Many people buy formula is that the mother just can't produce enough milk--as you might be ready to expect with twins, but it's also true for singletons. I understand from links some time ago on twistedchick that the ovulation timing on the current pills are entirely arbitrary. The original point was to make them seem "more natural" at their original introduction, back in the day, so that perhaps the Catholic Church would regard them as an acceptable natural method. So the doctor who came up with them assumed that a one month cycle is normal for women, since infertile women tend to run about that timing. Well, it didn't succeed in being accepted anyway, but it's been set that way ever since. (I *think* there might have been an article in Scientific American some time this year on it as well, if you're interested in tracking it down via an index.) And now they're just starting to offer pills with ovulation periods longer than a month to patients who want it. Studies on things like the unusual Western world's rates of breast cancer and ovarian cancers and etc. blame the over-frequency of years of one-month periods. Seems that studies in the Third World where women have no birth control (because they have 9 to 18 pregnancies--just imagine *that* one) all of them spend more of their time NOT ovulating than they do actually having periods. The demands of all those pregnancies themselves are pretty hard on your system in other ways, of course. The anthropologists suggest that since this is what we evolved with, maybe we shouldn't be ovulating so often. They think we're artificially jacking our bodies to a faster ovulation rate, accelerating various cancer rates associated with the hormones of ovulation. Hence the long time frame pills. And I'm thinking, hey, the convenience? Not so often?? I could really *use* that...
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2005-12-17 09:22 am (UTC)I understand from links some time ago on
Well, it didn't succeed in being accepted anyway, but it's been set that way ever since.
(I *think* there might have been an article in Scientific American some time this year on it as well, if you're interested in tracking it down via an index.)
And now they're just starting to offer pills with ovulation periods longer than a month to patients who want it.
Studies on things like the unusual Western world's rates of breast cancer and ovarian cancers and etc. blame the over-frequency of years of one-month periods.
Seems that studies in the Third World where women have no birth control (because they have 9 to 18 pregnancies--just imagine *that* one) all of them spend more of their time NOT ovulating than they do actually having periods. The demands of all those pregnancies themselves are pretty hard on your system in other ways, of course.
The anthropologists suggest that since this is what we evolved with, maybe we shouldn't be ovulating so often. They think we're artificially jacking our bodies to a faster ovulation rate, accelerating various cancer rates associated with the hormones of ovulation.
Hence the long time frame pills.
And I'm thinking, hey, the convenience? Not so often??
I could really *use* that...