2
$\begingroup$

The reason menopause lead to hot flashes, vagina atrophy, osteoporosis, lose of muscle strength, brain fog, great memory and concentration loss, ect. Is because estrogen production is greatly decreased. So how can I still make women produce estrogen even if they stop producing eggs?

Women loss about 10,000 eggs each month, so at puberty they start with 300,000-400,000, but only 300-400 eggs mature monthly, and only about one egg gets released. So what would be the repercussions of reducing the number of eggs degenerated? So maybe delaying menopause a little bit longer? I still want them to go through menopause, but without the deliberating side effects.

Men can have azoospermia or no sperm count and still be healthy, but they're infertile. Why can't women still produce estrogen while there're no ovulation or periods?

$\endgroup$
4
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ This treads awfully close to asking for a real-world solution which experts in the actual field of study have not yet been able to find. $\endgroup$
    – Jedediah
    Jun 17 at 21:46
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ While you're at it, you could ask for a realistic and inexpensive way to bring about world peace and prosperity for all. $\endgroup$
    – Jedediah
    Jun 17 at 21:48
  • $\begingroup$ @jedediah ig, I don't need it to be real world solution, but something that could be realistic and plausible, but it didn't happen in our world, like in my story gods are real snd humans know about them, but there's also science that they can detect. I could kinda hand wave it, but I also want something scientifically plausible. $\endgroup$
    – Reek
    Jun 17 at 21:58
  • $\begingroup$ There is an underlying error here, women are not born with all their egg cells, there is no reason a woman has to stop ovulating. that is just how it worked out in humans because we doubled our lifespan in the evolutionary blink of an eye. maladaptive features can be hidden by lifespan and get revealed when it changes. $\endgroup$
    – John
    Jun 18 at 3:20

4 Answers 4

1
$\begingroup$

I thought about making oogenesis behave like spermatogenesis, but eggs are the largest cell in the body, so that would take energy.

This is fine. Create new eggs every month rather than creating them all at the start of life. It takes energy but so does every other metabolic process. It is not a problem. Just eat an extra hamburger each month.

$\endgroup$
5
  • $\begingroup$ But what would be the changes required for egg production to be each month instead of before birth? Would that prevent menopause, or remove it's effects at least? $\endgroup$
    – Reek
    Jun 17 at 12:38
  • $\begingroup$ @Reek That sounds like something you need a PhD to answer. $\endgroup$
    – Daron
    Jun 17 at 12:39
  • $\begingroup$ Ok how many eggs can I realistically replace? Men need about 73 days for a whole new batch of sperm to be made. How would that go for women? Women would need to replace about 10,000 eggs each month... $\endgroup$
    – Reek
    Jun 17 at 12:46
  • $\begingroup$ there is increasing evidence women already grow new egg cells. they do not start with all their egg cells. New cells are produced through early adulthood. $\endgroup$
    – John
    Jun 18 at 3:31
  • $\begingroup$ @Reek Then replace 10,000 eggs each month. The time it takes is not important. $\endgroup$
    – Daron
    Jun 18 at 9:09
1
$\begingroup$

Hormone replacement therapy was common practice until the early naughts - it greatly decreased the symptoms of menopause (though women were not actually fertile). I don't think there's really any reason oocytes couldn't keep being produced throughout life: you'd need a population of stem cells in the ovaries but in principle it's very possible.

The bigger question of "why menopause exists" comes more from evolutionary biology than physiology. If a woman's reproductive life extends until her death, then how will her youngest offspring survive? We are a k-selected species that puts tremendous energy into raising our young, our babies are born completely helpless and need nearly two decades (absent modern nutrition) to reach reproductive maturity. Menopause diverts resources from reproduction to renewal of the somatic tissues, extending the woman's lifespan and giving the offspring she already has a better chance. That's why women on HRT had greatly increased risk of cancer, heart disease, osteoporosis, you name it ...

So, to have a human-like species without menopause, you'd either have a species where babies are able to survive on their own much more quickly, or where males raise children like seahorses.

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ I still want to keep menopause, but I don't want it's side effects. Like can women still produce estrogen, but still be infertile after menopause? The oogenisis was a just a possible solution I thought about. $\endgroup$
    – Reek
    Jun 17 at 19:11
  • $\begingroup$ I think you’re going in the right direction but I disagree with the last paragraph: I really doubt there is an active selective pressure for brittle bones post-fertility, it’s probably just the usual “we recycled this signalling pathway and now we have unintended consequences, oh my” $\endgroup$
    – Ottie
    Jun 17 at 20:35
  • $\begingroup$ .Men can have azoospermia or no sperm count and still be healthy, but they're infertile. Why can't women still produce estrogen while there're no ovulation or periods? So that all these deliberating side effect are gone/reduced to an inconvenience maybe one or two mild symptoms like infrequent hot flashes or nausea or a slightly less lubricanted vagina, something that doesn't effect a woman's life greatly like osteoporosis, brain fog, lower libido, dry vagina that would cause tearing and pain. $\endgroup$
    – Reek
    Jun 17 at 20:41
1
$\begingroup$

Easy. Fat makes estrogen.

Eggs, shmeggs. Who cares about eggs? You want more estrogen, just add estrogen making tissues. Like fat.

Premenopausal obese and overweight women had significantly lower estradiol levels compared to non-obese women, independent of age, race and smoking (obese: 32.8 pg/mL; 95% CI: 30.6. 35.2 versus non-obese: 39.8 pg/mL; 95% CI: 37.0, 42.8, P<0.001). The associations reversed postmenopause, with obese women having the highest estradiol levels (obese: 20.6 pg/mL; 95% CI: 17.2, 24.7 versus non-obese: 12.2 pg/mL; 95% CI: 10.1, 14.8, P<0.001).

Having that estrogen protects from osteoporosis which is less prevalent iin obese women as compared to nonobese. Extra estrogen also causes higher risk of estrogen related cancers like breast and uterine cancers. Post menopausal symptoms are less severe for obese women. Estrogen from fat is the same estrogen as from ovaries.

If this is a worldbuilding question, have your comfortable post menopausal women have ample rainy day funds. It is not so hard to imagine.

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ The problem is I don't want symptoms, it's a worldbuilding question because apparently menopausal women get memory loss, and brain fog, loss concentration, extremely moody, and thus become dangerous on themselves and others, needing to stop driving to forcibly retiring from work... because estrogen also affect the brain, so I want a way for women to be infertile without menopausal symptoms or decrease of estrogen. $\endgroup$
    – Reek
    Jun 18 at 22:26
  • $\begingroup$ / I want a way for women to be infertile without menopausal symptoms or decrease of estrogen./ - This is what I gave you! Infertile because ovaries are exhausted. Less (or no) decrease of estrogen because fat makes estrogen. No menopausal symptoms because estrogen. $\endgroup$
    – Willk
    Jun 18 at 22:40
  • $\begingroup$ @Reek SOME women become dangerous on themselves and others. . . . . Some women get menopause worse than others. With this in mind it's entirely believable there is a world where all women have minimal symptoms. $\endgroup$
    – Daron
    Jun 19 at 12:29
0
$\begingroup$

Just ovulate 3 times a year. Fewer periods, quadrupled fertile span, no hot flashes, possibly a wee bit more cancer, but the negative effects of HRT are very much in doubt at the moment unless you have a genetic predisposition to breast cancer, and a naturally extended fertile phase would presumably be even less dangerous than pharmacological replacement.

But you want to retain a limited fertile window, right? Well, the quality of eggs decays with time, with gross chromosomal abnormalities being far more frequent in older eggs/mothers. The vast, vast majority of chromosomal defects just never implant, or miscarry very early on. Just add enough chromosomal instability that producing a viable fetus from 50 year old eggs is virtually impossible, and you have your surrogate ladies. Some may understandably want nothing to do with the bs of lifelong periods once they are no longer fertile, and thus opt for surgical oophorectomy/hysterectomy, but enough will be left who don’t want to alter their body, or like the idea of surrogacy, or are willing to do it for money.

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ So it is still possible to have infertile women, who don't stop produce estrogen, or at least only slightly decrease with age thus preventing menopause symptoms, while the physically healthy can become a surrogate? but what is the science behind that? I also want the younger women to be more fertile than 3 times, even though I heard that people can take up to 6 month to year to try to get pregnant. So maybe not bad?? Even though I prefer that they keep or slightly decrease the frequency, maybe one period per two months, but also wouldn't women still lose the same amount of eggs??? $\endgroup$
    – Reek
    Jun 17 at 21:17
  • $\begingroup$ once you do get pregnant you won't have periods for about a year, more if you breastfeed - it doesn't really make you "more fertile" to have your periods closer together. If you want higher fertility, you can increase the chance of falling pregnant by making the fertile window longer (humans typically only conceive effectively for a couple of days per period) or making the fertile phase more obvious, to whoever is going through it and potentially to their possible partners. Anything that results in less (literally) bloody time spent shedding endometrium is a win in my book. $\endgroup$
    – Ottie
    Jun 17 at 21:59
  • $\begingroup$ But can I just say that the eggs that disintegrate between each period is somehow smaller? Women loss about 10,000 eggs each month, would that number be changed if a woman only has periods 3 times or 6 times per year? Even though I did read that running out of eggs aren't the cause of menopause per se. But idk. $\endgroup$
    – Reek
    Jun 17 at 22:15

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .