If some tubals have hormonal probs after then why not hormonal probs post vas??
anita
regards to no studies show any drop in testosterone after a vasectomy.
Looking at the female reproductive system when a tubal is done the
ends are either cut and burned or clipped (similar to what is done
with the vas deferens), comparing the female reproductive system in
which the ovaries are comparable to the testes in providing hormones
to our bodies why is it that no one will admit that a vasectomy
"Could" cause a decrease in hormones afterwards???? I have known many
women who have had tubal ligations and have had menstrual problems
afterwards and ended up having to be placed on hormonal therapy. So
in essence if clipping a fallopian tube so an egg doesn't get through
could possibly cause complications and hormonal problems then why
would the same scenario not be possible for the man in which clipping
the vas just stops the sperm from getting through??? Opinions
welcome.
Anita
dez
Interesting point. I know NOTHING about tubals...but here's a
question for you: do these women really have a decrease in female
hormones (estrogen, progesterone) or are they being treated for a
clinical condition that ingestion of these hormones ameliorate? I am
imagining that this might be a little different than our discussion on
testosterone, since for men testosterone manifests itself most
obviously in the libido. Also, ingestion of testosterone does not
seem to have any clinical benefits, except maybe to increase muscle
mass.
--Dez.
David
Well, to start with:- "why is it that no one will admit that a vasectomy
"Could" cause a decrease in hormones afterwards???? ".
Are we in denial about this?? I don't think so. As Giraud says, the studies
that have been done into this are at best inconclusive. This is a statement
of fact, not "Mass denial syndrome". Why on earth be in denial about
something that has been researched and found to be not the case?
I do sort of see where you are coming from on the arguments, however I am
distinctly uneasy about trying to draw comparisons between things that are
totally un-alike. Although we are all of the same "human" animal, the
reproductive systems are designed to do different functions, and are
incomparably different.
Comparing testicles and ovaries are like comparing the Diesel injectors in
my car with the dishwasher water pump. If the injectors clog up, the car
grinds to a halt. But if the water pump packs up the dishwasher still makes
clanking noises, the dishes still come out hot but the weetabix has simply
been baked on even harder. How can you draw a comparision?
In women, they possess the entire stock of eggs they will need at birth.
It's a scary thought that my 2 month premature daughter had our potential
grand-children inside from day 1. The testicles are part of a JIT (Just In
Time) stock system. They produce sperm that need to be fresh. The
differences do go on, but I think you get the point that they aren't
comparable.
The testosterone arguments here all suffer from one fallacy - deliberately
IMHO. There is a deffinite inference that T levels are fairly stable, and
more meaningful than they actually are. If you are suffering symptoms of low
testosterone, the doctor will of course take readings, but the diagnosis
will centre on symptoms with the reading being background information. T
levels vary enormously, and extremely quickly - a fact that
is played down here.
In men, hormone levels change very dramatically, very quickly to all sorts
of stimulii. Touch, suggestion, being in a crowd at a football match where
your side is winning/losing. Yes - there *are* studies into this that I have
posted more than once. The list goes on. This is the way our bodies work - I
don't think female hormones vary like this. I believe they are more regular,
less variable hence hormone readings have more meaning.
However, I can see that there may be an argument that some of the things
that affect male hormone levels could also affect female hormones. As Giraud
said in another post, pain and depression do cause low testosterone levels.
It may well be that the same factors can affect female hormone levels
similarly.
David
www.vasectomy-information.com
trifold
> ani...@dnetsystems.com (anita) wrote in message news:<8e648c60.04033...@posting.google.com>...
> > Just a hypothetical in general here, I have read several posts in
> > regards to no studies show any drop in testosterone after a vasectomy.
> > Looking at the female reproductive system when a tubal is done the
> > ends are either cut and burned or clipped (similar to what is done
> > with the vas deferens), comparing the female reproductive system in
> > which the ovaries are comparable to the testes in providing hormones
> > to our bodies why is it that no one will admit that a vasectomy
> > "Could" cause a decrease in hormones afterwards???? I have known many
> > women who have had tubal ligations and have had menstrual problems
> > afterwards and ended up having to be placed on hormonal therapy. So
> > in essence if clipping a fallopian tube so an egg doesn't get through
> > could possibly cause complications and hormonal problems then why
> > would the same scenario not be possible for the man in which clipping
> > the vas just stops the sperm from getting through??? Opinions
> > welcome.
>
> Interesting point. I know NOTHING about tubals...but here's a
> question for you: do these women really have a decrease in female
> hormones (estrogen, progesterone) or are they being treated for a
> clinical condition that ingestion of these hormones ameliorate?
>
>
I'm thinking along the same lines. It seems to me hormones might be
administered after a tubal for the same reason testosterone is
administered by some doctors after vasectomy in cases of pvp brought
on by sperm backpressure--to decrease artificially the production of
eggs/sperm. In this scenario, neither the tubal nor the vasectomy
affects hormone levels. Instead, adjusting hormone levels is a means
of treating a problem caused by the surgical intervention. Of course,
there is very good reason why the problem after tubal may be
greater--eggs are much bigger than sperm; eggs are released only
monthly, not all the time, so a woman's body has no natural mechanisms
for absorbing them. Anita's post inspires one final observation: if
tubals often lead to the problems she describes, that's one more
reason for couples to favor vasectomy.
That said, I will go Dez one better and confess to substantial
ignorance not only of tubals but of the female hormonal system and its
relation to menstruation. I should do some research on this! A
question for Anita, what kinds of menstrual problems did her friends
experience after tubals? If additional cramping, I could easily see
how the scenario I imagined above--a kind of egg back-pressure brought
on by closing the tubes--could result in a problem treatable by
hormone therapy.
Giraud
If you go to alt.support.childfree, there is often talk about this
topic, and most women there claim that it is a bunch of hooey.
There is a syndrome that is talked about on some web sites called
"post-tubal syndrome." It is either real or not, and there is a debate
as to the truth about this; in other words, I don't think PTS is proven.
Many believe that the symptoms attributed to PTS often happen after a
woman goes off the pill (after her tubal). And these people believe
that it is going off the pill that causes the problem, not the tubal
itself. But since it happened at the same time, some blame the tubal.
I think that there are theories that reduced blood flow to the overies
can cause problems or something. Again, I am not knowledgable about
this, but you can search the web for the sites that talk about it.
There is speculation, also, that the anti-tubal sites *may* have a
hidden religious agenda, like some anti-vasectomy sites may.
"tubal.org" is one site that I've seen pointed out as having
questionable merit.
Giraud
anita
Just an answer to some questions posed, a few of the women that I knew
who "had" problems post tubal ligation, told me that their menstrual
cycles became much, much heavier (bleeding wise) and their cramps much
worse, and their menstrual period lengthened. Now why would just a
clipping of a fallopian tube do all this and my thinking is that if
"some" women have problems like this then probably "some" men could
have problems also post vas.
As far as comparing ovaries and testis, remember in utero the fetus
forms into either a male or female based on that x or y chromosome we
all start with the same tissue our vagina forms inward from tissue
that forms your penis, our labia is formed out of tissue that forms
your scrotum etc. etc.
Anita
Giraud
> Just an answer to some questions posed, a few of the women that I knew
> who "had" problems post tubal ligation, told me that their menstrual
> cycles became much, much heavier (bleeding wise) and their cramps much
> worse, and their menstrual period lengthened.
Were these women also on the pill before the tubal? Did they go off it
after? These symptoms would also happen if one stops using the pill.
Giraud
David
> Just an answer to some questions posed, a few of the women that I knew
> who "had" problems post tubal ligation, told me that their menstrual
> cycles became much, much heavier (bleeding wise) and their cramps much
> worse, and their menstrual period lengthened. Now why would just a
> clipping of a fallopian tube do all this and my thinking is that if
> "some" women have problems like this then probably "some" men could
> have problems also post vas.
Well, my wife considered having a tubal if they had to do a C section during
the last pregnancy. As it happened she did have a C section but the tubal
was not an option. No doubt if she had the tubal, she *would* have had these
problems, and it *would* have been the fault of the tubal.
However, things are never as clear as they seem. Nowadays my wife has no
need for any form of BC. Since our last child was born she has had the
symptoms above. If she had had the tubal, she would still have had the
symptoms, but also something to blame. Her medical history is that she was
prescribed the pill in her early teens for these symptoms, pregancy mucked
sround with her hormones big time, and she now has a Mirena coil fitted to
help alleviate the symptoms, and make the cycle more regular. Despite her
medical record in this area, in her mind it would have been the fault of the
tubal. My wife is very good at apportioning blame in all area's of life, and
consequently would have had no problem in blaming a tubal. Both men and
women have this tendency, so you have to allow for it when making
judgements.
I don't think the argument as simple as portrayed basically.
David
www.vasectomy-information.com
trifold
> who "had" problems post tubal ligation, told me that their menstrual
> cycles became much, much heavier (bleeding wise) and their cramps much
> worse, and their menstrual period lengthened. Now why would just a
> clipping of a fallopian tube do all this and my thinking is that if
> "some" women have problems like this then probably "some" men could
> have problems also post vas.
> As far as comparing ovaries and testis, remember in utero the fetus
> forms into either a male or female based on that x or y chromosome we
> all start with the same tissue our vagina forms inward from tissue
> that forms your penis, our labia is formed out of tissue that forms
> your scrotum etc. etc.
I think Giraud's point that stopping the pill could have these same
effects is very sound. Plus, as I pointed out, even if some features
of male and female anatomy are similar, an egg is very different from
a sperm cell, as is the process by which eggs emit from the ovaries
and move through the body. After all, if we men bled from our penis's
every month, imagine how crazy we'd be! We can't handle this stuff!
Lozette
> I don't know too much about this, but I have read seen a few web sites.
> If you go to alt.support.childfree, there is often talk about this
> topic, and most women there claim that it is a bunch of hooey.
>
> There is a syndrome that is talked about on some web sites called
> "post-tubal syndrome." It is either real or not, and there is a debate
> as to the truth about this; in other words, I don't think PTS is proven.
>
> Many believe that the symptoms attributed to PTS often happen after a
> woman goes off the pill (after her tubal). And these people believe
> that it is going off the pill that causes the problem, not the tubal
> itself. But since it happened at the same time, some blame the tubal.
>
> I think that there are theories that reduced blood flow to the overies
> can cause problems or something. Again, I am not knowledgable about
> this, but you can search the web for the sites that talk about it.
>
> There is speculation, also, that the anti-tubal sites *may* have a
> hidden religious agenda, like some anti-vasectomy sites may.
> "tubal.org" is one site that I've seen pointed out as having
> questionable merit.
>
> Giraud
I agree with Giraud... I think a lot of "anti tubal sites" claiming
PTS is real have a hidden agenda.
I had a tubal in 2001, aged 24. Yes, my periods got heavier
afterwards, but that was because I'd been on the pill for eight years
- and the pill makes your periods lighter. That is a proven medical
fact - the pill is often prescribed to relieve period problems (it was
for me) - PTS is not (yet) proven medically.
Laura.
ROB
Laura,
My wife had the same problems when she stopped the pill. She bled
horribly for the 6 months after I got snipped. Actually she stopped
the pill 1 month post vas as she was having other issues from the
pill. Her cycles were out of wack as well, sometimes not menstruating
for only 6-10 days, only to start. She was on the pill for almost 18
years.
All good medicine,
GREENFEATHER
In the sandbox yet again !!!