Anyone choosing NOT to use HRT?

[WandaWomblesaurus73]

Does anyone feel that HRT isn't for them or feel happier without it?

'Yep. Asking questions is wrong, looking for evidence is wrong, the NHS is wrong, quoting study/evidence from the BMJ is wrong.'

Yes it is an odd thread. Google it! But don't Google it if you're a lady who can't read studies.

'BUT the overall recommendation is that on balance, women should not be concerned about a possible slight link to some types of dementia'

Yes I saw that was the overall recommendation but when they produce stats that say combined hrt does increase the risk by 10% after 5yrs and 19% after 10yrs (even if old style as utro is new) I'm not quite sure how we are supposed to not be concerned tbh.

Overall the risk is lower yes but my initial link was in response to a pp making sweeping statements that it protects against dementia. That does not seem to be the case. Oestrogen on its own seems to, yes.

I agree it is difficult to assess data when you are not medically qualified but personally if the professional experts say the results are reassuring I go with them as they have the training. I am also guided by the consultants I see twice a year. I have been keeping up to date with the literature regarding my circumstances for 30+ years and I grill my consultants every chance I can so at least on 60 occasions.
On this thread we have Jinglinghellsbells giving of her extensive knowledge. I defer to her. We all need to listen to those with more knowledge or this turns into a bun fight.

'On this thread we have Jinglinghellsbells giving of her extensive knowledge'

Yes she does have extensive knowledge however in this case she told me the link I provided was out of date then actually quoted from it agreeing with it.

'if the professional experts say the results are reassuring I go with them as they have the training'

I prefer to make my own mind up. If a risk is increased by 19% after 10yrs then the experts may say it's still low overall but it is still an increase, no? Not the 'protection' some on here have been peddling.

@Esspee

I agree it is difficult to assess data when you are not medically qualified but personally if the professional experts say the results are reassuring I go with them as they have the training. I am also guided by the consultants I see twice a year. I have been keeping up to date with the literature regarding my circumstances for 30+ years and I grill my consultants every chance I can so at least on 60 occasions. On this thread we have Jinglinghellsbells giving of her extensive knowledge. I defer to her. We all need to listen to those with more knowledge or this turns into a bun fight.

Er no what turns it into a bun fight is the patronising posts from some.

And the weird dictatorial stance like this too doesn’t help either.

Besides earlier on same poster was complaining we were ‘going along for the ride’ and should research.

'We all need to listen to those with more knowledge or this turns into a bun fight'

With respect, the only poster being a little rude and patronising is you. We should be allowed to debate politely and reasonably. We all have knowledge and experience that should be listened to politely even if disagreed with?

I think if one thing we can all agree on is 'Google it' doesn't always work when there is so much conflicting info out there.

It is not a debate when people misread information and refuse to accept medical findings. Frankly it is frustrating in the extreme. I have devoted far too much time to this and I have a business to run.
I hope everyone finds a way through menopause which suits them and makes them happy with their choices.

It's impossible to accept all medical findings - the mass of research needs interpretation as it's not always consistent and often the causal links are not fully explored

Therefore by implication you are accepting someone's interpretation of the wealth of material who you have decided is the expert

You also made statements which made people question you/your trusted expert

There are lots of experts
( unsurprisingly, but showing self awareness I guess ) I trust the ones whose advice aligns with my interpretation, but these are the same experts I have long trusted on matters medical

There is no simple truth
Take HRT if you wish
Don't if you don't
Understand the risks and benefits for yourself as best you can
Be happy

I just don't understand why so many women are obsessed with their own health, tbh. We're all going to age & die, so let's just get on with life and then accept it when the body doesn't work so well. I might have a fatal heart attack tomorrow - so what?

Obsessed with their own health? Well for one, I have two dependent children I would like to be around for and functioning as well as I can. I'd like to enjoy life and do well in what remains of my career and be able to have good times with my partner once we are freed of childcare responsibilities.
I don't want to accept a crap existence just so I can appear blasé about my health.

Doesn't that BMJ article refer to studies of women using equine oestrogen? I thought that that was rarely prescribed nowadays and that body identical oestrogen was the norm. And apparently 'micronised progesterone was not specifically examined' but I thought that was also the preferred treatment nowadays?

@Sweetpeasaremadeforbees

Doesn't that BMJ article refer to studies of women using equine oestrogen? I thought that that was rarely prescribed nowadays and that body identical oestrogen was the norm. And apparently 'micronised progesterone was not specifically examined' but I thought that was also the preferred treatment nowadays?

It does yes equine oestrogen -: 'two types of oestrogen (conjugated equine oestrogen and estradiol), two routes of application (oral or transdermal/injection) and two dosage levels—low (defined as ≤0.625 mg/day for oral conjugated equine oestrogen, ≤1 mg/day for oral estradiol, and ≤50 mg for transdermal oestradiol) and high (all other doses). For oestrogen-progestogen users, we focused on progestogen types (norethisterone acetate, levonorgestrel, medroxyprogesterone, and dydrogesterone'

But the oestrogen only didn't show an increase anyway, the combined did which from what I understand included synthetic progestogens likes norethisterone which are still commonly used.

It'll be interesting to see data regarding this and utrogestan in a few years time.

Feel the same @Drunkpanda.

I'm main earner in my home with 1 DC who has disabilities.

Caring about my health is an absolute necessity not a luxury.

My own mother died at 49 after breast cancer and then a brain hemorrhage.

I take as proactive approach to my own health as I can. HRT is one part of that - I also rarely drink and don't smoke, run regularly and sea swim - and have made a massive concerted effort with losing weight recently ( low carb but it's of vegetables and good fats).

I've said it before - HRT isn't for everyone necessarily but it has many more benefits than purely relieving symptoms for many people.

Tbf I do care about my health and try to live in a way that is healthy. I’m a very low user of healthcare bar births (so far, fingers crossed) good bmi etc

I’m just not sure re HRT yet hence interest.

The stats about Alzheimers....
19% is quite meaningless. It's the absolute figures that count.

They give this figure...
Researchers described this as being equivalent to, respectively, five and seven extra cases per 10,000 woman years.

10,000 woman years, means the risk for 1 woman living till she is 10,000 years old (!) or 10,000 women in one year.

So the risk is approx (taking the mean) 6 extra cases per 10,000 women (IF it exists at all as the next line says the research was observational, not a random controlled, double blind study.)

That equates to a risk of 0.006%. It's so tiny, if it exists at all.

But, as we keep saying here, make your own judgements and do whatever suits you.

I am 55, still having regular periods so have no clue what stage I am at.

My post wasn't at you at all @MarshaBradyo it was following on from drunk panda's reply to the obsession comment.

Clearly everyone here massively cares about their health or they wouldn't be here.

In terms of mental health HRT has indirectly and directly had an impact for me too - earlier last year I was considering how I could leave my job - which as main breadwinner was very problematic.

Having been without my mum so young I am probably more hyperaware and possibly in an overly compensatory way terrified of my young (10) son having the same. Particularly with his disabilities on top.

Oh I know Miss don’t worry I didn’t assume you were

I was replying to the same post re why do women care about their health, probably should have quoted it

It'll be interesting to see data regarding this and utrogestan in a few years time.

I agree. I think a lot of the data with regard to HRT and dementia is at best out of date. Dementia is mostly a disease of elderly people and I'm not sure enough time has elapsed between the introduction of newer types of HRT and people reaching an age when dementia becomes more likely.

Logically because cardiovascular disease plays such a large role in dementia you would assume that anything that helps cardiovascular health would help prevent dementia but who knows? Hopefully dementia research involving modern forms of HRT is being carried out as we speak.

Anyway, I'm currently considering going to the GP for HRT at the moment because hot flushes are wrecking my sleep. I had horrendous periods for about 5 years and every month I thought maybe this will be the last.... I'm not doing that this time because it could go on for years and life is just too short. Any future benefits are just a bonus.

@JinglingHellsBells

The stats about Alzheimers.... 19% is quite meaningless. It's the absolute figures that count.

They give this figure...
Researchers described this as being equivalent to, respectively, five and seven extra cases per 10,000 woman years.

10,000 woman years, means the risk for 1 woman living till she is 10,000 years old (!) or 10,000 women in one year.

So the risk is approx (taking the mean) 6 extra cases per 10,000 women (IF it exists at all as the next line says the research was observational, not a random controlled, double blind study.)

That equates to a risk of 0.006%. It's so tiny, if it exists at all.

But, as we keep saying here, make your own judgements and do whatever suits you.

Thank you so much JinglingHellsBells for explaining the difference between the misinformation being bandied about (19% increase in dementia) to the actual tiny risk of 0.006% in a way that everyone can understand.

'Thank you so much JinglingHellsBells for explaining the difference between the misinformation being bandied about (19% increase in dementia) to the actual tiny risk of 0.006% in a way that everyone can understand.'

I was quoting directly from a BMJ paper. We shouldn't have to make calculations ourselves. If it says a 10% increase in risk after 5yrs and a 19% increase after 10yrs. I don't think it is unreasonable to understand it to mean exactly that.

There are many other articles and studies that state the evidence is conflicting regarding dementia.

Yoy need to stop accusing people of misinformation as if we're all stupid espee, it is tedious and unpleasant.

Is it like an actual law that you are not allowed to start a thread asking about people not taking HRT on MN?? I have never seen one allowed to run to even five posts (usually less) before someone leaps in and starts banging on about how we'll all be ruined if we don't start using it.

It would seem so since pp put without irony why are people who don’t want to use it on this thread

@JaniieJones

'Thank you so much JinglingHellsBells for explaining the difference between the misinformation being bandied about (19% increase in dementia) to the actual tiny risk of 0.006% in a way that everyone can understand.'

I was quoting directly from a BMJ paper. We shouldn't have to make calculations ourselves. If it says a 10% increase in risk after 5yrs and a 19% increase after 10yrs. I don't think it is unreasonable to understand it to mean exactly that.

There are many other articles and studies that state the evidence is conflicting regarding dementia.

Yoy need to stop accusing people of misinformation as if we're all stupid espee, it is tedious and unpleasant.

I think we could all be at some posts here.

You were quoting some of the paper but you clearly missed quoting the rest of the figures.

It was inaccurate to quote 19% because that would make women think it was an increase of 19 in 100. It doesn't mean exactly that.

There is a difference between percentages and absolute numbers.

The absolute risk of 5-6 in 10,000 was on the next line, so it was also there but you chose not to post that.

The opening sentence of the article was also positive, saying women should be reassured and not worry about the risk of dementia and HRT.

The whole point of this article is that is supersedes all the 'conflicting evidence'.

You seem to have missed that point completely.

So it does appear you could be giving misinformation by not actually understanding the article.

@janiiejones

Headline of the BMJ report

Hormone replacement therapy (HRT) is not linked to an increased risk of developing dementia, according to the largest study of its kind

Yes, I know it goes on to mention a small percentage (and we've covered that) but the risk is so tiny that statistically it's not relevant.

We were told earlier on this thread to 'Google it', so I did. Here again is another article giving lconflicting info.

www.alzdiscovery.org/cognitive-vitality/blog/does-hormone-replacement-therapy-increase-alzheimers-risk

My point being there is lots of conflicting info out there so it is really difficult for women to make informed choices,

Also, you're now suggesting it doesn't increase the risk, fine. But can we please stop the sweeping statements that is protects against dementia because we don't know that, do we?