Birth control question

Consider natural family planning. It can be highly
effective if an effective method is chosen and it is
done very carefully. You can control it, choosing laxer
rules or stricter rules. You can achieve better than
99% effectiveness if you select more conservative rules
and follow them very carefully.

You can also use barrier methods. Or you can combine barrier
methods and natural family planning methods. Depending on how
you combine them, you can get a method that is more effective
than either alone, or less effective.

I don't think it's silly at all. Birth control pills and IUD's,
besides being bad for the health, do allow new embryos to form
and then prevent them from growing. Without necessarily criticising
anyone else, one might just prefer not to have this happening
in one's own body, or in connection with a very loving act,
or to own's own embryos. Also, if a baby does manage to get
born in spite of the birth control, methods designed to prevent
implantation do sometimes lead to health problems in the baby.

Again, barrier methods (diaphragm or condom) and/or natural
family planning may be good choices for that reason.

You won't hear much about them from anyone influenced by
big money from the pharmaceutical companies. (This includes
a lot of influential and respected organizations.)

While breastfeeding is an excellent time to begin natural
family planning, since your fertility is reduced by the
breastfeeding anyway. You need to learn a method that
has the effectiveness level you want. You could start
with the LAM method, which is very simple -- if you find
the effectiveness level acceptable.

All methods of birth control (except abstinence and
castration or removal of ovaries) have some chance of
pregnancy. I even used to know someone who conceived a baby
after having both ovaries removed! (they must have
missed part of one of them, I guess.)

See the Natural Family Planning Primer, co-authored by
me: http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~an588/nfp.html

LeAnn ) writes:
I've just given birth a little more than 2 weeks ago and now I'm
starting to think about birth control options. I have been on the
pill and depo in the past and didn't do so good on it. I had anger
and anxiety problems while on them. So I'm looking for an alternative
but as silly as it sounds I don't want something that prevents a
fertilized egg from being implanted, I would prefer something that
halts ovulation. Am I asking too much? Does something exsist?

LeAnn


--
Cathy

Catherine Woodgold wrote in message
...
I don't think it's silly at all. Birth control pills and IUD's,
besides being bad for the health, do allow new embryos to form
and then prevent them from growing.

Yes, I saw a horifying program on TV about a baby with an IUD inside it's
brain.

Has the OP's husband considered vasectomy ?
If he rules that out because they might both want another, why fight
nature's way of giving you what you want ?

BTW congratulations on the baby :-)

From what I've been told, it's not very effective on it's own as birth
control. Course, I have no first hand experience with it, but I know
I was told there's a reason that mainly only breastfeeding moms take
it... in combination with the possible no ovulating of nursing, it's
more effective then while by itself.

You do have to use a barrier
method with it, from what I know.

Are you talking about the mini-pill (progreterone only pill) here? While it is
slightly less effective than the combination pill, it is still a very effective
form of birth control, and no, I've never heard it said that you have to use a
barrier method as back-up.
The main issue with the minipill is that there is less window for error. You
have to take it at the same time every day, or there is a significant risk of
ovulation. (With the standard pill, most women can take it at varying times
during hte day ... or even miss the odd pill [not that they SHOULD of course!],
and the likelihood of ovulation is still very low.

While it may be largely used by bfing women (who want the
convenience/reliability of OCs without the estrogen), it is also used by women
who can't take estrogen for other reasons. Nursing moms may choose to switch to
(or back to) the slightly more effective combo pill after weaning, but this
doens't mean that the mini-pill is NOT effective.


Naomi
CAPPA Certified Lactation Educator

(either remove spamblock or change address to to e-mail
reply.)

I don't think it's silly at all. Birth control pills and IUD's,
besides being bad for the health,

For most women, OCs are not bad for the health. Unless a woman has specific
health issues that contraindicate them for HER, OC's are often benficial to the
health. (Reduce the risk of several types of cancer, reduce iron loss and so
may prevent anemia.) IUD's too are not risky to the health, though they have
no specific benefits. (Though I'm considering one (hormone bearing) to help
control irregular and heavy bleeding.)

do allow new embryos to form
and then prevent them from growing.

This is also not true. With OCs the odds of an egg being released is very
minimal, if the woman takes them properly. If an egg IS released, the hormones
cause the cervical mucus to be thick, which blocks the sperm from even getting
to the egg. IF both of these fail (egg is released AND sperm gets through
somehow) then the pill may also cause the egg to fail to implant (doesn't 'keep
them from growing', just doesn't implant in the uterus -- something that also
happens very commonly in women using no method, or barrier methods) -- but this
is a tertiary back-up. Pills mostly work by preventing ovuation.

IUDs too do not 'prevent embryos from growing. It used to be believed that
they prevented implantation of the fertilized egg, but newer evidence suggests
that the presence of the IUD kills the sperm before they even get to the tubes,
preventing fertilization.

Also, if a baby does manage to get
born in spite of the birth control, methods designed to prevent
implantation do sometimes lead to health problems in the baby.

Can you cite a study to support this claim? I've never heard of increased risk
of birth defects due to pill or IUD use. (If a woman conceives with an IUD in
place, the device is usually removed, I believe.)

Again, barrier methods (diaphragm or condom) and/or natural
family planning may be good choices for that reason.

They are good choices for some women for a variety of reasons, but not the
reasons you claim here.

You won't hear much about them from anyone influenced by
big money from the pharmaceutical companies.

Hmmm... does that include doctors? While NFP has never really been a practical
option for me (way too irregular), both planned parenthood and my current GYN
have talked about many of the barrier methods. (And in fact, that's what I'm
currently using.)


Naomi
CAPPA Certified Lactation Educator

(either remove spamblock or change address to to e-mail
reply.)

(LeAnn) wrote in message . com...
I've just given birth a little more than 2 weeks ago and now I'm
starting to think about birth control options. I have been on the
pill and depo in the past and didn't do so good on it. I had anger
and anxiety problems while on them. So I'm looking for an alternative
but as silly as it sounds I don't want something that prevents a
fertilized egg from being implanted, I would prefer something that
halts ovulation. Am I asking too much? Does something exsist?

LeAnn

Well I know that this doesn't stop ovulation...but...We have been
using 2 barrier methods together combined with monitoring my cycles.
It has been working very good (knock on lots of wood..). Regular birth
control doesn't work for me either, so until DH or I get snipped we
have to do it like this.

Brandy

Naomi Pardue ) writes:
For most women, OCs are not bad for the health. Unless a woman has specific
health issues that contraindicate them for HER, OC's are often benficial to the
health.

I disagree with this statement. By OC's I guess you mean Oral Contraceptives.
OC's are made of artificial chemicals which are different substances
from the hormones normally present in the human body. Different
companies use different chemicals. Each brand has its own (long, horrible)
list of "side effects" that are known about; things like
endometriosis, which happen in some percentage of women taking
these artificial substances. You can read about this in
the book "What Your Doctor May Not Tell You about Menopause".
And those are just the effects we know about. Newer brands
may have fewer KNOWN side effects.

I wouldn't say they're "beneficial" to health in any circumstance,
because in every case (IMO; see the book I mentioned) the same
benefits or better, without the side effects, can be achieved by
using real, natural hormones -- real estrogens, or real progesterone,
which can be bought at drug stores though the drug companies
don't promote it since it can't be patented. These natural
substances may not prevent conception as much as the unnatural
"progestins" in OC's, but they're better for the health. Given
their availability as an alternative, I wouldn't say OC's
are ever "beneficial" to health.

UD's too are not risky to the health, though they have
no specific benefits.

I disagree. I was told that IUD's always involve some
bacteria in the uterus, which is normally bacteria-free.
The zone of bacteria may be a small zone around the IUD,
or a somewhat larger zone, or huge. It's hard to define
when the IUD has led to infection; how big a zone of
bacteria is considered an infection? In some cases it's
a very serious illness.

(Though I'm considering one (hormone bearing) to help
control irregular and heavy bleeding.)

IUD's cause irregular and heavy bleeding. I've never heard
of using them to control that. Oh, well.

do allow new embryos to form
and then prevent them from growing.

This is also not true. With OCs the odds of an egg being released is very
minimal, if the woman takes them properly. If an egg IS released, the hormones
cause the cervical mucus to be thick, which blocks the sperm from even getting
to the egg. IF both of these fail (egg is released AND sperm gets through
somehow) then the pill may also cause the egg to fail to implant (doesn't 'keep
them from growing', just doesn't implant in the uterus -- something that also
happens very commonly in women using no method, or barrier methods) -- but this
is a tertiary back-up. Pills mostly work by preventing ovuation.

I'm sorry, I don't understand. If the Pill prevents the
embryo from implanting in the uterus, then the embryo can't
grow -- right? So the Pill has prevented it from growing.
That's what I meant, and that's what you said. So why
do you say what I said wasn't true? An embryo must implant
in the uterus in order to be able to continue growing beyond
a certain point. Oh, did you think I meant the embryo couldn't
grow at all? No, I meant it may grow a bit, but then the
Pill somehow prevents it from continuing to grow, perhaps
by preventing it from implanting (or possibly by some other
means).

How often, on average, does an egg get fertilized but
prevented from growing in a woman on the Pill? It would
be a lot more often than full-term pregnancies of women
on the Pill, which do happen. Maybe about one to three
times a year? Much more often with the mini-pill than
with other Pills? I don't really know. I don't know
whether anyone really knows.

IUDs too do not 'prevent embryos from growing. It used to be believed that
they prevented implantation of the fertilized egg, but newer evidence suggests
that the presence of the IUD kills the sperm before they even get to the tubes,
preventing fertilization.

What I read was that, when IUD's were inserted after intercouse,
pregnancies didn't happen, but when IUD's were removed in the
two weeks after intercourse, pregnancies did happen, and that
for this reason doctors prefer to insert or remove them during
menstruation.

Is it the bacteria around the IUD that kills the sperm, or
what is the mechanism? Last I heard it wasn't known.

Also, if a baby does manage to get
born in spite of the birth control, methods designed to prevent
implantation do sometimes lead to health problems in the baby.

Can you cite a study to support this claim? I've never heard of increased risk
of birth defects due to pill or IUD use. (If a woman conceives with an IUD in
place, the device is usually removed, I believe.)

No, but I read (I think in a book called "Sex and Destiny")
that there was a baby born with an IUD imbedded in its
forehead.

I can't imagine that unnatural hormones, molecules that the
human body has not evolved to tolerate, can be present during
development of a fetus without having some effect on health.
After a woman goes off the Pill, it can take months before
her cycles return to normal (in the sense of being able to
chart normal mucus patterns for NFP). So effects are present
in her body for months. Even if she stops taking the Pill
in early pregancy, there will be some sorts of effects for
much of the pregnancy. The unnatural hormones are not broken
down quickly by the liver the way the natural ones are.

I don't remember at the moment any particular studies
proving that there are or are not certain health effects
on the baby.

You won't hear much about them from anyone influenced by
big money from the pharmaceutical companies.

Hmmm... does that include doctors? While NFP has never really been a practical
option for me (way too irregular), both planned parenthood and my current GYN
have talked about many of the barrier methods. (And in fact, that's what I'm
currently using.)

OK, I exaggerated a bit. Yes, many doctors are influenced
by pharmaceutical companies. What I really meant was that
you may hear less about these things than you would if there
wasn't influence from these companies. Many doctors have
received free gifts such as computers from pharmaceutical
companies, and many regularly spend time with representatives
of these companies, perhaps getting free meals and other
things, and free "educational" material slanted towards
drug usage.

A lot of "educational" material I've seen about birth
control has been slanted against NFP. In my opinion, it
makes sense to mention the natural, side-effect-free
methods first. Instead, invariably they mention first
the ones with the most health effects (and the most
money for the drug companies). Also the amount of space
devoted to NFP tends to be rather small. Did your
doctor mention NFP?
--
Cathy

In article ,
(Catherine Woodgold) wrote:

Naomi Pardue ) writes:
For most women, OCs are not bad for the health. Unless a woman has
specific
health issues that contraindicate them for HER, OC's are often benficial to
the
health.

I disagree with this statement. By OC's I guess you mean Oral
Contraceptives.
OC's are made of artificial chemicals which are different substances
from the hormones normally present in the human body. Different
companies use different chemicals. Each brand has its own (long, horrible)
list of "side effects" that are known about; things like
endometriosis, which happen in some percentage of women taking
these artificial substances. You can read about this in
the book "What Your Doctor May Not Tell You about Menopause".
And those are just the effects we know about. Newer brands
may have fewer KNOWN side effects.

I wouldn't say they're "beneficial" to health in any circumstance,
because in every case (IMO; see the book I mentioned) the same
benefits or better, without the side effects, can be achieved by
using real, natural hormones -- real estrogens, or real progesterone,
which can be bought at drug stores though the drug companies
don't promote it since it can't be patented. These natural
substances may not prevent conception as much as the unnatural
"progestins" in OC's, but they're better for the health. Given
their availability as an alternative, I wouldn't say OC's
are ever "beneficial" to health.

UD's too are not risky to the health, though they have
no specific benefits.

I disagree. I was told that IUD's always involve some
bacteria in the uterus, which is normally bacteria-free.
The zone of bacteria may be a small zone around the IUD,
or a somewhat larger zone, or huge. It's hard to define
when the IUD has led to infection; how big a zone of
bacteria is considered an infection? In some cases it's
a very serious illness.

(Though I'm considering one (hormone bearing) to help
control irregular and heavy bleeding.)

IUD's cause irregular and heavy bleeding. I've never heard
of using them to control that. Oh, well.

do allow new embryos to form
and then prevent them from growing.

This is also not true. With OCs the odds of an egg being released is very
minimal, if the woman takes them properly. If an egg IS released, the
hormones
cause the cervical mucus to be thick, which blocks the sperm from even
getting
to the egg. IF both of these fail (egg is released AND sperm gets through
somehow) then the pill may also cause the egg to fail to implant (doesn't
'keep
them from growing', just doesn't implant in the uterus -- something that
also
happens very commonly in women using no method, or barrier methods) -- but
this
is a tertiary back-up. Pills mostly work by preventing ovuation.

I'm sorry, I don't understand. If the Pill prevents the
embryo from implanting in the uterus, then the embryo can't
grow -- right? So the Pill has prevented it from growing.
That's what I meant, and that's what you said. So why
do you say what I said wasn't true? An embryo must implant
in the uterus in order to be able to continue growing beyond
a certain point. Oh, did you think I meant the embryo couldn't
grow at all? No, I meant it may grow a bit, but then the
Pill somehow prevents it from continuing to grow, perhaps
by preventing it from implanting (or possibly by some other
means).

How often, on average, does an egg get fertilized but
prevented from growing in a woman on the Pill? It would
be a lot more often than full-term pregnancies of women
on the Pill, which do happen. Maybe about one to three
times a year? Much more often with the mini-pill than
with other Pills? I don't really know. I don't know
whether anyone really knows.

You are missing the point: most of the time, oral contraceptives
prevent an egg from being released AT ALL -- so it is VERY rare that it
would prevent a fertilized egg from implaning, because most of the time
there is no fertilized egg.

--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

(Catherine Woodgold) wrote in message ...
Naomi Pardue ) writes:
For most women, OCs are not bad for the health. Unless a woman has specific
health issues that contraindicate them for HER, OC's are often benficial to the
health.

I disagree with this statement. By OC's I guess you mean Oral Contraceptives.
OC's are made of artificial chemicals which are different substances
from the hormones normally present in the human body.

Very true. But artificial doesn't always mean harmful.

Different
companies use different chemicals. Each brand has its own (long, horrible)
list of "side effects" that are known about;

Very true. OC's have many potential side effects. Some women have
none at all, some have a wide range of them. However, very few of
those side effects are harmful to health, merely unpleasant or
inconvenient. And women who have unpleasant side effects can then
choose if the convenience and effectiveness of OCs are worth the minor
bother involved. (And women who have dangerous side effects, or are at
high risk for them, shouldn't use them, of course.)

ALL medications have long lists of potential side effects in the
package insert. The vast majority of those side effects are
experienced by only a small percentage of people using the drug and/or
are merely unpleasant, not 'harmful to health.'

things like
endometriosis, which happen in some percentage of women taking
these artificial substances.

Can you cite a study that found that OCs cause endometriosis?



I wouldn't say they're "beneficial" to health in any circumstance,
because in every case (IMO; see the book I mentioned) the same
benefits or better, without the side effects, can be achieved by
using real, natural hormones -- real estrogens, or real progesterone,
which can be bought at drug stores though the drug companies
don't promote it since it can't be patented. These natural
substances may not prevent conception as much as the unnatural
"progestins" in OC's, but they're better for the health. Given
their availability as an alternative, I wouldn't say OC's
are ever "beneficial" to health.

Can you use that combination of natural hormones as contraception?
(Few women use OCs solely for the health benefits. But many find that
the health benefits are an added plus when they are using them for
contraception.


UD's too are not risky to the health, though they have
no specific benefits.

I disagree. I was told that IUD's always involve some
bacteria in the uterus, which is normally bacteria-free.

Bacteria is not always harmful. Our bodies are full of bacteria.

The zone of bacteria may be a small zone around the IUD,
or a somewhat larger zone, or huge. It's hard to define
when the IUD has led to infection; how big a zone of
bacteria is considered an infection? In some cases it's
a very serious illness.

It is very rare for modern IUDs to cause PID. (And women at high risk
for PID [primarily women who are not monogomous and don't use condoms)
shouldn't use an IUD.


(Though I'm considering one (hormone bearing) to help
control irregular and heavy bleeding.)

IUD's cause irregular and heavy bleeding. I've never heard
of using them to control that. Oh, well.

Standard IUDs can cause heavy menstrual bleeding. THe one I will be
getting (and yes, I've decided to get it after a visit to my GYN last
week), contains and releases low levels of progesterone. This usually
results in lighter bleeding. (My other option would have been an
endometrial ablation, but that's much more costly and has the usual
risks involved with anesthesia.)

do allow new embryos to form
and then prevent them from growing.

This is also not true. With OCs the odds of an egg being released is very
minimal, if the woman takes them properly. If an egg IS released, the hormones
cause the cervical mucus to be thick, which blocks the sperm from even getting
to the egg. IF both of these fail (egg is released AND sperm gets through
somehow) then the pill may also cause the egg to fail to implant (doesn't 'keep
them from growing', just doesn't implant in the uterus -- something that also
happens very commonly in women using no method, or barrier methods) -- but this
is a tertiary back-up. Pills mostly work by preventing ovuation.

I'm sorry, I don't understand. If the Pill prevents the
embryo from implanting in the uterus, then the embryo can't
grow -- right? So the Pill has prevented it from growing.

Unless I'm much mistaken (and I could be), at that early stage of
development, it isn't yet called an embreyo, but still just a
fertilized egg.


That's what I meant, and that's what you said. So why
do you say what I said wasn't true? An embryo must implant
in the uterus in order to be able to continue growing beyond
a certain point. Oh, did you think I meant the embryo couldn't
grow at all? No, I meant it may grow a bit, but then the
Pill somehow prevents it from continuing to grow, perhaps
by preventing it from implanting (or possibly by some other
means).

How often, on average, does an egg get fertilized but
prevented from growing in a woman on the Pill? It would
be a lot more often than full-term pregnancies of women
on the Pill, which do happen. Maybe about one to three
times a year?

Probably much less than that, I should think. (Though I've never seen
any studies.) Most pregnancies in pill users occur when the woman
did not take the pill correctly, or took another medication that
interfered with its effectiveness. So in a woman who takes the pill
*correctly*, there should almost never be an egg released. (And, of
course, just because an egg has been realsed, doesn't mean that it
will be fertilized. There is still the thick cervical mucus and the
simple roll-of-the-dice luck whether a sperm happens to find the egg
and do its job.)

IUDs too do not 'prevent embryos from growing. It used to be
believed that
they prevented implantation of the fertilized egg, but newer evidence suggests
that the presence of the IUD kills the sperm before they even get to the tubes,
preventing fertilization.

What I read was that, when IUD's were inserted after intercouse,
pregnancies didn't happen, but when IUD's were removed in the
two weeks after intercourse, pregnancies did happen, and that
for this reason doctors prefer to insert or remove them during
menstruation.

My doctor told me to come in at the end of my next period (natural or
induced with Provera); both to be sure that I'm not pregnant, and
because the cervix is slightly open at that time, making insertion
easier and less uncomfortable.




Is it the bacteria around the IUD that kills the sperm, or
what is the mechanism? Last I heard it wasn't known.

They don't know for sure, as far as I know. Could be bacteria, could
be altered pH in the uterus, could be something else.


Also, if a baby does manage to get
born in spite of the birth control, methods designed to prevent
implantation do sometimes lead to health problems in the baby.

Can you cite a study to support this claim? I've never heard of increased risk
of birth defects due to pill or IUD use. (If a woman conceives with an IUD in
place, the device is usually removed, I believe.)

No, but I read (I think in a book called "Sex and Destiny")
that there was a baby born with an IUD imbedded in its
forehead.

Yup, could happen certainly. Hardly a common event. (And surely just
means that if a woman DOES get pregnant with the IUD in place, and
opts to continue the pregnancy, she should get it removed ASAP.

I can't imagine that unnatural hormones, molecules that the
human body has not evolved to tolerate, can be present during
development of a fetus without having some effect on health.

"I can't imagine" doesn't mean it isn't true. While it is generally
advised that a woman stop taking the pill if she believes she has
conceived, there is no evidnece of increased birth defects in women
who conceive while on the pill, even if they don't stop using them
right away.

After a woman goes off the Pill, it can take months before
her cycles return to normal (in the sense of being able to
chart normal mucus patterns for NFP).

But the hormones themselves leave the body within a few days. (Which
is why a woman gets a withdrawal bleed every month, as soon as she
stops taking the active pills for that cycle ... and why missing even
a couple of pills can lead to ovulation and possible pregnancy.)

Most women who go off the pill revert to normal cycles immediately. If
they do not it is usually either because they were irregular to begin
with (I didn't get a period for 6 months after I went off the pill
when I was trying to conceive. (15 years ago now.) I've been on and
off it for a variety of reasons since then, and it typically takes me
a few months to have another period. But then, I have PCO, and have
never had a 'normal' cycle in my life.
For other women, yeah, it may sometimes take a couple of months for
the body to reset its natural cycles, but, so far as I know, there is
no harm in that. (Unless of course, the woman wants to get pregnant
immediately, in which case it can be annoying.)



I don't remember at the moment any particular studies
proving that there are or are not certain health effects
on the baby.

I have seen research (though no cites to hand) finding no increased
risk of birth defects or other problems in the babies of pill users.)


OK, I exaggerated a bit. Yes, many doctors are influenced
by pharmaceutical companies. What I really meant was that
you may hear less about these things than you would if there
wasn't influence from these companies. Many doctors have
received free gifts such as computers from pharmaceutical
companies, and many regularly spend time with representatives
of these companies, perhaps getting free meals and other
things, and free "educational" material slanted towards
drug usage.

And maybe they also are aware than hormonal methods are the most
effective methods available, so if a woman wants a very
effective/convenient method
for her own lifestyle, the doctor will be more likely to recommend a
hormonal method, rather than a barrier method. (Or NFP.)

A lot of "educational" material I've seen about birth
control has been slanted against NFP. In my opinion, it
makes sense to mention the natural, side-effect-free
methods first. Instead, invariably they mention first
the ones with the most health effects (and the most
money for the drug companies). Also the amount of space
devoted to NFP tends to be rather small. Did your
doctor mention NFP?

I don't remember. I've always had very irregular cycles, so it's
never been a practical method for me. (And, having spent 3 years
taking my temperature every morning, I know that it's not something
I'd WANT to be doing for the rest of my presumptively fertile
life.)For most of the time I've been using pills, and the folks at
planned parenthood would always ask me if I was happy with the method,
and I generally said I was. Once I was no longer happy with it (for a
variety of reasons), me and DH made the decision to switch to condoms.
And, again, they always ask if I'm happy with it, and I say yes.
(The IUD, while it will serve as contraception, is mostly for
controlling the bleeding.)

Naomi

dragonlady ) writes:
You are missing the point: most of the time, oral contraceptives
prevent an egg from being released AT ALL --

I'm not missing that point. I know that.

so it is VERY rare that it
would prevent a fertilized egg from implaning, because most of the time
there is no fertilized egg.

How rare? I don't know that it's very rare. What makes
you think that?

It must happen more often than pregnancies on the Pill,
which I wouldn't call "VERY rare".
--
Cathy

Naomi ) writes:
After a woman goes off the Pill, it can take months before
her cycles return to normal (in the sense of being able to
chart normal mucus patterns for NFP).

But the hormones themselves leave the body within a few days.

I don't know that. What makes you think that? Artificial
hormone-like chemicals as in the Pill are not broken down by
the liver as fast as real, normal hormones.

Most women who go off the pill revert to normal cycles immediately.

I disagree with that statement. While in most cases the cycles
make appear normal if the woman observes only which days she is
or isn't bleeding, if she tries to make the more detailed
observations of cervical mucus required for NFP, it's a common
experience to require months before the cycles are normal
enough to apply the normal NFP rules. There are special
temperature-only rules designed to be used by women who
have recently come off the Pill because their mucus pattern
is too weird to be much use for NFP.

If
they do not it is usually either because they were irregular to begin
with (I didn't get a period for 6 months after I went off the pill
when I was trying to conceive. (15 years ago now.) I've been on and
off it for a variety of reasons since then, and it typically takes me
a few months to have another period. But then, I have PCO, and have
never had a 'normal' cycle in my life.

--
Cathy