Active Low-Carber Forums
Atkins diet and low carb discussion provided free for information only, not as medical advice.
Home Plans Tips Recipes Tools Stories Studies Products
Active Low-Carber Forums
A sugar-free zone


Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums.
Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!

Go Back   Active Low-Carber Forums > Main Low-Carb Diets Forums & Support > Low Carb Health & Technical Forums > PCOS
User Name
Password
FAQ Members Calendar Mark Forums Read Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   ^
Old Mon, Jan-19-09, 21:07
treefeet treefeet is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 43
 
Plan: My own
Stats: 160/138/130 Female 5'9''
BF:
Progress: 73%
Location: Northwest
Default Could birth control contribute to PCOS?

I came across this study:

Quote:
Insulin resistance, secretion, and metabolism in users of oral contraceptives.

Studies of insulin employing the oral glucose tolerance test demonstrate marked differences between the effects of different oral contraceptives, but provide little insight into the underlying disturbances. We investigated the metabolic basis of these disturbances by computer modelling of iv glucose tolerance test glucose, insulin, and C-peptide concentration profiles. Insulin resistance, secretion, and metabolism were evaluated in 296 oral contraceptive users and 95 nonusers. Four estrogen/progestin combinations, with similar estrogen but differing progestin contents, and 1 progestin-only formulation were studied. Effects on iv glucose tolerance test glucose, insulin, and C-peptide concentrations varied according to progestin content, with levonorgestrel-containing combinations having the greatest effect, followed by desogestrel and norethindrone. However, these formulations increased insulin resistance to a similar extent. The progestin-only formulation did not affect insulin resistance. Levonorgestrel combinations increased second phase pancreatic insulin secretion by 60-90%, but did not affect the insulin half-life. The desogestrel combination increased the insulin half-life by 28%, but did not affect insulin secretion. The effects of different combined oral contraceptives on glucose tolerance test glucose, insulin, and C-peptide concentration profiles appears to be due to a combination of estrogen-induced insulin resistance and progestin-associated changes in insulin half-life.

PIP: Results of intravenous glucose tolerance tests on glucose, insulin, and C-peptide in women using combined and progestin-only oral contraceptives were analyzed by several computer models to dissect the effects of the steroids on insulin resistance, secretion, ad clearance. 391 subjects used monophasic, triphasic, or progestin-only oral contraceptives containing ethinyl estradiol and levonorgestrel, desogestrel or norethindrone. They consumed 200 g carbohydrate daily for 3 days, then fasted 12 hours before being tested between pill cycle Day 15-21 or menstrual cycle Day 21-27. Results of IVGTTs were analyzed for net glucose elimination constant; minimal model of glucose disappearance, to estimate insulin resistance; minimal model of posthepatic insulin delivery, for 1st and 2nd phase insulin response, insulin elimination constant and half-life. Pancreatic insulin secretion modeling also gave the fractional hepatic insulin throughput index, and elimination constants for insulin and C-peptide. There were significant differences in duration of oral contraceptive use, parity and age among study groups. The levonorgestrel combination increased glucose, insulin and C-peptide areas, the desogestrel combination increased only glucose and insulin areas, and the norethindrone combination only the glucose area. All combined pills, but not the norethindrone progestin-only pill, reduced the glucose elimination constant. Combined pills reduced insulin sensitivity 30-40%. Desogestrel increased insulin concentrations at the zero and 20 minute points, while levonorgestrel raised insulin after 30-45 minutes lasting for the rest of the 180-minute test. Levonorgestrel combinations increased 2nd phase pancreatic insulin secretion 60-90%, but did not change insulin half-life. The desogestrel combination increased insulin half-life 28%, but did not affect insulin secretion. Orals did not affect the hepatic insulin throughput index. The results suggest that estrogen causes insulin resistance, while progestins modify the response. Thus, the effects of oral contraceptives on oral ad intravenous glucose tolerance is similar, while insulin half-life varies with the progestin. It may be prudent to look for better estrogens or alternative routes to prevent estrogen-associated insulin resistance in contraceptive users.


So if birth control pills cause insulin resistance, and synthetic progestins cause a decrease in the body's production of progesterone, theoretically that could really contribute to developing PCOS. And ironically enough they are using birth control to treat it!
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2   ^
Old Mon, Jan-19-09, 21:22
anyve's Avatar
anyve anyve is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 2,307
 
Plan: Lean protein-veggies
Stats: 150/112.2/115 Female 162 cm
BF:
Progress: 108%
Default

very interesting post!! thanks... I have been taking birth pill for 7 years and I have PCOS.... Thanks god I found Atkins almost 2 years ago and I am doing great right now!!
Reply With Quote
  #3   ^
Old Mon, Feb-02-09, 15:51
LStump's Avatar
LStump LStump is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 3,105
 
Plan: Gluten Free, Low Carb
Stats: 205/200.2/150 Female 5ft 7in
BF:
Progress: 9%
Location: NoVA
Default

People with PCOS are already susceptible to Insulin Resistance anyway. The BC is just so we can regulate our periods so there are LESS cysts on our ovaries, which is good for me. They hurt sometimes. I think as long as you stick to a low GI diet along with the BC (though I've been off of mine for over a year) you shouldn't have to worry too much about IR.
I got on BC to regulate my periods. I would go months without one. I was on it for 2-3 years I think and when I got off of it, I had slightly heavier periods but I haven't missed one. Which makes me wonder if it trains your body?
Reply With Quote
  #4   ^
Old Tue, Feb-03-09, 10:47
treefeet treefeet is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 43
 
Plan: My own
Stats: 160/138/130 Female 5'9''
BF:
Progress: 73%
Location: Northwest
Default

For people who are already susceptible to IR, giving them a medication that further decreases insulin sensitivity is not a good thing, even if it does mask the symptoms by regulating your period with synthetic hormones. Personally I don't see how the medical community could be so irresponsible.
Reply With Quote
  #5   ^
Old Tue, Feb-03-09, 12:05
LStump's Avatar
LStump LStump is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 3,105
 
Plan: Gluten Free, Low Carb
Stats: 205/200.2/150 Female 5ft 7in
BF:
Progress: 9%
Location: NoVA
Default

I'm just saying.. as long as you're sticking to an lc diet or at least a 'healthy' diet, it shouldn't make much of a difference. The study isn't very conclusive. 200g of carbohydrates for 3 days? THEN fasting for 12 hours to do the test? I can't base anything or draw any conclusions from one study alone.
Reply With Quote
  #6   ^
Old Tue, Feb-03-09, 14:42
ruthla ruthla is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 2,011
 
Plan: Protein Power
Stats: 190/169/140 Female 62 inches
BF:
Progress: 42%
Location: New York
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by treefeet
For people who are already susceptible to IR, giving them a medication that further decreases insulin sensitivity is not a good thing, even if it does mask the symptoms by regulating your period with synthetic hormones. Personally I don't see how the medical community could be so irresponsible.

Whenever drs prescribe meds, they need to do a risk/benefit analysis. What are the potential risks of giving this medication? What are the potential benefits? What are the risks of NOT treating?

Or course, doctors are human, with their own biases, and they may not be working with all the information. Some of the side effects may not be known right away. Doctors, in general, tend to be biased towards treatment, and may over-estimate the risks of doing nothing.

So, doctors can certainly make "the wrong choice" but it's usually made with the best of intentions. Somebody comes in with PCOS, and they have a drug that can reduce symptoms and prevent certain complications, they're going to want to "do something" to help the patient.

It makes logical sense to me that synthetic hormones can mess up your natural hormones, whether or not your hormones were in balance to begin with. If my endocrine system wasn't working properly, I'd want to treat the underlying cause (food allergy? nutritional deficiency?) and not just mask the symptoms- if such a treatment is possible. Sometimes the cause can't be found, sometimes the cause can't be fixed, and other times the healing is so slow that allopathic treatments are still beneficial in the short term.

Most MDs are unfamiliar with these underlying causes anyway. They see a hormonal imbalance, they want to treat it with synthetic hormones that mimic natural function. Even if this may cause other hormones to become unbalanced, the benefits may still outweigh the risks. I don't see that as being "irresponsible" at all- especially for such a slight decrease in insulin sensitivity that can easily be treated via diet.
Reply With Quote
  #7   ^
Old Tue, Feb-03-09, 15:15
LStump's Avatar
LStump LStump is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 3,105
 
Plan: Gluten Free, Low Carb
Stats: 205/200.2/150 Female 5ft 7in
BF:
Progress: 9%
Location: NoVA
Default

Well, not only that, but I always questioned why they used birth control if excess estrogen gets converted to testosterone. We already have excess estrogen, which is why women with PCOS usually have hair on their bodies in places its 'not supposed to be', so why add MORE estrogen? I duno. I just know i was happy to have regular periods.
Reply With Quote
  #8   ^
Old Thu, Mar-19-09, 19:53
tigersue's Avatar
tigersue tigersue is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,226
 
Plan: Schwarzbein
Stats: 222/199/120 Female 62.5
BF:?/30/20
Progress: 23%
Location: Utah
Default

I know I had to go on BC because I end up with a nasty side effect of PCOS called endometrial hyperplasia that can lead to endometrial cancer. Now I use and IUD that has a small amount of hormone. (Merina)
Reply With Quote
  #9   ^
Old Sun, May-31-09, 06:31
CramerNH CramerNH is offline
New Member
Posts: 22
 
Plan: Paleo
Stats: 300/251/170 Female 66
BF:
Progress: 38%
Location: Manchester, NH
Default

I dont know if I would trust that study - I have had tests (too many to keep track of), that found no issue with insulin resistance that connected to the use of BCP - I had insulin resistance all along without PCOS -

so Im wondering why that study didnt have the names of the BCP's that they found this result? I wouldnt read too much into it to be honest.
Reply With Quote
  #10   ^
Old Mon, Jun-15-09, 05:54
bestrange's Avatar
bestrange bestrange is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 230
 
Plan: hunter-gatherer
Stats: 000/000/145 Female 5'6"
BF:breast feeding! ;)
Progress: 0%
Location: london, england
Default

I was briefly on birth control pills for pcos. they weren't a positive thing for me... I would have to agree with the OP thoughts. I have been able to get regular periods, ovulation, and pregnancy by diet alone. I haven't been checked to see if my cysts have gone or what not, but am pretty positive that diet is the #1 way to get hormones in balance for pcos.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:58.


Copyright © 2000-2024 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.