osteoblast
04-19-2007, 05:36 PM
Anyone on HRT or thinking about HRT should look at the news today. While I went through menopause without HRT because of the studies coming out around 2000. I have always wondered about that decision especially with my osteoporosis. It is not a decision that I will question any longer.
I hope that you folks will do a news search on the test results that have come out in the past 24 hours. A study of one million women in the UK has determined that women on HRT for 5 years were 23% more likely to die of ovarian cancer. Recent figures in US show continuing drop in breast cancer- researchers tie the drop to decline in use of HRT following news that came out in 2000 linking HRT to breast cancer. The drug co. Wyeth that makes HRT has a different view of the results. Well, read the articles and see what makes sense to you.
This makes me completely understand the "I refuse to take osteo meds" line of thought in the previous thread. I am not endorsing it -everybody has a different situation and needs to make their own decision. How can we trust the drug companies or for that matter the FDA . In one of the articles I read it was speculated that there was inadequate research of HRT from the beginning.
These are very dificult times, we have poisoned the environment and our bodies have been polluted as well. How could this not be the case? I read a recent article, I believe it was in Scientific American, which noted that mother's breast milk is one of the most polluted substances. Also it noted that breast feeding women have lower risks of cancer because some of their toxins-esp. dioxin are off loaded to their babies. The babies get more than their lifetime safe dose of dioxin within the first six months. The article also discussed the carcinogens found in fish especially estrogenic chemicals finding their way into the water. In any event this dose of estrogen is screwing up the fish- the males are found with birth sacs and eggs. The researchers took caught fish from rivers in Pa. as well as fish from a grocery store and took their skin and fat off which is where the toxins are stored. Then the researchers placed this substance on cancerous tissue and found that the substance from the fish accelerated the cancer growth. I'll look for the article again but the title was something like -bringing cancer to the dinner table. Please do your own research and verify. I am not an expert on this topic and you should check it for yourself.
I am sorry for the length of this message. Yet, I was not previously aware of this information and I am stunned by it. It's possible to be out of the loop on alot of this stuff- we lead busy lives and there is only so much we can take in.
I hope that you folks will do a news search on the test results that have come out in the past 24 hours. A study of one million women in the UK has determined that women on HRT for 5 years were 23% more likely to die of ovarian cancer. Recent figures in US show continuing drop in breast cancer- researchers tie the drop to decline in use of HRT following news that came out in 2000 linking HRT to breast cancer. The drug co. Wyeth that makes HRT has a different view of the results. Well, read the articles and see what makes sense to you.
This makes me completely understand the "I refuse to take osteo meds" line of thought in the previous thread. I am not endorsing it -everybody has a different situation and needs to make their own decision. How can we trust the drug companies or for that matter the FDA . In one of the articles I read it was speculated that there was inadequate research of HRT from the beginning.
These are very dificult times, we have poisoned the environment and our bodies have been polluted as well. How could this not be the case? I read a recent article, I believe it was in Scientific American, which noted that mother's breast milk is one of the most polluted substances. Also it noted that breast feeding women have lower risks of cancer because some of their toxins-esp. dioxin are off loaded to their babies. The babies get more than their lifetime safe dose of dioxin within the first six months. The article also discussed the carcinogens found in fish especially estrogenic chemicals finding their way into the water. In any event this dose of estrogen is screwing up the fish- the males are found with birth sacs and eggs. The researchers took caught fish from rivers in Pa. as well as fish from a grocery store and took their skin and fat off which is where the toxins are stored. Then the researchers placed this substance on cancerous tissue and found that the substance from the fish accelerated the cancer growth. I'll look for the article again but the title was something like -bringing cancer to the dinner table. Please do your own research and verify. I am not an expert on this topic and you should check it for yourself.
I am sorry for the length of this message. Yet, I was not previously aware of this information and I am stunned by it. It's possible to be out of the loop on alot of this stuff- we lead busy lives and there is only so much we can take in.
Sponsor
USAFMOM
04-19-2007, 06:57 PM
Do you know if this mentioned HRT specifically, or ERT (estrogen replacement therapy) as well. Just wondering what component of the HRT was harmful, the estrogen, progestin, or the combination of the two. I'm on an estodial patch (ERT) as I do not have my uterus that would necessitate HRT.
Turquoise
04-19-2007, 07:48 PM
I remember talking to my doctor about going on HRT. He told me he wouldn't prescribe it for me if it wasn't safe. Now I know the doctors are getting their info from the drug companies. They were duped, too.
I was on it for about 5-6 months but it didn't help the most aggravating symptom I had from menopause which was sleepless nights. I asked myself why am I taking this if it's not helping me sleep.
I work part time in a doctor's office. We have lunches the drug company's sponsor but we have to sit and listen to their detailing of the drugs. Boy, they really spin it. To hear them you'd think every drug was a miracle cure.
There's a site I've stumbled onto that you can tell your experiences with a particular drug. Thank God for the internet when it comes to finding out the truth about medicine. I know there are lots of bogus sites so you have to find out who is sponsoring it. There's quite a few medical sites that are run by drug companies.
Remember coral calcium that was so popular a few years back? Well, that has proven almost useless compared to calcium's citrate and carbonate. But it was all over the web with testimonials.
On the news tonight there was a report that antibiotics are not effective as a prophalatic measure when having dental work. Just wait around long enough and the drug you are taking will be found not to do what it's supposed to do or, at least, not work in the way it was supposed to.
We just have to be super involved with our medical care and question everything. Doctors hate that but so what. It's our bodies and future.
Turquoise
I was on it for about 5-6 months but it didn't help the most aggravating symptom I had from menopause which was sleepless nights. I asked myself why am I taking this if it's not helping me sleep.
I work part time in a doctor's office. We have lunches the drug company's sponsor but we have to sit and listen to their detailing of the drugs. Boy, they really spin it. To hear them you'd think every drug was a miracle cure.
There's a site I've stumbled onto that you can tell your experiences with a particular drug. Thank God for the internet when it comes to finding out the truth about medicine. I know there are lots of bogus sites so you have to find out who is sponsoring it. There's quite a few medical sites that are run by drug companies.
Remember coral calcium that was so popular a few years back? Well, that has proven almost useless compared to calcium's citrate and carbonate. But it was all over the web with testimonials.
On the news tonight there was a report that antibiotics are not effective as a prophalatic measure when having dental work. Just wait around long enough and the drug you are taking will be found not to do what it's supposed to do or, at least, not work in the way it was supposed to.
We just have to be super involved with our medical care and question everything. Doctors hate that but so what. It's our bodies and future.
Turquoise
osteoblast
04-19-2007, 08:01 PM
I went back to an article to see if they identified the particular hormone in the US study about decrease in breast cancer rates-the article mostly mentioned hormone therapy but a specific mention of estrogen was made:
the decrease occured mostly in women ages 50-69 , the age group most likely to be on hormones, and predominantly in a form of breast cancer sensitive to the hormone estrogen
Boston Globe article today.
the decrease occured mostly in women ages 50-69 , the age group most likely to be on hormones, and predominantly in a form of breast cancer sensitive to the hormone estrogen
Boston Globe article today.
USAFMOM
04-19-2007, 11:05 PM
Thanks, that helps! :)
ricenbeanz
04-22-2007, 05:30 PM
Thanks for the info. I'm interested and concerned too. I just turned 50 and my doctor has had me on low dose bc pills for the past 15 years but I want to stop taking them because I'm afraid of the horomones at my age. I wonder which is more dangerous, low dose bc pills or HRT. When I asked my doctor how long I could be on the pills, he said "forever."
osteoblast
04-23-2007, 01:45 PM
ricenbeanz-I have never heard of continuing on low dose bc pills like that. Perhaps others have. Maybe it is an accepted practice without risk, I have no idea. But, I think that I would want to get a second opinion. Why would your dr. want you to continue forever on the bc pills?
ktnap
04-24-2007, 09:01 AM
ricenbeanz-I have never heard of continuing on low dose bc pills like that. Perhaps others have. Maybe it is an accepted practice without risk, I have no idea. But, I think that I would want to get a second opinion. Why would your dr. want you to continue forever on the bc pills?
I can't speak for ricenbeanz, but I'm piping in since I was on the low dose bc for several years following surgery for fibroids (they were able to remove most of them, but I still had a few attached to the wall the surgeon could not get to).
The bc helped regulate my estrogen levels so they weren't so high... I had horribly heavy periods for years, lasting up to ten days with large blood clots... I don't know the techincal term for it, but estrogen feeds fibroids. Plus, I just plain wanted some time without periods so my gyn put me on the low dose.
I quit taking them about a year and a half ago because I noticed they made me very moody/angry. Turns out, I must have been ready for menopause anyway since I haven't really been regular since and haven't had a full period for about six months. For me so far, perimenopause has been a real blessing. :)
I can't speak for ricenbeanz, but I'm piping in since I was on the low dose bc for several years following surgery for fibroids (they were able to remove most of them, but I still had a few attached to the wall the surgeon could not get to).
The bc helped regulate my estrogen levels so they weren't so high... I had horribly heavy periods for years, lasting up to ten days with large blood clots... I don't know the techincal term for it, but estrogen feeds fibroids. Plus, I just plain wanted some time without periods so my gyn put me on the low dose.
I quit taking them about a year and a half ago because I noticed they made me very moody/angry. Turns out, I must have been ready for menopause anyway since I haven't really been regular since and haven't had a full period for about six months. For me so far, perimenopause has been a real blessing. :)
ricenbeanz
04-24-2007, 12:28 PM
Thanks all. I just saw a new doctor a couple of weeks ago and she sent me for a radiology consult for a possible Uterine Artery Embolization. I have very large fibroids (larger than grapefruit according to my old doctor) that may be causing the severe lower back pain that I've been having for a year or so now. This afternoon I'm going for an MRI of my lower lumber and pelvic region because the radiologist wants to be sure that it's the fibroids causing the pain and not a spine or disc problem. I've never had any bleeding problems or any symptoms other than the back pain but my original doctor said I had to have a hysterectomy so my daughter suggested I see her doctor for a second opinion. So that's the doctor I'm seeing now. She's not sure that a hysterectomy is warranted at this time if the only problem I'm having is back pain from fibroids. I asked her about stopping the pills but she said to wait until we see what's going on with the fibroids. So hopefully I'll know in a few weeks (or however long it takes to get MRI results back) what course of action to take.
osteoblast
04-24-2007, 12:59 PM
ricenbeanz-Good luck to you in going through your diagnostic work. I would imagine that it's a strain for you at this time. In my experience the "unknowns" cause alot of stress and your mind gets somewhat attached to an outcome that would be best. But getting attached to any outcome seems futile because none of our thinking is going to tip any scale . Then of course there is a possibility it could go in an entirely different direction than we had even considered. It really is a challenge.
So from what you and katnipped said it seems that there is some connection between the fibroids and the b.c. pills. Is it too much estrogen causing the fibroids and the b.c. pills then alter the hormone balance reducing the amount of estrogen?
So from what you and katnipped said it seems that there is some connection between the fibroids and the b.c. pills. Is it too much estrogen causing the fibroids and the b.c. pills then alter the hormone balance reducing the amount of estrogen?
lorriem
04-24-2007, 03:08 PM
I had an early change I had finished the change before I even knew I had it.When my periods stopped I thought I was pregnant and my GP ran a few tests and said I was in full menopause I was 42 and that was 20 years ago. I asked my gp for HRT and he said no that he felt that it wasn't safe. So even 20 years ago some doctors knew the risks.
Aleta145
04-24-2007, 08:31 PM
Very interesting thread, ladies.
I was on low-dose BC pills for 20 years--then at age 40 I had a grapefruit-sized fibroid removed. No hysterectomy was needed because it was hanging by a thread outside the uterus. Nobody mentioned the hormones as a contributing factor. Then five years later I was diagnosed with breast cancer. This time I knew I was off The Pill for good. I started taking tamoxifen (the anti-estrogen) after my lumpectomy and after five years of that developed polyps. I spent my 50th birthday having a D&C to remove them. None of the women in my family have had any of the problems I've had so I didn't think I had any risk factors other than being a woman.
HRT is definitely NOT in my future. In my next life <grin> I'm not going to try and fool Mother Nature. :nono:
I was on low-dose BC pills for 20 years--then at age 40 I had a grapefruit-sized fibroid removed. No hysterectomy was needed because it was hanging by a thread outside the uterus. Nobody mentioned the hormones as a contributing factor. Then five years later I was diagnosed with breast cancer. This time I knew I was off The Pill for good. I started taking tamoxifen (the anti-estrogen) after my lumpectomy and after five years of that developed polyps. I spent my 50th birthday having a D&C to remove them. None of the women in my family have had any of the problems I've had so I didn't think I had any risk factors other than being a woman.
HRT is definitely NOT in my future. In my next life <grin> I'm not going to try and fool Mother Nature. :nono:
ricenbeanz
04-24-2007, 08:43 PM
Hi all! Well, I spent about an hour and 15 minutes getting the MRI done today and they said the doctor should have the report in 3-5 business days. No matter what though, I'd really like to discontinue the low dose bc pills; I'd rather not risk any hormones at my age (50). Do you still have to worry about getting pregnant though? That's about my only concern. I don't even know if I could get pregnant with a uterus full of fibroids, lol.
osteoblast
04-24-2007, 09:14 PM
I just spent a short amount of time searching the net on low dose birth control pills since so many here are commenting on them and possible side effects. I did a search on "low dose birth control pills" "fiibroid"- One of the sites I was directed to was Womento Women . It is a health care provider in New England . It was very interesting. Fibroid growth was mentioned as a possible side effect. But some comments comparing the pill to HRT were something to consider. Those on the low dose bc pills should check out the whole section on low dose bc pills and perimenopause at ************. It is stated at that site that most low dose bc pills have at least 35 mcg estrogen and that this is higher than the amount in HRT. I have no knowledge if this is correct or not but those on low dose bc pills should check it out and ask their dr.
My personal interest in the hrt topic had to do with whether I should have done this to prevent my osteoporosis. Now I think not. Also I wondered whether a low dose estrogen would amp up my forteo results. Well estrogen is looking like a pretty dangerous substance. While I will raise it with the endo next time, all the recent hrt studies and comments on this thread regarding problems with bc pill users makes it look unlikely that I would go in that direction.
My personal interest in the hrt topic had to do with whether I should have done this to prevent my osteoporosis. Now I think not. Also I wondered whether a low dose estrogen would amp up my forteo results. Well estrogen is looking like a pretty dangerous substance. While I will raise it with the endo next time, all the recent hrt studies and comments on this thread regarding problems with bc pill users makes it look unlikely that I would go in that direction.
USAFMOM
04-24-2007, 09:35 PM
I am happy to report that today I ripped off the patch!!! The Vivelle-Dot patch, that is (an estrogen-only patch). This is what my endocrinologist put me on last August when lab work came back showing I was postmenopausal. This was her prescription for prevention of osteoporosis (I have moderate osteopenia now at age 45). I made a decision to go hormone-free and simply try faithful exercise, good mineral/calcium supplements, and Strontium. I will have my 2-year DEXA scan done in August of this year. I'm sure the endo will not like this decision, although my OB/GYN will love it as she wanted me to go off of the hormones anyway, especially since I have a history of breast fibroadenomatous disease, however, she wanted me to put me on another anti-osteoporotic medication, which was totally unacceptable to me. Good ol' natural therapy, good exercise and a good diet, along with the Strontium for me! :D
osteoblast
04-25-2007, 04:16 PM
Today on the view , there was a dr. from Sloan-Kettering Cancer Institute. When asked about estrogen his view was basically don't do it and that there are other treatments out there to deal with meno symptoms and bone health. No one followed up with him about the bone health comment so I wonder what he would have stated. Also he was negative on anything that would be estrogenic. When asked about bioavailables he said hormones , are hormones are hormones or something like that or estrogens are estrogens are estrogens. If someone else saw the show maybe they can clarify the comment on bioavailables.
osteoblast
04-25-2007, 04:27 PM
Today on the view , there was a dr. from Sloan-Kettering Cancer Institute. When asked about estrogen his view was basically don't do it and that there are other treatments out there to deal with meno symptoms and bone health. No one followed up with him about the bone health comment so I wonder what he would have stated. Also he was negative on anything that would be estrogenic. When asked about bioavailables he was negative. Barbara Walters said that when other drs. told her to take hrt this dr. had told her not to. She said they went way back.
montesflus
04-26-2007, 02:05 AM
What are ''bioavailables''?:rolleyes:
osteoblast
04-26-2007, 04:12 PM
Montesflus-bioavailable is what I believe the Sloan Kettering dr. said in the hormone discussion. I have previously heard of bioidenticals which I understand are the hormones that people are getting rather than the pharmaceutical hormones. The hormones that Suzanne Somers (sp?) touts on tv and in print. I really know nothing about either. Again, maybe someone else saw the show and could clarify. I wonder either if bioidentical and bioavailable are used to refer to the same thing or if the dr. meant to say bioidentical. I don't know. Anyway his message was clear to stay away from estrogen or estrogenic substances.
montesflus
04-26-2007, 11:28 PM
OSTEOBLAST :
Thanks for your reply. Not having see ''The View'' myself, I just wondered:)
BTW, when you say to stay clear of estrogen AND estrogenic products, would that also mean the ''non-hormonal'' (so called natural) formulas for menopausal sysmptoms that are usually on sale at health-food stores (some drug stores, too)?:confused:
Thanks for your reply. Not having see ''The View'' myself, I just wondered:)
BTW, when you say to stay clear of estrogen AND estrogenic products, would that also mean the ''non-hormonal'' (so called natural) formulas for menopausal sysmptoms that are usually on sale at health-food stores (some drug stores, too)?:confused:
osteoblast
04-27-2007, 02:09 PM
You ask what I would say regarding natural products-I haven't a clue. I am only stating what I believe I heard the dr. from Sloan Kettering Cancer Center say on The View. I wish I had taken notes. Someone asked him about black cohosh and I believe he also put it in the phyto estrogenic category. But, be sure to do your research in reliable places. I just looked at University of Maryland Medical-they have a whole section on alternative therapies with alot of researched info on herbals etc. They stated some drs believe black cohosh is a phyto estrogen and dangerous and others don't---studies are conflicting. Take a look. I think that the important thing is to research carefully and not assume anything is ok.
Aleta145
04-27-2007, 02:11 PM
BTW, when you say to stay clear of estrogen AND estrogenic products, would that also mean the ''non-hormonal'' (so called natural) formulas for menopausal sysmptoms that are usually on sale at health-food stores (some drug stores, too)?:confused:
If you're talking about health-food store supplements like black cohosh or soy, these contain plant-derived estrogen. My oncologist says it doesn't matter where the hormone comes from...it has the same effect on breast and uterine tissue. He tells me that as a BC survivor it's okay to eat soybeans and such, but not okay to take the supplements.
Okay, now for the difference between "bioavailable" and "bioidentical"...
"Bioavailable" means how much of a substance actually reaches the bloodstream. Something that's injected would be considered 100% bioavailable. Pills that have to travel through the digestive tract in order to be absorbed have lower bioavailability. The bioavailability of calcium in our supplements is a big issue for us as osteoporosis patients.
"Bioidentical" hormones are the ones Suzanne Somers touts. They are also plant-derived estrogens, usually custom-made for the patient by compounding pharmacists. They are considered more "natural" than than the estrogen in conventional HRT, which is made from pregnant mares' urine. (Not sure why plants are considered more natural than horses, but hey, I'm all for using cruelty-free products!!) There's a lot of controversy over bioidenticals, mainly because there haven't been any large studies supporting their claims.
By the way, I get a lot of my info from Dr. Susan Love, author of The Breast Book and a world-reknowned authority on women's health issues. She advocates HRT only for a limited time, and only for non-cancer survivors. For those cancer survivors who have osteoporosis, she recommends Evista (which is what I take), Calcitonin, or Forteo (unless their cancer has metastacized to the bone).
If you're talking about health-food store supplements like black cohosh or soy, these contain plant-derived estrogen. My oncologist says it doesn't matter where the hormone comes from...it has the same effect on breast and uterine tissue. He tells me that as a BC survivor it's okay to eat soybeans and such, but not okay to take the supplements.
Okay, now for the difference between "bioavailable" and "bioidentical"...
"Bioavailable" means how much of a substance actually reaches the bloodstream. Something that's injected would be considered 100% bioavailable. Pills that have to travel through the digestive tract in order to be absorbed have lower bioavailability. The bioavailability of calcium in our supplements is a big issue for us as osteoporosis patients.
"Bioidentical" hormones are the ones Suzanne Somers touts. They are also plant-derived estrogens, usually custom-made for the patient by compounding pharmacists. They are considered more "natural" than than the estrogen in conventional HRT, which is made from pregnant mares' urine. (Not sure why plants are considered more natural than horses, but hey, I'm all for using cruelty-free products!!) There's a lot of controversy over bioidenticals, mainly because there haven't been any large studies supporting their claims.
By the way, I get a lot of my info from Dr. Susan Love, author of The Breast Book and a world-reknowned authority on women's health issues. She advocates HRT only for a limited time, and only for non-cancer survivors. For those cancer survivors who have osteoporosis, she recommends Evista (which is what I take), Calcitonin, or Forteo (unless their cancer has metastacized to the bone).
USAFMOM
04-27-2007, 03:22 PM
My OB/GYN wanted me to go on Evista. I naturally researched it out on numerous sites on the internet. I learned that when given to rats that were still ovulating, producting some hormones, they developed ovarian cancer. My common sense told me that as long as I am still producing some type of hormone, even erratically during the transition into full menopause, that I could possibly have the same result as the rat. I don't know......but I do know that I don't want to take that kind of chance. I recently went to a general practitioner who also practices homeopathics and alternatives, and he said "Evista is a wicked drug," (not in a religious sense, of course). I know for a fact that it worsens hot flashes. It's hard because I know there are a few bad side effects to EVERYTHING available for bone health/preservation. I guess each person just has to do their own research and go with what they believe is best for them, with the advice of their doctors.
I also watch a TV program every day hosted by a physician who studies natural medicines, and he said that soy isoflavones, they are finally realizing, actually act as an estrogen ANTI-receptor, such as the same function as tamoxifen when used for breast cancer patients. He said you will find many of the cancer centers across America now endorsing soy isoflavones where as in the past, and even some today, physicians did not recommend it. This is supposed to be the latest info out from the latest research, supposedly. Again, everyone should do their own research and make informed choices based on their research and their doctor's recommendations. I know this is a little off-topic from bone health, and I do apologize.
I also watch a TV program every day hosted by a physician who studies natural medicines, and he said that soy isoflavones, they are finally realizing, actually act as an estrogen ANTI-receptor, such as the same function as tamoxifen when used for breast cancer patients. He said you will find many of the cancer centers across America now endorsing soy isoflavones where as in the past, and even some today, physicians did not recommend it. This is supposed to be the latest info out from the latest research, supposedly. Again, everyone should do their own research and make informed choices based on their research and their doctor's recommendations. I know this is a little off-topic from bone health, and I do apologize.
osteoblast
04-27-2007, 03:48 PM
usafmom-hrt, estrogen , soy etc. not really off topic here because often when people go through meno the treatment for meno and bone preservation may involve estrogen. Probably much less today than before alot of the more recent news . Do you know why your dr. is negative on evista? I had not heard negative info on that drug before.
USAFMOM
04-27-2007, 04:04 PM
No, he really didn't elaborate on that, and that is when I jumped in and shared with him my research on it, and he did agree with it, but did not elaborate any further on his own thoughts or experience with prescribing it to patients. It's frustrating to get different recommendations from our professionals who we rely on for their expertise. My OB/GYN favors Evista, however, she is the same one who wanted to put me on Fosamax 3 years ago when my first DEXA came back and when I refused she referred me to an endocrinologist; the endocrinologist said there was no need for Fosamax or anything until I reached menopause, which, just happened in the last 6 months, and now she is recommending ERT, which my OB/GYN is completely against, and then the general practitioners, who also are knowledgeable in natural remedies, do not recommend the Evista OR the ERT. What to do, what to do!!?? I just throw my hands up, do my research, and do the best thing I know of that will not have any negative impacts on my health, and keep a close eye on things with the DEXA and will make adjustments along the way if and when necessary. :)
Aleta145
04-27-2007, 04:10 PM
Hi USAFMOM - I totally agree with you re all the conflicting info out there. It's so difficult to know who to believe! If the doctors don't even agree on appropriate treatments, how are we patients expected to make our own treatment decisions?
I have also seen the news about soy isoflavones, but I still think they are still talking about food, not supplements. Have you seen any studies on soy supplements?
I also did a lot of research on both Tamoxifen and Evista before taking them. As you say, there are risks with taking anything--or nothing. Since my risk for breast cancer is much higher than my risk for ovarian, I opted to take the Evista. I think it all comes back to risk vs. benefit. For what it's worth, there are more recent and larger studies in actual patients than the one about rats and mice. (See the STAR trial in particular.) Going back on topic, Evista also treats my osteoporosis, so I feel that at this time I'm doing the right thing. Keeping it all in perspective, if I'd been born 100 years ago, I wouldn't have survived to this age at all, so I look at every day as being a gift!:)
I have also seen the news about soy isoflavones, but I still think they are still talking about food, not supplements. Have you seen any studies on soy supplements?
I also did a lot of research on both Tamoxifen and Evista before taking them. As you say, there are risks with taking anything--or nothing. Since my risk for breast cancer is much higher than my risk for ovarian, I opted to take the Evista. I think it all comes back to risk vs. benefit. For what it's worth, there are more recent and larger studies in actual patients than the one about rats and mice. (See the STAR trial in particular.) Going back on topic, Evista also treats my osteoporosis, so I feel that at this time I'm doing the right thing. Keeping it all in perspective, if I'd been born 100 years ago, I wouldn't have survived to this age at all, so I look at every day as being a gift!:)
USAFMOM
04-27-2007, 04:29 PM
Yes, risk versus benefit is an important factor for everyone to consider in choosing what med is right for them. I read too that Evista is helpful in preventing breast cancer. Personally, for myself I seem to have this fear of ovarian cancer, more so than breast, since I feel my risk factors are fairly low for breast cancer, so I did not weigh that one too heavily in my decision to take it or not. As far as the soy isoflavones goes, I'm not really sure what difference there really is between the actual food and supplements. That would be interesting to know. I do take the supplements simply for help with menopausal symptoms. I hope they work! :)
cmorg011
04-28-2007, 11:36 PM
Hello everyone- how's your weekend going? :)
I noticed this thread and thought that you hormone-savvy ladies (and gentlemen?) could advise me in this area. I am going to see my OBGYN for the first time since high school on Tuesday. (For those that do not know me, I am 22 and have osteoporosis of the spine and hip: recovered anorexic having had no periods for ~4-5 years.) I have gotten to a "healthy weight" now, but my period still has not come back. :( - I know how important it is that it does...
SO, I am sure that he is going to recommend putting me on something, but wanted to see if you guys knew the safest/most effective hormone option(s) for my age-group. (You guys have been discussing Evista, which sounds great except for the clot risks, but I do not think "fertile" people can use it?) I would really love to do the most natural thing I can... is the natural progesterone thing a scam or not?
Thanks for your patience and time, folks!- God bless and thanks again...
P.S.- USAFMOM- my brother is an airman- congrats on yours, if that's what your name means! ;)
I noticed this thread and thought that you hormone-savvy ladies (and gentlemen?) could advise me in this area. I am going to see my OBGYN for the first time since high school on Tuesday. (For those that do not know me, I am 22 and have osteoporosis of the spine and hip: recovered anorexic having had no periods for ~4-5 years.) I have gotten to a "healthy weight" now, but my period still has not come back. :( - I know how important it is that it does...
SO, I am sure that he is going to recommend putting me on something, but wanted to see if you guys knew the safest/most effective hormone option(s) for my age-group. (You guys have been discussing Evista, which sounds great except for the clot risks, but I do not think "fertile" people can use it?) I would really love to do the most natural thing I can... is the natural progesterone thing a scam or not?
Thanks for your patience and time, folks!- God bless and thanks again...
P.S.- USAFMOM- my brother is an airman- congrats on yours, if that's what your name means! ;)
ricenbeanz
04-29-2007, 06:55 PM
Hi cmorg011. My older daughter is a recovered anorexic and, like you, did not get her period for a few years. This was when she was about 18 or 19 (she's 28 now). Her doctor put her on birth control pills and she did start to get her period again.
USAFMOM
04-30-2007, 02:36 PM
Yepper, that is what it means :) My son is your age and is currently in, and my older son (age 24) did his time and got out. Thanks for your thoughtful P.S.
Unfortunately, there is sooo much conflicting info out there about the safety of hormones and other drugs it is very difficult to suggest any one thing in particular for your special situation, especially in someone who is not menopausal. My OB/GYN wanted to put me on Fosamax when my osteopenia was first diagnosed 3 years ago, and I was not yet menopausal. I did not elect to do this though as I felt in my particular situation it was a little premature. It does sound as though you do need immediate attention to yours, and the best bet is to find a good endocrinologist who is knowledgeable in the latest treatments for osteoporosis. On your own, you can continue to concentrate on your diet and weightbearing exercises, along with some good supplements for calcium and minerals. There is a lot of literature on progesterone cream too. I asked my endo about it and she said that the only thing it would help with is maybe the hot flashes of menopause. But I really don't know...there are some really good references available for it's use, but even still, one certainly cannot put too much stock in this particularly for your situation. "Bone-up" is a good product, I feel, as a good mineral and calcium supplement. It seems to have all of the minerals and vitamins needed to help the calcium work to it's potential. You can ask your doctor about Strontium too for bone mass, perhaps he will have heard of it.
There really is a whirlwind of info out there, some good, some bad, some questionable. Wish I could be more helpful, but I do wish you the best! :)
Unfortunately, there is sooo much conflicting info out there about the safety of hormones and other drugs it is very difficult to suggest any one thing in particular for your special situation, especially in someone who is not menopausal. My OB/GYN wanted to put me on Fosamax when my osteopenia was first diagnosed 3 years ago, and I was not yet menopausal. I did not elect to do this though as I felt in my particular situation it was a little premature. It does sound as though you do need immediate attention to yours, and the best bet is to find a good endocrinologist who is knowledgeable in the latest treatments for osteoporosis. On your own, you can continue to concentrate on your diet and weightbearing exercises, along with some good supplements for calcium and minerals. There is a lot of literature on progesterone cream too. I asked my endo about it and she said that the only thing it would help with is maybe the hot flashes of menopause. But I really don't know...there are some really good references available for it's use, but even still, one certainly cannot put too much stock in this particularly for your situation. "Bone-up" is a good product, I feel, as a good mineral and calcium supplement. It seems to have all of the minerals and vitamins needed to help the calcium work to it's potential. You can ask your doctor about Strontium too for bone mass, perhaps he will have heard of it.
There really is a whirlwind of info out there, some good, some bad, some questionable. Wish I could be more helpful, but I do wish you the best! :)