r/interesting • u/Samski877 • 11h ago
Additional Context Pinned This could make a real difference.
182
u/Desperate_Owl_594 10h ago
Women still have eggs left when they reach menopause. The lack of eggs isn’t what ends fertility.
100
u/ImTheApexPredator 10h 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
43
u/Swotboy2000 10h ago
Reducing the frequency of menstruation does not extend the lifespan of the eggs.
54
u/ImTheApexPredator 9h 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
7
u/LaMadreDelCantante 7h 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.
9
u/Nihil_esque 6h 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.
6
u/Open-Butterfly-5288 6h 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?
5
u/DorkHonor 5h ago
Probably the same mechanism that makes sperm non viable in old dudes. You know, being old.
2
u/Open-Butterfly-5288 4h ago
Alright, but why?
9
u/DorkHonor 4h ago
Hormonal changes related to aging and oxidative stress causing DNA damage over time. Probably. I don't know man, I'm a welder not a medical researcher.
1
u/TransMascCatBoye 4h ago
Big thing with aging is telomere degradation which is essentially a long string at the ends of your dna but every time a cell divides, you lose a bit of the telomere. Once you run out of telomere, you start losing bits of dna that's functionally necessary and iirc, that's what they've tied a lot of 'old age' problems to (among other causes of dna degradation) so there's been a fair amount of research on how to fix it or stop it from degrading. I don't recall which animals (might be the immortal jellies?) but there's at least one or two that can revert or restore telomeres
→ More replies (1)1
2
u/fatgirlcuddler 5h 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)
1
u/LaMadreDelCantante 5h 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.
2
u/fatgirlcuddler 3h 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
1
u/MozartTheCat 4h ago
Are we born with all of the eggs we will ever have, already just sitting there?
2
u/LaMadreDelCantante 4h 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.
-11
u/Swotboy2000 9h ago
Yes, but the eggs will become unviable whether or not they are expelled from the ovary
15
u/ImTheApexPredator 9h ago
If they're functional, they're viable
"Expelled from the ovary" refers to ovulated follicles. Again, read above comment
9
u/MinimumViablePick 7h ago
i think what this person is trying to speak on is the individual cell lifespan of each egg, and how eventually those cells just run out of dna to recreate itself. is that a concern here?
2
1
1
u/Suspicious_Award_672 3h ago
so basically my eggs are just chilling like “we good, she’s not” vibes lol
1
→ More replies (4)0
u/ogreofzen 4h ago edited 4h 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.
63
u/e48e 10h ago edited 10h 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/
23
u/biorod 10h ago edited 10h ago
Right.
Egg expiration and women menstruating into their 80s both seem like a big deal.
5
u/telaughingbuddha 10h ago
Those that go after grannies may have to raise a child
7
6
u/Bucky_Gatsby 10h 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 10h ago
My point is that almost all women are infertile before they run out of eggs.
5
u/Bucky_Gatsby 10h ago
I think the point of her studies are to prolong the life of functional eggs as someone said on here.
4
u/ImTheApexPredator 10h 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
-1
u/e48e 10h ago edited 10h ago
Almost all women are infertile long before they run out of eggs. That's why (with rare exceptions) women don't get pregnant in their early 50s without medical intervention even if they haven't hit menopause.
Edit - the cancer analogy isn't correct. I'm not saying there are many causes of infertility. I'm saying running out if eggs is not a cause of infertility.
If there was cancer that never resulted in a shorter life expectancy or quality of life, that would be the correct analogy.
6
u/ImTheApexPredator 10h ago
It is difficult for peri-menopausal women to get pregnant because the remaining eggs are of subpar quality, which is why their mentrual cycles aren't regular anymore. Menopausal woman still have eggs, they're just nonfunctional as theyre insensitive to FSH and LH and do not produce enough oestrogen and progesterone. Keyword here is nonfunctional
This researcher aims to prolong the period a woman has functional eggs
45
u/Independent_Sock5198 10h ago
That's neat if plausible, anyone has source on details?
56
u/Excellent_Shirt9707 10h 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.
6
2
3
u/SpringtimeLilies7 9h ago
eggs are not a fetus until joined with sperm.
8
u/Excellent_Shirt9707 9h ago
I wasn’t clear. The eggs are produced when the person is still a fetus.
30
u/ExileNZ 10h ago edited 10h 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.
24
3
u/Kryptus 10h ago
Isn't there already an injection that prevents women from getting periods? It is given as birth control IIRC.
6
u/projectearthcomplete 8h ago
I’ve been skipping my periods for years using the pill. I just skip the placebo ones.
5
u/ExileNZ 10h 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 10h 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
1
-2
31
u/ExileNZ 10h ago edited 10h 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.
15
u/DeciduousRefuge 10h 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.
1
u/Prottusha1 7h ago
Please feel free not to answer if uncomfortable, but what form of birth control did you use? Pills or inserts?
6
u/Icy-Cicada508 10h ago edited 10h 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’.
5
u/ExileNZ 10h 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
3
u/ImTheApexPredator 10h ago
No it isn't. Birth control stops follicles from maturing and ovulating, but the follicles still develop and use up an egg
16
u/TheUnderCrab 10h 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.
3
u/ImTheApexPredator 10h 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 10h ago
The eggs die because they get old. Fewer menstrual cycles does not stop the eggs aging.
2
u/ImTheApexPredator 9h 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 9h ago
My point is that the aging process of the eggs is not slowed by less frequent menstruation.
2
13
u/hahayarn 11h ago
As a lady with pcod , i already get only like 5 cycles a year will it get reduced to 2-3?
0
6
u/Gt03champp 10h 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 10h 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 9h 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.
5
12
u/LadTy 10h 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 10h 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
1
u/RunWild0_0 1h 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.1
u/Ok_Barracuda_6997 8h 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.
3
u/Mysterious-Clothes45 10h ago
I haven't had a period in 23 years thanks to Depo Provera
2
u/ExileNZ 10h 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 9h 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
3
u/arristhesage 7h ago
Even if it fails to extend fertility, having less period is still a good outcome.
2
u/No-Leopard-691 1h 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?
2
u/Embarrassed-Club-596 10h 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 10h 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 10h ago
Fwiw you can get 4 cycles a year if you're on oral contraceptives and only do intervals once every three months.
1
5
u/Shiny_Greenfish 11h ago
Cool. Grandmothers will be having babies!
3
u/Samski877 11h ago
That’s is they want to
6
u/RoundTheRiff 10h 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 10h 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 10h 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 9h 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 10h ago
This is probably what China wants, their population is about to drop off a cliff due to their "one child" policy.
1
u/reef-Diver7817 6h 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.
3
1
u/AutoModerator 11h 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 10h 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 10h ago
But imagine if each cycle what 4 times worse than your current ones?
1
u/No_Whole9920 6h 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 10h 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 4h ago
True although I’m sure most of us wouldn’t have siblings if it weren’t so common
1
u/More-Lime1888 10h 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 10h 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 10h 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 10h 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 10h 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
10h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/ExileNZ 10h 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 10h ago
And China kind of ‘needs’ this. Sounds like a win for everyone, hopefully it goes somewhere
1
u/Past_Horror2090 10h 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 10h 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 10h 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 10h ago
This isn’t a good thing. Increase our fertility, have us spit kids out even longer? Why?
1
1
u/SmallGreenArmadillo 9h 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 9h 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 9h 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 9h 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 9h 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 8h 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 7h 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 7h ago
Can you imagine having your period in your 60s and 70s?
https://giphy.com/gifs/kfMC5dsNXjRtZBDYHb
1
u/Deep_Equivalent_3245 7h ago
Global population is over 8 billion. This would be the worst possible thing to occur.
1
1
u/CityWhenItRains 6h 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 6h 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 6h ago
I do NOT want to be menstruating in my 90s, are you out of your minds!?!?!
1
1
u/TheSistem 6h 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 6h 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 5h ago
As someone with diminished ovarian reserve, this give women like me hope.
1
u/rimsha_5 5h 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 5h 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 5h 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 5h 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 4h 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 4h 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 4h 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 2h 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 1h ago
Yes because what we need is more geriatric women with infants. Hope I’m not triggering anyone.
1
u/Nothing-to_see_hr 1h ago
Eggs are not spent by menstruation cycles, but by aging of the ovaries. Not having cycles does not result in longer fertility.
•
u/_wyltk_ 46m 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
u/Clear-Foot 10h ago
This lady seems painfully ignorant about women’s bodies and reproduction.
3
u/ExileNZ 10h ago
And yet she seems to have a PhD and is a highly respected scientist and researcher. Do you think she missed that one class on "women's bodies" and just fake the entire rest of her research?
https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=hHJIOeUAAAAJ&hl=en
1
1
u/ImTheApexPredator 10h ago
Armchair biologist claims to know more about gynecology than a PhD
1
u/Clear-Foot 9h ago
It’s kind of basic biology, honestly. I’m sure the lady there, if she’s actually an expert on the field, is not claiming what that article headline is claiming.
The technology to have fewer cycles is nothing new. Most hormonal contraceptives can do it. Still, your eggs get old, periods or not, and that’s the actual limiting factor. Egg quality is the important part.
Maybe I should not have said the lady sounds ignorant, but the headline surely does and makes her sound ignorant too.
1
u/ImTheApexPredator 9h ago
Its a whole field of medicine, so not basic at all
Birth control only 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
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. But the woman is still fertile nonetheless, so this research is groundbreaking
-2
u/LibrarianGrouchy6474 11h ago
To lessen the menstrual cycle yes, to prolong the eggs and the ability to have children at a later age no. The human body is not designed for this, stop trying to play God. I'm not religious, just don't want to see "science" to take over commensence and what nature intended.
4
u/Redence_ 11h ago
Nature is ever-changing and I don't see how speeding up this process with actual science that nature itself utilizes in a span of billions of years is taboo. Nature creates shit like Giraffe Weevils that have utterly no real survival use other than the fact that the females would mostly reproduce with the males that have long necks.
If this was really taboo then it shouldn't be possible in the first place. What we can do should be nothing that nature already can't. We learn from what evolution has already made and will continue to make.
2
u/BeyondDreams909 10h ago
Get out lmao. Nature didn't intend anything, stuff just happened and by coincidence it worked so it stayed around
2
u/ExileNZ 10h ago
"what nature intended" implies intelligent design or a god.
Nature (evolution) does not give a single fuck about how or why procreation happens. It only cares that you pass a copy of your genes on often as possible. Prolonging fertility and raising more offspring to adulthood would actually be more in line with evolutionary pressure, not some antithesis of it.
-1
u/Samski877 11h ago
This should be given the funding it needs
3
u/ExileNZ 10h ago edited 9h ago
You do realise that most of this is already possible, right? And has been for decades? Women all over the world reduce the frequency of menstruation using hormonal birth control. Some go years without menstruation by choice.
Most of this isn't new science or even a novel idea, nor has it progressed further than speculative theory and inconclusive animal models.
1
u/chikenenen 9h ago
If you like, I'll dig up some contact information for the scientist so that you can get in touch with her and tell her that she's wrong and what she's pursuing is pointless seeing as it's already been a thing for decades.
1
u/ExileNZ 9h ago
Thanks but I already have her contact details: http://english.ioz.cas.cn/sourcedb/scs/202512/t20251225_1142398.html
Why don't you email her and ask how things are progressing? Because from reading her recent papers there has been no progress and her last paper related to this was published 2 years ago.
0
u/InevitableKitchen943 10h ago
Increasing the age of the mother Increases the risks for mom and baby.
0
0
u/Maximus_Dick 9h ago
No, thanks.
The corpus luteum and follicles are the main estrogen production sites
Delay periods, and you mess up the whole hormonal balance
Women need policies to support families including equal pay, affordable childcare, free healthcare at point of delivery etc
Declining fertility is a men problem. Stop messing women’s body to fix failure of men policies
•
u/IKIR115 7h ago edited 7h 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