Talk:Menstrual cycle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Menstrual cycle article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
Featured article star Menstrual cycle is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 30, 2005.
January 19, 2004 Refreshing brilliant prose Kept
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.
Featured article FA This page has been rated as FA-Class on the quality assessment scale
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance assessment scale
Peer review This Natsci article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated FA-Class on the assessment scale (comments).
This article was selected on the Medicine portal as one of Wikipedia's best articles related to Medicine.

Contents

[edit] Luteal phase

"The corpus luteum is the solid body formed in the ovaries after the egg has been released from the fallopian tube which continues to grow and divide for a while." Sorry to be a grammarian, but exactly what is it that continues to grow and divide for a while? The corpus luteum or the egg? (I presume it isn't the fallopian tube.) -- Gyrofrog (talk) 02:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Incorrect figure

I think the figure in this article is incorrect on a few points:

  • the numbers of the days should be moved between two dots (a day is a period, not a event);
  • rise of temperature is after, not during the ovulation;
  • LH increases before, not during ovulation (LH rise triggers the ovulation 36 hours before);
  • no FSH rise in the early follicular phase is depicted;
  • ovulation is a event, no process of 2 days;
  • menstruation period is normally about 4-5 days, not 7 days;

Desiderius 8:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Not only that, but the image gives off the wrong impression that the follicle goes from a primordial follicle to a tertiary follicle in the first days of the menstrual cycle. That is wrong since it takes almost a year for the follicle to attain the antral stage (and then be recruited and selected as the dominant follicle that will undergo ovulation). The timescale from the recruitment of the primordial follicle all the way to ovulation actually takes about 375 days! (c.f. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folliculogenesis). This is a commone mistake and even some textbooks have it. The first three follicles must be changed to smaller versions of the fourth one with a smaller antrum. There is a diagram in the folliculogenesis page. Notice how the follicle is already "grown-up" when it reaches the selection window to enter the ovarian cycle? I already messaged the creator of the picture but he never answered...

Does anyone have a better diagram or could anyone make one? I think it's pretty important. Horia 03:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I think I've addressed all the concerns raised above. I've also made the temperature wander a little to better reflect actual temperature charts. My current file is visible here. Comments welcome. I'll wait a few days for comments so I can make any other requested changes, and then upload it to Wikipedia under the name MenstrualCycle2.png Lyrl Talk C 23:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Lyrl, looks good to me! Horia 14:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Strike The Moon-Tales

Strike all the illogical, erroneous moon-tales from this article. They are unsupported. The lunar phase of the urban legend even contradicts tales mentioned in one of the links mentioning moon-phases. The other moon-link is useless as well as it drops you at a search and not a specific reference.

You call this Space Age Medicine? Hmmmmppft72.251.0.19 09:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree about this. I do think it's a good point that perhaps the reason that the moon doesn't seem to affect modern women's menstrual cycles is because of the urban lifestyle. But the point seems moot, as either way the moon doesn't seem to have anything to do with modern menstrual entrainment. I'm not sure what procedure policy dictates for removal of this section, but if someone knows then I think it would be well-advised to move forward with removing this section. Ehb 17:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


As a matter of fact, the influence of the moon on menstrual cycles is known. It's very simple: light affects the pituitary. However, in order to get enough light to stimulate ovulation, women must be not only in non-urban environments but *always sleeping outdoors*. There used to be a research abstract about a study done on this (women with irregular cycles slept with the light on - it needs a lot of light, I have no idea how they managed to sleep - for three days when they should be ovulating, and this generally regulated their cycle length) at the Apollo Health website, but for some reason they have less information up at the moment, although there is some at http://www.apollolight.com/irregular_menstrual_cycle.html (now with a fair amount of information I'd mistrust, unfortunately, such as the theory that women not on the Pill are naturally in phase with the moon, but I think the original study was still valid - can anyone find it?). Anyway, this is a real relationship between lunar cycles and menstrual cycles, and I'm guessing it would have been influential during evolution, but since humans have been living indoors for a very long time now, and with enough light pollution that the moon makes little difference to the amount of nighttime illumination, this no longer affects women's cycles. Anyone who is living a modern urban life and thinks that the moon is affecting their cycles, libido or anything else is living in dreamland. As far as I can tell, this would be a suitable section for the article:

The average menstrual cycle is 29 days, the same length as the lunar cycle. When humans were still living and sleeping outdoors, with no light pollution to obscure moonlight, it is probably that the full moon coincided with ovulation, since light stimulates the pituitary, and that this will have been relevant during evolution. Some studies have shown that sleeping with a strong light on (at least 50W three feet away from the bed) for three days at the time of expected ovulation can regulate the length of irregular or long cycles. However, since modern humans sleep indoors and there is so much light pollution that the moon makes little to no difference to the amount of nighttime illumination, lunar cycles now make absolutely no difference to menstrual cycles. There are various myths around that the moon can influence fertility, libido or cycle length, but they are all incorrect as applied to modern lifestyles. Strong light can indeed alter circadian rhythms and menstrual cycles, which is why shift workers are prone to menstrual irregularities, and bright light therapy (as used for Seasonal Affective Disorder or depression) in the daytime may also affect menstrual cycles.

I'm having trouble finding research, Google searches keep pulling up all the nonsense myths instead. Here's the best I can do so far, sorry that they're abstracts rather than full articles:

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a714014296~db=all http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.ncoimage.neco.edu/pubmed/17601857?dopt=Abstract http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.ncoimage.neco.edu/pubmed/17597228?dopt=Abstract http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.ncoimage.neco.edu/pubmed/17290302?dopt=Abstract

Elettaria (talk) 13:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Normal menarche age 8-16 ????

While it's certainly not unheard of for a girl to first menstruate at the age of 8, this is considered precocious (Cesario & Hughes 2007, J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs 36:263-274). In recent study of over 700 girls designed to study girls with early menarche, the youngest girl to menstruate was 9.4 years at menarche (Sloboda et al. 2007, J Clin Endocrinol Metab 92:46-50).

The references I've provided above suggest that this statement is inaccurate as it stands. Unfortunately, I do not have good data on what should be considered normal. In things of this nature I have noticed that there is often a tendancy to report that a certain range is normal, possibly so as not to make people worry that they are abnormal. However, to say that any age range is "normal" is incomplete unless normality is defined. In a sample of one-million, it might be "normal" to have one girl who reaches menarche at age 5, and another not until 25. But that doesn't mean that "5-25" is the "normal" range.

My suggestion is to report the mean age of menarche with the standard deviation, based on one or (hopefully) more solid sources, and then perhaps to add a statement mentioning that the distribution is highly variable.

Ehb 17:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable, but it's not something I'm familiar with. I think Wikipedia's policy of Be Bold applies here.
If you enclose references in <ref></ref> tags after the article text while in the edit window (what you see when you click on an "edit" button), they will appear at the end of the article in the "references" section in normal viewing mode. Lyrl Talk C 01:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Two points. First of all, try looking at the more relevant articles: puberty and menarche. This article is not the place for a detailed exposition on timing of menarche. Second, menarche can be normal in every sense except chronological age as early as 1 year or later than 18: see Lina Medina for an example of perfectly normal very early menarche. Don't get hung up on trying to establish an age threshold for "normal" because there isn't one-- only a mean and percentiles. alteripse 01:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category removal

This article has been removed from Category:Fertility awareness as part of a planned deletion of Category:Periodic abstinence, Category:Fertility awareness, and Category:Natural family planning - articles from those categories will be merged into the new Category:Fertility tracking. Category:Fertility tracking is currently a subcategory of Category:Menstruation. Please bring up any concerns related to this merger at Category talk:Fertility tracking. If there are no objections within four days, the three categories proposed for deletion will be tagged for speedy deletion. Lyrl Talk C 22:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Apes?

The introduction says "occurs in the females of human beings and other great apes". The section "Menstrual cycles in other mammals" states that estrus cycles should not be confused with menstrual cycles, then appears to give the duration of estrus for chimpanzees and orangutans. This is either ambiguous (do apes have menstrual or estrus cycles?) or flat out wrong. 75.198.89.65 04:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

They appear to have both - some information available here. Menstrual cycle meaning they menstruate, estrus cycle meaning they have a pronounced higher interest in sex when they are most fertile (which humans may also have, see here). I'm not clear enough on the specifics to attempt to improve the Wikipedia articles involved, although I agree they are weak in this area. LyrlTalk C 13:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Cycle lenght

The article states: It is unusual for a woman to experience cycle length variations of less than four days.

I would say, it is rather very usual.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kasiata (talk • contribs) 08:46, 3 September 2007

That is what the reference says. If you are aware of a different reference that says otherwise, please add it to the article or point it out on this page so we can add that information to the article. LyrlTalk C 12:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ovulation

The article reads that the Fallopian tubes need to capture the ovum...however it is the fimbrae that catch the ovum, which then travels through the Fallopian tubes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chem Lady (talk • contribs) 04:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evolutionary advantage of the menstrual cycle

I googled a bit to find explanations why in the course of evolution (some) primates developed the menstrual cycle and other species not, but I could not find any. Given the fact that a non-negligible share of women suffer of dysmenorrhea to a degree that they are severely constricted in activities of every-day life as well as their work, the "invention" of the menstrual cycle simply seems to be a maladaption. Maybe someone can write a bit on the current scientific status of this issue. 84.163.85.165 (talk) 19:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

To my understanding, dysmenorrhea doesn't occur in other primates, so it is a problem with humans specifically, not with the menstrual cycle itself. Possibly it is caused by environmental factors rather than absolute genetic disposition. Also, for the vast majority of human evolutionary history (a few hundred thousand years), women were either pregnant or breastfeeding for most of their lives. Breastfeeding combined with the restricted calorie diet (nutritionally rich, just low-calorie) of most hunter-gatherer societies is highly effective at suppressing menstruation. Only in the past few thousand years has menstruation become a common event (with the higher calorie diet of agricultural societies and the discovery of rudimentary methods of birth control).
There are a few theories of why menstruation evolved in the menstruation article. Do you think we should try to incorporate them here? LyrlTalk C 22:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sperm survival length

This sentence "Sperm survive inside a woman for 3 days on average, with survival time up to five days considered normal" seems a bit off. It states the average as 3 days, while survival up to 5 days considered normal. would normal not usually mean average? should it not state that 5 days is the maximum it can survive?

I think eight days is considered the maximum, but the odds of that are about like winning the lottery. "Normal" is a range, with anywhere from one day to five days considered normal. LyrlTalk C 02:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Figure change

The image at the top of the article was replaced with a revised version yesterday. I had both some concerns and some positives comments on the changes:

  • The figure reintroduces a number of inaccuracies addressed previously: #Incorrect figure (specifically lines 2,3,4, and 6 in the bulleted list plus the issue with primordial follicles in the following paragraph)
  • Showing ovulation as a fuzzy line more clearly conveys that it is an event and not a phase, this is a nice improvement.
  • The text is much easier to read, both the labels of the phases and especially with the color coding of the different hormones.

The improvements to the figure are greatly appreciated, but it concerns me they were apparently done to the old image file with the several inaccuracies addressed above rather than to the corrected version. LyrlTalk C 19:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] need help

l have sex with my husband the day of my ovulation , is there way l will become pregant —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.104.211.153 (talk) 18:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] can l

can l get pregant a day after ovulation day —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.104.211.153 (talk) 19:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Up to two days after probable ovulation is still considered "fertile" by most fertility awareness systems. A fertility awareness forum such as Ovusoft would be a better place to ask these types of questions than Wikipedia. LyrlTalk C 21:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)