t trying not to be nervous about the pill now that my NP and I just agreed today I should go back on it for a few months in hopes of convincing my body to stop having stupidly short cycles
Susan, the BCPs of today are so low-dose, compared with the early days of BCPs, that you have to be in a high-risk category for there to be a statistical chance of an adverse event. You don't smoke, you're under 35, and your BP is good. Trust me, you and your heart are going to be fine.
(You know how in the F2F thread you said you dig statistics, even of catastrophes? Think of this in that light. Statistically, you're golden.)
Oh, bon, I revised a bit after you replied.
I've heard that claim too, but I also thought I'd heard that the evidence was scant.
Interesting. I know that one treatment for breast cancer is to suppress all the estrogen production. That would be pretty drastic, especially if they don't have strong evidence linking estrogen with breast cancer. However I think it's a WILD leap to go from suppressing estrogen in women with breast cancer to suppressing it in healthy women.
You don't smoke, you're under 35, and your BP is good. Trust me, you and your heart are going to be fine.
Even if I'm 34 3/4 and my BP runs in the 130/70 range?
Even if I'm 34 3/4 and my BP runs in the 130/70 range?
::waits patiently while Teppy looks up 911 in Seattle:
Even if I'm 34 3/4 and my BP runs in the 130/70 range?
My god, you're a ticking time bomb! (Sorry; just trying a little levity.)
t edit
Heh. x-post with Smart-Ass Hecubus.
My feeling is, when you go to the grocery/Target/pharmacy, check your BP at the machines that are in the pharmacy section. If your BP stays at that level, you're still golden.
My god, you're a ticking time bomb!
I want to wire up a time bomb to the speaking clock. "At the third stroke, it will be Three. Minutes. To Doomsday. Precisely. Dooot--Dooot--Dooot."
Interesting. I know that one treatment for breast cancer is to suppress all the estrogen production. That would be pretty drastic, especially if they don't have strong evidence linking estrogen with breast cancer.
I seem to recall some types of breast cancer are estrogen dependent, and some are not. I think it is something they can determine when biopsying the tumors.
However I think it's a WILD leap to go from suppressing estrogen in women with breast cancer to suppressing it in healthy women.
I seem to recall some types of breast cancer are estrogen dependent, and some are not. I think it is something they can determine when biopsying the tumors.
Me too.
[eta I just skimmed them both & didn't see Gladwell making the argument that the other guy thought he was making, but agree with other guy's initial assumption that less mucking about with the hormones, the better.]
Of course, food-wise we're exposed to incredible levels of hormones. We're already mucking in addition to the menstruating so much more than historically.
OK, I won't worry. I brought up the bp issue when we talked about my options, and the NP thought I'd be fine. We're not thinking long-term, just 4-6 months in hopes my body will get the message that 19-21 day cycles are Not Good. (We're also testing me for anemia and to make sure nothing weird is going on hormonally. NP thinks maybe on the former--"you do look pale"--but no on the latter.)
And on a totally different note:
So, husband-person. Paying any attention to the game? King Felix is pitching rather well again.
