How much can we really sway?

[carmella_marie]

So I think we're getting like a 75% success rate on here for pink? Is that right?

I am wondering if that's because not everyone is doing the exact same things in their sway or if we just can't mess with mother nature any more than that, does that make sense?

For example, it would never happen, but if we could perfectly control everyone's sways so they all ate the same diet perfectly, and exercised perfectly, and did one attempt, etc. do you think we would see the success rate rise to near 90-99% OR do you think we can only mess with mother nature so much, and there is some kind of protection mechanism so that boys will be conceived even in times of severe drought/natural disaster/etc?

I guess it could be somewhere in the middle too. Haha, just some late night musings. I am aware you can do a practically perfect sway and still get an opposite so we will never get to 100%, I am pondering more general trends more than any one specific sway.

So, do you think we can get above 75% as we refine and "perfect" the pink swaying process or do you think 75% is the best mother nature will give us?

[ksmom]

I don't think it's possible to achieve success above 90-95% for a few reasons. One of them is because pink swaying is not a "one size fits all" type deal. What works for some, doesn't for others so I think even if everyone did a "perfect" pink sway, there would still be opposites. Also, like you said Mother Nature would need to balance out gender in some way. There are cultures that may naturally be more pink friendly yet there's not this major imbalance of males to females. It's not just that but there may be other factors that sway opposite we are either unaware of or something we have no control over. Honestly, this is what scares me the most because I think I had a decent pink sway but I just have a feeling I'm going to hear boy very soon (not that I ever thought a girl was guaranteed, just that I don't know if I did what my body felt was necessary to sway pink). Anyway I think 75% is pretty good considering there are women here who swayed pink and got girls after 3-4+ boys.

[carmella_marie]

I hear ya ksmom. Totally agree.

I swayed for pink with all my children. The first was your classic IG sway with odd things for ions and pH and all kind of weird stuff in the VJ and eating certain things for minerals and moon phases and yada yada. Got a boy, probably because my husband and I are super fertile and I was eating a lot of chicken and dairy for calcium purposes. Second child swayed traditional LE (which was not good for me as I have PCOS tendencies and might have actually swayed boy, who knows) and I went couch potato, and we DTD 1-2 times a day for over a month straight (because I have long cycles) thinking that would deplete his sperm count when in reality we just put a lot of sperm up there and that probably swayed boy too. My third successful sway was PCOS LE, Exercise 6 days a week, daily alcohol and clomid.

So in a way I feel like I found my body's own "perfect" personalized sway and sometimes I fall into the trap of thinking if I can just replicate what I did with my last baby then I'm guaranteed a girl. But when I think about it logically I realize I can do everything the same way I did last time and still get a boy. This got me thinking about overall swaying patterns and how so often on IG they were quick to rip each other's sway apart, as if there was a magical sway formula with 100% success rate if followed perfectly.

Anyway just wanted to hear other people's thoughts.

[Complex Emotions]

Good question, Carmella_marie. It all seems so random and likely to be based on factors beyond what we have any concept of. I've wondered if maybe there's something in us subconsciously keeping track of the genders of the babies born around us. Maybe this is informing our chemistry or fertility in some way so that if environmental or social conditions start causing more of one gender to be born, some of us will be likely to have the other gender to counteract that.

Anecdotally, it does sort of seem like when sisters with no brothers start having kids, they mostly have boys...

I also wonder about our stats. For example, if someone has a son after swaying pink how likely is it that they'll tell themself "I didn't follow the sway closely enough to officially add it, so I don't want to bring down the genderdreaming.com success statistics." versus if they swayed pink and had a daughter, maybe they'd be inclined to want to report it as a way to help the site out?

[atomic sagebrush]

I think there's probably an upper ceiling on swaying. I do not think the success rate would ever be 90-99%. If it was, the whole human race would have died out a long time ago (the first time there was a famine.) or would be dying out now (because most of us have sooo much nice noms to eat LOL)

i do want to caution about reading too much into our statistics, though. The fertility factor really skews it and in order for us to really know how much swaying is possible, we would need to take this diet and give it to people on their first kids, who are not selected for boys or girls per se that we know of, and NOT groups of gals who may have 2-3-4 or more boys or girls to start out with. We are already on the extremes and it may very well be the case that we would see higher or lower results in a population that was not selected for having more of one gender vs. the other. I especially think this may be the case with our blue swayers - if as we believe there is an underlying fertility/condition element coming into play, the ladies on this site with several girls to start with may actually come in with lower chances than society as a whole and this may reduce our results accordingly. This is not a study we're doing and our results have major shortcomings, which is why I think they are practically for entertainment purposes only. So 75% on here may actually be more like 85% across the population or it may be lower even for all we know. We're basically taking stabs in the dark here.

RE protection mechanism, I believe that this is where PCOS comes into the equation. no one understands why PCOS exists, but my theory is that in cases of protein scarcity where everyone was living on nothing but carbs, the lady who could have boys in that scenario would have an evolutionary advantage. In the prehistoric world this wouldn't have been a fertility issue as much since everyone was getting lots of exercise and not eating tons of calories, it woudln't have messed up fertility. But in the modern world we are if anything overfed and so this tendency which may have given some evolutionary advantage would for some of us, run amok and stop our ovulating all together (in addition to leading us to have mostly boys). So yeah I do think there is a protection mechanism which is why anyone who gets na opposite on standard LE Diet, when/if you sway again, should do the alt. diets that are better for PCO tendencies.

[atomic sagebrush]

Good question, Carmella_marie. It all seems so random and likely to be based on factors beyond what we have any concept of. I've wondered if maybe there's something in us subconsciously keeping track of the genders of the babies born around us. Maybe this is informing our chemistry or fertility in some way so that if environmental or social conditions start causing more of one gender to be born, some of us will be likely to have the other gender to counteract that.

Anecdotally, it does sort of seem like when sisters with no brothers start having kids, they mostly have boys...

I also wonder about our stats. For example, if someone has a son after swaying pink how likely is it that they'll tell themself "I didn't follow the sway closely enough to officially add it, so I don't want to bring down the genderdreaming.com success statistics." versus if they swayed pink and had a daughter, maybe they'd be inclined to want to report it as a way to help the site out?

Our stats are for entertainment purposes only. I say it again and again and will go on saying it. If it was up to me quite frankly we wouldn't even KEEP stats (altho I'm glad we did because a couple strong trends have turned up, and also it's become clear that some things are totally neutral). I think you guys should sway "my" way because it makes sense. Not because of our results, because it makes sense biologically and because of the hundreds of studies in humans and animals that indicates that it should work. I despise the stats and they do nothing but make work for me to be honest. They are not scientific and never have been put forth as being such.

I have actually found the OPPOSITE where people who get an opposite are HIGHLY motivated to come on and post their sway (boy howdy, are they EVER) even when I know for a fact that they barely even swayed and/or gave up on just about everything and I let them do this because I think it makes for a nicer environment without all the backbiting and criticism of the other site (and also because I don't like cherrypicking data) Then people who have a successful sway are like "oh yeah I gotta get back to do that one of these days". So I suspect it probably averages out over time but it's irrelevant. Sway because it makes SENSE to, not because of the stats on this site or any other.

[carmella_marie]

Our stats are for entertainment purposes only. I say it again and again and will go on saying it. If it was up to me quite frankly we wouldn't even KEEP stats (altho I'm glad we did because a couple strong trends have turned up, and also it's become clear that some things are totally neutral). I think you guys should sway "my" way because it makes sense. Not because of our results, because it makes sense biologically and because of the hundreds of studies in humans and animals that indicates that it should work. I despise the stats and they do nothing but make work for me to be honest. They are not scientific and never have been put forth as being such.

I have actually found the OPPOSITE where people who get an opposite are HIGHLY motivated to come on and post their sway (boy howdy, are they EVER) even when I know for a fact that they barely even swayed and/or gave up on just about everything and I let them do this because I think it makes for a nicer environment without all the backbiting and criticism of the other site (and also because I don't like cherrypicking data) Then people who have a successful sway are like "oh yeah I gotta get back to do that one of these days". So I suspect it probably averages out over time but it's irrelevant. Sway because it makes SENSE to, not because of the stats on this site or any other.

Yes I aways take the sway stats with a grain of salt. People will be like, ya I did exercise, for 3 weeks and only 3 days per week! and I say I did exercise too, but I was killing myself 6-7 days a week for 12+ weeks and its like apples and oranges. I know after my first failed sway i was pouring over all the "attempt" posts and analyzing why their sway worked, and sometimes it was like they just got lucky. They weren't on the diet, they didn't exercise, they had multiple attempts and got a girl anyway. So I just stopped doing that. I try to think big picture now--increased fertility=boy and decreased fertility=girl and line up what I do with that idea.

[atomic sagebrush]

Once you start viewing it through that lens it all falls into place and everything makes sense. Any other notion of swaying does not hold up with the studies and real world facts all adding up in the same direction and with it all explained relatively easily without having to resort to diets and timing that does not ever occur in the real world - meaning, it's easy to accidentally have an LE Diet or an HE Diet and to BD 1 time or regularly in the real world, people do that all the time. But ain't nobody getting babies anywhere else but on swaying boards, eating only rice cakes and greek yogurt and cranberries and BD 5 days before O after month long abstains, and nor do they eat nothing but Top Ramen and hamburger and no calcium and BD only one time on O Day doggy style with the gal having 17 orgasms. Those things don't happen in the real world in any kind of consistent way. Most of us are within normal specifications LOL. It makes NO sense that you have to do those things in exactly that way to "guarantee" a boy or a girl.

Now, is it possible that we could still be absolutely wrong you betcha but I would then not expect it to keep as consistent as it has and then also mesh with the studies too.

[kc15880]

& perhaps it all comes down to what people "think" they are doing. You could say you had a failed sway doing a "strict" LE or HE diet, but in reality the poster had a lot of cheats, or was way over/under their cals etc. I have wondered that a lot lately with people who claim to have had a strict sway but then had the opposite. Not saying that this is 100% guaranteed but I do wonder about it. Especially people who claim they cant lose weight on the LE diet - I cant believe how quickly the weight has fallen off me! I find it hard to believe that you couldnt lose weigh on it.