Re: older/younger women--defective eggs

[Guest guest]

-

>assumptions?

>

>http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8174

Not sure what you mean by assumptions, but a few things stick out from the

article.

>>All the donors were ostensibly healthy.

>>But ’s data uncovered a great variation between women in terms of

>>how many eggs were defective – from 29% to 83%.

>>The researchers admit that the quality of the eggs might somehow be

>>compromised by the process of obtaining them for IVF – which involves

>>hyper-stimulating the ovary.

>>Alternatively, the flawed embryos might have nothing to do with the donor

>>eggs, and could be a result of problem sperm.

Lots of people are " ostensibly healthy " nowadays but in fact are anything

but. I can't imagine that has no effect on egg and sperm quality and

viability, though I don't think anyone's doing a proper study of the

subject. I'm not really clear on how ovary over-stimulation could cause

aneuploidy, though, and I wonder why they were examining fertilized eggs

instead of unfertilized eggs if the point was to draw conclusions about eggs.

-

[Guest guest]

> Lots of people are " ostensibly healthy " nowadays but in fact are

anything

> but. I can't imagine that has no effect on egg and sperm quality and

> viability, though I don't think anyone's doing a proper study of the

> subject. I'm not really clear on how ovary over-stimulation could

cause

> aneuploidy, though, and I wonder why they were examining fertilized

eggs

> instead of unfertilized eggs if the point was to draw conclusions

about eggs.

,

All good points, yes, but what amuses me is that, apparently, no one's

ever studied the health of younger women's eggs before. All the news

about older women having inferior eggs, yet there's never actually

been an age/egg comparison. I did not know that.

B.

[Guest guest]

> >>Alternatively, the flawed embryos might have nothing to do with the donor

> >>eggs, and could be a result of problem sperm.

> I wonder why they were examining fertilized eggs

> instead of unfertilized eggs if the point was to draw conclusions about

> eggs.

It might be related to the fact that a set of eggs is ripened and only

one is usually used. During this process the woman's body is supposed

to discard all unsuitable eggs. By analyzing fertilized eggs, they

are analyzing the process of elimination the woman puts her eggs

through.

However, they ignore the second stage of the woman's process of

elimination (miscarriage/reabsorption). So they are only analyzing

half of the process.

They didn't mention the health of the males which donated sperm. They

also didn't mention if all the eggs were fertilized with the same

male's sperm, or a variety of men's. I don't see any form of a

control group, which is cause for concern in any study.

-Lana

[Guest guest]

Lana-

>However, they ignore the second stage of the woman's process of

>elimination (miscarriage/reabsorption). So they are only analyzing

>half of the process.

True, but are there that many miscarriages?

>I don't see any form of a

>control group, which is cause for concern in any study.

How could there be a control group in a population measurement?

-

[Guest guest]

On 10/19/05, downwardog7 <illneverbecool@...> wrote:

>

>

> > Lots of people are " ostensibly healthy " nowadays but in fact are

> anything

> > but. I can't imagine that has no effect on egg and sperm quality and

> > viability, though I don't think anyone's doing a proper study of the

> > subject. I'm not really clear on how ovary over-stimulation could

> cause

> > aneuploidy, though, and I wonder why they were examining fertilized

> eggs

> > instead of unfertilized eggs if the point was to draw conclusions

> about eggs.

>

> ,

> All good points, yes, but what amuses me is that, apparently, no one's

> ever studied the health of younger women's eggs before. All the news

> about older women having inferior eggs, yet there's never actually

> been an age/egg comparison. I did not know that.

> B.

Yes but all that news about older women/inferior eggs is based on the

*erroneous* assumption that a woman has only a set amount of eggs that

are produced for life. We now know that women can produce new eggs at

older ages, which suggests that with proper nutrition and lifestyle

management, there is no reason to believe such eggs would be inferior

at all, in fact for a older WAPer they might be superior to a younger

SADer.

--

" It is no crime to be ignorant of economics,

which is, after all, a specialized discipline

and one that most people consider to be a

'dismal science.' But it is totally irresponsible

to have a loud and vociferous opinion on

economic subjects while remaining in this

state of ignorance. "

-- Murray Rothbard

[Guest guest]

-

>We now know that women can produce new eggs at

>older ages, which suggests that with proper nutrition and lifestyle

>management, there is no reason to believe such eggs would be inferior

>at all, in fact for a older WAPer they might be superior to a younger

>SADer.

It's possible -- even likely -- than an older woman eating optimally would

have(/produce) better eggs than a young SAD eater, but all the nutrition in

the world can't completely stop age-related decline. Unfortunately.

What that means for thresholds and cut-off ages and the like is beyond me,

and probably completely unknown at this point, and certainly it suggests

that most women eating right shouldn't freak out early on about having kids

ASAP, but the opposite -- the idea that no amount of delay will have

consequences for people eating proper foods (and I include both men and

women) -- is just as incorrect.

-

[Guest guest]

Women produce eggs after birth?

Do you have any articles I can read about this?

Thanks!

-Lana

> > ,

> > All good points, yes, but what amuses me is that, apparently, no one's

> > ever studied the health of younger women's eggs before. All the news

> > about older women having inferior eggs, yet there's never actually

> > been an age/egg comparison. I did not know that.

> > B.

>

> Yes but all that news about older women/inferior eggs is based on the

> *erroneous* assumption that a woman has only a set amount of eggs that

> are produced for life. We now know that women can produce new eggs at

> older ages, which suggests that with proper nutrition and lifestyle

> management, there is no reason to believe such eggs would be inferior

> at all, in fact for a older WAPer they might be superior to a younger

> SADer.

>

>

[Guest guest]

OK, I swear I'm having serious deja vue... this was all discussed in length

not so long ago. Has anyone checked the archives?

Rolinda

[Guest guest]

> >However, they ignore the second stage of the woman's process of

> >elimination (miscarriage/reabsorption). So they are only analyzing

> >half of the process.

>

> True, but are there that many miscarriages?

Estimates reach between 30 to 90% of all pregnancies are miscarried,

many before the woman knows she is even pregnant (which is why its so

hard to get an exact number). It seems statistically significant to

me.

> >I don't see any form of a

> >control group, which is cause for concern in any study.

>

> How could there be a control group in a population measurement?

Well, there could be more control than they had. How many donors had

family members with any abnormalities or had produced abnormalities?

Did they use multiple eggs from each woman in the study, or just one?

With miscarriages being anywhere from 30%, you would have to try 3

eggs from each woman, minimum. What hormone treatment were they on to

forceibly ripen the eggs? (Most IVF uses some form of hormones.)

Were they all harvested the same exact way? Too many variables, they

could have standardized somewhere! Maybe control group isn't the

right word: but this study sucked.

-Lana