It is a blood thinner though, so I would take some caution - the doses are meant for safety, more is not always better. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrsandmama
Printable View
It is a blood thinner though, so I would take some caution - the doses are meant for safety, more is not always better. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrsandmama
Are we still saying that its 6 weeks on the LE needed? Its just the Oct Stats dont show that much of an increase to length of time on the diet x
We see the stats go up and the stats go down for a variety of reasons but I am kinda "the eye in the sky" here and have my global set of experiences not just from here, but from on IG as well (which I just realized I started off on IG over 6 years ago now) and that is what I base my recommendations on - my observations as a whole - not the temporary statistical variations that are reflected in this thread.
For awhile there we were seeing a lot of opposites with a very clear demarcation where longer on diet was absolutely positively significantly better. The opposites were almost exclusively in people who had been on diet a very short time, and then those who did a lot of attempts in order to get pg. This has gotten a bit lost in the shuffle of late simply because we've eliminated some things that were inadvertently swaying blue and thus getting better results than we were for a few months, but the observation has been made and I think we need to stick with that. I think it's important to do diet for 6 weeks before TTC and 90 days may be better.
Hi everyone! itīs been a long time I havenīt been by here! Iīm pregnant with a girl!!! :cheer: I would like to give a big thank you to rainbow too, because the stats have helped to me a lot!! Please tell me how can I add my info to your stats, Iīll be pleased to help!!
This is the link of my sway:
http://genderdreaming.com/forum/add-...y-attempt.html
mariposa- read the first post in this thread and the instructions are there to fill out a form to go into our stats. Congrats and thanks!
I'll do it as soon as possible, thanks!! :)
Just wanted to say another huge THANK YOU to Rainbow and myurkin for updating the stats for us!!!
Love the new updates! FYI you can tick olive leaf and calc mag for my dh, and I was on cinnamon. What tea is that new tea column regarding? I was on raspberry leaf tea the month I conceived.
I just updated the form to go into the stats. I was on LE diet for a year, on Clomid, and only had one attempt and my 16 week ultrasound showed that I am having a BOY! When I look at the stats for these areas (LE+Clomid+One Attempt), I just can't believe I managed to get pregnant with another boy. I guess this little guy was just determined to beat the odds and become part of our family.
Congratulations on your baby boy! I Will prolly beat stats again too. When it hapens. I always seen to do the opposite:think:
I am new to swaying. I have started cutting back on salt. Drinking cranberry juice/peppermint tea. Should I do a spreadsheet? What is recommended? I am trying the IG diet, but I wonder if the LE or mixture is better.
you can post a sway once you get pregnant, only sways with known outcomes are included in stats.
Hello everyone I'm a newbie & have a question: are these results for girl sways only? And this
atomic's numbers:
54 Custom Sway Success
33 Custom Sway Opposites
Numbers as reported on sway questionnaires:
Total sways: 18
Total success: 16
Success %: 88.89
Inverse success %: 68.89
Is this the results for people that purchased the personalized sway plan??
People purchase a custom plan because we have a ten year headstart on researching what the best possible sway is to get a girl or boy. They purchase a plan to get access to a coach that answers all your specific questions and tailors the plan to fit into your lifestyle. As much as everyone is into the "stats", it really isn't about the numbers. We are seeing good results. Clearly, not all the numbers are posted but realistically, we are averaging around 65% success with the girl sways and 75-80 with the boy sways.
Our approach is backed by scientific studies. We don't quote "97 or 94%" success and lie like many other sites out there do. If anyone thinks swaying can be 94% successful, I feel sorry for them. Most sites are actually quoting the results of a small scale study that showed to be 94% successful and are NOT referring to their own stats. They don't keep them!
We know more about Natural Gender Selection than anyone period. We are the only ones that are always actively researching, collecting results, analyzing REAL sways and then adjusting our plans to yield better results.
It's not as simple as eat calcium and magnesium, get a girl; potassium and sodium, get a boy. If it were, we'd all get our Dream Gender.
The first batch of numbers are what I kept track of for custom plans, the lower batch of numbers are of those people who filled out sway plans since they started tracking them in the stats. These are pink only.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rmarie
I prefer you guys just use the overall stats of the site because it's a much larger sample size, and also because a lot of people who have health issues and other considerations (age, breastfeeding, and so forth) get the custom sway plans. The average person can expect the 65-70% success rate for pink, 70-75% for blue.
We include EVERYONE who posts a sway in our results, whether they did things "our" way or whatever. Everyone in our numbers you can verify for yourself if they had success or not. That's the reason why we use the publicly posted sways - they are independently verifiable by anyone.
We aren't doing a scientific study and the purpose of the site is to support one another and not be picking apart sways and encouraging dishonesty like some of the other sites where people exaggerate to make their sways look better. These are real world results where not everyone does "perfect" sways.
I WILL NOT cherry pick data to make swaying success rates artificially high - even if that means making the numbers look actually lower than they really are. The average person can expect to go from possibly as much as 75% likely to conceive a boy to possibly as much as 65% likely to conceive a girl. I would rather people decide whether or not to sway with conservative numbers and stay realistic about it.
Results in first post updated. I'll be doing this on the 1st of every month from now on.
You ladies are awesome I'm so glad I found this website:)
Raspberry tea ? Is that raspberry leaf tea?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
yes. I do not typically recommend it for pink as I htink it sways blue, and the majority of people who have used it have been going on TTC for many months, even years in a couple cases. I do not recommend RRLT for any pink swayer with the exception of a few people who have really been swaying quite some time
Hi my girl sway was a success! :) I followed your personalised plan with LE diet and tons of extra stuff I did myself at home :)
With the stats how are they being calculated? because I would say unless someone has purchased and followed a personalised plan should those successes be taken into account. Too many sways I see are full of things they didn't do or didn't end up swaying hardly at all.
These numbers aren't scientific, we're all on the honor system here in terms of what we say we are doing/have done vs. reality. EVen the people who had personalized plans, I can't ever be sure as to whether they actually followed thru with it all or not. So, I just think that we take the numbers for what they're worth, as a tool to assist us in picking out any larger trends (such as exercise and one attempt, which we never would have known are as effective as they are without the stats).
I have urged in the past and will continue to do so, that no one ought to read too much into the numbers specifically and should instead look at the larger overarching trends. things that go up a few % points from one update to the next, are NOT things that people should suddenly insist upon including.
Hello everyone! I'm a newbie here, my husband and I will be TTC on this cycle..... Swaying for a girl as there hasn't been one in his family for over 40yrs!! I've been taking calcium citrate (I first started with the other kind but switched) I'm also taking magnesium and folic acid. I'm not 100% sure when the best time to DTD is..... I've heard a few different ways..... Some say every day after AF up until 3 days before O I've also heard O+12. I want to get it right can anyone tell me what worked best for them? I've also been drinking natural cranberry juice (which I heard to stop after O because it can cause MC) I've been trying to stay away from salt I pretty much eat the same thing every day. Oatmeal for breakie
Apple nuts yoghurt and veggies at work and salad. Fish and veg for dinner .... Been exercising and doing all this for about a monh..... Should we continue a while longer before TTC? Any tips are appreciated
Hi jmrad maybe start a new thread you will get more responses that way:) if you have time to spare and really want a girl I would take at least 6 weeks to prepare read all threads absorb everything even better get a custom plan from atomic they are brilliant and you have her for six months as a coach she's brilliant!
Sent from my Windows Phone 8S by HTC using Tapatalk
P.s it sounds like your current diet would sway a little blue so please get all the info before you ttc :) good luck its a lot to take in but we are a friendly chatty bunch
Sent from my Windows Phone 8S by HTC using Tapatalk
question, I know that FR and abstain have gotten very similar results lo these many months but this latest update they are identical, is that an error or is it just coincidence?
In my signature below there is a link to "the Complete Index" and you can copy/paste it into your browser bar and it will take you to an index alphabetized by topic and it will answer most of your questions. Then anything else you are wondering about, you can start a new thread and ask! :) Hi and welcome BTW!Quote:
Originally Posted by Jmrad
that is correct, they just happen to have matched at the start of this month! (there has since been 1 more attempt using abstain which was an opposite so they will vary in the next one)Quote:
Originally Posted by atomic sagebrush
I strongly suggest before trying to purchase a personalised plan and follow it to a 'T' - also your partner needs to be completely on board with supps and eating. We conceived as soon as I got a positive on ovulation predictor so would've ovulated within 48 hrs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jmrad
thank you so very much!Quote:
Originally Posted by rainbowflower
updated girl stats
Thank you so much for doing this! How many got added since March 1- I could have sworn the total number was 222 last I checked and now it's 223?
Fantastic work :) will you be still doing this when you do your own girl sway? Xx
no I think we've had 3 girl sways added this month
Mulberry - my husband and I are likely separating so not sure if I will get the chance to sway again, but who knows what the future holds
Thanks rainbow and big hug sent your way. Hope things work out for the best for you.Quote:
Originally Posted by rainbowflower
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk
Few questions.
Cal/mag is showing really good results. Why is this? Is it something to add? I thought le was against it? x
I am working on an essay about this right now but have not had the time to finish, I will post the germane portion for you below. I do not and will not recommend cal-mag for swaying pink, but at the same time it is not my purpose to try and argue everyone out of it. All I can say is that I've been watching swayers sway for over 6 years and I do not believe that cal-mag works for TTC a girl and I won't recommend it till I see a reliable study that shows that it sways. If it does work, it's because it's harming health in some way and I don't recommend anythign that seems risky when there are safer alternatives out there.Quote:
Originally Posted by dreamingofwin
For a link to the first LE Diet FAQ it’s here: http://genderdreaming.com/forum/tryi...-diet-faq.html
What kind of results is the LE Diet getting?
The LE Diet has gotten about 65% success rate. This has stayed consistent over time with only minor statistical variations in either direction. http://genderdreaming.com/forum/tryi...readsheet.html
Is that ALL?
A few people have seemed disappointed by the 65% number. Not me! We are talking about being able to alter the gender ratio by a few easy to make changes in diet. Henry the 8th would have killed for this information! And as those of us with 3-4-5 or more boys already know, not all of us are starting off from 50-50 chance of either gender. We have numbers that show odds of a second, third, and even 4th boy are higher than they “should” be http://genderdreaming.com/forum/gend...body-know.html
Additionally, our blue swayers on HE Diet have also been getting a steady 75% and this has gone as high as 80% for months at a time. Since most of us boy moms tend to follow a more HE-type diet naturally http://genderdreaming.com/forum/tryi...-our-boys.html that indicates that those of us with many boys already are going from as much as 80% likely to conceive another boy to a minimum of 65% likely to have a girl. This is a huge variation and your odds are MUCH better on LE Diet than just eating your normal diet.
There are other sites and salesmen out there who claim an impossible 95% success rate, some using diet, others using other methods (including magic). These people are dishonest. If something sounds too good to be true, it usually is. Please don’t hold the LE Diet up to the lies of charlatans.
However, there are studies out there that claimed to have an 80% success rate with diet. But we are not doing a scientific study here. We are not omitting the people who didn’t do things “the right way” from our statistics. Gender Dreaming is meant as a support site, a safe place where we can come together as friends to talk about gender swaying, gender desire, and anything else. We include EVERYONE who posts a sway in our numbers, whether they swayed hard or just a little. http://genderdreaming.com/forum/tryi...readsheet.html
By taking this inclusive approach, we are trying to avoid the climate on some of the other sites where people’s sways are picked apart and there’s some big competition to see who can do the strictest sway (leading to more severe gender disappointment, not to mention dishonesty and unreliable results). It actually gets us a better quality of data because if everyone did the exact same thing for their sways, it becomes extremely difficult to pick out the trends of what is actually working vs. what is not.
Furthermore, claims don’t always equal success in the real world. In the most recent “Dutch” study that claimed 80% success rate, 172 couples started the process of joining the study, 22 dropped out right away (probably because the diet was too difficult), and 150 remained. They then did an additional second experiment using a new group of 50 women. Of the 150 women in the first group, plus the 50 women in the second group, only 32 women were even able to fulfill the requirements of the study to be included in the results. That group got 80% success, but a method that only 1/6 of the people who attempt it can even do, is really USELESS in the real world. (It also cost 1450 euros – that’s over $2000!!!) And it does not really truly mean that this diet got 80% for everyone who tried it, does it?
If I were to go through and cherry pick my data to select only the people who did LE Diet “my” way (neither too strict nor too lax), I could make my numbers look like that too, and in fact we have gotten 80% and above with people on LE Diet for more than 12 weeks and also with exercise. But I WILL NOT artificially inflate numbers to make swaying look more effective. We are dealing with life altering decisions – the decision to add another child to the family, the decision between PGD/IVF and swaying – these need to be based on what the average person can reasonably expect and not some number that was manipulated within an inch of its life.
Gender Dreaming is not here to get some tiny fraction of people the highest possible success rate while others sit around in despair. We want the most people to get daughters with the least amount of misery, and so there is a balance to be struck - “perfection” vs. REALITY. Percentages of success can be highly misleading things, because if a technique, no matter how elegantly designed, is undoable for the average person (because remember, with the “mineral balancing” diets, if you go off the diet even just one measly time in 6-12 weeks, according to them you have ruined everything) it’s worthless because of all those people who just can’t stick to a diet without, like, EVER cheating. The all-or-nothing nature of the mineral balancing diets leads people do believe that if they can’t do everything perfectly, they may as well do nothing, and so tons of people who could have successfully swayed with a more relaxed approach, don’t follow ANY diet and end up getting opposites.
If only 32 people out of 200 are able to follow a mineral balancing diet well enough to be included in a study, even if 80% of those 32 people got girls (about 26 people), that is an unacceptable amount of people who can’t do the diet to start out with. If 200 people are able to stick with the LE Diet in some form or another even with occasional or not-so-occasional cheats, and as our stats indicate, about 65% had girls, that's 130 girls - a HECK of a lot more girls overall. And that is IF you accept those numbers from the Dutch Study at face value, but everyone please note that they were NOT doing just diet, they were also doing timing – aka one attempt – which has gotten as high as 75% for us so it is VERY likely that they would not get the same results with just diet alone anyway.
You can rest assured that our numbers are real world, real live people who sometimes have bad days and fall short on diet. I did not go through and pick and choose only the best of the best sways to include in our results. You can read the posted sways and verify what every swayer in our stats did. You can even message them if you want to. Our numbers are different, not because our results are inferior or bad, but because they are BETTER quality of data.
Which diet should I follow then??
I can all but guarantee that after reading the above there are at least SOME people who are thinking “well gee whiz 80% sounds good to me, I’ll just do one of those mineral diets but unlike all the lazybones who couldn’t stick to it, I WILL”. But remember, that study was NOT just diet alone, but also included timing – now as we know, timing doesn’t sway, but one attempt, which is always included in strict timing methods, has gotten about 75% success rates for us with a sample size of over 100 people (when you’re dealing with a sample size of 26 people, getting 80% is well within the statistical variation of 75% range). So it’s very likely that a person doing diet + one attempt can expect higher than 65%, and if you do exercise as well, the exercise has been getting 90% (I expect this number to drop as more people add it in but it is still a strong pink sway tactic). I believe it’s reasonable to assume that swayers who do diet, exercise, and one attempt can expect success rates that are higher than 65% - and without shelling out 2000 bucks for the privilege.
I know there are still some out there who aren’t convinced. If you ARE convinced, skip down to the rest of the essay where I talk about a lot of other (much more interesting) stuff and sorry to belabor a point!
The case against the IG Diet – In our stats http://genderdreaming.com/forum
/trying-conceive-girl/25157-complete-pink-swaying-statistics-spreadsheet.html people following the IG Diet (mostly in the first year of the site) got about 42% success for pink (58% boys). People following the IG Diet for boys (again, mostly in the early days of the site) had 48% success for boys (52% girls). You would have had a better rate of success following the IG BOY Diet than the IG Girl Diet, at least among this group of people. http://genderdreaming.com/forum/ttc-...swayed-gd.html Aside from that, stats go up and stats go down, but the level of misery that people experience when attempting IGD (both for pink and blue) is NOT worth it even if it was getting better results.
The case against the FGD -
The “80%” number that is sometimes attributed to the FGD is misleading. The original studies done by the FGD people were not good studies, they just went back over old food diaries and added up cal-mag-sod-pot levels and ignored all other nutrient data. Then they designed a diet based on mineral content that people supposedly had good results with (just as with the Dutch study, anyone who was not able to stick to the diet 100% was omitted from the results, unlike our numbers where everyone is included), but those diets are different in many ways, not just in mineral levels. It has never been proven to my satisfaction that cal/mag levels are swaying and in fact I think the data points in the opposite direction.
I do think the FGD and the Dutch diet based on the FGD CAN sway, but it’s not because of mineral levels, it’s because of the differences in the diets themselves. A diet with substantially different calcium vs. potassium levels, is also going to have substantially different EVERYTHING levels. Meat, fruit and vegetable intake, and yes even dairy itself is limited on FGD. And while I have not seen this diet firsthand myself (because I lack the $2000 LOL), I have it on good authority that calorie intake, protein, and fat intake in the Dutch study diet is very similar to that in the LE Diet because it’s based on the high fiber, higher carb, lower fat, and very low saturated fat Dutch National Diet found here (this is a PDF): http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...62922401,d.cGU
Cal-mag or no cal-mag?
I think I’ve gone on pretty much to the brink of obnoxiousness about this but I do still get questions asking me am I SURE? REALLY, REALLY SURE? And while I am never “sure, really really sure” about ANYTHING when it comes to swaying and question everything constantly, I AM sure that the cal-mag idea cannot work in the way that the boosters of the FGD/IGD/Dutch Diet claim it does, firstly because it’s based on a really dumb idea to start with (that animals that are so far removed from mammals that they don’t even reproduce in remotely the same way, can tell us anything about how to alter gender ratio in human beings) and secondly because it’s biologically and historically impossible http://genderdreaming.com/forum/tryi...roversial.html (this is a three part series, read ALL three, and there’s some pretty good discussion after the essays too, particularly the third one). Lastly, we have evidence showing that cal-mag actually can sway blue both in studies and in data compiled from IG. Several of us got girls without cal-mag after getting sway opposites where we were taking gobs of the stuff. Calcium is not a magic bullet for pink, no way, no how.
That having been said, recently our stats have seemed to show an increased rate of success for cal-mag http://genderdreaming.com/forum/tryi...readsheet.html and people have again been asking me if they should include cal-mag on the basis of these numbers. NO. First of all, I am not even sure where these newer numbers are coming from. I don’t compile the statistics because it is unethical for me to do so and plus I don’t have time anyway (and really appreciate the hard work of the ladies who do them), but I haven’t been having ANYONE use cal-mag for DW. None of the Custom Sway people are using it. I do allow people to include it for DH because the data I have shows no difference in gender ratio with husbands using it and not using it and since some people believe in cal-mag as a magic bullet, I figure it can’t hurt anything. The stats do not say if it’s DH using it, DW using it, or both, how much, when it was taken, etc. So to take a look at that number in light of all the evidence pointing away from the use of cal-mag for DW and reintroduce it for women, I believe is a major step in the wrong direction.
There is also an issue where the strictest of the strict people include EVERYTHING, so it ends up being that things that do not even sway, even sway blue, can look more effective than they really are simply because uberstrict people use them while doing overall more effective sways. This is especially true of things that do not inhibit conception – if a sway tactic doesn’t prevent pregnancy, naturally it is kept in the mix even as other things are dropped. Since calcium does not inhibit odds of conception, it is often kept in a sway after all other sway tactics are dropped. Since a longer time on diet has been shown to be more effective, I believe some of our stats (cal/mag and ions, to be exact) are coincidental and not cause/effect.
Besides that, until recently the success with cal-mag was pretty much the same as the overall stats of the site. I think this is a minor statistical variation and do not recommend taking cal/mag supps for DW and do not foresee doing so in the future, either.
In order for me to begin recommending calcium and magnesium for pink, I would need to see some researchers from a legitimate university do an experiment where they take two groups of several hundred women doing nothing else to sway (including diet, they should just be eating a normal diet), give one cal-mag and then the other not. If cal-mag does anything, then there should be significantly more girls conceived in the cal-mag group.
Then they need to repeat the experiment, preferably by switching the two groups. The second group also should have substantially more daughters on the cal-mag. Or I would also accept the first experiment repeated 3 times by different, equally legitimate researchers and let me reiterate – a sample of 32 people does not suffice, these experiments need to be done in several hundred people. Till then, I think the facts are against calcium and swaying.
Aside from all that, IF calcium even sways, HOW? The theories originally underlying the FGD and how it worked, are biologically impossible. You can’t alter the levels of calcium/sodium in your blood****** without being very ill to the brink of death. The Trivers Willard hypothesis predicts that moms who are in declining condition have more girls – IF (BIG IF) taking a massive dose of cal-mag really truly sways, it’s very likely because it’s harmful to your health or fertility in some way. The same is probably true for DH as well. Unlike diet and exercise which taps into “Nature’s Way” of gently declining fertility as a natural birth control method when times are hard, the mechanism for how high levels of calcium might sway (IF it does) is a mystery. Since calcium supplementation has been recently linked to considerably higher rates of heart disease in both women and men, it is not a sway tactic that I think is worth any level of risk (because remember, I think it’s neutral for DH and sways blue for DW in sane levels). I have moved away from recommending cal-mag to men over 45, I’m borderline on it for men 35-45 and no longer use it for any men who have history of heart disease.
-So then how about if I just take magnesium?
Several people have asked me, well if calcium sways blue, I’ll just take magnesium. NO. For starters, the Oxford Study found higher intake of ALL nutrients, including magnesium, to be associated with more boys conceived. And secondly, the only reason why magnesium was ever included in the FGD to begin with was to improve the absorption of calcium. So if you’re not taking calcium, then it’s POINTLESS to bother with magnesium. You’re taking a risk for your sway (more nutrients) and for your health (because high levels of magnesium are dangerous and one lady on InGender actually ended up in the hospital from too much magnesium) for no benefit (because it was supposedly the calcium doing the work, the magnesium only helped the calcium).
I am so sorry to hear this rainbow. Thinking of you.Quote:
Originally Posted by rainbowflower