Talk:Menopause

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Medicine This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the doctor's mess.
B This page has been rated as B-Class on the quality assessment scale
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance assessment scale

Contents

[edit] Climacteric fruit

This words in also used in plant biology to refer to fruit which have a large increase in cellular respiration, evidenced by increased uptake of oxygen. It occurs in tomatoes, avocados, and pome fruits, such as apples and pears. The definition is in opposition to nonclimacteric fruits that show a steady decline in cellular respiration (gradual ripening) such as citrus fruits, grapes, and strawberries.

In climacteric fruits, this is largely due to a spike in the synthesis of ethylene.

I'm not sure how to add this page, so I'm just putting it on the table for someone who does. Thanks!

My thoughts: right now, Climacteric is a redirect to Menopause. Perhaps that should be changed to be a DAB, incorporating the information above? Any objections? --Arcadian 15:12, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

I'm inclined to removing the line "According to a recent survey (http://nccam.nih.gov/news/2004/052704.htm), 0.8% of the adult American population ([1] (http://nccam.nih.gov/news/report.pdf) p9) use complementary and alternative medicine to treat menopause." as, quite frankly, it seems irrelevant to the article. 0.8%! This is an insignificant figure (min 4% counts, iirc) but you might as well say that 1% of menopausal women eat sweets to treat the symptoms (actually, the figure will be way higher - from personal experience!). Likewise "adult American population"? The menopause, despte its name, only affects women. This whole statement is wrong for WP imho. --VampWillow 22:40, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I am not! And, I would more than be happy to add it back plus a whole lot more. -- [[User:Mr-Natural-Health|John Gohde | Talk]] 22:55, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
It's rather astonishing that those interested in alternative medicine see menopause as a disease! - Nunh-huh 23:00, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Try reading the survey! Try using your brain, too. There are two basic alternative medicine treatments for Menopause. Can you name them doctor? -- [[User:Mr-Natural-Health|John Gohde | Talk]] 23:05, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
It's still astonishing. - Nunh-huh 23:07, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
zero point eight percent is **insignificant** and, as such, meaningless. A 'treatment' with such a tiny level of use has no basis for being here (and in no way could be considered a 'basic ... treatment' by any stretch of the imagination!). --VampWillow 23:44, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
There is no such guideline, rule, policy or anything of the like in Wikipedia. STOP complaining and start writing. -- [[User:Mr-Natural-Health|John Gohde | Talk]] 09:02, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
My point has nothing to do with WP ... it is that *0.8%* has no statistical meaning or validity whatsoever. You may wish to promote AM 'treatments' but at a 0.8% level they are just have the appearance of quackery. --VampWillow 11:21, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean when you say 0.8% has no statistical meaning. If the statistic is accurate, then it does have a clear meaning. Also, remember that although 0.8% is small on a relative scale, it adds up to quite a few women. Regardless, I think the point here should be whether alternative medicine should be part of this article at all (regardless of the numbers of women who use it). If we keep it, I would suggest someone do some research on the history of remedies for menopausal symptoms and integrate this into that history (which would include modern remedies, medical and alternative). Tom 04:24, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
What I'm trying to express is that 0.8% is way below even the level that would be considered 'random'. (ie. 99.2% don't!!) Anything below the about 4% is 'non-statistical', ie. cannot be shown to work and that there can be no conclusions drawn that AM 'treatments' do any good or, in this case, that the number who supposedly follow such a regimen are actually doing so. If there is *statistically valid* research on what *works* for the relief of symptoms then I'm all for seeing it become part of an overall article - although it would not and should not be the prime content of the article as that is about 'menopause' not 'dealing with...', but just saying that a tiny number (or percentage - either way it is ignorable) use something (as it does at the moment) doesn't actually mean a thing. When I had symptoms I ate chocolate. I'm not unusual in that and I could probably find that well over 0.8% of women did so too. Doesn't make it something that should be on here and, imho, neither should this AM stuff be. Speaking personally, HRT has been great for me... ;-) --VampWillow 15:37, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Ah, now I think I understand you. However, your talk about "random" only make sense if a statistic is trying to measure an effect -- i.e. if 0.8% of women who ate M&Ms found it relieved their hot flashes, that would be statistically meaningless. However, if 0.8% of the population of a town likes Lima Beans, that's not meaningless at all -- it just means that 8 of every 1000 people likes Lima Beans (or, in this case, seeks "alternative" medicine). But back to the meat of the conversation: I agree we should take it out, barring a larger discussion of remedies for symptoms of menopause ("dealing with it..." as you say!). If that discussion got big enough, perhaps it would merit its own article. However, if there's only one sentence on alternative medicine, I agree that it gives a false sense of the importance of "alternative" treatments, especially without some discussion of what those alternatives are (i.e. are they chocolate?)

Mr-Natural-Health has been banned. You should feel free to remove his more senseless advocacy. - David Gerard 01:07, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Please let me know who all are expected to contribute. I am freelance writer and I research before I write. I would like people to read my article and help me improve. I just don't expect somebody come delete my article links without justification. I guess the purpose of this application is to share, educate and promote people to read and write.

Your article is in an external link. It adds little to what is covered on this page, and is not worthy of linking. If you want to contribute to Wikipedia I suggest you work on the actual articles, instead of expecting us to proofread your work elsewhere. JFW | T@lk 09:32, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cause of Menopause

The article claims that menopause happens as a result of the ovaries no longer producing estrogen. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the actual cause aging of the ovaries? Estrogen levels decrease as a result. --Superdix 14:42, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

"One" of the causes of menopause is aging of the ovaries. Then we have Premature Ovarian Failure, Radiation Therapy, Chemotherapy and Tamoxifen and surgery - Oophorectomy or Hysterectomy. These bring on Sudden Menopause and the age of the woman is not a factor. missfebruary

Thank you for the information, but that did not clarify the cause-effect relationship between aging of ovaries and production level of estrogen. The article should, as it does today, present the natural cause of menopause first (which is the cause for the vast majority of women), and then comment on the various other ways in which estrogen levels could decrease -- e.g. ovarian failure or hysterectomy. My point is that the ovaries simply do not stop producing estrogen, a variety of processes related to their aging cause them to gradually lower the production. Which is why I think it would make more sense stating that the real cause of menopause is aging of the ovaries, i.e. this is the physiological background for the onset of menopause. Superdix 21:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of various blogs from the external links section

I am once again going to remove mymenopauseblog.com from the External Links section. Please see What Wikipedia is Not. Wikipedia is not an advertising space, nor is it an indiscriminate collection of links. Superdix 13:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

See also, Wikipedia's External links policy, which explicitly prohibits most blogs. -- Mwanner | Talk 13:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think a blog dedicated to menopause (symptoms/relief etc.) should be considered an indiscriminate link. Women want to dialogue with other women about their menopause experience. Please reconsider. missfebruary

The issue will probably be reconsidered if you can show that we can include the blog while satisfying WP guidelines and policies. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, and if women want to discuss menopause, they could very well search for a site like that on a search engine. We're here to provide the facts. Superdix 20:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Prozac has been repackaged as Femara ..."?

From paragraph 4 of "Treatment of Symptoms".

This is incorrect. Femara is the brand name for letrozole, which is an aromatase inhibitor indicated for the adjuvant treatment of breast cancer (http://www.femara.com/). I am not sure to which rebranding the author was refering for Prozac. Dbonnyay 16:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Breast Cancer and Coronary Heart Disease

The author states that the WHI was stopped early because of an increase in CHD (heart) and breast cancer in both the Premarin in and Prempro arms of the study. This is incorrect and should be revised. The actual data recorded 30 CHD/10,000 in the placebo group and 37 CHD/10,000 in the Prempro group; a modest but significant increase. Likewise there were 30 breast cancers/10,000 in placebo vs 38/10,000 in the Prempro group, again modest yet statistically significant increase. The Premarin arm showed decreases in both heart disease and breast cancer over placebo. The actual numbers are: 54 CHD/10,000 placebo vs 49 CHD/10,000 Premarin and 33 BC/10,000 placebo vs. 26 BC/10,000 Premarin. The Prempro arm ended early because of patient drop out and because the risks of using Prempro to prevent coronary heart disease outweighed any predicted benefit in older women.

[edit] Introduction Issue

I consider that the introduction given for this article is not right, I think it should be focused on women rather than female species, and as well the mention of "pilot whales" is irrelevant to this article.

I'm going to change the "pilot whales" sentence and try to replace it with something more related to the article itself in the following days. Feel free to post your opinion over this issue, and any help is well received. JenniferFisher 14:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Question

Have you ever looked at MenopauseRx.com ? It is an educational website for menopause. Great information! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.154.221.142 (talk) 19:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Not to sound dumb(im young) If u go through Menopause does that mean u stop periods?

Yes, it does. The root words for menopause are "meno" ("month" in Greek) and "pausus" ("cessation" in Greek).
For future reference, please sign any posts you make on a "Talk:" page with four tildes in a row. This fills in your Wikipedia name and the time and date of posting. Thanks in advance...Scarletsmith 17:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Premature Menopause

Premature Menopause redirects here, but little or no information is contained in this article. (perhaps as a result of deletions or revisions). Was there a merger of the two articles or has their never been a full article on premature menopause. It would seem to me that premature menopause would merit it's own article since it would have it's own issues and problems associated w/ it. 208.53.104.68 15:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)amyanda2000

[edit] "See Also" little issue

I need some little advice, there is a link on See Also section Louann Brizendine.

Is this related to the article?, because there is no mention of the word "menopause" on it.

So please is just a small thing, maybe she is a known doctor related to menopause, but I just don't see the connection, or how helpful it could be for users to see this article.

If you know the answer please help me out, please. JenniferFisher 22:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JenniferFisher (talk • contribs) 22:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hot flashes?

The word is flushes. Presumably it's "flashes" in the USA, but WP:MOS requires that we stick to the form of English used by the first significant contributor to the article - that was User:Karen Johnson who is Australian, thus the article should use Commonwealth English not American English. Waggers (talk) 11:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Possibly, but for self-consistency it should be noted that we have the article Hot flash. I myself tend to try to favor (or favour) the version that avoids using the [[this|that]] syntax for links simply for the sake of simplicity, and also, just to split hairs, when significantly rewriting an article the "first major contributor" provision doesn't necessary apply (I haven't however checked to see if the article has been significantly rewritten though). Triona (talk) 12:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
The article was extensively rewritten by me a while ago. I am British but have lived half my life in the USA. I used hot flash but also put hot flush in too as an alternative, I think it covers all bases. Invertzoo (talk) 16:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Menopause in human evolution section

I removed "Another hypothesis is that menopause evolved not for a survival benefit, but in our Hunter gatherer past humans didn't live much past the age of 45 due to predation and other forms death not related to the persons genetics. Therefore there was not much selective pressure past the age of 45 for genes that made females reproductive past this point as they would never use those genes anyway. Now that humans live in an agricultural society and are much more protected from predation and the other elements of nature they live well into their old age exposing late occurring genetic mutations which accumulated in the human population do to very little selective pressure in later life against them, since most never made it past 45 anyway. Menopause being one of them along with other age related illnesses. Theoretically women may be evolving menopause to occur later and later in life, as now women do live an average of 75 yrs old, some will have children in their late 50's or even 60's giving an advantage to those genes that cause menopause to happen later in life, by baring more offspring on average than women that have menopause earlier in life." Wikipedia is not the place for original research or speculations. If this theory is not original research, a respectable reference source must be quoted. I will also write to the new user who put in this paragraph. Invertzoo (talk) 18:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

For the same reasons, I removed " Or it could work the other way around and the hypothalamus/pituitary is not sending the signals" which seemed like an orphaned sentence, perhaps left from an earlier edit. Kitty Davis (talk) 20:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] factual errors in article

see onset of menopause - ages stated are impossibly young for averages. I am not an expert in this area, so can not accurately correct the article. Please take a look, thanks! 3/22/08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.98.105.188 (talk) 03:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Nope, those are indeed accurate average ages. Do a Google search for "age of menopause" and you will see that all of that info is correct and universally recognized, for example look at the NIH information. Also, one other thing, please remember to sign your comments by typing 4 of these ~ Thanks. Invertzoo (talk) 12:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to add that a lot of people imagine that menopause is something that happens only to "old ladies". In fact it happens in mid life. Invertzoo (talk) 13:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

There's a bit of a misunderstanding, here. Someone changed all of the ages we had in the article from, say 51 to 31, 40 to 20, etc. So when the unsigned person above said "impossibly young for averages", he/she was I'm sure referring to the ages that were, indeed, impossibly young and likely changed by a vandal. I changed them back. So that's what the reference was to, Invertzoo.QuizzicalBee (talk) 16:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh! Thanks very much QuizzicalBee. I don't come to this page every day and I don't have it watched, so I missed seeing that. I am glad you noticed it and changed it! Thanks, and I am sorry I misunderstood the message from 24.98.105.188. Invertzoo (talk) 17:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)