gynecologist encouraging shorter placebo week

[essos.livejournal.com]

I went to the gynecologist today to discuss switching birth control methods and went with the ring. While explaining how it works, she encouraged me to NOT take it out for a full 7 days, but instead to wear it for say, 24 days and only have 4 days off, or just wear it for a full 4 weeks and put in a new one the same day I take it out. According to her, there are a decent number of gynecologists who are advocating against the 21 day on/7 day off pattern of most hormonal birth control, I think just on the premise that it's difficult (the technical term, of course) to go from 3 weeks of hormones to suddenly nothing for a whole week and then back on hormones. Some doctors are starting to encourage a Mircette-like schedule (26 days on/2 off, right?) or a Seasonale-esque approach (84 days on) but with a less-than-7 day placebo week. The key in all this is not the number of days on hormones but the number of days off them.

Has this already come up here? Anyone else heard this sort of thing from their doctor or elsewhere? 1) It makes sense to me. 2) It doesn't compromise your protection. 3) It works especially well with the ring because for 21 days you have the required amount of hormones for protection against pregnancy, and anything left over helps you ease back down to nothing for a couple days. 4) Theoretically, I might end up having a shorter period or skipping it occasionally, though I'm worried about spotting.

Anyway. That's it. Thoughts?

Comments

[aechei.livejournal.com]

the ring is actually effective for at least 28 days (per the insert instructions) or 35 (depending on who you ask, but if i left it in for 35, i would definitely put a new on e in immediately)

i skipped my last period, and will be going about 8 weeks without one. i dont really like not having it, just in case i got pregnant by some fluke. its a lot easier to abort if you catch it really early.

[essos.livejournal.com]

"the ring is actually effective for at least 28 days (per the insert instructions)"

Ooo! True. Well, I'm a fool.


(I just realized that looks like I'm being sarcastic and mad that you're setting me straight and that's totally not it. I'm very sincere. Damn the internet!)

[grntserendipity.livejournal.com]

Mine did that to-- because it also increases effectiveness, too. I like it alot. My hormones are not as crazy, either.

[amhranai9.livejournal.com]

Sorry this is random, but I totally <3 your icon!

[jennifer0246.livejournal.com]

increases effectiveness?

[grntserendipity.livejournal.com]

If your ovaries aren't getting "woken up" each month as my gyno described it. I don't know how better to describe it.

[jennifer0246.livejournal.com]

i have no idea what your GYN may have meant. a woman correctly taking hormonal birth control does not ovulate, thus her ovaries are always 'asleep', if you want to call it that. extending your cycle has no bearing on anything.

[orangewrath.livejournal.com]

Yeah, but some women DO ovulate. I know there (used?) to be a perfect user in here who swore she ovulates.

Anyway, just in case it does happen..I can see where ovaries would be more active or something. Maybe her gyno knows she ovulates?

You know, I really have no idea either. Can grntserendipity explain more, please?

[robynchick.livejournal.com]

The thinking is sound. I left it in for 28 days and off for 7 per my doctor's suggestion.

[copperbeech.livejournal.com]

there is a lot of research on chemically altering the body to not have an actually period but maybe 3-4 times a year. i'm not sure if chemically inducing that is a good idea or not. it is based on quite a bit of anthropological data indicating that "back in the day" women probably had a 19th of the periods women in the west do now due to the fact that their life expectancy was shorter, they were pregnant often, nursing when they weren't pregnant, and often malnourished such that they just did not bleed. there is also general research indicating that having a monthly period, which involves saturating the womb and body in general with tons of "unnecessary" hormones AND the sex organs undergoing a lot of stress to no avail (ie, prep to get pregnant and then not get pregnant) is the root for a lot of female cancers.

i'm not sure what is the best scenario. :|