Or in other words, one is likely to be bleeding on and off throughout the year, sometimes heavily. This is new?
FWIW, the fact of not having a period, in itself, doesn't seem like it would be a health problem. Women who breastfeed intensively and experience regular pregnancies can go many years without a period.
>>FWIW, the fact of not having a period, in itself, doesn’t seem like it would be a health problem. Women who breastfeed intensively and experience regular pregnancies can go many years without a period.<<
Exactly.
I don’t know though, pumping your body with artificial hormones seems way different to me than the natural ones from pregnancy and breastfeeding.
Given your large family I will take your word for the latter ... but to be honest, I can't see how you can "experience regular pregnancies" without having a period. Are you suggesting that those regular pregnancies can be timed and planned to occur exactly on your first post-breastfeeding ovulation?
I was skeptical when I heard about this a few years ago. But I was won over at a lecture by one of the researchers, a very pro-life, pro-family, pro-abstinence OB/Gyn.
“Nature” gives women 9 to 24 months “off” with pregnancy and breastfeeding. There seems to be less chance of ovarian cancer with fewer cycles in the life span. (Although I had a patient with 16 children who died at 56 years old of ovarian cancer.)
More than likely, there’s no endometrial build up and much less chance of breakthrough ovulation. (And so, much, much less chance for fertilization.)
The on/off cycling just allows the symptoms to come and go for women women with symptomatic endometriosis and fibrocystic breast changes. The neat thing about the long term suppression is no build up of the endometrium is great for women with endometriosis, and no monthly breast changes is great for fibrocystic breast syndrome.