1 attempt in fertile window; 78.9% BOY! WHAT?!?

[Trike3]

I'm confused. Am I reading this study correctly? (Warning, it's pretty dense.) it looks like this is saying that one attempt in fertile window is an almost 79% boy rate.

http://humrep.oxfordjournals.org/content/12/3/611.full.pdf

[MamaLuv]

I keep reading that myself. This is very confusing. There is so much conflicting data. This is what I read

Choosing your Baby's Sex with BBT Charting | Ovulation Calculator | Page 17 (http://www.ovulation-calculator.com/gender.htm?page=16)

[LilithWiser1979]

I would really like to see atomic's take on this. I'm not an expert at reading scientific study papers, and won't pretend to be, But I am certainly confused as to how he could come to this conclusion. If noting else, page three totally debunks Shettles. The 78% boys was for 2 days or more before ovulation with one attempt. The one attempt at the day before and the day of O actually yielded more girls with one attempt. For all we know, one attempt is doing something "magical" with LE diet and some of our other sway tactics to way so hard towards girls.

I think it can be easily said that it's not just one sway tactic alone that heavily sways toward one gender or the other.

[sugarNspice]

Personally, I think this study is pretty sketchy.

The author was a medical anthropologist (now retired), and his methodology is meta-anlaysis--meaning he is collecting data from previously published studies rather than doing his own novel research. So his findings are limited by the quality of the studies he uses. Without reading these carefully, I'm kind of guessing at their reliability, but at first glance, I’m pretty skeptical.

One, from 1979, is based on “rhythm method failures” and includes conceptions between 9 days before and 3 days after ovulation. Obviously this study’s method of calculating ovulation dates (BBT rise) is subject to inaccuracies, since we know that conception is basically impossible 3 days after ovulation—eggs just don’t live that long. To compensate for this, our study’s author groups conceptions more broadly—into three categories of ‘before’ ‘during’ and ‘after’ ovulation (acknowledging that the actual dates are likely wrong), but I think even with this methodology, his conclusions remain unreliable: BBT is just not that precise an indicator of ovulation.

Another study he uses, from 1982, considered only 52 births—not a large enough sample size to draw robust conclusions, and seems like it would be subject to the same sort of error in determining the date of ovulation, though exactly how O was determined is not mentioned.

And one from 1984, tracking only 33 conceptions, does find that multiple attempts produce more male births, but again, the sample size is too small and the method of determining O date too unreliable to take this conclusion seriously, at least in my mind.

Then there’s a study from 1979, which calculates ovulation date by subtracting 14 days from the average length of the three prior menstrual cycles. Who has a 14 day luteal phase, every month? Not me. Not ever. Wrong, wrong, wrong! Another one whose conclusions should be discounted.

And the basic assumption from which he begins, that DTD leaves behind ‘debris’ in the cervical mucus that makes it harder for XXs to swim, is based on Ericsson. (One other researcher’s work is mentioned as well, but our study’s author even acknowledges that “subsequent workers could not replicate Ericsson et. al.’s findings”). So he ends up trying to extrapolate from all these old studies—done in the 1970s and 80s, before ultrasound was used to determine ovulation date—in order to show that Ericsson was actually right after all. This isn’t a finding that’s been widely replicated since, or elsewhere.

I do wonder if his other conclusion—that longer follicular phases correspond to more female births—is more likely to be accurate. The study it’s based on (from 1995) is more recent, and seems less subject to error than the O date calculations.

Nonetheless, I think the study proves one thing, and one thing only: that Atomic should be PAID more. If this guy made a living doing this sort of meta-analysis work, and our Atomic does the same sort of work, but does it more rigorously, more carefully, and more brilliantly, why did this guy have a university research career—which presumably came with a good salary and benefits and some degree of prestige—when Atomic does not? Maybe this study simply proves that Atomic should write a book.

I do think that OUR data, even though it's not collected with any sort of scientific rigor, is likely to be better than the data this guy is relying upon, since we have better tools for determining O date at our disposal (OPKs!) than were available in the 1970s. (And of course, even OPKs are highly unreliable compared to ultrasound).

Anyway. I’m not an expert on this stuff either, though I have worked as an academic editor in the social sciences in the past. And I too am curious about what Atomic thinks about this one.

But I *personally* wouldn't take this study's conclusions too seriously.

[atomic sagebrush]

Ladies, long story short, I always appreciate everyone sharing whatever they find online and am always happy to respond. I have seen this study as have the gals on IG, and have my reasons for questioning its validity, but since sugar and lilith already did such an outstanding job of doing that I am not going to bother. I will just point out, it's from 1997 and if it worked, we'd see it being used successfully in every fertility clinic around the world.

The studies quoted are terrible studies where ovulation was not even reliably confirmed and besides that, WE HAVE MORE RESULTS. You cannot ever expect that all data is going to be in agreement. If you look at things like cancer and heart disease where tons of big money people are studying them and there is STILL no consensus whatsoever, it should come as no surprise that there are studies out there where researchers trying to prove/disprove some method, find data that supports their conclusion.

At the end of it all, please feel free to base your sway off any other available info out there. I'm going to continue to recommend one attempt at pos OPK because we are getting great results with it. I"m not here to badger anyone into doing anything they are not comfy with and nor do I have the time to plead and cajole people into trying to do what I think is best. Your sway, your way.

[nuthinbutpink]

I think an important piece of info is that we have always said that timing isn't swaying. You can find studies with timing that will contradict one another easily.

Swaying is a comprehensive plan to change our bodies, our habits to change our outcome.

[MamaLuv]

I don't believe Trike meant any harm with her question. I think her intention might be being misunderstood. @ Atomic, I don't think she was looking at it as you badgering anyone. There is a lot of overwhelming and conflicting information out there as we all know. I always saw GD as a place for collaborating information, sharing, support and debunking what seems to not be plausible in order to come up with a good plan. I believe she (as was I) was looking for an explanation as to why others are saying what they're saying so she can reason in her own mind what she should do. She's in the curious phase. To my comment, I saw the same things she did so I had similar questions because that theory she mentioned is everywhere. It wasn't until I looked into things further that I made the switch from IG to GD but I didn't do so until I felt at peace with my decision to follow the LE diet. It appears to me that all she needs is support to figure things out so that she's comfortable.

[atomic sagebrush]

I get it, and I have worked very very hard to provide a place where people can ask those types of things and get thoughtful responses. The issue is that I literally DO NOT have time for each individual person who shows up on the site, to go back through and dig up every old study out there and demand explanation as to why it doesn't all add up. A lot of these things I address in essays, and if Lilith and Sugar hadn't responded then I would have explained it all thoroughly in this thread too. They did, so I didn't. :)

It is not that I don't want you guys to ask any question you have, BUT at the same time I can't always devote hours of time begging people to do what I think the best sway tactics are (I have done this in the past but I don't have the luxury any more). Thus, if something doesn't make sense to you or anyone, you always have the option of not doing what I say. That is just dandy by me! Sometimes I feel like people want me to MAKE everything agree and that is not how science works.

I am just one person and that leaves me having to draw a few lines or I'm going to start posting "read the faq" again and again like on IG. It is nothing personal, just time for me to start dialing it back on some things that I feel are more than adequately explained already. Old studies are one of these things I am going to have to let go to some extent because there are so many out there. All we can do is move forward with what we are learning from our results using real live people in real world situations, and my hope is that over time it is going to become so glaringly obvious as to what works, that there won't be any question as to which approach is best.