Please help- hot flushes shivering palpitations night sweats

[Wordsaremything]

i feel as if I've aged 15 years in the last three months. Just turned 49. Bloods done a while ago to rule out anything else. All that fine.

Symptoms are really ramping up. Cycle irregular ( can cope with that) but the hot flushes seemingly provoked by the tiniest stressor have been miserable in the hot weather esp at work where the air con is broken and a long commute on packed trains.

Now getting night sweats and palpitations alternating with a strange creepy/ shivery feeling all over my upper body.

So tired, largely due to constant nights of broken sleep.

Not keen on hrt. Just paid a fortune for goose down duvet and high thread count cotton bedding - do I need to rethink and get a wool duvet? I sleep naked (alone thankfully can't bear the thought of another body in there with me!) with windows open around house to try and get a draught - but then end up freezing with the sweating.

I had another terrible night last night and I could cry! This is not like me at all. Normally power on through physical discomfort but this is fast becoming intolerable.

Advice, sympathy? Please???

BIWI- you too are entitled to your opinion, but there is NO evidence at all that supplements actually work. If you wish to encourage women to possibly waste money on OTC products then please make sure you say there is no evidence they work, other than anecdotal. You can't have this both ways!

Please disregard the (inadvertent) '??'

There are risks pinkfrocks, and recent studies (the Cochrane Review - remember, we talked about them upthread and how objective they are ):

so don't try and just dismiss these

And from your own, often quoted source, menopause matters - a link to Marion Glenville's site where she talks about the effectiveness of herbs

I really don't know why you're so adamant that

a) the risks of HRT should be minimise so much
or
b) that you deny that alternative remedies can be helpful and effective
or
c) why you are so aggressive towards anyone with a different view from yours!

BIWI- I am not the one who has had 2 posts removed for being personal and insulting to other posters. If you think I have been aggressive please be assured that I am not; I am only responding to other posters' comments that are far from friendly.

Women must make up their own minds about HRT. I don't think it's unreasonable to point people in the direction of the latest recommendation which are what my posts are based on; not my opinion- but that of the BMS and IMS.
This gives you some idea of what I am saying:

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/9595745/HRT-is-safe-and-cuts-heart-deaths-significant-study-finds.html

Marilyn Glenville is entitled to her views- she makes a lot of money out of advising women to try supplements and a healthy diet. She is not a medical doctor . if women want to go down that route, that is their choice but equally they must appreciate that other women prefer the benefits of HRT.

Suzanne your latest post(s) have been reported. What is your point of being on this thread wonder- other than to cause trouble?

You appear to be looking for a fight.

Using the words you just have are childish and personal.

Why on earth would you report those threads?! Now you really are being childish!

And that report you're quoting is from 2012. The link I posted is a Cochrane Review from 2015.

Re supplements - of course some women may prefer HRT. HRT may be more suitable for them. For others, it may be supplements. There are pros and cons of either.

Suzanne your latest post(s) have been reported
Oh, really
I could report your posts, for continuing to call me childish, etc.

I wont because I don't feel threatened by criticism, you apparently do to the extent that if anyone criticizes you you run off to mnhq demanding that the words of dissent are eradicated immediately

You're turning this thread into a farce Pink

ahem.
A bit of peace and love, please.
Thanks ever so

BIWI- the BMS commented on the Cochrane report. Bellaciao linked to their statement a few posts down the thread. In a nutshell, the BMS said that the Cochrane report showed the safety of HRT. Worth reading if you haven't already.

Which bit are you reading?!

New evidence published today in the Cochrane Library shows that hormone replacement therapy (HRT) does not protect post-menopausal women against cardiovascular disease, and may even cause an increased risk of stroke.

Published in March this year

Thanks for the link BIWI, lots of interesting things on that site!

This bit BIWI

??The evidence we have provides some support for the so-called ??Timing Hypothesis??, but we should bear in mind the size of this effect," Dr Boardman said. "When we looked at the results according to the age of women, or by how long since their menopause that they started treatment, we found that if 1000 women under 60 years old started hormone therapy we would expect six fewer deaths, eight fewer cases of heart disease, and five extra blood clots over about seven years, compared to 1000 similar women who did not start hormone therapy.??

The report does not- unless it is specified somewhere in it- distinguish between different types of HRT.

Research shows that transdermal HRT shows no increase in clotting and also that some types of (natural) progesterone cause no increased risk of breast cancer.

Are you actually saying you disagree with the BMS? All those consultants?
BMS response to Cochrane

From the BMS response:

Current practice in the UK is that very few women start HRT after the age of 60 yet in the studies presented in the Cochrane review the majority of women were over 60 years of age. We strongly believe that the first 10 years of the menopause is an important time in a woman??s life to improve her health and reduce the risk of long term disease, the so-called ??window of opportunity??. It is with this knowledge that the BMS feels strongly that whilst the new calculations of the risks of Stroke, VTE and PE in the new Cochrane paperare useful scientifically there is a significant message that needs emphasizing: [see full report]

If you can't get your head round this then I don't think anything else will help.

If you can't get your head round this then I don't think anything else will help

condescending as per usual I see

Why should 'all those consultants' views be superior to those of the objective body that does reviews of the studies?

And why do you particularly want to insist that there are no risks (or that these risks are worth taking) with HRT? What's your agenda here?

There are risks. For some people they might be worth taking. For others they might not be.

Some people might have symptoms that can be controlled by lifestyle changes. Some people might have symptoms that might require HRT. But if they need/want HRT they do need to consider what the risks for them are.

I can't see why you can't see that. It's not always a black and white 'either/or' decision, but one that could be quite complicated. Insisting that the risks aren't significant is just wrong.

some experts are for some against clearlythe jury is still out regarding the risks of Hrt??

why Pink refuses to get her head around that is anyone's guess
??

what is going on with all the unbidden '??'

We strongly believe that the first 10 years of the menopause is an important time in a woman??s life to improve her health and reduce the risk of long term disease, the so-called ??window of opportunity
This is just a theory of course, no data on the mechanisms involved, the picture may well change over time with further research, all science is only ever a work in progress.
Paradigms shift, today's best available treatment can and probably will in the future be regarded with the incredulity with which we view bloodletting ??

I have never said there are no risks with HRT.
This is what I have said
The risks are very small - look at the stats- and risks for women under 60 (who have no health issues) are said to be outweighed by benefits

The 'jury is not out' on HRT. The BMS, the IMs, NICE and the consultants running Menopause Matters base their advice on statistics.

The statement by the BMS is based on statistics. There is a lot of data out there so why anyone would think the BMS is conjuring up consensus statements as some kind of 'collective belief' based on their personal musings is absurd.
BIWI- I have no agenda, other than to point out that HRT works very well for some women and the risks are small. Every piece of evidence out there shows that for women under 60, who begin HRT before the age of 60, benefits outweigh risks.

The NICE guidelines out June 1 this year- say all of this - recommend it for clarity.

Just to be clear - doctors and gynaecologists are medical professionals who practice/prescribe under the guidance of NICE and the state of current knowledge - which as you say suzannefollowmyvan - progresses all the time. NICE recommendations and clinical practice are underpinned by rigorous scientific studies which they then use to inform and update "knowledge" and then formulate appropriate guidelines.

Gynaecologists and professional academic organisations such as the British Menopause Society (and European, North American and International) form judgements based on the latest available data and evidence. You cannot compare the Cochrane Review with the BMS consensus/position statements.

The Cochrane Review is a meta analysis with all its limitations - and the BMS responded to this new anaysis of data and conclusions to make a judgement on the risks and benefits of HRT. The judgement will be based on this and all other information. Of course there are data and evidence - but they don't quote it with each statement they make! My personal view is that the BMS should not have used the word "belief" because this is misleading - belief has no place in science - but I imagine they were only using this word in their press release to simplify what they are saying.

Of course paradigms shift - that is how science works - as new evidence becomes available. However that is irrelevant to now - we work with what we have at the moment - however incomplete and inadequate that is.

Incidentally back to something said earlier - just to re-emphasise ( but I'm sure this is obvious now) that these are not the opinions of pinkfrocks - just that this part of the forum is not visited much and she seems to be one of the very few women (on this forum) presenting the current, evidence based view of most leading gynaecologists and menopause societies.

As she pointed out earlier the use of the term "risk" anyway is over-simplified and is only used as an approximate guide eg regarding age, age since menopause etc. The data in the meta analysis to take one example of a risk - used studies which did not distinguish between types and modes of delivery of HRT, and as already stated these are associated with different risk profiles.

Research to date as pinkfrocks stated, shows that transdermal bio-identical oestrogen (estradiol) ie patch or gel, couple with bio-identical "natural" progesterone - available on the NHS - is associated with least risk and actually confers a health advantage at certain ages eg early menopause. This has already been said way back in the thread but needs to be re-iterated.

It goes without saying too that many lifestyle factors are far more risky to health than taking HRT ie too much alcohol, smoking being sedentary, overweight, poor diet etc etc

No Bella, the window of opportunity thing is just an untested theory, an educated guess, aka a belief (that's why they use the term 'believe' )

it's obvious from your post that you don't really get it

this part of the forum is not visited much
I wonder why?
maybe no one thinks much of 'the current, evidence based view of most leading gynaecologists and menopause societies' as spun by Pink and Bella

then again this:
My personal view is that the BMS should not have used the word "belief" because this is misleading - belief has no place in science - but I imagine they were only using this word in their press release to simplify what they are saying
is a pretty lame spin

humans have evolved mechanisms for reduced hormone levels as they age because this confers a survival advantage, it reduces the chances of cancers.
There are trade offs, but some of these are exacerbated by modern living, and/or could be mitigated by lifestyle changes.

I'd like to see more research into prevention....looking at the factors which predispose women to debilitating menopausal symptoms.

However, the current 'dogma' that menopause is tantamount to an estrogen deficiency disease acts as a set of blinkers, the focus is on treatment rather than prevention.

You pays your money and takes yer choice