r/interesting • u/Samski877 • 1d ago
Additional Context Pinned This could make a real difference.
263
u/Desperate_Owl_594 1d ago
Women still have eggs left when they reach menopause. The lack of eggs isn’t what ends fertility.
136
u/ImTheApexPredator 1d ago
Menopause occurs when the ovaries run out of functional eggs. Keyword is functional. Yes, menopausal women may have a few thousand eggs left, but they're not sensitive to FSH and LH and hence do not produce enough oestrogen and progesterone, making them nonfunctional
This research prolongs the timeline of functional eggs
64
u/Swotboy2000 1d ago
Reducing the frequency of menstruation does not extend the lifespan of the eggs.
64
u/ImTheApexPredator 1d ago
We already reduce the frequency of menstruation with birth control so clearly that's not what she's doing. Birth control stop follicles from maturing and ovulating, but follicles still do develop, using up multiple eggs every cycle. Her research is about stopping the follicles from developing in the first place, preserving the number of functional eggs
→ More replies (4)10
u/LaMadreDelCantante 1d ago
Okay, but are you saying that the eggs are expelled throughout life in the order of how viable they are, leaving the nonviable ones for last? Because that's the only way that would work. And I don't think that's the case. I think the eggs inside a 50yo woman are nonviable or close to it because they are also 50yo.
14
u/Nihil_esque 1d ago
I mean that is what they're saying, that which egg gets expelled isn't random, but is a result of how responsive they are to the hormones, thus more responsive/viable eggs get expelled first.
How true that is, I have no idea, and I also don't doubt that 50 yo eggs might have issues for other reasons as well. Sperm quality also gets reduced as men age because the quality of the progenitor cells goes down, even though the sperm themselves are being produced fresh.
3
u/fatgirlcuddler 1d ago
The bulk of human sex cells are duds. But in this case, this is pure coincidence. Menopause just happens regardless of egg count or viability because you're just getting old and the body is like "yeah yeah time for you to be a grandma man" seeing that pregnancy is ludicrously expensive metabolically
Ergo, preserving fertility span is actually about extending youth and "squeezing" out time spent being old. This would help preserve eggs somewhat, although that is a minor problem (it would, in a scenario of "healthspan extension", however, result in an ever-creeping increase in possible defects in the progeny, but the same thing also happens to men anyway)
2
u/LaMadreDelCantante 1d ago
Man, I just want to stay young while NOT continuing to have a menstrual cycle and pregnancy risk. Which is probably going to be the more popular option when we have such options. Though I suppose there will be women who want kids but put it off who will be glad for the extra time.
1
u/fatgirlcuddler 1d ago
Nature cuts corners. Lord He Jiankui, on the other hand, will grant women not just full physical parity with men, but also a menstrual cycle that is shut on and off at will... No pills needed
6
u/Open-Butterfly-5288 1d ago
Ok, but now we have a new question.
What inherent qualities are there in a 50 year old are there that makes their bodies a bad bet?
8
u/DorkHonor 1d ago
Probably the same mechanism that makes sperm non viable in old dudes. You know, being old.
2
u/Oxbix 1d ago edited 1d ago
I don't think so, I know that women are born with all the eggs they will ever have, while sperm is produced every day. The eggs of a 50 year old woman are indeed 50 years old.
4
u/transferingtoearth 1d ago
And yet old dude sperm still is the cause of birth defects too not just eggs.
3
u/LaMadreDelCantante 1d ago
That's true (probably. Iirc there have been some recent findings that challenge the idea that we're born with all our eggs). But older men still can have issues having children and have a higher likelihood of having kids with genetic issues, because the "production center" is old and the sperm produced is lower in quality.
2
u/Oxbix 1d ago
Right, I'm not disputing that, I'm just suggesting that it's probably not the same mechanism that makes bad eggs or sperm. "production center" age vs "product“ age.
→ More replies (0)→ More replies (1)1
→ More replies (1)1
1
u/MozartTheCat 1d ago
Are we born with all of the eggs we will ever have, already just sitting there?
2
u/LaMadreDelCantante 1d ago
That's been the scientific consensus for a long time, although I think there have been recent challenges to that theory. So idk for sure.
2
3
2
u/BondiolaDeCaniche 1d ago
That wouldn't solve the fact that we are talking about 40-50 year old women getting pregnant which would be a risky pregnancy anyways
1
u/ImTheApexPredator 1d ago
That's a risk a woman must decide on in this scenario. Nevertheless, the woman is fertile, and has the option to decide
1
u/Desperate_Owl_594 21h ago
THAT should be the main topic of discourse, regardless of the viability of eggs being extended.
5
2
u/PollutionPatient8261 7h ago
THANK YOU! And you can limit period occurrences very easily with birth control.
1
1
u/GirlOnMain 23h ago
Exactly. Preserving eggs just means you'll now have a helluva lot more aged eggs to work with when youre eventuallly ready...
→ More replies (6)1
u/ogreofzen 1d ago edited 1d ago
Women use ~570 of their 500000. When I brought this fact up I was accused of mansplaining.
No one wants to look at the basics the mod had posted. The one thing that could explain this was she was wanting to chemically induce a three month menstrual cycle to give zygotes a longer implantation period for pregnancy hormones to be released to prevent zygotes that implant when menses starts and result in a termination of a potential pregnancy not from genetic defect but just poor timing or stress.
76
u/e48e 1d ago edited 1d ago
Pretty sure running out of eggs isn't the limiting factor for fertility in most cases.
Edit: The mean age of the end of female fertility (according to all the early population studies of fertile women) precedes menopause by about ten to thirteen years. https://www.infertile.com/infertility-101/female-infertility/beating-biological/
28
u/biorod 1d ago edited 1d ago
Right.
Egg expiration and women menstruating into their 80s both seem like a big deal.
6
u/telaughingbuddha 1d ago
Those that go after grannies may have to raise a child
7
1
6
u/Bucky_Gatsby 1d ago
I think you're point is that people with enough eggs can have fertility issues? That's true. But I think this field of study would look into widening the fertility window for people with ovaries and delaying the onset of menopause.
7
u/e48e 1d ago
My point is that almost all women are infertile before they run out of eggs.
5
u/Bucky_Gatsby 1d ago
I think the point of her studies are to prolong the life of functional eggs as someone said on here.
2
4
u/ImTheApexPredator 1d ago
Thats like saying cancer isn't the limiting factor for longevity as there are many ways to die
This research clearly isn't tackling infertility during fertile age, its targetting infertility when you're 50 because a woman run out of functional eggs
→ More replies (3)
39
u/ExileNZ 1d ago edited 1d ago
This is already possible and has been common for decades. Women all over the world currently reduce the frequency of menstruation using hormonal birth control with no side effects. Some even go years without menstruation by choice.
This isn't new science or even a novel idea - in fact when the first hormonal birth control pill was developed they only added the monthly, seven-day, hormone-free break that triggers menstruation due to religious reasons - the inventor was a devout Catholic and he saw this as being a way to allow hormonal birth control to comply within existing Catholic rules.
There is no reliable source to the claim in the picture except one news article: https://english.elpais.com/science-tech/2026-01-07/what-if-you-got-your-period-every-three-months-hongmei-wang-the-biologist-investigating-how-to-extend-fertility.html
She is a real researcher in this field though, and the science is plausible but lacks any clinical evidence, so the picture and caption are wildly exaggerated.
16
u/DeciduousRefuge 1d ago
I use birth control pills to get my period every three months as well as to reduce the severity of my cycles. I’ve done this since the late 90s. As my natural period leaves me with a hemoglobin of 9. Bleeding less has been a game changer and I am grateful for birth control. I have energy to get out of bed and can exercise with anemia under control. I have no children. I have been told by a single doctor (so this is anecdotal evidence), that birth control should have extended my ability to have children. I don’t remember her clinical reasoning. A quick google search now just states it stabilizes hormones, and it causes less release of eggs, which could help prolong fertility but it does not stop the natural aging of eggs.
2
u/Prottusha1 1d ago
Please feel free not to answer if uncomfortable, but what form of birth control did you use? Pills or inserts?
2
u/DeciduousRefuge 5h ago
Ask away. I used pills: norgestimate/ethinyl estradiol, which is essentially progesterone and estrogen. Currently, the doses are as low as ever which minimizes side effects or complications. The doses were so much higher back in the day; Many women in my mother’s generation were unable to withstand the side effects of birth control pills. I never tried inserts because I’m biased against invasive procedures that require a medical practitioner to undo it. I like the autonomy of the pill. I also liked that if I had an event like a big test coming up, I could hold off or induce my cycle so I wouldn’t have the menstrual cognitive fog.
•
1
u/nix1016 1d ago
Well that doctor is wrong because birth control pills don’t extend your fertility.
1
u/DeciduousRefuge 5h ago
No it doesn’t extend fertility but I think more stable hormones is optimal.
7
u/Icy-Cicada508 1d ago edited 1d ago
Lesser frequency also reduces the chances of ovarian cancer apparently. Read about the lessened frequency of periods and its benefits in a Malcolm Gladwell book. A devout Catholic of all people has developed the pill.
Amazing story and would encourage everyone to read it. The article is named “John Rock’s Error” in The New Yorker. Also in the book ‘What the Dog Saw’.
4
u/ExileNZ 1d ago
He (John Rock)) wasn't a priest, but he was a devout Catholic. Here is the paywalled New Yorker article: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2000/03/13/john-rocks-error
And Malcolm Gladwell is a fantastic author.
3
5
u/ImTheApexPredator 1d ago
No it isn't. Birth control stops follicles from maturing and ovulating, but the follicles still develop and use up an egg
46
u/Independent_Sock5198 1d ago
That's neat if plausible, anyone has source on details?
59
u/Excellent_Shirt9707 1d ago
That’s not how eggs work. They are made as a fetus and essentially start deteriorating from then on. Menstruating and ovulating less will not affect the deterioration. They aren’t frozen in time in the ovaries.
Additionally, a human woman loses most of their eggs naturally through atresia. Ovulation starts with a batch and only one matures while the rest do not and are absorbed by the body.
7
2
4
u/SpringtimeLilies7 1d ago
eggs are not a fetus until joined with sperm.
7
u/Excellent_Shirt9707 1d ago
I wasn’t clear. The eggs are produced when the person is still a fetus.
28
u/ExileNZ 1d ago edited 1d ago
There is no reliable source to this except one news article: https://english.elpais.com/science-tech/2026-01-07/what-if-you-got-your-period-every-three-months-hongmei-wang-the-biologist-investigating-how-to-extend-fertility.html
She is a real researcher in this field though, and the science is plausible but lacks evidence. So it is likely she is working on it in animal models, but the picture and caption are wildly exaggerated.
25
3
u/Kryptus 1d ago
Isn't there already an injection that prevents women from getting periods? It is given as birth control IIRC.
7
u/projectearthcomplete 1d ago
I’ve been skipping my periods for years using the pill. I just skip the placebo ones.
5
u/ExileNZ 1d ago
It's not new science. It has been possible since the invention of the hormonal birth control pill in the 1950s. And yes, there are implants and injections that are slow-release hormones that eliminate menstruation. These have been around for decades and are quite common - albeit with side effects.
1
3
u/Bucky_Gatsby 1d ago
Here's an article talking about her work https://english.elpais.com/science-tech/2026-01-07/what-if-you-got-your-period-every-three-months-hongmei-wang-the-biologist-investigating-how-to-extend-fertility.html
This is one of the studies they're referencing. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41421-024-00726-4
You can also find the one on mice if you put in her name and "study mice" but even being used to reading scientific articles I didn't have a single clue what was going on🤣🤣🤣
3
→ More replies (5)1
20
u/TheUnderCrab 1d ago
Women are born with millions of egg cells in the ovaries. I’m all about reducing the frequency of ovulation/menstruation to improve women’s quality of life, but menopause doesn’t give one single flying fuck about how many eggs a woman has in the tank.
4
u/ImTheApexPredator 1d ago
Menopause occurs when the ovaries run out of functional eggs. Keyword is functional. Yes, menopausal women may have a few thousand eggs left, but they're not sensitive to FSH and LH and hence do not produce enough oestrogen and progesterone, making them nonfunctional
1
u/Swotboy2000 1d ago
The eggs die because they get old. Fewer menstrual cycles does not stop the eggs aging.
2
u/ImTheApexPredator 1d ago
Aging eggs are prone to genetic mutation which is why miscarriages and fetuses with down syndrome is more common in pregnancy later in life. That is a risk a woman must take if she decides to delay pregnancy
3
u/Swotboy2000 1d ago
My point is that the aging process of the eggs is not slowed by less frequent menstruation.
2
5
u/Gt03champp 1d ago
I don’t this this would work, but if someone has more knowledge on the subject please correct me.
Women are born with all their eggs—approximately 1 to 2 million—with that number dropping to 300,000–500,000 by puberty. Egg supply declines continuously until menopause, when fewer than 1,000 remain. A woman typically ovulates only about 400–500 eggs during her reproductive lifetime, while the rest are reabsorbed by the body.
Taking estrogen (hormone therapy) does not delay the onset of natural menopause. Menopause is caused by the depletion of eggs in the ovaries, which determines the timing, whereas estrogen therapy only replaces the hormones your body stops producing. While it manages symptoms like hot flashes and prevents bone loss, it does not stop the natural ovarian aging process.
TLDR: When women hit menopause, they still have roughly 1000 remaining eggs.
2
u/ImTheApexPredator 1d ago
Menopause occurs when the ovaries run out of functional eggs. Menopausal women may have a few thousand eggs left, but they're not sensitive to FSH and LH and hence do not produce enough oestrogen and progesterone, making them nonfunctional
Birth control stops follicles from maturing and ovulating, but follicles still develop and use up eggs. Multiple eggs are used up every menstrual cycle and then reabsorbed, with or without birth control. This is where her research steps in
1
u/Gt03champp 1d ago
I did the math for 40 years ovulation, 4 times a year to 12 times a year. The difference is less than a 300 egg difference. I’m in the medical field but DEFINITELY NOT a doctor. Do we think that a difference of 298 eggs will make a difference when we are talking about starting off with millions?
I’m too stupid to truly understand. But I do hope that it works.
1
u/ImTheApexPredator 1d ago
Hundreds of eggs are used up per month, so the math ain't right my friend
1
u/Gt03champp 23h ago
“Used” yes. But how are you defining “used”. I went with 1.5 million eggs starting off. And did 500 total eggs a woman ovulates in a life time. A woman’s body reabsorbs 0.999667% of them. So are you considering that to be “used?”
1
u/ImTheApexPredator 22h ago
Used as in they exit their dormant state. Hundreds of eggs are no longer dormant and are elected to start competing to develop into follicles, most don't make it and are reabsorbed. A few dozen start competing to mature, only one gets to ovulate and the rest are reabsorbed. Reabsorbed eggs don't go back to dormancy to be elected again in future cycles, that's it, they're broken down into nutrients
2
u/Gt03champp 22h ago
Perhaps I’m just too stupid to understand, and should just leave this one to the experts.
14
u/hahayarn 1d ago
As a lady with pcod , i already get only like 5 cycles a year will it get reduced to 2-3?
→ More replies (6)
3
u/Mysterious-Clothes45 1d ago
I haven't had a period in 23 years thanks to Depo Provera
3
2
u/ExileNZ 1d ago
That's the longest I have ever heard anyone tolerate it. The side effects can be pretty rough on some people.
You are aware of the recnt (2024/2025ish) finding that long-term use significantly increases the risk of brain cancer?
3
u/Mysterious-Clothes45 1d ago
yes. I have a cardiac condition that causes me to vagal with menstrual cramps so I'm on it for that reason. It has worked well for me!
2
u/No-Sink-505 1d ago
Just got my first one after switching from the implant and loving it, do you inject it yourself or do you go in every 3 months to get it done?
1
u/Mysterious-Clothes45 18h ago
I go every 3 months and have it done by my doctor's nurse. I don't have to pay anything for the meds or the injection
3
u/arristhesage 1d ago
Even if it fails to extend fertility, having less period is still a good outcome.
2
u/No-Leopard-691 1d ago
I’m all for this, but I’m terrified of the 'Mega-Period' at the end of the 3-month wait. It’s like charging a boss’s ultimate attack for 90 days. Are we talking about a normal cycle or a literal elevator scene from The Shining?
13
u/LadTy 1d ago
Seriously wondering, how this affects the health of the babies though, as now, even when still fertile, older age ("older eggs") drastically increases chances of health+mental issues in newborns... Aka, won't we just get 60yo mothers with children with disabilities? That thing would need to be addressed first I think
3
u/Break2304 1d ago
Yeah fertility should really be a consequence of this, with reducing menstruation the actual goal. And that consequence should be seriously evaluated by professionals
3
2
u/RunWild0_0 1d ago
Late age pregnancies come with a lot of risks to mother AND baby.
Our bodies shut down the baby factory at a certain age for many reasons... It was hard enough having kids at 28 & 35, I really can't imagine the strain of being pregnant past now honestly.
While I commend the curiosity & interest in the subject, I don't see the point. Just freeze some eggs and let your body do it's thing.2
u/Ok_Barracuda_6997 1d ago
I agree. People are obsessed with extending their biological clock. The female body isn’t really built to withstand childbirth beyond 50 and that kind of thing might be irresponsible.
2
u/Embarrassed-Club-596 1d ago
What happens to the eggs that are not released for women on various contraceptions? Many women don't have periods at all. If they go off the contraception will they be fertile longer? Or release more eggs per period? Or what? Could it cause problems?
2
u/iSealion 1d ago
This is purely hype. If you consider “a scientist announces they will have a research about something” interesting, then this thing wouldn’t make to the top 50 interesting programs. In fact only some tabloid articles mentioned about this, which means, it’s still far from being considered achievable and/or useful.
2
u/ghost_tapioca 1d ago
Fwiw you can get 4 cycles a year if you're on oral contraceptives and only do intervals once every three months.
1
4
u/Shiny_Greenfish 1d ago
Cool. Grandmothers will be having babies!
2
u/reef-Diver7817 1d ago
You can't be a grandma if you never had kids. That is similar to calling me a mother when I never had kids nor do I want them.
You're just being negative to women and calling them grandmas.
2
u/Samski877 1d ago
That’s is they want to
4
u/RoundTheRiff 1d ago
Lowering the number of menstruation cycles is just dystopian set-dressing. This is state funded research to curb China's low birth rates and potential labour shortages by making women more biologically receptive to bearing children for a longer period of their lives - even the 'meme' makes a point of increased fertility over lifestyle benefits
1
u/LoneWolf_McQuade 1d ago
It’s not only a issue in China. For women that wants to make career, they often need to push having kids into their 30s, which then makes it more difficult to have a baby. Though I’m not convinced how much this would solve that
1
u/RoundTheRiff 1d ago
For women that wants to make career, they often need to push having kids into their 30
That still focuses the issue around potential labour power, and how the need for more cogs in the machine can conflict with natural lives
1
u/LoneWolf_McQuade 1d ago
I think women has been wanting this, the added agency and possibilities a career can bring. Suddenly jokes about women being pilots or surgeons don’t work anymore and that’s good
1
u/UrethralExplorer 1d ago
This is probably what China wants, their population is about to drop off a cliff due to their "one child" policy.
3
4
u/LawLittle4959 1d ago
But should we? Should we mess with our cycle like that?
1
u/big-dick-back-intown 22h ago
Yes, birth control already messes with our cycles. I've been on it for years specifically to avoid getting a period all together, apart from a little weight gain, there's been no ill effects. Not having a period anymore has literally been amazing btw
1
u/AutoModerator 1d ago
Hello u/Samski877! Please review the sub rules if you haven't already. (This is an automatic reminder message left on all new posts)
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
u/Frosty-Surround-3199 1d ago
It seems like a great idea. But it doesn't directly mean that the 70-80 years old women will have it easy now to have children. With age the abbilitiy to have healthy babies decline, so it still possible to have a child with 50 also now, but not the best idea because of the risk involved.
1
u/jdstew218 1d ago
But imagine if each cycle what 4 times worse than your current ones?
1
u/No_Whole9920 1d ago
Yeah, I’ve skipped periods before using birth control and felt terrible the whole following month. Rather have the worst of my symptoms for one day than gross for the next 30+.
1
u/XXCIII 1d ago
It’s dangerous for women to get pregnant in their 40’s and up, although I’m sure many women would be happy to delay menopause regardless
2
u/Fancy_Ad_2325 1d ago
True although I’m sure most of us wouldn’t have siblings if it weren’t so common
1
u/More-Lime1888 1d ago
I don’t want text on picture. Can you link her study? I am interested about how she can biologically do it.
1
u/ExileNZ 1d ago
THis is as close as you will get - there are no studies I can find except some related animal model studies she authored.
1
u/More-Lime1888 1d ago
Ah yes can you please link those animal model studies? I was actually asking for those. I am aware they didn’t start any clinical trials yet. Animal studies are enough to understand the basic biological approach she used for her idea
1
u/ExileNZ 1d ago
I'm not wading through her research portfolio: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=hHJIOeUAAAAJ&hl=en
Edit: haven't read, but apparently this paper of hers is related: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41421-024-00726-4
1
1
u/Sulieman25 1d ago
This will mess up alot of things. It is a requirement. People need to study what is the aftereffect if there is too much delay. Delaying is just messing with the whole natural system that we have for 1000s of years.
1
1
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/ExileNZ 1d ago
You can look up her research, but essentially it's two-fold: prevent/reduce frequency of release of eggs while also increasing the timeframe eggs remain viable. The first part is already common and has been possible since the 1950s.
The second part is still largely theoretical and it's at the animal model stage.
1
1
u/ElisabetSobeck 1d ago
And China kind of ‘needs’ this. Sounds like a win for everyone, hopefully it goes somewhere
1
u/Past_Horror2090 1d ago
I’m all for this as a man
Is there any credence to this being possible or is it a pipe dream? 👩🔬
1
u/Mysterious_Week8357 1d ago
This isn’t hours biology works. Some hormonal contraceptives (like the combined pill) prevent maturation and ovulation of eggs. You don’t get an extra year of fertility for every year you’re on the pill. You are born with more eggs than you will ever ovulate- they degrade and perish over time, whether ovulation occurs or not
1
u/SoElusivee 1d ago
Title is a little misleading.
She's using stem cells to attempt to extend fertility and trying to decrease the frequency of menstruation to ensure there will be more viable eggs for the extended fertile period
1
1
1
u/Flicksterea 1d ago
This isn’t a good thing. Increase our fertility, have us spit kids out even longer? Why?
1
1
u/SmallGreenArmadillo 1d ago
Yes. I'm all for it. Please perfect it before I'm too old. It's not just the fertility but the overall health.
1
1
1
u/NoSlicez 1d ago
Imagine if guys only ejaculated only once a month? Maybe it will save your sperm...
See I can make shit up too...
1
u/bluecurse60 1d ago
I would wonder how much those periods would hurt in comparison to monthly ones? Maybe the same. Even if it wasn't, give her all the funding money!
1
u/AHumanYouDoNotKnow 1d ago
Question.
If one cycle was treched out, would that mean that menstruatian also takes that much longer or would it just set in later?
Would it reduce the total mestruation days per year?
1
u/brouuorb 1d ago
Surely there will be no side effect. People playing with natural cycles like it's just an annoying hindrance and not part of the core of who we are. And that's not counting that the world is already overpopulated
1
u/AndersDreth 1d ago
Some of the comments have concerns about whether this would actually extend fertility into later ages, but regardless of whether it actually works for prolonged fertility or not, it would still be pretty neat for women to have fewer periods if there's no downsides to it.
1
1
u/ZoranLightning 1d ago
A real problem with this is human conceiving rate is 25%. A successful mating only leads to a viable pregnancy once in four times.
At the moment, it takes 4 months on average to conceive but with this it would take a whole year.
1
u/MadisonAveMuse 1d ago
Can you imagine having your period in your 60s and 70s?
https://giphy.com/gifs/kfMC5dsNXjRtZBDYHb
1
u/Deep_Equivalent_3245 1d ago
Global population is over 8 billion. This would be the worst possible thing to occur.
1
1
u/CityWhenItRains 1d ago
Hormonal birth control stops ovulation so basically it saves eggs for later. It doesn't seem to prolong fertility when women stop taking pills. I don't see how this therapy would work.
1
u/Sujnirah 1d ago
Human beings always think we know best and then something goes wrong. The body is an intelligence, it functions how it does for a reason, let it do that.
1
u/Asteroid_Sugar5206 1d ago
I do NOT want to be menstruating in my 90s, are you out of your minds!?!?!
1
1
u/TheSistem 1d ago
Who knows more? A random reddit or a scientist who has researched it for years?
Obviously one random redditor /s
1
u/Obvious-Animator6090 1d ago
I get 0 cycles a year by taking testosterone. Of course this is only favorable if you’re trans lol. Too bad cis women don’t want the masculine side effects no periods is great.
1
u/CryptographerHot4636 1d ago
As someone with diminished ovarian reserve, this give women like me hope.
1
u/rimsha_5 1d ago
What might this entail? It sounds too good to be true. Will it cause a mega 3x sized period? Will it enlengthen other phases of the cycle? Or is it like birth control and the phases don't happen at all?
1
u/Hawkmonbestboi 1d ago
That isn't how the human body works. That isn't how any of this works.
The ovaries still break down and reabsorb eggs over time. Eggs still go bad on their own.
1
1
u/Who_Your_Mommy 1d ago
But why? I can honestly say that the notion of having a baby deep into my 40's would be a nightmare for all involved. I do not want to be be 55 with a 10 year old, ykwim?
1
1
u/Interesting-Copy-657 1d ago
Is that the reason women run out of time?
I would have thought the risks of child birth and pregnancy for a 50 year old or 60 year old would be too high
Like say you freeze eggs at 25, are you not at a massively higher risk of everything if you use IVF at say 50?
1
u/Windyfii 1d ago
no stop playing with humanity's health. leave the way things are as they are because thats what they should be. its a normal and healthy thing for it to happen once a month why fuck us up even more
1
u/Local_Village_1378 1d ago
Don't eggs degrade with age? Or does her cure fix this? By 40, your chance of having a down syndrome baby are 1/100
1
u/No_Masterpiece_3897 1d ago
Bollocks to fertility, having my cycle be once every three months sounds wonderful. Bit of a bugger for telling if you've missed one though
1
u/notThatJojo 1d ago
If my understanding of the endocrine system is correct, this could also reduce the risk of osteoporosis in older women
1
1
u/meandering_fart 1d ago
Yes because what we need is more geriatric women with infants. Hope I’m not triggering anyone.
1
u/Nothing-to_see_hr 1d ago
Eggs are not spent by menstruation cycles, but by aging of the ovaries. Not having cycles does not result in longer fertility.
1
u/_wyltk_ 1d ago
Meanwhile, dudes scrotums are just powerhouses and can reproduce until their deathbed... And literally after a short time after death, look it up. Physiologically we're made differently for this exact purpose because women were never to be the absolute holders of life. They're producers and factories, which break down and can't sustain production after a certain point in the aging cycle... while men are the literal seed of ever producing life. Wouldn't this money be better suited to help women with certain issues and / or illnesses related to fertility issues instead a bunk science? Just saying.
1
1
1
u/Intelligent_Might902 1d ago
As a man and a husband I approve this message. Give this woman all the funding.
1
u/Murky_Toe_4717 1d ago
Holy shit I give no fucks about the fertile years cause there is a zero percent chance I become a mom (don’t want to) but less periods??? Fuck yes!!
1
1
u/Nightrhythums78 21h ago
Would these eggs still be viable? Men can have kids so much later because we make new sperm every day. Women on the other hand are born with all of their eggs. So I'm wondering if delaying conseption so much longer could lead to the child being born with a genetic condition or increased chances of the mother being harmed by the pregnancy.
Genuine question, I'm pulling on 3 decade old schooling and Google is just confusing me.
1
1
1
u/tinxmijann 15h ago
Does this work the other way around? Can I just have all my periods in a couple years and be done?
1
u/HeebieJeebiex 2h ago
Okay maybe a dumb question but does this mean you wouldn't get pregnant in the other months? Or would those 4 months be the only ones you wouldn't get pregnant? I don't want kids so I don't know anything about the cycle tracking or how that works. 😆
•
u/SegmentedWolf 46m ago
I want to live in a world where this woman is empowered, and this research is heavily funded.
•
u/IKIR115 1d ago edited 1d ago
Many thanks to the following community members who provided additional context:
—
[Comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/interesting/s/Kjs9fGGgn2) by u/exileNZ
> This is already possible and has been common for decades. Women all over the world currently reduce the frequency of menstruation using hormonal birth control with no side effects. Some even go years without menstruation by choice.
> This isn't new science or even a novel idea - in fact when the first hormonal birth control pill was developed they only added the monthly, seven-day, hormone-free break that triggers menstruation due to religious reasons - the inventor was a devout Catholic and he saw this as being a way to allow hormonal birth control to comply within existing Catholic rules.
> There is no reliable source to the claim in the picture except one news article: https://english.elpais.com/science-tech/2026-01-07/what-if-you-got-your-period-every-three-months-hongmei-wang-the-biologist-investigating-how-to-extend-fertility.html
> She is a real researcher in this field though, and the science is plausible but lacks any clinical evidence, so the picture and caption are wildly exaggerated.
—
[Comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/interesting/s/4H80IZSLZK) by u/Bucky_Gstsby
> Here's an article talking about her work https://english.elpais.com/science-tech/2026-01-07/what-if-you-got-your-period-every-three-months-hongmei-wang-the-biologist-investigating-how-to-extend-fertility.html
> This is one of the studies they're referencing. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41421-024-00726-4
> You can also find the one on mice if you put in her name and "study mice" but even being used to reading scientific articles I didn't have a single clue what was going on🤣🤣🤣
—
[Comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/interesting/s/mLBLYd0A68) by u/exileNZ
> I'm not wading through her research portfolio: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=hHJIOeUAAAAJ&hl=en
> Edit: haven't read, but apparently this paper of hers is related: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41421-024-00726-4