to have 12 periods a year?"

Ummm.... Mother Nature?

[Junebugfairy]

the commercial says "who says you have to have 12 periods a year?"

ummm.... mother nature?

with "mother nature" a woman ovulates, and then her uterine lining thickens to hopefully accept the fertilized egg.

on bc pills, except for certain mini pills and the iud/other non hormonal methods, a woman does not ovulate. the uterine lining does not build up, and a woman does not really need to bleed.

the only reason a woman has a period on bc pills is because she stops using hormones. a bc pill period is nothing more than a 'withdrawal bleed'..it is not a 'real' period.

i personally use a non hormonal iud, i love it, i cannot use hormones at all.

fir many years, women with endometriosis or painful periods have been advised by their doctors to skip periods to reduce pain and bleeding. this concept is nothing new, it is newly publicized though.

[blondy2061h, MSN, RN]

I've been skipping the placebo pills and only getting 4 periods a year since I was 18. My gyn said it's fine. I'm sure some will disagree.

[NotFlo]

I'm just wondering if it's really worth the risk of very serious side effects (heart attack, blood clots and stroke) to take the pill for the sole reason of only having periods four times per year.

I can see it might be worth the risk if you actually need to take it as a form of birth control, or have endometriosis or something, but just to skip periods? Not for me!

[cardiacRN2006, ADN, RN]

Not having that many periods sounds great but it does make one wonder about the consequences our body will suffer. The thing I would like to emphasize is that your period helps your body get rid of unfertilized eggs. If the pill is stopping ovulation then one would think that a period is not needed. I wonder though...does it really hurt the body? I mean, wouldn't one think that the lining of your cervix and such would increase in thickness and hence make pregnancy and delivery complications? I wonder if the FDA has checked into that?

Usually, your body only selects one (maybe 2) of a thousand eggs to mature and ovulate each cycle. This egg bursts out of your ovaries and travels down out fallopian tubes. The egg is about the size of the period at the end of this sentance.

However, your period is not to help your body get rid of eggs, lol. Your body prepares for pregnancy each cycle. Technically, you are pregnant on your first day of your period, which is cycle day 1. If it doesn't get the appropriate amount of progesterone from your ovaries, then the lining of your uterus sheds to prepare for a fresh layer for the ovum to lay upon. (Think-mowing the thick lawn to make a lovely picnic spot).

Without the proper estrogen, FSH, LH, blah, blah, your lining doesnt' feel it necessary to build up. So it doesn't need to shed at the end of the cycle until you stop the pill. You trick your body into being pregnant, then pull the plug on that week of no pills. Then it realizes it''s not pregnant, considers that cycle a failure (the 3 month cycle that is your BC pack), and starts over.

Of course this is all not safe. No medication really is. Especially when playing with your hormones.

I can't see how this all affects your cervix though. It shouldn't play a role in that, and I'm sure the FDA has looked extensively into it.

[cardiacRN2006, ADN, RN]

I'm just wondering if it's really worth the risk of very serious side effects (heart attack, blood clots and stroke) to take the pill for the sole reason of only having periods four times per year.

I can see it might be worth the risk if you actually need to take it as a form of birth control, or have endometriosis or something, but just to skip periods? Not for me!

Me too. I wouldn't do it just for convience.

However, I can't judge. I've done some silly and dangerous things while trying to have a baby that just makes me cringe now.

[Junebugfairy]

for women like that do not want children, or women who wish to delay childbearing, birth control is an essential part of my life.

now, i do not use hormones, i use a copper iud, paragard.

realistically, pregnancy has numerous risks as well. you risk blood clots in pregnancy.. you risk blood clots on the pill.. there are risks with every medication.

it depends on your comfort level. i will never carry a pregnancy to term, so i am comfortable with the risks of my iud.

[mama_d, BSN, RN]

I did this with Mircette for years prior to having my hysto due to pelvic congestion syndrome. I did get neurotic repeatedly and do pregnancy tests at around week seven to nine, since I'd gotten pregnant on the pill before.

My GYN actually had several research articles regarding this issue that she pointed me to at the time I started the regimen, I wish I still had the information. Basically, there were several reputable sources that had examined the risk/benefit ratio based on clinical trials and information from women who had been doing it for years already, and although there were some risks, the benefits outweighed them. Especially for me, since I had debilitatingly painful periods.

[elkpark]

I have no source for this, but I do recall reading a journal article by an OB/GYN researcher some 25 or 30 years ago that talked about how, in general, the fewer periods you have in your life, the better.

As other posters have already pointed out, if we all lived our lives as "Mother Nature" intended, we would spend most of our reproductive lives either pregnant or lactating -- and would have comparatively few periods. There is a school of thought in gynecology that all the menstruating that modern women do is the cause of a lot of the GYN problems so many women experience. Y'know all those health problems, like breast and uterine cancer, for which some the risk factors are "early onset of menses," "late menopause," "delayed child-bearing," "not breast-feeding," and that sort of thing -- those are basically all code for "having more periods."

[PeachPie]

My body isn't so easily tricked. I tried the skip-over trick before, and I'll bleed continuously until I allow myself to have a period. Right now, I use the NuvaRing. Instead of the recommended 3 weeks followed by 1 week out, I leave it in for 4 weeks and take it out for 1 week to reduce my periods. NuvaRings have enough hormones in them to use them for 4 weeks according to the manual. However, even with allowing myself to bleed regularly, my body sometimes starts its periods on its own early. If that happens, I take it out for the week and allow myself to have a period.

I do believe that menstruation is a cleansing process for the lady parts, and I would want to have periods at least every few months even if I could skip over periods.

[cherrybreeze, ADN, RN]

I have used this method (with a pill pack "designed" for it or not, and also with the NuvaRing) for years due to debilitating periods also.....endometriosis and interstitial cystitis. I don't suffer breakthrough bleeding like I used to, though. OFTEN times my doc would have to put me on short-term Premarin to get my bleeding to stop! If your body feels the need to bleed, it's going to, pill or not, bottom line. For me, having fewer periods is a God send (they would last up to 2 weeks every month, before my last laparoscopy!).

[Scrubby]

I have tried so many different pills and they all gave me severe mood swings. I now have the three monthly depo injections. I haven't had a period in about two years. Sometimes I worry about the consequences of this but to be honest I can't complain too much because it's great not having to go through all that.