 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / General / December 2005fibrocystic beast
Is there a cure or some type of medicine to control fibrocystic beast? What's he chance of those with this condition also getting breast cancer? > Is there a cure or some type of medicine to control fibrocystic beast? I assume you mean "fibrocystic bReast" and a someone who has had it for over 25 years, I've never heard of a cure or a way to prevent cyst formation. Some think that some dietary measures work; others do not (they never worked for me). Hot wet packs work pretty well to relieve the pain of a cyst. > What's he chance of those with this condition also getting breast > cancer? As I understand it, it is somewhat harder to detect early masses in fibrocystic breasts, and a baseline mammogram should be done at age 40 to identify existing calcifications, and follow-ups every two years. I am nulliparous, which puts me in a higher risk category, so the guidelines may be different for women who have given birth and who have cystic breasts.  Signature"Did Father shoot him? I will eat Grandfather for dinner." - Helen Keller, on learning of the death of her grandfather > > Is there a cure or some type of medicine to control fibrocystic beast? > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > guidelines may be different for women who have given birth and who have > cystic breasts. Baseline mammograms at age 40 and follow ups every two years: for what purpose and what result. Evidence, please. > -- > "Did Father shoot him? I will eat Grandfather for dinner." > - Helen Keller, on learning of the death of her grandfather > > > Is there a cure or some type of medicine to control fibrocystic beast? > > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Baseline mammograms at age 40 and follow ups every two years: for what > purpose and what result. Evidence, please. What part of "as I understand it" was unclear? I have fibrocystic breast disease; I described the guidelines my GYN uses for patients like me. My evidence? Want me to post me receipt for my mammogram (or the mammogram itself, showing over 50 calcifications in each breast) or my follow appt? Signature"Did Father shoot him? I will eat Grandfather for dinner." - Helen Keller, on learning of the death of her grandfather > > > > Is there a cure or some type of medicine to control fibrocystic beast? > > > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > evidence? Want me to post me receipt for my mammogram (or the mammogram > itself, showing over 50 calcifications in each breast) or my follow appt? I would like to know why, if we have fibrocystic breasts, we should have mammogrms at age 40 and every two years. I'd like more than opinion please. Mammograms are not to be taken lightly. There are risks. But of course, if you have some evidence that having mammograms at age 40, and every two years, does .... what? I'd like to see it. You haven't even said what this is supposed to achieve. > "Did Father shoot him? I will eat Grandfather for dinner." > - Helen Keller, on learning of the death of her grandfather > > > > > Is there a cure or some type of medicine to control fibrocystic beast? > > > > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > I would like to know why, if we have fibrocystic breasts, we should > have mammogrms at age 40 and every two years. We? You'd be surprised at how little I know about your knockers. I did think you were quite a bit older than I am, though. > I'd like more than > opinion please. Mammograms are not to be taken lightly. There are > risks. But of course, if you have some evidence that having mammograms > at age 40, and every two years, does .... what? I'd like to see it. You > haven't even said what this is supposed to achieve. Well, go fight it out with those who established those guidelines, who by the way was not me. Since I'm in a high-risk group, I'll follow my doctor's recommendations. You are free to follow whatever you like; despite all evidence to the contrary, I really cannot reach through the internet and force you to have a mammogram. Signature"Did Father shoot him? I will eat Grandfather for dinner." - Helen Keller, on learning of the death of her grandfather > > > > > > Is there a cure or some type of medicine to control fibrocystic beast? > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > despite all evidence to the contrary, I really cannot reach through the > internet and force you to have a mammogram. I'd like to know what evidence there is for this; to do what? You are suggesting here women do this. I'm asking for evidence of what doing this will do for us. > -- > "Did Father shoot him? I will eat Grandfather for dinner." > - Helen Keller, on learning of the death of her grandfather > I'd like to know what evidence there is for this; to do what? You are > suggesting here women do this. I'm asking for evidence of what doing > this will do for us. No, I'm not. If you would read what I wrote instead of looking for a fight, you'd see that but you obviously have some sort of agenda which involves you making an a.s of yourself. Signature"Did Father shoot him? I will eat Grandfather for dinner." - Helen Keller, on learning of the death of her grandfather > > I'd like to know what evidence there is for this; to do what? You are > > suggesting here women do this. I'm asking for evidence of what doing [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > fight, you'd see that but you obviously have some sort of agenda which > involves you making an a.s of yourself. The information you have written here suggests that what you have done is an appropriate course to take. This isn't a private conversation, others are reading and wondering, as am I; is this something we should all be doing? Where is the evidence for this? To do what? Are you implying that this is part of breast cancer screening? Please share your information. > -- > "Did Father shoot him? I will eat Grandfather for dinner." > - Helen Keller, on learning of the death of her grandfather > > > I'd like to know what evidence there is for this; to do what? You are > > > suggesting here women do this. I'm asking for evidence of what doing [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > implying that this is part of breast cancer screening? Please share > your information. I have done so numerous times. If anyone wonders if they should be given the same follow-up schedule that I have, and they are also nulliparous women with fibrocystic breast disease, I would suggest they speak to their doctors to find out if this is appropriate for them as well, as well as determine if they think this a course they wish to persue. I am doing so at my doctor's urging, because I trust her judgement. Signature"Did Father shoot him? I will eat Grandfather for dinner." - Helen Keller, on learning of the death of her grandfather > > Is there a cure or some type of medicine to control fibrocystic beast? > > I assume you mean "fibrocystic bReast" and a someone who has had it for > over 25 years, I've never heard of a cure or a way to prevent cyst > formation. Some think that some dietary measures work; others do not > (they never worked for me). Some women find that cutting out caffeine improves things. If you're taking any stomach- acid-reducing drugs, some of those can cause breast tenderness; ask your doc whether any meds you're taking may tend to worsen your symptoms. >Hot wet packs work pretty well to relieve > the pain of a cyst. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > to identify existing calcifications, and follow-ups every two years. I > am nulliparous... Psst... Amanda Nulliparous = describes a woman who has never had a baby. Calcifications = She's talking about calcium deposits in the breast seen on mammograms that sometimes indicate the presence of cancerous cells. These may be more difficult to see in fibrocystic breasts. Calcifications are actually more difficult to see on mammograms in younger women in general, because their breasts are very dense, with a lot of glandular tissue. This is why mammograms are usually not indicated for women under 50. After menopause, fibrocystitis symptoms tend to decline or disappear. Ask your doc whether the benefits of mammography outweigh the risks in your case (e.g., I hear it hurts like hell, particularly if you have cysts to squash). My guess is, the big risk is it'll hurt you so much you'll never get another one. Not getting mammograms when you're 50 and older may increase your risk of being diagnosed with a breast cancer late in the course of disease. > > > Is there a cure or some type of medicine to control fibrocystic beast? > > [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > getting mammograms when you're 50 and older may increase your risk of > being diagnosed with a breast cancer late in the course of disease. Could you give us some evidence for this latter statement please? > > > Is there a cure or some type of medicine to control fibrocystic beast? > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Some women find that cutting out caffeine improves things. Most do not, though. Some find birth control pills help; some don't; and some can't tolerate the side-effects. > > As I understand it, it is somewhat harder to detect early masses in > > fibrocystic breasts, and a baseline mammogram should be done at age 40 [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > seen on mammograms that sometimes indicate the presence of cancerous > cells. These may be more difficult to see in fibrocystic breasts. Calcifications are also commonly seen in cystic breasts where cysts used to be. Signature"Did Father shoot him? I will eat Grandfather for dinner." - Helen Keller, on learning of the death of her grandfather > In article <1134616329.284731.288010@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, > Calcifications are also commonly seen in cystic breasts where cysts used > to be. Then why all the mammography before age 50? I'm asking because I want to hear your perspective, not to be argumentative. You're obviously intelligent and have given this a lot of thought. > > In article <1134616329.284731.288010@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > hear your perspective, not to be argumentative. You're obviously > intelligent and have given this a lot of thought. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Mammography in women under 50 >From Breast Cancer Action: Mammography may not be effective in detecting breast cancer for many women under the age of 50, or more accurately, women who are pre-menopausal. Because the breast tissue of pre-menopausal women tends to be denser than that of post-menopausal women, mammograms of younger women may be more difficult to read.5 Therefore, in order to make informed decisions regarding continuing mammography screening, pre-menopausal women should be given information about the density of their breasts and the effect of that density on the readability of their mammograms. ~~~emphasis mine~~~~~~~ The risk of radiation exposure to pre-menopausal women, combined with the high incidence of false negative readings for mammograms of women in this group, means that routine mammography screening of all women in this group may cause more harm than good. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Women 40 years old or older who are pre-menopausal and who consider themselves to be at high risk for breast cancer should consult a breast cancer specialist for guidance on when to begin mammography screening. > > In article <1134616329.284731.288010@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > hear your perspective, not to be argumentative. You're obviously > intelligent and have given this a lot of thought. No, I haven't given this a lot of thought; my doctor (and the Kaiser Foundation) has. I believe the idea is to map the the calcifications and then chart any change in them, if any occur. I am only familiar with what they (that is, Kaiser Foundation and my doctor) do for nulliparous women (that is, women who are at higher risk for breast cancer by virtue of not having borne/nursed children) who also have fibrocystic breast disease. Besides the other factors that being a nullipara have on the risk of breast cancer, the breast tissue in such women remains denser than in multiparous women; that, along with the calcifications commonly present in the breast tissue of women with FCBD may account for establishing a baseline image somewhat earlier than in other women (KFF recommends that women with any risk factor, aside from having breasts, begin screening at age 40 with followups scheduled based upon history and findings). I assumed - and very well could be wrong - that the two year follow-up appointment I was given was based on KFF guidelines for my particular set of risks and findings (nullipara with 25+ year history of FCBD and numerous calcifications in both breasts). Signature"Did Father shoot him? I will eat Grandfather for dinner." - Helen Keller, on learning of the death of her grandfather > > > Is there a cure or some type of medicine to control fibrocystic beast? > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Some women find that cutting out caffeine improves things. I quit taking caffeine since 21. Before that I used to take tea twice a day. > If you're > taking any stomach- acid-reducing drugs, some of those can cause breast > tenderness; ask your doc whether any meds you're taking may tend to > worsen your symptoms. I take no medicine. > >Hot wet packs work pretty well to relieve > > the pain of a cyst. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Nulliparous = describes a woman who has never had a baby. I kind of figured that out. > Calcifications = She's talking about calcium deposits in the breast > seen on mammograms that sometimes indicate the presence of cancerous [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > lot of glandular tissue. This is why mammograms are usually not > indicated for women under 50. What? > After menopause, fibrocystitis symptoms > tend to decline or disappear. Ask your doc whether the benefits of > mammography outweigh the risks in your case (e.g., I hear it hurts like > hell, particularly if you have cysts to squash). Well, 5 years ago, I found a hard mass piece and had surgery out of precaution - I was having pain. I learned that it wasn't cancerous and I had fibocystic breast. Since then, whenever I felt really stressed out, I felt a bit of pain. BTW, most of the time, I mean, before the surgery, I felt a little sharp sensation that time of the month with sometimes - rare though - a little more than I would consider comfortable but this last time, I felt the pain, though bearable, throught out the period. Became concern because I am planning to make a big move that will involve another grad study. I heard about women getting surgery again and again. The surgery I had left me so weak, partly because I was enduring a nasal condition in that polluted city and my body was weak but I really won't be able to handle a surgery, not with my studies and stuff. Oh, well. I guess, I just have to hope for the best that I won't get painful enought o ahve surgery. > My guess is, the big risk is it'll hurt you so much you'll never get another one. What do you mean? Never get another mammogram? I haven't had for 2 year after moving her due to crazy things in the family. Planning to get one soon. > Not getting mammograms when you're 50 and older may increase your risk of > being diagnosed with a breast cancer late in the course of disease. I am quite a bit away from getting 50. I'll be happy to reach that age without having to go through another surgery. I hope they come up with a better way than surgery to keep these things disappear. Does having fibrocystic breat increse cancer risk? I just want to be prepared. > > My guess is, the big risk is it'll hurt you so much you'll never get > > another one. > > What do you mean? Never get another mammogram? I haven't had for 2 year > after moving her due to crazy things in the family. Planning to get one > soon. Mammograms aren't nearly that painful, even with a cyst. Uncomfortable, yes; but not actually painful. Signature"Did Father shoot him? I will eat Grandfather for dinner." - Helen Keller, on learning of the death of her grandfather >> > My guess is, the big risk is it'll hurt you so much you'll never get >> > another one. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Mammograms aren't nearly that painful, even with a cyst. Uncomfortable, >yes; but not actually painful. I thought so too, and had had several uncomfortable but not painful mammograms, and figured that people who complained about how painful they are just had low pain thresholds. Then I had one that really hurt. I think some technicians just have bad technique. So if a person has a painful mammogram, they shouldn't assume the next one is going to be painful as well. But if you have fibrocystic breasts, it's probably a good idea to schedule your mammograms, if possible, for the time of month when your breasts are least tender. At any rate, a few minutes of pain is worth it if it means detecting a cancer at an early, curable stage. And for most people, there's no real pain, just a little embarrassment and discomfort. > >> > My guess is, the big risk is it'll hurt you so much you'll never get > >> > another one. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > At any rate, a few minutes of pain is worth it if it means detecting a > cancer at an early, curable stage. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ <<At any rate, a few minutes of pain is worth it if it means detecting a cancer at an early, curable stage.>> I don't think, with the best treatments available today, that the above statement is accurate. "While 96 percent of women diagnosed at a localized stage are alive five years after diagnosis, this does not mean that these women have been cured of breast cancer.1 Being cancer-free for five years following diagnosis is accurately considered a cure for some cancers. But breast cancer is an exception: it can and does recur at any time, though the likelihood of recurrence is highest in the first two years following treatment, and declines over time. Breast cancer awareness campaigns urging women to have yearly mammograms are based on the premise that breast cancer found early can always be effectively treated. But the complex biology of breast cancer means that women diagnosed with "early" breast cancer fall into one of three groups. One group has very aggressive disease that, no matter how small it is when it is found, cannot be effectively treated with the therapies that are currently available. These women will die of breast cancer eventually, no matter what treatment they are given, unless they die of something else first. Another group of women diagnosed with breast cancer has a type of either non-aggressive (indolent) invasive disease or a form of DCIS (ductal carcinoma in situ) that will never be life threatening. The third group has a type of breast cancer that responds to currently available treatments. Finding breast cancer earlier does increase the likelihood that treatment will work for women in this group." {From Breast Cancer Action} >> >Mammograms aren't nearly that painful, even with a cyst. Uncomfortable, >> >yes; but not actually painful. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >I don't think, with the best treatments available today, that the above >statement is accurate. What, it never happens that a tumor is detected, removed and never recurs for the rest of the person's life? Of course that isn't always the case, but it often is. Or you don't think it's accurate that I am willing to undergo a few minutes of pain to increase the probability that a cancer I may develop is detected early when it may be curable? Well, I am, and many women are. Do I think regular mammograms are a guarantee that I won't die of breast cancer? Of course not. They have a good chance of reducing that risk for people with my risk factors, however. >"While 96 percent of women diagnosed at a localized stage are alive >five years after diagnosis, this does not mean that these women have >been cured of breast cancer.1 Well, what percentage would be alive 5 years later if they weren't diagnosed at a localized stage? Less than 96%? A 96% chance of at least five more years of life sounds good to me. >Being cancer-free for five years following diagnosis is accurately >considered a cure for some cancers. But breast cancer is an exception: >it can and does recur at any time, though the likelihood of recurrence >is highest in the first two years following treatment, and declines >over time. That's okay. If early detection gives me 5, 10, 20 years of apparent absence of the disease before it recurs, that's a win, too. Note that most people who get cancer are elderly, so if early detection and treatment prevents recurrence before something else kills them, whether they were "cured" or not gets kind of hard to define. >Breast cancer awareness campaigns urging women to have yearly >mammograms are based on the premise that breast cancer found early can >always be effectively treated. That 'always' is a red flag, you know. Somebody is about to engage in some misleading word juggling. I really doubt anybody is claiming that early detection always guarantees cure. >But the complex biology of breast cancer >means that women diagnosed with "early" breast cancer fall into one [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >breast cancer eventually, no matter what treatment they are given, >unless they die of something else first. Perhaps early detection and treatment will prolong their lives. Even a few years can make a big difference when you are raising children. AFAIK, this is a relatively small subset, of mainly pre-menopausal women who are not good candidates for mammographic screening anyway. Most breast cancer occurs in post-menopausal women, IIRC, more than half in women over 70 years old. >Another group of women diagnosed with breast cancer has a type of >either non-aggressive (indolent) invasive disease or a form of DCIS >(ductal carcinoma in situ) that will never be life threatening. Okay. >The third group has a type of breast cancer that responds to currently >available treatments. Finding breast cancer earlier does increase the >likelihood that treatment will work for women in this group." This is good news -- mammography can save or prolong these people's lives. But the information you are leaving out is what fraction of breast cancer falls into each of these categories. If I am going to be in the third category, I want to find out as early as possible if I develop a breast tumor. It's very misleading not to state what fraction of cancers detected by mammogram fall into each category. Note that only about 30% of people diagnosed with breast cancer die of it, so about 70% either have a so-called non-threatening form, have a treatable form and are successfully treated for it, or die of something else before their cancer can kill them. Some of the 30% may have an aggressive form that doesn't respond well to treatment, while others might have been more successfully treated if their cancer was detected earlier. There's also the assumption here that 'cure' is everything. Current treatments can produce remissions that last years or even decades. This sounds a lot better than death within a year or two to me. It looks like this "Breast Cancer Action" outfit has an agenda. The agenda appears to be that nothing anybody does has any effect on risk or prognosis of breast cancer, because it's all caused by evil chemicals, so mammography is a scam, avoiding known risk factors is a scam, making an effort to detect breast cancer early is pointless because for some people it doesn't guarantee survival, in the absence of a certified bona-fide Cure things that prolong life, even by many years, are wrong or worthless or futile, etc. It's okay to have an agenda, but to push it by misleading language is dishonest. > >> >Mammograms aren't nearly that painful, even with a cyst. Uncomfortable, > >> >yes; but not actually painful. [quoted text clipped - 114 lines] > of a certified bona-fide Cure things that prolong life, even by many > years, are wrong or worthless or futile, etc. << It's okay to have an agenda, but to push it by misleading language is dishonest. Since that's just what you have done here in a spectacular demonstration of hypocrisy and distortion, I won't bother with further comment to you. ><< It's okay to have an agenda, but to push it by misleading language >is dishonest. > >Since that's just what you have done here in a spectacular >demonstration of hypocrisy and distortion, I won't bother with further >comment to you. Gosh, I'm so hurt. Note that I pointed out the distortions in the material you posted, while you just assert that I've done the same. Sorry, but your bare word isn't worth much, especially in this forum where you've had plenty of opportunity to demonstrate its value. Perhaps you can tell me what my agenda is, since I don't believe I have one, other than pointing out propaganda and lies. Also, you might explain in what way I'm hypocritical. But you can't be bothered. Gee. > > Calcifications are actually more difficult to see on mammograms in > > younger women in general, because their breasts are very dense, with a > > lot of glandular tissue. This is why mammograms are usually not > > indicated for women under 50. > What? Okay -- I meant to say ROUTINE mammograms are not indicated for women under 50. I have to run now, but I'll post a journal article on this subject later today. > > After menopause, fibrocystitis symptoms > > tend to decline or disappear. Ask your doc whether the benefits of [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > not with my studies and stuff. Oh, well. I guess, I just have to hope > for the best that I won't get painful enought o ahve surgery. Ask if there are other options. Maybe they'll just aspirate it for you with a needle, although my guess is it will probably come back. > > My guess is, the big risk is it'll hurt you so much you'll never get another one. > > What do you mean? Never get another mammogram? I haven't had for 2 year > after moving her due to crazy things in the family. Planning to get one > soon. I meant that if you get a mammogram before your fibrocystitis symptoms begin to decline naturally with menopause, it could be so painful that you'd be reluctant to get mammograms in the future. I wasn't aware you're already having mammograms. I'm 40. I'd chew off my toe before I'd get a mammogram any time soon. > > Not getting mammograms when you're 50 and older may increase your risk of > > being diagnosed with a breast cancer late in the course of disease. > > I am quite a bit away from getting 50. I'll be happy to reach that age > without having to go through another surgery. I hope they come up with > a better way than surgery to keep these things disappear. Ask if they can see what they need to see with an ultrasound. If all they're looking for is a cyst, I don't see why that wouldn't be a reasonable alternative. > Does having fibrocystic breat increse cancer risk? I just want to be > prepared. I will look this up later today and post a couple of journal articles. My understanding is that it does NOT predispose one for developing breast cancer, but IF you DO develop breast cancer, it is difficult to diagnose early because of the fibrocystitis. --Patti [..] > Well, 5 years ago, I found a hard mass piece and had surgery out of > precaution - I was having pain. Meant to say 'I was not having pain", not at that moment. > [..] > > > > Well, 5 years ago, I found a hard mass piece and had surgery out of > > precaution - I was having pain. > > Meant to say 'I was not having pain", not at that moment. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Amanda This and the other link I have copied for you answer all the questions you have asked with the most up-to-date, evidenced based information. "Having fibrocystic breast tissue, mastitis, or breast tenderness related to PMS does NOT put you at greater risk for breast cancer. Having fibrocystic breasts does, however, make your self-exam more confusing since there are many lumps and bumps." http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/003155.htm If you don't already do this, I suggest you begin regular breast self-examinations. There's a link on how to do that within the above url. You should also be able to pick up a pamphlet from your doctor. If you do self-examinations regularly you'll find out what's normal for you. It's very reassuring. Thanks for the links. I have yet to read more closely of toher posts since one mentioned about support bra or something. At the moment, I am having a differnt kind of pain than the sharp pain or feeling of fullness I was getting during my last period not too long ago. Frankly, I am scared. If I were to get breast cancer, I want to get it be done with life. No, don't feel sad for me. I just mean that if I can't do what I want to do in life, since I have no one to rely on, I don't want to deal with it. I need to find a good doctor for this and make an appointment. I am getting an insurance where I can go to anyone: Blue Cross Blue Shield. (I used to live in a different state and so I don't know many people here to ask around.) Can anyone provide me with a name to go to in Sacramento or in fact, San Francisco Bay Area as I will be moving to a place next fall where I will be closer to SF Bay Area. Thanks a lot. Amanda Two cites to begin learning. Don't worry too much. Fibrocystic breasts are a variatin of normal. 've had this all my life; it's painful yes, but there is no evidence you are at greater risk of breast cancer than anyone else. I found low dose analgesics as helpful as anything. http://health.yahoo.com/ency/healthwise/hw51937/aa38706;_ylt=A0LaRufn_KBDs.EAy8jogrMF http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000912.htm > Amanda > > Two cites to begin learning. Don't worry too much. Fibrocystic breasts > are a variatin of normal. 've had this all my life; it's painful yes, > but there is no evidence you are at greater risk of breast cancer than > anyone else. Thanks for that info. I wasn't sure about that too well. >I found low dose analgesics as helpful as anything. Good tips. How low are you talking about? How many miligram? > http://health.yahoo.com/ency/healthwise/hw51937/aa38706;_ylt=A0LaRufn_KBDs.EAy8jogrMF > > http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000912.htm > > Amanda > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >I found low dose analgesics as helpful as anything. > Good tips. How low are you talking about? How many miligram? I use 325 buffered aspirin and don't go over the recommeded daily dose. If you can't use aspirin try plain low dose aceteminophen. I also found moist heat compresses or a heating pad helps, and wearing a comfortable but structured and supportive bra even while sleeping did too. I think all this is suggested on the links I gave. It really is normal Amanda. Some women will have this, others won't. Probably, if you have this, other women in your family do too. It's related to your menstrual cycle and hormones, and likely bothers you most the days or week prior to your period. Talk to your doctor Amanda, who may have other suggestions and will be able to reassure you: it's normal. http://health.yahoo.com/ency/healthwise/hw51937/aa38706;_ylt=A0LaRufn_KBDs.EAy8jogrMF http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000912.htm > > > Amanda > > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > I use 325 buffered aspirin and don't go over the recommeded daily dose. > If you can't use aspirin try plain low dose aceteminophen. Aspirin doesn't bother me but for aches and pain, only advil (Ibuprofen) works for me while acetominophen doesn't work anymore even though I am not the type who rely on these things despite my sinus headache all my life. I wonder whether acetominophen stopped working because prior to 2 1 /2 years ago, for 2 1/2 years, I was getting throat infection about 3 times a year (literally) due to poor air quality in school builinding while my body was weak form the breats suregry. So I was on anti-biotic a lot. >I also found > moist heat compresses or a heating pad helps, and wearing a comfortable > but structured and supportive bra even while sleeping did too. I tend not to wear bra when I am home ever since I found out (long time ago) that I can breathe better that way. I'll try wearing while sleeping and see whether I feel better than I am feeling now. >I think > all this is suggested on the links I gave. It really is normal Amanda. > Some women will have this, others won't. Probably, if you have this, > other women in your family do too. Nah. I have 3 older sisters - muh much older than I am - and they don't have this. My oldest ister did become a victim of HRT, i.e got breast cancer but detected in time enough and okay though she lost one breast. >It's related to your menstrual cycle > and hormones, and likely bothers you most the days or week prior to > your period. I have noticed that long time ago (light sharp pain and tender braest after the period) and back then, though I didn't know about fibrocystic breast, I considered it normal since I didn't feel anythign different other times. > Talk to your doctor Amanda, who may have other suggestions and will be > able to reassure you: it's normal. I am looking for a doctor to go to; any suggestion of a name in Sacramento (CA) or SF Bay Area would be great. > http://health.yahoo.com/ency/healthwise/hw51937/aa38706;_ylt=A0LaRufn_KBDs.EAy8jogrMF > > http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000912.htm |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.