Page 5 of 54 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 531
  1. #41
    Moderator
    TTC5's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    8,436
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    7
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    With this Vit D, it sways blue does it?
    Fathers Day baby!


    Busy Mummy of 5 now working from home: www.oz.scentsy.com.au

  2. #42
    Swaying Advice Coach
    atomic sagebrush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Eastern Washington State, USA
    Posts
    108,135
    Post Thanks / Like
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Freya View Post
    The meaning of the Dutch study, as far as I understood it, was to test the minerals and timing theories, basically, because both are quite heavily debated but not thoroughly researched. However, instead of the previous studies where women just reported the diet, they only counted women as "girl swayers" if they managed to change their blood levels of calcium and sodium above and below certain levels (they transferred both blood values into a formulae for where the right levels gave girls). So I suppose their intent was to remove the bias that comes from reporting a diet. Also, the timing was cervix check, OPK and charting with BBT, instead of just one of these.

    You can always argue against studies of course. For instance, you could argue that women who have naturally more testosterone eat more food and more nutrients, as some sort of biological reflex, and have more boys regardless. You can argue that when you change something in a biological system, you will therefore change something else, and therefore there are too many hidden factors to draw any conclusions about anything.
    We may just have to agree to disagree on this one and that is fine. I appreciate your questioning and offering a different opinion and that is very welcome and valued.

    I don't want to deter anyone from including/excluding calcium as a part of a sway (although I do think it ~may~ hurt blue swayers to eliminate calcium all together). I am certainly not the font of all knowledge and I could very well be wrong on this, but since so many other sources of swaying info totally accept without question the French Diet and base everything upon it, someone needs to look at it with a critical eye and really see if it measures up.

    I'm not trying to argue or pick a fight but I did want to speak to a couple of points real quick.

    First of all, a well-designed study does not test for more than one thing. A well-designed study focuses on ONE variable alone. That they added in timing as well...I wonder about the reasons why they might have done that. The fact is DOZENS of good, thorough studies have been done on timing and there really was no need for another one, whereas there really do need to be (many) more studies done on maternal diet. It makes me wonder why they felt the need to do that. Was it because the purpose of the study was solely to support their program that they are selling (which to my understanding is timing and minerals)? Was it because they didn't get the results they were hoping for and they wanted to confuse the issue? According to their data, those who got timing correct and diet incorrect had more boys. If mineral levels are what is swaying, shouldn't the opposite be true? (small sample size, but the entire study was a small sample size).

    The blood-levels of calcium - yes, they tested the levels of calcium in the blood and found very small increases/decreases in the mineral levels, as one would expect if you had been following this particular diet. We don't know that it means anything other than that they were on some weird diet. We don't know if the women with the highest levels of calcium were following the diet strictly or if their levels of calcium were higher because of some biological reason or even because they HADN'T been following the diet so 10 minutes before they went to have their blood checked they popped some calcium supplements. Your body doesn't like or want high levels of calcium in the blood and takes steps to get rid of the calcium - people don't walk around with elevated levels of calcium in the blood unless they have something seriously wrong with them. Everyone's blood-calcium levels go up immediately after taking a supplement or eating calcium-rich foods, and then the body excretes as much calcium as it possibly can trying to get rid of the stuff. Besides that, there is still no proof that these mineral levels were what sway at all. ANY time you change your diet you send a signal to your body that something has changed and a child of a different gender may be a better "bet".

    Please understand, I'm not blindly arguing against studies. I argue against the idea that minerals ALONE are the only/best way to sway, because I saw tons of people who were taking all the right supps and eating the IG diet (and these are people who I totally believe were eating that way because they had serious GD) having opposites. And because I always ate tons of calcium and have 4 boys and my mom never eats calcium and has 2 girls and a boy. When I started to look into swaying in preparation for my sway I found that the Oxford study (which was a well-designed and unbiased study not done by people who were looking for a particular outcome) found a higher intake of calcium = more boys and I realized that most people around the world can't even eat dairy products and yet the ratio of boys/girls born is pretty close to 50-50 worldwide. And people couldn't even DIGEST dairy foods until 15,000 years ago and yet both men and women were born. Given this, it seems highly unlikely that massive calcium intake is required for conceiving a particular gender.

    The Dutch study referenced the Oxford study (moms of boys ate more sodium and potassium) but LEFT OUT the part that did not support their conclusion. (moms of boys also ate more calcium).

    People can and do make that argument against maternal body condition swaying. In fact the researcher who came up with the idea of testosterone affecting gender ratio believes that maternal body condition has nothing to do with anything, it's entirely that females high in testosterone have access to better foods. Then the researcher who supports the blood glucose levels presents studies that refute that idea. It goes round and round but the net result is more and better information.

    Anyway, this is a roundabout way of saying what I always say, I don't think enough study has been done to conclude that cal-mag sways pink in every instance and sod-pot swaying blue in every instance and no one should rely solely on the idea of minerals to sway. You can have a great sway while following the mineral recommendations and also keeping blood glucose levels low and lowering testosterone.
    !!! Questions?? Check out the NEW and improved Complete Index !!!

    If you appreciate my help with your sway plan, please consider a donation:

    https://www.paypal.com/donate?hosted_button_id=C92U9TVWTRTDQ

  3. #43
    Swaying Advice Coach
    atomic sagebrush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Eastern Washington State, USA
    Posts
    108,135
    Post Thanks / Like
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by TTC5 View Post
    With this Vit D, it sways blue does it?
    I believe it sways blue by raising testosterone.

    Others will tell you it sways pink because it helps your body absorb calcium.
    !!! Questions?? Check out the NEW and improved Complete Index !!!

    If you appreciate my help with your sway plan, please consider a donation:

    https://www.paypal.com/donate?hosted_button_id=C92U9TVWTRTDQ

  4. #44
    Moderator
    LolaInLove's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    3,224
    Post Thanks / Like
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    I want to add that I don't think it's good for your fertility to not have some calcium in your system....I am not a study in and of itself, and I am 35, but let me just point this out: when I started swaying in August last year, I had 4 months of ZERO calcium, and I mean as little as humanly possible, and no bfp....and I am usually as fertile as they come. The month I added calcium foods back in, bam- bfp. Although I had a m/c, this next month we tried (still with calcium), BAM- another bfp. Makes me wonder......
    (2002) (2005) from 1st marriage. TTC since Aug 2010- Dx: low sperm count and 1% normal sperm. We are giving up and moving on with a baby-free life.
    UPDATE: surprise bfp in Feb 2013! It's a BOY!

    NEVER GIVE UP HOPE!

  5. #45
    Moderator
    TTC5's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    8,436
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    7
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Lola - very interesting indeed!
    Me being dairy intolerant I do not get much calcium that way do you think I should be adding some calcium some other ways? I just do not know!??
    I do know, with all 4 of my girls, (before finding out my intolerance!!) that I consumed ALOT of dairy in all shape and form: milk, cheese, yoghurt, chocolate, custards, sour cream, I also ate brocolli every day lol this has calcium doesn't it?
    Fathers Day baby!


    Busy Mummy of 5 now working from home: www.oz.scentsy.com.au

  6. #46
    Moderator
    LolaInLove's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    3,224
    Post Thanks / Like
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Yes, you did eat a lot of calcium, but you have to look at your lifestyle overall, your diet overall....did you eat a lot of meat? I remember you saying you didn't have a hearty diet, so that was probably more of the reason why your body chose to make girls. I just know that I am so used to eating calcium foods (my mom has early osteoporosis, so I have always been diligent about preventing it in myself). Not like I used to overload on calcium or anything, but suddenly taking it out of my diet seemed to mess with my body, but that may just be coincidence. I mean, this past sway, I was having just small, normal amounts of dairy, like some almond milk in morning cereal, some half and half in morning coffee, some cheese on top of my spaghetti, stuff like that, but I still haven't gone to drinking huge glasses of milk and eating yogurt and the like. What was important to me is getting the nutrients and protein from the dairy products.
    (2002) (2005) from 1st marriage. TTC since Aug 2010- Dx: low sperm count and 1% normal sperm. We are giving up and moving on with a baby-free life.
    UPDATE: surprise bfp in Feb 2013! It's a BOY!

    NEVER GIVE UP HOPE!

  7. #47
    Swaying Advice Coach
    atomic sagebrush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Eastern Washington State, USA
    Posts
    108,135
    Post Thanks / Like
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by TTC5 View Post
    Lola - very interesting indeed!
    Me being dairy intolerant I do not get much calcium that way do you think I should be adding some calcium some other ways? I just do not know!??
    I do know, with all 4 of my girls, (before finding out my intolerance!!) that I consumed ALOT of dairy in all shape and form: milk, cheese, yoghurt, chocolate, custards, sour cream, I also ate brocolli every day lol this has calcium doesn't it?
    I think you're just fine with what you're eating TTC, no worries. As long as you're eating more of most nutrients (esp. salt and protein) than you were before, if you cut back on calcium you can have the peace of mind knowing that you're sticking with the traditional sway and you'll be swaying blue regardless of whether calcium is a magic pink bullet or not. It may even HELP you because as I well know, lactose intolerance can make food pass through your intestines quicker giving less time for nutrients to be absorbed.
    !!! Questions?? Check out the NEW and improved Complete Index !!!

    If you appreciate my help with your sway plan, please consider a donation:

    https://www.paypal.com/donate?hosted_button_id=C92U9TVWTRTDQ

  8. #48
    Dreamer
    Freya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    236
    Post Thanks / Like
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by LolaInLove View Post
    I want to add that I don't think it's good for your fertility to not have some calcium in your system....I am not a study in and of itself, and I am 35, but let me just point this out: when I started swaying in August last year, I had 4 months of ZERO calcium, and I mean as little as humanly possible, and no bfp....and I am usually as fertile as they come. The month I added calcium foods back in, bam- bfp. Although I had a m/c, this next month we tried (still with calcium), BAM- another bfp. Makes me wonder......
    Strange, as the same thing happened for me. Six months of nothing except two chemicals, and when I switch to TW and go from 250mg to 600mg Ca I get a nice BFP the first month. I was ill a lot, too while on the alkaline diet because I was aiming for pH8-9 (this was before I reduced calcium, though, so alkalinity could have caused infertility too). Seriously, I wonder whether the gender diet is really supposed to be for people who really follow it?
    2005, swayed for boy, arrived 25/11/2011

  9. #49
    Dreamer
    Freya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    236
    Post Thanks / Like
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by atomic sagebrush View Post
    We may just have to agree to disagree on this one and that is fine. I appreciate your questioning and offering a different opinion and that is very welcome and valued.

    I don't want to deter anyone from including/excluding calcium as a part of a sway (although I do think it ~may~ hurt blue swayers to eliminate calcium all together). I am certainly not the font of all knowledge and I could very well be wrong on this, but since so many other sources of swaying info totally accept without question the French Diet and base everything upon it, someone needs to look at it with a critical eye and really see if it measures up.

    I'm not trying to argue or pick a fight but I did want to speak to a couple of points real quick.

    First of all, a well-designed study does not test for more than one thing. A well-designed study focuses on ONE variable alone. That they added in timing as well...I wonder about the reasons why they might have done that. The fact is DOZENS of good, thorough studies have been done on timing and there really was no need for another one, whereas there really do need to be (many) more studies done on maternal diet. It makes me wonder why they felt the need to do that. Was it because the purpose of the study was solely to support their program that they are selling (which to my understanding is timing and minerals)? Was it because they didn't get the results they were hoping for and they wanted to confuse the issue? According to their data, those who got timing correct and diet incorrect had more boys. If mineral levels are what is swaying, shouldn't the opposite be true? (small sample size, but the entire study was a small sample size).

    The blood-levels of calcium - yes, they tested the levels of calcium in the blood and found very small increases/decreases in the mineral levels, as one would expect if you had been following this particular diet. We don't know that it means anything other than that they were on some weird diet. We don't know if the women with the highest levels of calcium were following the diet strictly or if their levels of calcium were higher because of some biological reason or even because they HADN'T been following the diet so 10 minutes before they went to have their blood checked they popped some calcium supplements. Your body doesn't like or want high levels of calcium in the blood and takes steps to get rid of the calcium - people don't walk around with elevated levels of calcium in the blood unless they have something seriously wrong with them. Everyone's blood-calcium levels go up immediately after taking a supplement or eating calcium-rich foods, and then the body excretes as much calcium as it possibly can trying to get rid of the stuff. Besides that, there is still no proof that these mineral levels were what sway at all. ANY time you change your diet you send a signal to your body that something has changed and a child of a different gender may be a better "bet".

    Please understand, I'm not blindly arguing against studies. I argue against the idea that minerals ALONE are the only/best way to sway, because I saw tons of people who were taking all the right supps and eating the IG diet (and these are people who I totally believe were eating that way because they had serious GD) having opposites. And because I always ate tons of calcium and have 4 boys and my mom never eats calcium and has 2 girls and a boy. When I started to look into swaying in preparation for my sway I found that the Oxford study (which was a well-designed and unbiased study not done by people who were looking for a particular outcome) found a higher intake of calcium = more boys and I realized that most people around the world can't even eat dairy products and yet the ratio of boys/girls born is pretty close to 50-50 worldwide. And people couldn't even DIGEST dairy foods until 15,000 years ago and yet both men and women were born. Given this, it seems highly unlikely that massive calcium intake is required for conceiving a particular gender.

    The Dutch study referenced the Oxford study (moms of boys ate more sodium and potassium) but LEFT OUT the part that did not support their conclusion. (moms of boys also ate more calcium).

    People can and do make that argument against maternal body condition swaying. In fact the researcher who came up with the idea of testosterone affecting gender ratio believes that maternal body condition has nothing to do with anything, it's entirely that females high in testosterone have access to better foods. Then the researcher who supports the blood glucose levels presents studies that refute that idea. It goes round and round but the net result is more and better information.

    Anyway, this is a roundabout way of saying what I always say, I don't think enough study has been done to conclude that cal-mag sways pink in every instance and sod-pot swaying blue in every instance and no one should rely solely on the idea of minerals to sway. You can have a great sway while following the mineral recommendations and also keeping blood glucose levels low and lowering testosterone.
    I'm not angry at all, in fact I enjoy a good debate .

    I agree with you totally that minerals shouldn't be the only route to swaying. In fact, as I have posted somewhere else, I think the CM mucins are the key to swaying, and they are influenced by both hormonal levels and minerals. However, as you say, the body regulates its own mineral levels and pH, so large efforts to influence these will give very minor changes, but there seems to be some evidence that these minor changes make something happen.

    The big problem with several interacting factors is that when people don't account for them in their studies, the studies become muddled. That, I think, is the biggest argument for including both diet and timing in a study: you don't control all the variables, but at least you control two. I'm absolutely convinced estrogen counteracts the effect of calcium because that is what happens on a cellular level in the mucus, and therefore, I believe it is totally necessary to account for both. Higher testosterone leads to higher estrogen effects, right? So, if you make a diet study, you would be a fool to ignore that estrogen peaks during the three days before O. If you do, you have ignored a confounder. In the end, they got quite a good fit for both values. The population was limited, I agree. But interestingly it was women who'd had only boys before, and the fact that they got their girls if they followed the instructions was promising. Of course, it could just have been their turn statistically, and that is the problem with the study.

    In terms of good and bad studies, I personally think that statistics based on retrospective interviews of food intake are overrated. At least blood values is some sort of solid proof. Once they produce a nice cohort study, I will be happier .

    BTW, leaving out data is just science's way of building an argument. There is no "truth" out there, but more like the most popular beliefs of the day. (sometimes scientist go on for decades ignoring data because some big-shot did back in the seventies). What I'm saying is, don't blame the scientist, blame the system. Science pretends to be truth but it came from philosophy and the roots are still there. The authors of the Dutch study probably had to ignore some aspects of the Oxford study to be able to publish.
    Last edited by Freya; March 25th, 2011 at 01:13 PM.
    2005, swayed for boy, arrived 25/11/2011

  10. #50
    Swaying Advice Coach
    atomic sagebrush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Eastern Washington State, USA
    Posts
    108,135
    Post Thanks / Like
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Thank you!
    !!! Questions?? Check out the NEW and improved Complete Index !!!

    If you appreciate my help with your sway plan, please consider a donation:

    https://www.paypal.com/donate?hosted_button_id=C92U9TVWTRTDQ

Page 5 of 54 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •