question (cross post)

[zolwica]

Hi for those who remember me. I'm Mona. Sina has grown into an almost 11
months old girl now :) We have been breastfeeding and it doesn't look
like we will be stopping any time soon (she doesn't seem ready to be
weaned at all.

7 weeks after I gave birth, I went on the mini pill. Still am (not ready
for baby#2 at all). Now my question, is it normal that I have not
menstruated yet? Sina is completely on table food. We nurse anywhere
from 3-7 times a day (depending on the mood). We co-sleep.

Most of my friends who had kids got their periods already.

Also when should i switch on the regular contraceptive pill (with both
hormones) & what effect does it have on milk production?

Thanks

Mona & Sina

[Irrational Number]

zolwica wrote:
> Hi for those who remember me. I'm Mona. Sina has grown into an almost 11
> months old girl now :) We have been breastfeeding and it doesn't look
> like we will be stopping any time soon (she doesn't seem ready to be
> weaned at all.

Hi! Good to hear from you again.

> 7 weeks after I gave birth, I went on the mini pill. Still am (not ready
> for baby#2 at all). Now my question, is it normal that I have not
> menstruated yet?

I was not on any bc and got my period
back at 11 months.

> Also when should i switch on the regular contraceptive pill (with both
> hormones) & what effect does it have on milk production?

Sorry, don't know this...

-- Anita --

[Me Myself and I]

I use the mini pill too. I never get a period during the time I am on it.
Remember that it fools your body into thinking you are pregnant (it thickens
the lining of the womb among other things) so you shouldn't have a period as
long as you are on it.

HTH

--
Pip

Abby - 3rd Feb 2005 at 32 weeks 3lb 14oz
Jasmine - 21st Mar 2002 at 35 weeks 4lb 12oz

--
"zolwica" > wrote in message
...
> Hi for those who remember me. I'm Mona. Sina has grown into an almost 11
> months old girl now :) We have been breastfeeding and it doesn't look
> like we will be stopping any time soon (she doesn't seem ready to be
> weaned at all.
>
> 7 weeks after I gave birth, I went on the mini pill. Still am (not ready
> for baby#2 at all). Now my question, is it normal that I have not
> menstruated yet? Sina is completely on table food. We nurse anywhere
> from 3-7 times a day (depending on the mood). We co-sleep.
>
> Most of my friends who had kids got their periods already.
>
> Also when should i switch on the regular contraceptive pill (with both
> hormones) & what effect does it have on milk production?
>
> Thanks
>
> Mona & Sina

[al]

zolwica wrote:
> Hi for those who remember me. I'm Mona. Sina has grown into an almost 11
> months old girl now :) We have been breastfeeding and it doesn't look
> like we will be stopping any time soon (she doesn't seem ready to be
> weaned at all.
>
> 7 weeks after I gave birth, I went on the mini pill. Still am (not ready
> for baby#2 at all). Now my question, is it normal that I have not
> menstruated yet? Sina is completely on table food. We nurse anywhere
> from 3-7 times a day (depending on the mood). We co-sleep.

With DS#1 I had a period when he was about 10 mo. He was eating quite a
bit of solids by then. I wasn't taking hormonal bc. With DS#2, who just
turned 10 mo, I haven't had one yet. He doesn't eat as many solids as
DS#1 did (life has been pretty crazy...too much to go in to and I don't
want to hijack the thread), so I am guessing that he probably nurses
more. I am not taking hormonal bc this time around either (DH is
planning to get snipped).

>
> Most of my friends who had kids got their periods already.

Are all of them breastfeeding?

>
> Also when should i switch on the regular contraceptive pill (with both
> hormones) & what effect does it have on milk production?

Maybe someone else can answer this...I thought the regular pill was
sort of a no-no when BFing. FWIW, after DS#1 weaned I had a difficult
time with various methods of hormonal bc...never could get it to work
right without nasty side effects for me. I guessed that, for me,
something had changed and my body just didn't like it (I did lose alot
of weight after giving birth...I ended up 20lbs. lighter than when I
had become pregnant).

>
> Thanks
>
> Mona & Sina

annette

[Cathy Weeks]

zolwica wrote:
> Hi for those who remember me. I'm Mona. Sina has grown into an almost 11
> months old girl now :) We have been breastfeeding and it doesn't look
> like we will be stopping any time soon (she doesn't seem ready to be
> weaned at all.
>
> 7 weeks after I gave birth, I went on the mini pill. Still am (not ready
> for baby#2 at all). Now my question, is it normal that I have not
> menstruated yet? Sina is completely on table food. We nurse anywhere
> from 3-7 times a day (depending on the mood). We co-sleep.
>
> Most of my friends who had kids got their periods already.
>
> Also when should i switch on the regular contraceptive pill (with both
> hormones) & what effect does it have on milk production?

I don't have any idea of what the minipill does since I've never taken
it, but I didn't start getting regular periods until my daughter
started sleeping all night regularly, at age 3. And when they did come
back, they came back VERY light, because I have a Mirena IUD which
tends to lighten periods.

Cathy Weeks

[Circe]

"zolwica" > wrote in message
...
> 7 weeks after I gave birth, I went on the mini pill. Still am (not ready
> for baby#2 at all). Now my question, is it normal that I have not
> menstruated yet? Sina is completely on table food. We nurse anywhere from
> 3-7 times a day (depending on the mood). We co-sleep.
>
> Most of my friends who had kids got their periods already.
>
It's very variable as to when periods return for each woman. I believe that
8-9 months postpartum is about average for women who are breastfeeding (and
that assumes solids are introduced at 4-6 months), so while you're past the
average time frame, it's not something I'd be concerned about. Some women
don't see their cycles return until they wean completely, and that can be
completely normal.

Also, minipills won't give you regular cycles the way combination BCPs will.
Combination pills have seven days of "placebo" to produce a period, while
minipills are always the same amount of progestin each and every day. So
some people on minipills get periods very irregularly while others get
breakthrough bleeding every few days or weeks (which can be really
annoying). My cycles naturally run anywhere from 35-45 days, but they were
typically on the longer side of the scale when I took minipills.

> Also when should i switch on the regular contraceptive pill (with both
> hormones) & what effect does it have on milk production?

Combination pills *do* tend to decrease milk supply; the estrogen content
messes with production. I can't take the darn things at all (they turn me
into a madwoman!), but I can't see any pressing reason to switch unless
you're having a lot of trouble taking the minipills within the required time
frame each day to maintain effectiveness. Personally, if I *could* take
combination pills and felt they would be better for me than minipills, I
wouldn't consider switching until my baby was weaned or past a year old,
whichever came first.
--
Be well, Barbara

[Ruth Shear]

G'day

Mona wrote:

> Sina has grown into an almost 11 months old girl now :)

> is it normal that I have not menstruated yet?

I beleive the average time from birth till return of periods is 9
months, but on this group I've seen people get it really soon (within
weeks) of birth, and for me it took 27 months! So I'd say that 11 months
is certainly within the range of normal.

Pip wrote:

> I use the mini pill too. I never get a period during the time I am on it.
> Remember that it fools your body into thinking you are pregnant (it thickens
> the lining of the womb among other things) so you shouldn't have a period as
> long as you are on it.

Hmm. That doesn't sound right to me. I think if you keep taking the
minipill without a break you won't have a period, but I seem to recall
that if you take it for three weeks and then take the week off or take
the sugar pills or however they're formulated then you can have a period.

DrRuth

[zolwica]

> Pip wrote:
>
>
>>I use the mini pill too. I never get a period during the time I am on it.
>>Remember that it fools your body into thinking you are pregnant (it thickens
>>the lining of the womb among other things) so you shouldn't have a period as
>>long as you are on it.

Hi Pip

Well that's exactly what worries me. How long can my body handle being
"pregnant"? The real pregnancy & then now 11 months.
>
>
> Hmm. That doesn't sound right to me. I think if you keep taking the
> minipill without a break you won't have a period, but I seem to recall
> that if you take it for three weeks and then take the week off or take
> the sugar pills or however they're formulated then you can have a period.
>
> DrRuth

Hi Ruth

With the mini pill there isn't a week of sugar/placebo pills. You take
the same amount every day as long as you take it.

[Bryna]

zolwica wrote:
> > Pip wrote:
> >
> >
> >>I use the mini pill too. I never get a period during the time I am on it.
> >>Remember that it fools your body into thinking you are pregnant (it thickens
> >>the lining of the womb among other things) so you shouldn't have a period as
> >>long as you are on it.
>
> Hi Pip
>
> Well that's exactly what worries me. How long can my body handle being
> "pregnant"? The real pregnancy & then now 11 months.
> >

I didn't get my period back until the baby was 14 months old, both
times. My understanding is that it's actually good for your body not
to menstruate (at least in terms of some different types of cancer, if
I recall correctly) and I don't think it stresses the body the way an
actual pregnancy does -- remember, you don't have a fetus growing
inside you, so even if your body is "fooled" with regard to
menstruation, it certainly isn't the same type of drain.

Bryna

[Cuddlefish]

"zolwica" > wrote in message
...
> Well that's exactly what worries me. How long can my body handle being
> "pregnant"? The real pregnancy & then now 11 months.

Well our bodies are designed to get pregnant frequently [hence ovulation
happens monthly for us, amongst the most frequent for mammals]. We aren't
really designed for having so many periods since we are meant to be busy
bearing babies. ;-)
--
Jacqueline
#1 Due late Jul/early Aug

[Circe]

"Ruth Shear" > wrote in message
...
>> I use the mini pill too. I never get a period during the time I am on
>> it.
>> Remember that it fools your body into thinking you are pregnant (it
>> thickens
>> the lining of the womb among other things) so you shouldn't have a period
>> as
>> long as you are on it.
>
> Hmm. That doesn't sound right to me. I think if you keep taking the
> minipill without a break you won't have a period, but I seem to recall
> that if you take it for three weeks and then take the week off or take
> the sugar pills or however they're formulated then you can have a period.
>
Actually, it's regular combo pills that will prevent you from having a
period if you take them without any time off. You only have periods when
taking combination pills because of the placebo pills in each packet.
There's actually nothing dangerous about never having a period, though; the
makers of regular BCPs just figured that women would feel more comfortable
with having regular monthly cycles than with having none, so they put the
placebo pills in the pack.

And it would be an absolutely STUPENDOUSLY bad idea to stop taking minipills
for a few days in an attempt to induce a period. Minipills are only
effective if taken within the same three hour window each day, every day.
Missing that window, let alone a few days or a whole week, is more likely to
result in an ovulation than a period (because taking away the extra
progesterone is likely to result in estrogen kicking off an ovulation) and,
thereby, in a pregnancy. (Meet my daughter, almost 6yo, who was conceived as
a result of a failure to take minipills within that 3-hour window <g>.)

I was on minipills for a decade and, trust me, they don't suppress periods
for *everyone*. I suppose they probably do suppress them for some people,
but as I said, others experience breakthrough bleeding (mini-periods) at odd
and unpredictable times when on them. Individual experience really varies a
lot.

In the case of the OP, I don't think there's any reason to assume that her
lack of periods and the minipill are related at all. It's not at all unusual
for a breastfeeding woman to have lactational amenorrhea for a year or more.
(My periods didn't come back between #1 and #2 until #2 was 19 months old,
and it was about 10-11 months after #3.) And it's not anything to be worried
about, either, as long as the OP is sure that the reason her periods are not
showing up is because she's pregnant!
--
Be well, Barbara

[Linz]

"zolwica" > wrote in message
...
>
>> Pip wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I use the mini pill too. I never get a period during the time I
>>>am on it. Remember that it fools your body into thinking you are
>>>pregnant (it thickens the lining of the womb among other things)
>>>so you shouldn't have a period as long as you are on it.
>
> Hi Pip
>
> Well that's exactly what worries me. How long can my body handle
> being "pregnant"? The real pregnancy & then now 11 months.

Your body isn't pregnant though. The way the pill fools your body
stops you ovulating, and it's perfectly normal for women not to
ovulate when they're breastfeeding.

[Nikki]

zolwica wrote:

> Well that's exactly what worries me. How long can my body handle being
> "pregnant"? The real pregnancy & then now 11 months.


I don't think that is an issue. I went for years and years without having
a period when I was on depo and I was told that not having a period is not a
problem.

Enjoy it while it lasts I say! ;-)

I didn't know the minipill did that. I might have to check it out for just
that reason. It can take fertility a long time to return after you stop the
depo shot so I don't want to do that because I want to be able to make rash
and snap decisions when it comes to ttc, lol.

--
Nikki

[Ruth Shear]

G'day

I wrote:

[a whole lot of incorrect stuff about the minipill deleted]

Thanks a lot for the corrections Barbara. 8-(

I'd put it down to pregnancy brain, but actually now I'm wondering.. I
was put on the minipill while BF. I can't remember how I took it but
that's maybe why I didn't have a period for 27 months and I thought it
was the bf. Hmmm... Too long ago. I can't remember back to what I was
supposed to be doing before I started typing this.

sigh. My brain cells have redistributed themselves to help fill the
vacuum of my enormous stomach that doesn't have a baby big enough to
fill it yet so everything else seems to be ending up there.

DrRuth

[[email protected]]

In misc.kids.breastfeeding Cuddlefish > wrote:
: "zolwica" > wrote in message
: ...
:> Well that's exactly what worries me. How long can my body handle being
:> "pregnant"? The real pregnancy & then now 11 months.

: Well our bodies are designed to get pregnant frequently [hence ovulation
: happens monthly for us, amongst the most frequent for mammals]. We aren't
: really designed for having so many periods since we are meant to be busy
: bearing babies. ;-)
: --
: Jacqueline
: #1 Due late Jul/early Aug

Well, sort of. Human females bodies were designed to be either pregnant
or lactating durign their fertile years (hence, lactational amenorhea.)

I agree that they were NOT designed to have regular periods for a
space of 30 or so years continuous.

However, natural selections says that if women keep having only one or
two babies in a lifetime they will "redesign" to tolerate the new
conditions.

Larry

[[email protected]]

In misc.kids.pregnancy wrote:
: In misc.kids.breastfeeding Cuddlefish > wrote:
: : "zolwica" > wrote in message
: : ...
: :> Well that's exactly what worries me. How long can my body handle being
: :> "pregnant"? The real pregnancy & then now 11 months.

: : Well our bodies are designed to get pregnant frequently [hence ovulation
: : happens monthly for us, amongst the most frequent for mammals]. We aren't
: : really designed for having so many periods since we are meant to be busy
: : bearing babies. ;-)
: : --
: : Jacqueline
: : #1 Due late Jul/early Aug

: Well, sort of. Human females bodies were designed to be either pregnant
: or lactating durign their fertile years (hence, lactational amenorhea.)

: I agree that they were NOT designed to have regular periods for a
: space of 30 or so years continuous.

: However, natural selections says that if women keep having only one or
: two babies in a lifetime they will "redesign" to tolerate the new
: conditions.

: Larry

Duh! Since this was a discussion of timing the mini-pill, I forgot to
add that give the above, I would think that it is better NOT to take
a break and induce a period. I am already in vacation mind.

Larry

[Cuddlefish]

> wrote in message ...
> However, natural selections says that if women keep having only one or
> two babies in a lifetime they will "redesign" to tolerate the new
> conditions.

Natural selection will not work that way unless there is an advantage that
will stop those who do have frequent periods from reproducing and hence
passing on the genes. Natural selections starts with a mutation. If there is
a mutation that makes it more advantageous to have two kids [for example]
and less menstruation, then all other women need to not pass on their
'unmutated' genes before we get a whole "redesign" in womens' biology.
--
Jacqueline
#1 Due late Jul/early Aug

[[email protected]]

In misc.kids.breastfeeding Cuddlefish > wrote:
: > wrote in message ...
:> However, natural selections says that if women keep having only one or
:> two babies in a lifetime they will "redesign" to tolerate the new
:> conditions.

: Natural selection will not work that way unless there is an advantage that
: will stop those who do have frequent periods from reproducing and hence
: passing on the genes. Natural selections starts with a mutation. If there is
: a mutation that makes it more advantageous to have two kids [for example]
: and less menstruation, then all other women need to not pass on their
: 'unmutated' genes before we get a whole "redesign" in womens' biology.

I agree with all this. :-) That just means it takes longer.

Larry

[Circe]

"Cuddlefish" > wrote in message
news:uw0ve.1792025$Xk.177601@pd7tw3no...
> > wrote in message ...
>> However, natural selections says that if women keep having only one or
>> two babies in a lifetime they will "redesign" to tolerate the new
>> conditions.
>
> Natural selection will not work that way unless there is an advantage that
> will stop those who do have frequent periods from reproducing and hence
> passing on the genes. Natural selections starts with a mutation. If there
> is a mutation that makes it more advantageous to have two kids [for
> example] and less menstruation, then all other women need to not pass on
> their 'unmutated' genes before we get a whole "redesign" in womens'
> biology.
>
FWIW, it does appear to be advantageous to have fewer ovulations. It's a
known fact that pregnancies and breastfeeding are protective against
estrogen-linked breast cancers, presumably because the body is exposed to
less estrogen over a lifetime. Of course, most of those cancers don't show
up until after women are out of their childbearing years, so a reduction in
ovulatory cycles over a lifetime doesn't seem like an adaptation that's
particularly likely to be naturally selected for.

OTOH, I do wonder sometimes whether other women on either side of my family
tree have longer-than-average menstrual cycles. Mine are quite long
(anywhere from 35-45 days, usually). I have no blood relatives who have had
breast cancer that I'm aware of. It just seems reasonable to suspect some
correlation there.

I figure between that and three pregnancies resulting in chidlren who have
been breastfeeding for a total of 7 years, 8 months altogether (8 years, 10
months if I get double credit for the 14 months I tandem nursed!), I
probably have a negative risk of breast cancer. (But I still do my monthly
self-exams, anyway, just to be sure!)
--
Be well, Barbara

[Akuvikate]

wrote:

>
> : Well, sort of. Human females bodies were designed to be either pregnant
> : or lactating durign their fertile years (hence, lactational amenorhea.)
>
> : I agree that they were NOT designed to have regular periods for a
> : space of 30 or so years continuous.

Absolutely true. Interesting note though is that in hunter-gatherer
societies (ie the conditions in which we evolved) the average birth
spacing is 4 years. There aren't such good weaning foods as you have
with agriculture, and people are much leaner, so lactational
suppression of fertility lasts much longer.
>
> : However, natural selections says that if women keep having only one or
> : two babies in a lifetime they will "redesign" to tolerate the new
> : conditions.

You're proposing inheritance of acquired charateristics -- not how
evolution works! Natural selection says that if there is a genetic
advantage to having fewer babies, that gene will propagate and become
more common in future generations. A genetic advantage means the gene
gets passed on to more children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren,
etc. Clearly having one child will not acheieve that. You could say
that there's a genetic advantage to being able to just have one or two
babies but still not get breast cancer. But even this evolution (which
makes more sense) takes place on a scale of tens of thousands of years,
not just a few generations. So I wouldn't expect it to be a very
effective method of bringing down breast cancer rates ;-)

And about the minipill -- it keeps you from ovulating but it doesn't
really mimic pregnancy. It's not hard on your body to take the
minipill. Last I read about combination pills I thought that if supply
was well established they were OK. Not something I've researched much
though.

Kate, ignorant foot soldier of the medical cartel (and college anthro
major)
and the Bug, 2 years