PDA

View Full Version : Two studies testing timing



rainbowflower
August 24th, 2011, 04:29 AM
Here are the links to two really interesting studies I've found which tested timing:

"Timing of Sexual Intercourse in Relation to Ovulation Effects on the Probability of Conception, Survival of the Pregnancy, and Sex of the Baby"

Results
In a total of 625 menstrual cycles for which the dates of ovulation could be estimated, 192 pregnancies were initiated, as indicated by increases in the urinary concentration of human chorionic gonadotropin around the expected time of implantation. Two thirds (n = 129) ended in live births. Conception occurred only when intercourse took place during a six-day period that ended on the estimated day of ovulation. The probability of conception ranged from 0.10 when intercourse occurred five days before ovulation to 0.33 when it occurred on the day of ovulation itself. There was no evident relation between the age of sperm and the viability of the conceptus, although only 6 percent of the pregnancies could be firmly attributed to sperm that were three or more days old. Cycles producing male and female babies had similar patterns of intercourse in relation to ovulation.
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199512073332301




"Sex ratio associated with timing of insemination and length of the follicular phase in planned and unplanned pregnancies during use of natural family planning."

In the context of ongoing debate over the determinants of sex ratio, the authors used data from a multinational study of pregnancies among natural family planning (NFP) users to investigate the association between timing of conception or follicular phase and length and the sex ratio at birth. They also explored whether a pregnancy's planned or unplanned status affects those associations. A multicenter, prospective study of pregnancies among women using NFP was conducted. The women maintained NFP charts of their conception cycles, recording acts of intercourse and signs of ovulation such as cervical mucus changes and basal body temperature. Charts were used to identify the most probable day of insemination relative to the day of ovulation and length of the follicular phase of the cycle. The sex ratio (number of males per 100 females) for 947 singleton births was 101.5, not significantly different from the expected value of 105. The sex ratio did not vary consistently or significantly with the estimated timing of insemination relative to the day of ovulation, with the estimated length of the follicular phase, or with the planned or unplanned status of the pregnancy. Study findings suggest that manipulating the timing of insemination during the cycle cannot be used to affect the sex of offspring.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9647580

Sassy
August 24th, 2011, 08:38 AM
Hhhmmmmm - well, everyone always says timing is the least important factor!

rainbowflower
August 24th, 2011, 09:09 AM
agree, and figure 4 in the first link ( http://www.nejm.org/action/showImage?doi=10.1056%2FNEJM199512073332301&iid=f04 ) seems pretty conclusive...

zanacal
August 24th, 2011, 05:08 PM
agree, and figure 4 in the first link ( http://www.nejm.org/action/showImage?doi=10.1056%2FNEJM199512073332301&iid=f04 ) seems pretty conclusive...

All over the place! Thanks for posting :D

LolaInLove
August 24th, 2011, 05:29 PM
Thanks for posting, Rainbow! All in the diet, baby!

happyheart
August 25th, 2011, 08:03 AM
Great post!! I will be dtd through ovulation and am happy to hear this. :)

2pinkNoblue
October 26th, 2011, 02:01 PM
once I think I have made a plan then i read conflicting info it makes me think its all up to chance!

zanacal
October 26th, 2011, 04:08 PM
With timing, that's the conclusion most of us have come too - that there's just too much conflicting information for it to matter so why worry about it and why not concentrate on the aspects where there's more evidence (like diet!).

love being a mummy
October 26th, 2011, 08:00 PM
once I think I have made a plan then i read conflicting info it makes me think its all up to chance!

I am feeling the same way. The more I read, the more conflicting advice I see, and I am starting to think that maybe we can't control it at all. It's just luck, chance, fate. Maybe getting our DG is just a coincidence.

nuthinbutpink
October 26th, 2011, 08:17 PM
I am feeling the same way. The more I read, the more conflicting advice I see, and I am starting to think that maybe we can't control it at all. It's just luck, chance, fate. Maybe getting our DG is just a coincidence.

You have to focus on your diet and eating habits. There actually is a fair amount of research in this area and it is all consistent even going back to the French Gender Diet. Timing is not effective for swaying.

Becca_Anne
September 16th, 2012, 11:55 PM
My last son was conceived 6 days before O. I am firmly convinced timing doesn't do a thing!

atomic sagebrush
September 17th, 2012, 10:57 AM
Wow, I must never have seen this thread but I am 100% convinced timing does nothing at all, and I have 3 cutoff boys and a night before O day girl to prove it! :)

The full scientific explanation of why timing does not sway is here: http://genderdreaming.com/forum/gender-swaying-discussion-ttc-boy-girl-home-swaying-info/7691-trouble-timing.html

minervasmom
September 23rd, 2012, 05:02 PM
I've seen the first study before, and while I agree with the basic conclusion that - for the most part - timing has a very limited effect on gender, I actually think this study is pretty useless for proving whether timing sways. Below is an analysis I wrote of the study a while back, and why I think the study's conclusions are irrelevant.

(This is taken from a blog I kept on InGender about a study I did of timing patterns on about 800 charts from Fertility Friend. When I talk about "my study" that's what I'm referring to.)


One of the "truisms" in swaying is that timing is of minimal importance. Shettles' theories have largely been disproven, timing is listed as the least important of the seven swaying factors, and many assume that as long as the environment is right, timing really doesn't matter. Part of the reason for this dismissal of timing seems to come from the apparent lack of scientific studies supporting it.

One such scientific study that finds no evidence for timing is "Timing of Sexual Intercourse in Relation to Ovulation - Effects on the Probability of Conception, Survival of the Pregnancy, and Sex of the Baby." The study analyzes the last day intercourse occurred on and "[finds] no association between the sex of the baby and the timing of intercourse in relation to ovulation."

http://nejm.highwire.org/cgi/content/full/333/23/1517

The problem with this study is a problem I suspect a lot of timing studies have: it is looking at the wrong timing patterns. Most BD patterns do not sway, or if they sway, it is probably just by a small amount. There are only a handful of BD patterns I have found that may significantly influence gender (these are the patterns that I have at least 20 charts for and that have a greater than 55% effectiveness rate):
- 1 time BD the day before ovulation (23 charts): sways boy 65.2%
- 2 day cut-off (44 charts): sways girl 56.8%
- 3 day cut-off (22 charts): sways girl 68.2%
- frequent BD (at least 4 times) with a 1 day cut-off (26 charts): sways girl 69.2%
- frequent BD (at least 4 times) with a 1 day cut-off AND BD the day after ovulation (45 charts): sways girl 57.8%

If a study isn't looking for one of the handful of timing patterns that may sway, it is unlikely to find any evidence that timing works. For instance, the study above looked at the last day that intercourse occurred, and determined how many boys and girls were conceived. This is the graph of its findings [refers to Figure 4 in the study].

There aren't numbers to indicate how many boys and girls were conceived with BD ending on each of these days; however, the article says 129 pregnancies resulted in a live birth, so there must be at least 129 pregnancies in the graph.

One of the obvious problems with looking at the last day of intercourse to evaluate timing is that BD patterns with a 1 day cut-off (for instance) can be very different. Both the best boy timing method and best girl timing method (in my opinion) have a 1 day cut-off. Yet the results are very different if there is no BD before the cut-off than if there is lots of BD beforehand.

Another problem is that the vast majority of all conceptions (at least by people who are trying to get pregnant) have intercourse the day before or day of ovulation. In this study, there were a total of 192 pregnancies initiated (including those that ended in m/c or stillbirth), and only 12 were from a 3 day or more cut-off (so only 6.25% of all pregnancies). This is similar to what I found in my study: only 38 charts out of 700 had a 3 day or more cut-off (5.4% of all pregnancies). I don't know how many charts had a 2 day cut-off in the study above, but the bars for the graph are significantly lower for 2 days before ovulation than they are for 1 day before ovulation. In my study, I only found 82 charts with a 2 day or more cut-off (11.7% of pregnancies). So, in other words, upwards of 88% of charts in my study had BD ending the day before or day of ovulation (and the percentage was probably similar in the study above). It is difficult to tell anything about timing by looking at the day intercourse ends, since almost all conceptions end on just two days.

A final problem is looking at too few pregnancies. Evaluating the sex ratio based on the last day of intercourse COULD identify whether cut-offs of 2, 3, or 4+ days influences gender. However, since cut-offs of 2 or more days are relatively uncommon, you have to look at a LOT of pregnancies to find very many cut-offs. Even with 700 charts, I still only have 82 cut-off charts in my study. 129 pregnacies is simply too few to be able to evaluate whether cut-offs sway.

As a test, I decided to look at the charts in my study to see if I also found timing of intercourse to have "no influence" if I only looked at the day ovulation ended. Since the study above looked at the last day of intercourse BEFORE ovulation, I left out charts that had BD AFTER ovulation. This is what I found:
- BD ends on O: 116 girl charts, 124 boy charts (sways boy 51.7%)
- BD ends on -1: 63 girl charts, 64 boy charts (sways boy 50.4%)
- BD ends on -2: 25 girl charts, 19 boy charts (sways girl 56.8%)
- BD ends on -3: 15 girl charts, 7 boy charts (sways girl 68.2%)
- BD ends on -4: 6 girl charts, 3 boy charts (sways girl 66.7%)
- BD ends on -5+: 2 girl charts, 5 boy charts (sways boy 71.4%)

If I include the charts with BD the day after ovulation, the results are similar.
- BD ONLY on the day after O: 1 girl chart, 0 boy charts (sways girl 100%)
- BD ends on O: 193 girl charts, 206 boy charts (sways boy 51.6%)
- BD ends on -1: 98 girl charts, 90 boy charts (sways girl 52.1%)
- BD ends on -2: 31 girl charts, 30 boy charts (sways girl 50.8%)
- BD ends on -3: 18 girl charts, 13 boy charts (sways girl 58.1%)
- BD ends on -4: 6 girl charts, 6 boy charts (50/50)
- BD ends on -5+: 3 girl charts, 5 boy charts (sways boy 62.5%)

In both analyses, the only significant result was that 2-3 day cut-offs sway for girl. All other patterns either had too few charts to be significant or had results close to what would be expected from chance. If I was just looking at the day intercourse ended, I would be able to tell that 2-3 day cut-offs swayed, but otherwise it would look like timing had no effect.

In conclusion, I do think some BD patterns sway. However, since most BD patterns don't sway or sway very little, scientific studies are not going to recognize what those patterns are unless they are looking for the handful of BD patterns that may influence gender. Simply looking at the last day of intercourse is not an effective way to evaluate whether or not timing sways.

atomic sagebrush
September 29th, 2012, 10:00 AM
I'd love to have you design a timing study, Minerva!! I wish we had a lab and an army of grad students at our disposal.

Personally, I still find that study very helpful because it shows that you can DTD the day before O and O day and still get a girl, which a lot of people would claim sways strongly blue regardless of what happened before. People are not getting pregnant with cutoffs while swaying and people also aren't getting pg from one attempt close to O for blue, so they're lingering for months and even years because of timing, while they drop things that really sway like diet. All reliable sources agree that intercourse during the 1-2 days up to a few hours before O has the best odds of conception - much higher than cutoffs/O+12 for pink, or trying to time intercourse right at O for blue. If that many more babies of either gender are conceived from BD 1-2 days up to a few hours before O, you have a better shot at getting a baby of your desired gender by TTC a day that is more friendly to conception even if another day were shown to sway (I do not believe timing sways, just speaking hypothetically). Pulling numbers out of the air to illustrate, if you take 100 babies and 70% are conceived from intercourse during the 2 days before O and it's 50-50 boys and girls, even if O+12 sways 100% of the time, if only one out of 100 people can conceive that day, the odds are WAY better of getting a girl from BD the 2 days before O.

My take on timing potentially swaying, is that if as many of us believe, it's something to do with sperm numbers that is swaying and not "X lives longer than Y" which has been completely debunked, then there could be a tiny advantage to a cutoff IF one were doing nothing else to sway gender. But once you start swaying, trying to get pg with one BD 3 days before O with lower sperm count and harsh vaginal environment is going to be extremely difficult if not impossible. And if you're swaying blue, limiting yourself to one attempt and trying to time it as close to O as possible, is going to also make it a lot less likely to conceive, and may even sway pink by limiting the number of sperm in the repro tract.

Hobbermittens
September 29th, 2012, 12:41 PM
And if you're swaying blue, limiting yourself to one attempt and trying to time it as close to O as possible, is going to also make it a lot less likely to conceive, and may even sway pink by limiting the number of sperm in the repro tract.

This is my biggest, hugest regret in my sway. I was aiming for every other day frequency, and I think I O'ed early.... and since I don't know when I ovulated, I may have only had 2 attempts in, though I had hoped for 4. :( If I had it to do it over, I would have DTD 4 or 5 days in a row.

HopefulMonster
October 4th, 2012, 12:35 PM
I shall have to look for the study but I read a really in depth one which said that the probability of conceiving a girl or boy was a 'U' shape with the bottom of the U being the time of ovulation & also when you were most likely to get a girl.

atomic sagebrush
October 6th, 2012, 01:44 PM
This is my biggest, hugest regret in my sway. I was aiming for every other day frequency, and I think I O'ed early.... and since I don't know when I ovulated, I may have only had 2 attempts in, though I had hoped for 4. :( If I had it to do it over, I would have DTD 4 or 5 days in a row.

And not to put words into Hobbers' mouth, but despite her concerns she still got a boy! :)

joyfylgrl
October 7th, 2012, 07:10 PM
We weren't trying to get pregnant this time...we had somewhere btw a 3-6 day cut-off (it's hard to say as I wasn't timing and I was nursing DS3...so going off first ultrasound). Honestly, as hubby was going to get a vasectomy, the only main difference is that I had been diagnosed with PPD and when looking at vitamins/minerals, I was actually found to be very low in magnesium, so doctor had me on high cal/mag supps. It's looking like this is a girl...could be timing according to Minervas study IF it was closer to a 3-4 day cut-off.

Hobbermittens
October 7th, 2012, 10:23 PM
And not to put words into Hobbers' mouth, but despite her concerns she still got a boy! :)

:oops:

Yeah, you are right! I freaked out for 9 months about nothing. I am sorry for all of that. :oops:

BeadinMom
October 7th, 2012, 10:30 PM
Hobbers, we're just so HAPPY for you!!! :)

atomic sagebrush
October 8th, 2012, 09:46 AM
We weren't trying to get pregnant this time...we had somewhere btw a 3-6 day cut-off (it's hard to say as I wasn't timing and I was nursing DS3...so going off first ultrasound). Honestly, as hubby was going to get a vasectomy, the only main difference is that I had been diagnosed with PPD and when looking at vitamins/minerals, I was actually found to be very low in magnesium, so doctor had me on high cal/mag supps. It's looking like this is a girl...could be timing according to Minervas study IF it was closer to a 3-4 day cut-off.

Yes, but just because some people's conceptions happen to coincide with timing, doesn't mean that timing sways. There are only 5 or 6 days of the cycle it's even possible to get pg, so there will be boys conceived on O day and girls conceived on cutoff purely from coincidence.

atomic sagebrush
October 8th, 2012, 09:47 AM
:oops:

Yeah, you are right! I freaked out for 9 months about nothing. I am sorry for all of that. :oops:

I don;t mind at all, I'm super happy for you and it's helpful to all the others who are worrying for the same reason!!

Hobbermittens
October 8th, 2012, 01:02 PM
I don;t mind at all, I'm super happy for you and it's helpful to all the others who are worrying for the same reason!!

I was regretting my timing this time around, and was convinced I should have done what got me my first son (we DTD 5 days in a row for him--not swaying, just trying to get pg). Now I know that it doesn't matter what timing/frequency pattern you do--we got a boy with two different patterns. I guess the reason I was worried was that botth our daughters were one shot deals (literally). But with them, I am sure there were other things factoring in, like diet, and DH's special cigarette habit, plus his tendency to release on his own daily.

Shellbelle
October 8th, 2012, 01:15 PM
Very, very interesting! Thanks for posting!

Navywife620
October 10th, 2012, 12:13 AM
So lets say you DTD 5-6 days in a row leading up to the day before O would this sway at all? Since there is probably more sperm up in there?

atomic sagebrush
October 11th, 2012, 09:40 AM
Navy, it depends on what else you're doing. If you've made your environment more hostile thru diet, supps, weight loss, then the sperm CANNOT stay alive that long. So yes, you're adding more sperm to the mix but at the same time lots of sperm are dying out. At the same time, your husband is getting depleted from the frequent release and is shooting fewer and fewer swimmers as you approach O. This all averages out to mean less sperm, not more.

Sperm can only stay alive for 5 days under ideal circumstances and only very very rarely longer than 5 days out. Swaying pink DOES NOT make for ideal circumstances by a long shot. I strongly suspect that for most pink swayers, all the sperm from anything longer than 3 days before ovulation will be dead, the sperm from 2-3 days before will be mostly dead, leaving only what is added from O-1 (and O day if you decided to DTD that day) to fertilize the egg...and your husband will probably be quite depleted by that day and have lower sperm numbers than if you'd DTD every 2-4 days.

Navywife620
October 11th, 2012, 10:31 AM
Navy, it depends on what else you're doing. If you've made your environment more hostile thru diet, supps, weight loss, then the sperm CANNOT stay alive that long. So yes, you're adding more sperm to the mix but at the same time lots of sperm are dying out. At the same time, your husband is getting depleted from the frequent release and is shooting fewer and fewer swimmers as you approach O. This all averages out to mean less sperm, not more.

Sperm can only stay alive for 5 days under ideal circumstances and only very very rarely longer than 5 days out. Swaying pink DOES NOT make for ideal circumstances by a long shot. I strongly suspect that for most pink swayers, all the sperm from anything longer than 3 days before ovulation will be dead, the sperm from 2-3 days before will be mostly dead, leaving only what is added from O-1 (and O day if you decided to DTD that day) to fertilize the egg...and your husband will probably be quite depleted by that day and have lower sperm numbers than if you'd DTD every 2-4 days.

Thank you for taking your time to give me an in depth answer! I am glad we have just kept on going. I have been on the diet for a little over 14 weeks now, we both a taking supps, I am doing repHresh. DH definitely feels like there is less and less each time we DTD and right now he is really sick with a head cold so he was been miserable!Hopefully all these attempts will help me get pregnant this month and stay pregnant!

yasmor
December 29th, 2012, 03:42 PM
sorry but is the conclusion is that timing does not matter at all ?
and abstinence ?

skippy
May 16th, 2016, 03:20 AM
I know this is very old but the comment BD 1 day before O with one attempt sways boy 65% is a bit scary. It mentions 1 day before O with numerous attempts sways girl 69%. For our BFP we did one attempt as we thought this was most important factor. Any thoughts of the validity of this post?

honeybee37
May 16th, 2016, 05:20 AM
Also interested to hear what people say about that, skippy.

atomic sagebrush
May 16th, 2016, 12:43 PM
I know this is very old but the comment BD 1 day before O with one attempt sways boy 65% is a bit scary. It mentions 1 day before O with numerous attempts sways girl 69%. For our BFP we did one attempt as we thought this was most important factor. Any thoughts of the validity of this post?

If you're referring to Minerva's timing stuff, since the original point in time that I replied to this thread last, it has been proven to my satisfaction that going back through FF charts (which is what she did to compile her statistics) does not and cannot work since you cannot pin down day of ovulation with any better than 1 in 3 chances. Studies done with highly trained NFP experts proved that even THEY could not get O day right any better than 1 in 3 days with temping. And most of the people using FF are not highly trained experts. So, her data is unfortunately not reliable. NFP methods are great for achieving pregnancy or avoiding pregnancy but they cannot be used to pin down the day of ovulation any better than really, random chance.

I will take a study done by scientists using blood tests and ultrasound to pinpoint time of ovulation 100% accurately over a (while extremely well done and thorough) study done using FF data with no verification of anything, as a much better source of information. And those studies found timing does not sway and 50-50 boys and girls are conceived every day of the cycle.

atomic sagebrush
May 16th, 2016, 12:45 PM
sorry but is the conclusion is that timing does not matter at all ?
and abstinence ?

Neither timing nor abstinence is seeming to sway. Many people want to include them and that is at your discretion.

http://genderdreaming.com/forum/gender-swaying-general-discussion/7691-trouble-timing.html

atomic sagebrush
May 16th, 2016, 01:01 PM
I know this is very old but the comment BD 1 day before O with one attempt sways boy 65% is a bit scary. It mentions 1 day before O with numerous attempts sways girl 69%. For our BFP we did one attempt as we thought this was most important factor. Any thoughts of the validity of this post?

Serious question though and I'm not offended, just curious - do you think I"m trying to steer you wrong? I really, really WANT your guys' sways to work, and so I work very hard to monitor and track and read all this stuff (the amount of time I'm here visibly posting on the site is actually only about 50% of the time I put into it) and based on my observations since 2008 when I started researching this, including having read all Minerva's research, I stand by my recommendation of one attempt. I understand why you guys ask about these things but I am at a loss why somehow my word becomes less valid because of one post, yk?? Our results show one attempt to be a great pink sway, all of which come from actual people on this site who you can message and/or read their sways. Who knows who these people are posting on FF? Were they swaying in other ways?? Are they even telling the truth? We don't know and again, that is why actual studies done in labs by scientists are so much more valid.

The thing about one attempt was a bit of a revelation. We started off thinking (as everyone did) that it was pH, frequency, even timing (I stayed open to timing even though it certainly hadn't worked for me) and never even GUESSED that number of attempts might sway. So we were keeping those things and adding attempts (including MANY people who had many attempts with a cutoff) and our results were AWFUL. I seriously considered giving up because we were barely getting better than 50-50 for pink. The only people who had good results were only those who did one attempt (or had been on diet 12 weeks or longer). One attempt was so much better than anything else that I had an a-ha moment and started recommending one attempt and then later e4d, while dropping ALL other sway tactics before adding attempts. Since I did that, our results have improved steadily. The one attempt numbers have declined a little bit over this past year, but that's to be expected when lots of people start using a sway tactic (including people doing very light sways otherwise) One attempt has been great for us since 2011. It also explains the apparent success of some of these timing things when they are shown in studies that 50-50 b and G are conceived every day of the cycle - one attempt is how you're supposed to do Shettles cutoff and also O+12 so that is why they seem to work.

If I had it to do over again I'd have taken a screenshot that proves all this to everyone but unfortunately I didn't think of that at the time. But the results with one attempt were 75% and the results with 2 were 60%, the results with 3 were 40% (yes, you're reading that right, 40% girls with three attempts even with doing frequency, jelly, timing) At the same time, the blue swayers who insisted on doing one attempt on day of O for SHettles were also getting 40% boys, 60% girls. IT was glaringly obvious that one attempt was swaying hugely.

The benefit of having me doing this for so long is that I can be kind of an eye in the sky and witness these trends and then we adjust accordingly.

skippy
May 17th, 2016, 08:07 PM
Thanks for your reply Atomic. I see how much time you put into this site and the effort you put in trying to help people. I drive myself a bit crazy with second guessing. Earlier this year out of interest I bought a book on Shettles as well as the French Gender Diet and read them right through. I pretty much forgot about the details in Shettles as everyone made it pretty clear it was mostly hocus pocus so I just forgot about it. Now that my sway is done I went to throw the Shettles book in the bin... and then was stupid and had a quick look at the main points. I realise I shouldn't have done this - it's now in the bin and I think it's time for me to have a break from the Internet too. These books are written with such conviction that I find I get a bit sucked into it all. Two of my closest friends told me they're having girls this week too - and one did the Shettles idea. So obviously this proves nothing with a sample size of one Shettles attempt, but I'm just not feeling great at the moment. Any little thing seems to worry me and I feel like everyone will get a girl except me. I'm going to make a big effort this week to distract myself. Time to walk the dog! Thanks again for your help, I'll try to stay off the site until I have the sway result and can enter it in the stats. Will be in touch in a few weeks!

atomic sagebrush
May 18th, 2016, 01:31 PM
I completely understand and I hope it came across I was asking out of sheer curiosity and not any kind of offense whatsoever. I am always happy to explain why I recommend the things I do, I just am curious where people's concerns are coming from, so I can tailor my responses accordingly. Some people think that I make recommendations because I'm attempting to sell something unique or trying to be different from other sites - but this isn't the case, if they were right I'd happily do things their way LOL, but I got 4 timing opposites. !! Additionally, there is genuine reasoning (explained above) about why we changed to one attempt. i TOTALLY know how hard it is to let go of this stuff when everyone is saying something else - after all, even though I had always had tons of dairy with my boys and took supplemental calcium with DS 3 I STILL took it with DS 4 LOL. I get it, I really do. :)

I know we talked about this a bit more in PM but just for others' benefit - Dr. Shettles died many years ago and he was like 100 when he died. The people selling books under his name for at least 2 decades if not more, are not him. I believe with every fiber of my being that if he were alive and not elderly he would have come out against it by now because it just can't work the way he said it did.

Throwaway_panther
May 19th, 2016, 02:04 PM
I completely understand and I hope it came across I was asking out of sheer curiosity and not any kind of offense whatsoever. I am always happy to explain why I recommend the things I do, I just am curious where people's concerns are coming from, so I can tailor my responses accordingly. Some people think that I make recommendations because I'm attempting to sell something unique or trying to be different from other sites - but this isn't the case, if they were right I'd happily do things their way LOL, but I got 4 timing opposites. !! Additionally, there is genuine reasoning (explained above) about why we changed to one attempt. i TOTALLY know how hard it is to let go of this stuff when everyone is saying something else - after all, even though I had always had tons of dairy with my boys and took supplemental calcium with DS 3 I STILL took it with DS 4 LOL. I get it, I really do. :)

I know we talked about this a bit more in PM but just for others' benefit - Dr. Shettles died many years ago and he was like 100 when he died. The people selling books under his name for at least 2 decades if not more, are not him. I believe with every fiber of my being that if he were alive and not elderly he would have come out against it by now because it just can't work the way he said it did.

My two cents: Anyone questioning anything, me included, I think almost always is rooted in our own anxieties :/ (see: me suddenly trusting in a random OWT?! What the &#^@!...)

squigglepink
May 19th, 2016, 05:17 PM
Serious question though and I'm not offended, just curious - do you think I"m trying to steer you wrong? I really, really WANT your guys' sways to work, and so I work very hard to monitor and track and read all this stuff (the amount of time I'm here visibly posting on the site is actually only about 50% of the time I put into it) and based on my observations since 2008 when I started researching this, including having read all Minerva's research, I stand by my recommendation of one attempt. I understand why you guys ask about these things but I am at a loss why somehow my word becomes less valid because of one post, yk?? Our results show one attempt to be a great pink sway, all of which come from actual people on this site who you can message and/or read their sways. Who knows who these people are posting on FF? Were they swaying in other ways?? Are they even telling the truth? We don't know and again, that is why actual studies done in labs by scientists are so much more valid.

The thing about one attempt was a bit of a revelation. We started off thinking (as everyone did) that it was pH, frequency, even timing (I stayed open to timing even though it certainly hadn't worked for me) and never even GUESSED that number of attempts might sway. So we were keeping those things and adding attempts (including MANY people who had many attempts with a cutoff) and our results were AWFUL. I seriously considered giving up because we were barely getting better than 50-50 for pink. The only people who had good results were only those who did one attempt (or had been on diet 12 weeks or longer). One attempt was so much better than anything else that I had an a-ha moment and started recommending one attempt and then later e4d, while dropping ALL other sway tactics before adding attempts. Since I did that, our results have improved steadily. The one attempt numbers have declined a little bit over this past year, but that's to be expected when lots of people start using a sway tactic (including people doing very light sways otherwise) One attempt has been great for us since 2011. It also explains the apparent success of some of these timing things when they are shown in studies that 50-50 b and G are conceived every day of the cycle - one attempt is how you're supposed to do Shettles cutoff and also O+12 so that is why they seem to work.

If I had it to do over again I'd have taken a screenshot that proves all this to everyone but unfortunately I didn't think of that at the time. But the results with one attempt were 75% and the results with 2 were 60%, the results with 3 were 40% (yes, you're reading that right, 40% girls with three attempts even with doing frequency, jelly, timing) At the same time, the blue swayers who insisted on doing one attempt on day of O for SHettles were also getting 40% boys, 60% girls. IT was glaringly obvious that one attempt was swaying hugely.

The benefit of having me doing this for so long is that I can be kind of an eye in the sky and witness these trends and then we adjust accordingly.


I completely understand and I hope it came across I was asking out of sheer curiosity and not any kind of offense whatsoever. I am always happy to explain why I recommend the things I do, I just am curious where people's concerns are coming from, so I can tailor my responses accordingly. Some people think that I make recommendations because I'm attempting to sell something unique or trying to be different from other sites - but this isn't the case, if they were right I'd happily do things their way LOL, but I got 4 timing opposites. !! Additionally, there is genuine reasoning (explained above) about why we changed to one attempt. i TOTALLY know how hard it is to let go of this stuff when everyone is saying something else - after all, even though I had always had tons of dairy with my boys and took supplemental calcium with DS 3 I STILL took it with DS 4 LOL. I get it, I really do. :)

I know we talked about this a bit more in PM but just for others' benefit - Dr. Shettles died many years ago and he was like 100 when he died. The people selling books under his name for at least 2 decades if not more, are not him. I believe with every fiber of my being that if he were alive and not elderly he would have come out against it by now because it just can't work the way he said it did.

Now that you mention this... I purchased the "revised version" of the Dr. Shettles - as in the very latest version in January of this year.. And if shettles died so long ago, (im assuming before this revised version) - then who was actually involved in this newest/latest addition, Lol!

tata
May 20th, 2016, 05:32 PM
Im sorry you don't know me . I just came across this site and accidentally read what you said about 1 time = more girls
i m preg right now and if i have a girl this is going to agree with what you are saying. i have 2 boys and both times 3+ times dtd before O. This time only once about 5 days before ovulation . if i have a girl the amount of times of BD would be the only thing i did diferrent this time.

atomic sagebrush
May 22nd, 2016, 03:48 PM
My two cents: Anyone questioning anything, me included, I think almost always is rooted in our own anxieties :/ (see: me suddenly trusting in a random OWT?! What the &#^@!...)

I do get that. I totally understand that. Please believe me when I say I have totally been there and I DO know. It just makes me curious. I guess what I'm curious about is if people just need reassurance/explanation, or if they think I'm mistaken or didn't know about this, or acting rashly or selfishly. Maybe don't realize the level of my involvement in the site and how much time and research I do and have put into it all for the last 8 1/2 years and may be operating out of ignorance or a snap judgement based on only a handful of stats. I do passionately want everyone to get their desired gender (and that is why I do this every day instead of taking up crochet or something). I can't make it all agree, if I would, I could, because it would be SOOO much easier for me to just do the old school stuff only better (and I could probably make 5x as much money if I had) - but I just couldn't reconcile that with what the reality seems to be.

OR, I do know that there is a minority that suspects I'm actively trying to mislead. There have been a few people who have accused me of trying to mislead them in order to have a different product to sell or something along those lines and unfortunately there are a few people who like to put that myth forward, usually competitors or those who got opposites. But seriously, not only would it save me a lot of time and make me more $ if I were to agree with the old school stuff (because the fact that I don't makes me lose a huge number of people right from the get go) - I would actually LOVE to do it for free. I used to do it for free when the site started and it was better for me because I could take a vacation haha. But it's this or back to work, and if I did work I wouldn't have time to do it and 80% of my money would go to the day care.

So, occasionally I just get curious where people's heads are at. Taking on Shettles is a lot like rolling a boulder up a hill - while it's a labor of love, it is something that I am apparently destined to spend 75% of my time doing again and again only to have it undone the next day. :p It is helpful to have that feedback about people's thought processes so I can keep doing that without losing heart really - it goes down a lot easier if people just need reassurance which I'm always happy to give, I never expect anyone to just take what I say on good faith, of course, than if it's coming across that I'm either someone who doesn't know what I'm talking about, or a person who just likes to be different for the sake of being different without any real reason, or some kind of a moneygrubber "just trying to sell something different than Shettles" if that makes any sense. :)

he reason I do all this is because that stuff didn't work for me and 1,234,567,890 people back on IG and we were told that it was our fault because "we did it wrong". There are people who are very dear to me, who I started off with back on IG who still have not had a baby and probably never will because of this timing nonsense. Others had opposites after 1-2 years of timing. I just want as many people as possible to get their DG safely, sanely, and quickly without squandering years of fertility on stuff that doesn't even sway.