interesting news for the ladies in here using NFP

[isolt.livejournal.com]

Scientists discover that 40% of women have the potential to ovulate more than once a month, caution against using Natural Family Planning.

Basically, the point of this article is that Natural Family Planning / The Rhythm Method is hopelessly flawed because, if a large number of us women can ovulate more than once a cycle, unpredictably, then there really is no such thing as a window where sex is "unsafe" and then a "safe" time where you can't possibly get pregnant.

It also might help explain how some women get pregnant on the pill, if they could ovulate during the last week without any hormones.

Edit: Of course, this doesn't really apply to those ladies combining NFP with condoms or other forms of birth control - only to those using NFP as a sole method of birth control.

Comments

Oh, it took scientists to figure that out?

[dweezie.livejournal.com]

I used to ovulate twice per month 'til I got on the pill...

That meant two periods per month, too. It sucked.

Re: Oh, it took scientists to figure that out?

[sarahliz.livejournal.com]

Actually I think the point is not the twice per month part but rather the potential to ovulate twice per cycle. Ovulating twice per month doesn't make natural family planning unreliable, ovulating twice per cycle would. (The logic here is that if you have a really short cycle you still know when you ovulated and figure that you are safe during the window after ovultion but before menstruation; however, if, as this study suggests, you have the potential of ovulating again before menstruating then you never know if you're safe or not).

Re: Oh, it took scientists to figure that out?

[dweezie.livejournal.com]

Yeah, that makes sense.

Re: Oh, it took scientists to figure that out?

[isolt.livejournal.com]

Well, I think what they're saying is that you'd ovulate more than once per cycle (cycle beginning with the first day of your period, and ending on the first day of your next one), not that you'd have 2 periods a month.

Sounds like you just had an abnormally short cycle.

Re: Oh, it took scientists to figure that out?

[isolt.livejournal.com]

Sorry, that was my fault for misleading you, as I had originally wrote "more than once per month" instead of "more than once per cycle", which would have been more accurate. I've fixed the post so no one else gets confused.

Re: Oh, it took scientists to figure that out?

[melebeth]

Actually what this study talks about is multiple waves of follicular development between periods. Although the study actually found ovulation only in the last wave of follicular development (i.e. once a month) but waves of follicles developed multiple (2-3) times (without observed ovulation) in most women with a normal cycle length. And they speculate that, since some of the anovulatory follicles were of pre-ovulatory size, some women in the study could ovulate in the earlier waves - even though they didn't see it. There were 50 women in the study. Followed for approximately one month (this part of the methods section of the paper is a little hard to follow).

[childishdreams.livejournal.com]

Maybe the Catholic Church will change their stance on birth control (doubtful, but I can hope). My church actually asked me if I was on birth control after I gave birth, I said yes, and now I get weird looks from all of them...

[lizdefiance.livejournal.com]

natural family planning is way different than the rhythm method, though. the rhythm method is guessing when your period will come (and therefore, when you will ovulate) based on when it's come in months past. it's unreliable because so many factors can affect when you ovulate.

but fertility awareness (called "natural family planning" when it has religious connotations) keeps track of all body signs that show when you're -about- to ovulate, as well. so if you ovulated more than once a cycle, it wouldn't matter, because you'd know beforehand and you'd be prepared to either use a barrier or avoid sex during those points.

[isolt.livejournal.com]

I question whether even an informed woman practicing fertility awareness would come to the conclusion that she ovulated more than once in a given cycle if she believed that women only ovulate once per cycle. She might dismiss a higher temperature, for example, on a day that was supposed to be "safe" as a fluke rather than as evidence of a second ovulation if she was convinced that women only ovulate once per month. The way we experience reality is greatly structured by what we believe.

At the very least, I believe this information is very important for women practicing [whatever the politically correct term for it is] because then it allows them to more accurately interpret the data they gather about the state of their bodies.

[thornedillusion.livejournal.com]

I used the rhythm method (*fertility awareness is the same thing) for several years. The entire time, I ovulated at least twice per cycle, with a couple of exceptions, according to cervical mucus, cervical dilation, and basal temperature. No one could ever explain why I was getting this result, other than to say my body was weird.

*I was taught that all aspects of what is now called fertility awareness are part of the rhythm method. Both are good names, as far as I'm concerned. It makes a woman more aware of her body's rhythms and more in touch with her own fertility.

[crankygirlie.livejournal.com]

The potential to, but not necessarily will.

The NFP/rhythm method has always been flawed.

Actual fertility awareness is the answer to this. Getting to know your cycle and whether you ovulate once, twice, none, or what is helpful regardless.

[krasota.livejournal.com]

I'll never use NFB for various reasons... a big one is that my cycles are very irregular. another biggie is that i ovulate 2-7 times per cycle. Yes, multiple births run in my family... and while multiple eggs = fraternal twins/triplets/etc, identical twins also run in the family, so i'd have the potential for each of those eggs to subdivide, too. No. I'm using barrier methods, thankyouverymuch. (BCP disagreed with me.)