Why is this? Apparently, it has to do with where women live. A FertilityCare Educator (teacher of teachers) explained that she was once supervising two new practitioners (Creighton teachers). One practitioner had clients with perfect charts. Every single chart looked like the textbook cycle! (The Educator almost didn't believe her.)
At the same time, the other practitioner had messy, long, confusing, patchy cycles that needed loads of help, management, and doctor help to understand. The clients of both practitioners were all around the same age and demographic (the typical NFP user). The only difference: the clean charts were from rural North Dakota, and the nasty charts were from New York City. The Educator attributed the difference to pollution.
This scared me.
There are certainly other factors at work in this anecdote. Even so, this needs more research, because this could mean the beginning of the end of mucus based fertility awareness methods. If people can't make valid observations and be confident in their own interpretations, how can they use their fertility to plan their family naturally? I feel like I'm putting on an aluminum foil hat, but it's the truth: if we can't rely on observations and sensations, we can't use methods like BOMA or CrMS.
Even if the health of our environment is only one factor in the health of women, I would feel more motivated to care for it to help families use NFP. Meanwhile, more research is needed to discover how much pollution contributes to cycle irregularity. (I've put it on my list of research projects to do.)
If you're a couple using NFP, you know it's not easy! If you think NFP is a good thing (and that it's already hard enough, thanks), you may want to be more earnest about good environmental stewardship.
I wonder if the primary environmental pollutant causing these irregularities is the presence of synthetic hormones in the water supply as a byproduct of the widespread oral contraceptive use in the big city.
ReplyDeleteThere hasn't been any evidence to suggest or refute an acquired female reproductive disturbance as a result of environmental artificial estrogens from contraceptives. (There have been studies correlating prenatal artificial estrogen exposure with male report give abnormalities, and with acquired reproductive problems in fish, but that's all I know of.)
DeleteI'm so glad you are training in both CrMS and BOMA. I am currently doing my residency project comparing the two methods. Your gift to the Church will be greater with both backgrounds, I think. Have you met the Religious Sisters of Mercy of Alma? They have Sisters involved in these areas... Gluten intolerance/sensitivity is also on the rise, and may contribute to faulty ovulation secondary to high levels of inflammatory mediators in the blood. Of course, drinking estrogen does not help matters. The truth of the matter is, that we CAN rely on BOMA, at least, despite constant baseline levels of circulating estrogen. The strength of BOMA is that it relies on patterns of observation to correlate ovulation, not discrete observations (e.g. one or two days of clear, slippery mucous WITHOUT a preceding changing developing pattern ending in slippery, is NOT a peak/sign of ovulation, according to BOMA). Therefore, despite the fact that women may have many attempts at ovulation in a single follicular phase, and a long cycle, she will clearly recognize a true peak when using BOMA. A "patchy" cycle, with multiple attempts at ovulation, is NORMAL for most women. If you correlate the continuous patchy cycle with ultrasound of the ovaries, you will most likley find that they are polycystic. What I have found in practice is that ovaries usually don't get reported as polycystic by radiologists because this is so commonly observed that they assumed it is normal when it is not. Blessings on your training.
ReplyDeleteI'm still hoping to hear from you, in case we can be in touch about your residency project. My email is medicalmatins@gmx.com. Thanks for all you're doing!
DeleteWhat? You are doing your residency project comparing the two methods?! We need to be in touch! That's something that I've wanted to do, and if you are doing it I want to know how and what you're finding! Please, PLEASE email me at medicalmatins@gmx.com.
ReplyDeleteAlso: I love the RSM (thought about being one) and really, really want to talk more about the "pathcy cycle" vs. "double peak" issue with BOMA and CrMS. I'm praying you email me!