|
Bahunter22 posted:Has anyone ever ovulated while on the pill? And yes, it was taken on time, every day, religiously. We've decided that in recent events from the above happening and an unfortunate miscarriage that we will be hmmm...not preventing and not trying if that makes sense. Just because you take it on time every day doesn't mean your body will absorb it the same way every day. Sometimes other medications can interfere, or if you have diarrheoa (or anything else affecting digestion/metabolism). It does happen--friends of ours have two ridiculously gorgeous children both conceived while on the pill. Some people stay infertile after months and months of having stopped taking it. Results can vary between different people, and even one person's response to it may be variable depending on health status or any number of factors.
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2010 06:10
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 4, 2024 01:55 |
|
|
I'm in a similar boat too, so seconding the 'you're not alone' sentiment. Turning 29 next March, and due to work considerations I can't afford to get pregnant until after I turn 30 at the earliest. I'm doing what I can to prepare for then- stopped the pill (after 10 straight years on it) about 11 months ago and I'm working on being fit enough to run 10km when we start trying. Might be a bit early to go off the pill, but I want my body to have as much time as possible to adjust so everything's ready to go when the time comes. Sucks though, as much as I want to have children eventually I do catch myself quietly wishing my partner had a uterus and younger ovaries so it wouldn't be down to me to grow our family in this so very limited time frame.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2012 11:49
|
|
|
Working in the medical field certainly doesn't help the worrying- I think most fertility docs I know would be happier if everyone had their kids by 28, never mind 30. Once you hit 30 you're known as a geriatric prima gravida, and if you're mad enough to wait til 35 to have your first one there is a special kind of prejudice against you that is reserved for said wanting to get knocked up who end up needing fertility services. The OB/GYNs would never admit it to their patients' faces, but there you go. The worst stat I've heard this year is that a 28 year old has as much chance of carrying twins to term without complications as a 35 year old does of a singleton pregnancy, and triplets if you compare to a 40 year old. The focus on age being the single biggest factor is because the doctors focus on it being the single biggest factor, least where having your first child is concerned. E: spelling, posting from phone E2: Mind you, this could also be due to the fact that I live and work in a rural area where a huge number of people try to game the welfare system by having kids, and there is a ridiculous number of teenage pregnancies. It's not uncommon to meet 38-39 year old grandmothers, and people with 5+ kids by the age of 28-30. I've also scanned more than one girl under 30 on IVF here, and none over the age of 35. Scary. nyerf fucked around with this message at 00:32 on Aug 12, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2012 00:25
|
|
|
Chouzan posted:I've been semi-charting. It's a bit hard because my sleep schedule is erratic, so getting 3 hours of uninterrupted sleep and waking at the same time everyday just isn't an option. I wake up several times a night and rarely wake up the same hours. Instead, I've been charting cervical mucus and (when I can reach the drat thing) my cervix. I'm about ready to try OPK tests. It's rage inducing to anyone who cares about the future of the human race, don't worry. You're not alone. Where I work there is a disgusting number of teen pregnancies, and pregnancies to people on welfare --some of which give off the strong impression that they're having more kids so they can therefore access more welfare  Makes me seethe on a daily basis.How old are you? Do you have any symptoms of PCOS/endometriosis? Charting is all well and good, but the older you get the higher the odds become against you, especially past 30, and DEFINITELY after 35 or so. I work in medical imaging and consequently come into contact with a high number of women who come in for gyn/ob scans (though I'm only learning obstet scans next year!), and the doctors that treat them...lots are of the opinion that age may well be the single biggest factor for baseline fertility assuming no other problems. Would it be worth having a chat with your GP and just giving them the heads up that you've been trying? You might be able to source medical insight more sooner than you might think. We've had women as young as 24 with PCOS on IVF at my hospital, so I know it's not an impossible conclusion.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2012 08:17
|
|
|
Previously consistently normal transvaginal ultrasounds within the last couple of years, plus regular cycles with normal flow, and in the absence of other overt metabolic symptoms (like overmuch body hair, overweight/obesity, general feelings of tiredness all the time or whatever), you would think support leaning towards a normal hormone profile. If you've never had any STDs or pelvic inflammatory disease or other gyne issues, that's good too. Don't forget also the issue could be on your husband's end of things too - it feels like women are very quick to blame themselves for every month that goes by that they don't conceive, but it takes two to do it after all.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2012 11:39
|
|
|
Ceridwen posted:There just honestly isn't that much you can do about the risk of ASDs though. There isn't any prenatal testing for it and the current evidence suggests that there are a lot of genes of small effect at play, rather than single genes of large effect as with some other diseases. So testing of the parents that would give you any meaningful information is still a long way off. Seconding this. Essentially the consensus is that autism is very heritable, though the full nature of that genetic etiology has yet to be made clear. Emedicine threw up a couple citations that might be of interest: Rutter M. Genetic studies of autism: from the 1970s into the millennium. J Abnorm Child Psychol. Feb 2000;28(1):3-14. Wang K, Zhang H, Ma D, Bucan M, Glessner JT, Abrahams BS, et al. Common genetic variants on 5p14.1 associate with autism spectrum disorders. Nature. May 28 2009;459(7246):528-33. Rather than concern yourself with potential genetic tests for autism, it may well be more productive to familiarise yourself with the resources in your area for diagnosis/treatment/support for children with autism spectrum disorders and their families, so you're prepared at least for that possible eventuality - though considering that your family has multiple instances of autism spectrum diagnosed you probably knew this already anyway. Vigilance for the first signs and early, aggressive help to manage the developmental difficulties is probably the best thing you can reasonably expect to be able to achieve for your future potential child at this stage.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2012 03:21
|
|
|
bee posted:I'm a little bit bummed that right now I'm in the best shape of my life (I actually can see my abs for the first time ever) and now I have to undo all the hard work I put in to get them... but hey if this works it'll beat having to stress over/fork out for fertility treatments, right? Last I heard, in order to see your abs your body fat percentage has to be in the low teens to single digits right? You hear about this happening to extreme endurance athletes and gymnasts that diet excessively to get their body weight down. Also in people with anorexia. Maintaining a healthy body fat percentage to enable your body to not go into some kind of gonadotropin-releasing hormone deficiency doesn't meant you have to be a fatty unfit slob you know. An extra 5 kg is not going to undo every last shred of hard work you put in, unless your only metric of your fitness is how shredded you look. Once you're partway through your pregnancy your abs will be obliterated by an expanding belly, so the aesthetics of the abs thing sounds like a futile exercise (hur) anyway. What I don't get is that if your hormone levels are supposedly normal, why aren't you ovulating? Were they monitoring your hormone levels over a number of weeks? Also, ultrasounds are not foolproof either. People seem to think the transducers are magic wands that can see everything and anything, when in personal experience it's half dependent on the individual patient's body and half dependent on the individual operator's skill. Suboptimal imaging conditions could result in the operator missing a developing follicle. Or if they scanned you very early in your cycle there wouldn't be much evidence of a developing follicle either.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2013 13:51
|
|
|
AltruisticNemesis posted:I'm actually very nervous I can't conceive. I've been on the immune-suppressants a few times in my life and have 2 autoimmune disorders and in my younger years I was never exactly careful but I have never had a scare, and I totally slutted it up. I also have a history of nabothian cysts (if one and a half counts as a history). All these questions are racing through my head like what if I can't conceive, what if it comes out all weird and deformed, what if it gets my auto-immune disorders, what if it's ugly? Nabothian cysts are benign fluid filled 'bubbles' in your cervix, occasionally you can get ones with debris or that are cloudy from a bit of bleeding into them but as far as I know unless you have so many that they actually pack your cervix and enlarge it they really do nothing at all (and even then I doubt very much this would cause any kind of problem). Nabothian cysts are as common and about as interesting as freckles on your nose. At our worksite we don't even give them a second look most of the time, if that helps. Hell, women can have reasonably big fibroids (actual solid benign tumours of the uterine muscle wall) in their uterus and still carry pregnancies to term, no problem. The problem is there will only ever be a limited number of things you can do before and during the pregnancy to prevent your kid being born with some kind of abnormality...being ugly is probably the least difficult thing out of the plethora of things that can go wrong. Baby could be born totally apparently normal and then 3 years in, bam, autistic spectrum disorder rears its head. Or something totally benign like having twins or triplets, could make your life a zillion times more difficult than you could ever imagine, and that's even if they're perfectly healthy. At some point you'll have to get your head around the fact that you can't control for everything, and that the process of becoming a parent involves a certain amount of closing your eyes and taking a leap of faith. Only a tiny amount, mind you, thanks to ultrasounds and assisted reproductive technology and other medical awesomeness, but its still there. Have you got any solid info on how likely your autoimmune conditions are genetically transferable? Is your husband likely to be a carrier for any genetic conditions that would make it more hazardous to have a kid? Things you have got going for you: -You're young, so your eggs are in better condition than a 35 year old's who's trying to fall pregnant 'naturally'. Age is probably the single biggest factor for fertility. Having the luxury of time being on your side is MASSIVE. -It sounds like you give a poo poo, which is a drat good sign for a potential parent...I've seen too many people who literally "fall pregnant" (i.e. become pregnant carelessly/unintentionally and proceed with things without the slightest bit of research/effort/care) whose poor kids end up suffering, and grow up broken and continue the cycle. -I assume you've had a pelvic ultrasound before, and if Nabothian cysts are the only thing that came up then I'm pretty confident you have a structurally sound uterus and functional ovaries. Having said all that, it may be worthwhile for you just to be aware of what assisted reproduction services are available to you in your area and how much things will cost/timeline of certain procedures if you do need to have anything done. But try not to stress about it until you actually do need it--i.e. give yourself at least 6 months to a year of seeing what your body does, play around with the ovulation strips or whatever, and don't force your sex life on to a schedule. Be kind to yourself lady, you're going to need it for this epic journey towards parenthood and beyond  e: I think I remember hearing vaguely that pregnancy causes a mild state of immune-suppression in the body in and of itself, otherwise your body would treat the growing gestational sac+baby as a foreign invader and attack it. I wonder how that'll affect your autoimmune condition, or whether the autoimmune condition may make it more difficult to conceive? Without knowing what you've got it's hard to say. nyerf fucked around with this message at 15:26 on Mar 20, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2013 15:22
|
|
|
I've been off the pill for 18+ months now post being on it for 10 years straight and have noticed skin changes (increased tendency to acne if I'm not careful, greasier skin at certain parts of my cycle, dryer at others); though my skin hasn't broken out it the way it used to when I was 15/16. Whether its because my hormone levels are adult-normal now or what I don't know. I dare say don't judge how your skin will eventually be based on your puberty skin, but without that exogenous estrogen it definitely won't be the same as when you were on the pill. For what its worth, you're not the only one who gets antsy around the ovulation period either!
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2013 04:31
|
|
|
It can take up to a year supposedly for your cycle to return to 'normal' after being on the pill. Normal in this case being whatever your periods were like before you went on the pill, assuming you weren't still in puberty then. I think most start showing faint positives at Most 6 week old pregnancies I've scanned have had no symptoms beyond the missed period but that's possibly just anecdotal. e: I went back and looked stuff up for clarity. According to wiki you can experience some amount of mild nausea related to estrogen levels in pill use, but it wasn't specific as to whether it was nausea post withdrawal of exogenous estrogen or what. If it helps, the normal trigger for your uterus to start shedding its lining is estrogen levels hitting their low point in your cycle. nyerf fucked around with this message at 01:35 on Jun 28, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2013 00:58
|
|
|
I've never personally heard of it, but it seems like a whole lot of effort to go to when you could literally just check your mucus secretions when you go to the bathroom just as easily if not more easily. Increased mucus/"egg-white" secretions from the cervix/in the vagina can be reliably observed in the couple of days before and during ovulation. And it'd be hell of a lot less prone to vague interpretation you'd think. I mean, gently caress, people obsess over whether or not their ovulation strips are showing a goddamn line or not, never mind how 'fern-like' a bit of dried saliva is going to look.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 23, 2013 13:24
|
|
|
There's definitely perks to being a sonographer. I had some free time between patients today and a full bladder so I had a go at scanning myself standing up. I was sure the other day that I was having ovulation pain on my right side, and turns out I was right! Guess I'll be able to save money on ovulation tests when the time comes we start trying :3
|
|
#
¿
Aug 16, 2013 08:40
|
|
|
Scenty posted:From my looking around at papers, after 6 weeks (when most people who aren't actually trying to conceive would probably just start to realize their period was late and that they might be pregnant) the percentage is already down to 15%, but it is true that about half of all fertilizations result in miscarriage/chemical pregnancy but most of these don't even implant correctly. We often do ultrasounds to date an early pregnancy, or to see if an early pregnancy is viable or not. Here's a quote from Rumack's 4th ed. Diagnostic Ultrasound(bolding mine): Rumack posted:Studies have demonstrated a 20 to 31% rate of early pregnancy loss after implantation in normal healthy volunteers48,49. Overall, about 75% of all pregnancies will fail. About 15% of fertilized ova will fail to divide, 15% are lost before implantation, 30% during implantation, 13 to 16% after implantation and before the first missed period,49 and 9 to 10% after the first missed period. Wilcox et al.48 found that the rate of unrecognized or preclinical pregnancy loss after implantation was 22%. Many pregnancies aborted before the time when a gestational sac would be demonstrable by TVS. The higher numbers of preclinical losses reported more recently likely reflect the use of more sensitive pregnancy tests. Cytogenetic abnormalities have also been documented in 20% of ostensibly normal in vitro fertilization embryos.50 All these findings are consistent with the early pathologic studies of Hertig and Rock,49 who showed a high frequency of morphologic abnormalities in preimplantation embryos. And the references there were: 48: Wilcox AJ, Weinberg CR, O’Connor JF, et al. Incidence of early loss of pregnancy. N Engl J Med 1988;319:189-194. 49: Hertig AT, Rock J. A series of potentially abortive ova recovered from fertile women prior to the first missed menstrual period. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1949;58:968-993, illust. 50: Bateman BG, Nunley WC, Kolp LA, et al. Vaginal sonography findings and hCG dynamics of early intrauterine and tubal pregnancies. Obstet Gynecol 1990;75:421-427. The take home message from which I gathered is this: all things being equal and perfect, and the sperm gets to the egg in time--you still only have a 1/4 chance of that instance of sperm meeting egg resulting in a baby. My plan is to not worry about pregnancy testing until after there's a missed period, and to absolutely not bank on the pregnancy proceeding until they scan me at 8 weeks in and find the embryo's measurements are in line, there's a strong heartbeat, and no other issues around the sac/placenta, and no bleeding. Some urine test strips are sensitive enough to pick up beta HCG even before you miss a period these days, so that's part of the increased sensitivity of tests mentioned above--if you hadn't been even aware that you were pregnant in the first place, you wouldn't take any notice of your period coming as usual (or perhaps a tad later in some cases). Nowadays though, what with urine strip tests being easy to buy in bulk, and early pregnancy sonography being as good as it is, there seems to be a hell of lot of emotional stress that comes out of the 'increased vigilance' of the getting pregnant part of having a kid. There's a kind of forced blind optimism you have to take with these things, I think--there are just too many ways it can go wrong. If you start stressing out like crazy about it there's not much point in trying to fall pregnant in the first place. NB: When they talk about gestational age, what the literature generally means is menstrual age, which is the baby's age from conception + 2 weeks, IF you have perfect 28 day cycles AND ovulate on day 14 like clockwork. Otherwise the early dating age can be out, we usually allow for +/-3 days. That means if we see any sign of a gestational sac at 4.5 weeks gestational age, the embryo's only 2.5 weeks old. When the embryo is 3 weeks old, its entire sac that it's growing in is only 2 millimeters across--that's 5 weeks gestational, so you would've only just missed a period if you're a perfect 28 day cycler.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 18, 2013 05:48
|
|
|
What Scenty said. Hormone panel and pelvic ultrasound for her would have been medically logical steps (though I'm not a doctor either, just the ultrasound person in training who tends to get requests for ?PCOS) The problem with ultrasound is that while you can have very 'definitive appearances' of polycystic ovaries, it's something of a spectrum, and you need to tie in with blood tests to say for sure. Also, have you been tested yourself? She may be having fertility issues, but if you do too that's only going to compound the problem.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 20, 2013 03:23
|
|
|
Brazilian Werewolf posted:You don't actually literally need cysts to have PCOS, they're a very common feature of PCOS but they are not required for a diagnosis and are not intrinsic to the syndrome. You can also have polycystic ovaries without having PCOS. They aren't actually the same thing. I have severe PCOS and don't have cysts often, whereas my mom's ovaries look like a bunch of grapes and she doesn't have PCOS at all. Basically what I was trying to get at re: the ultrasound. What an ultrasound might be able to say is whether there's something else going on that might be causing her to not have periods, like signs of cervical stenosis, or an ovarian tumour, or whatever. If everything is structurally unremarkable then it suggests that the docs need to chase the hormone issues more aggressively.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 21, 2013 08:10
|
|
|
Scenty posted:Welp. I was afraid of this. We have only been trying for 3 cycles, but with my consistent 9 day LP and inability to get pregnant for 2.5 years with my ex I really felt something was wrong. My provider did multiple blood tests to try and pinpoint my post ovulation progesterone peak and it was only 4.5. From my understanding the absolute minimum to support a fertilized egg should be 10. Out of interest, do you have PCOS? Is the short luteal phase considered to be the main factor in your infertility according to your provider? I'll do some digging around while I have my university subscription to journals, see what I can turn up.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2013 01:16
|
|
|
sbaldrick posted:So last month we where told we couldn't have children, and today we found out that was wrong in the worst way. As of last night she hasn't had her period and was late, she then started bleeding very heavily to the point she wasn't feeling well and we went to the hospital. Turns out she had a miscarriage, she wasn't that far along so it's both a bad day and a good day. I'm sorry to hear about your loss. Hoping you guys have support during this difficult time. I'm curious about the infertility diagnosis though, did they say exactly why you wouldn't be able to have children? Or do you mean they said you'd be extremely unlikely to conceive/bring a pregnancy to term naturally?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2013 22:52
|
|
|
That's bloody awful. Is severing from these people not an option? You deserve better.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2014 00:03
|
|
|
Have you only come off long term hormonal contraception use 3 months ago? It can take up to a year for your cycles to normalise following long term OCP use, and a ton of other factors play a role in conceiving too. From my sonography course work I've read that, assuming you've timed sex appropriately, any conception can have as high as a 75% failure rate just from normal biological missteps. Don't beat yourself up, most fertility places don't even think about investigation until you've been trying for a year; or 6 months if you're over 35 I think. Has your partner had children without incident within a year of trying before?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2014 23:04
|
|
|
Calling Australians lurking in the thread- where do you get your digital ovulation tests from (cheaply)? Amazon generally won't ship Clearblue to AU, and Chemist Warehouse charge through the nose and don't seem to carry the refill test strips. I could look into shipping forwarding services I guess, but it might end up more expensive than CW so it'd be handy to have options. If you guys know of reliable eBay stores or elsewhere, that'd be great. Thanks in advance!
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2015 21:32
|
|
|
Well, bit the bullet and bought a buttload of tests - some from your recommendation, Dori, and a bunch more from a Canadian ebay seller. Guess I'll join the legions of people trying to decipher tiny strips of pee soaked paper twice a day for lines. First lot should arrive next week, just in time to start testing this cycle. I'm trying not to worry about being devastated every month I get my period. I know this sounds crazy. My work puts me into direct contact with women both trying to conceive, are pregnant, or are in the process of miscarrying and I've been trying to reflect on how I might feel being the person on the other end of the ultrasound probe...and coming up blank. Perhaps it's a form of denial or suspended disbelief, or god forbid...optimism? Eek, either way. Here goes nothing!
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2015 12:19
|
|
|
Thanks! I guess technically we've started trying. It feels bizarre thinking of it that way since I'm only potentially fertile a few days out of the month, it's like trying to think of yourself as perpetually in the gym 24/7 when you might only be in there twice a week (or in this case 2-3 days a month! hah). Might change when the strips get here and I spend 7-10 days a month testing. My husband and I don't have high libidos, so the testing is more an attempt to only *have* to have sex a few days a month. I think if we were trying to pressure ourselves to have sex every day or every second day to blanket cover the whole cycle it'd kill all the fun out of it completely. I've heard enough of a horror story on that subject to be wary. I've tried to read trying-to-conceive/IVF forums before, trying to get an idea of the thought process some of my patients might be going through, and found them completely surreal. Now that I'm entering the field as it were it still hasn't changed that perception much.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2015 23:03
|
|
|
With you in solidarity, even if we're not that far down the path yet. Hope it all goes well for everyone. Cycle day 13 and no sign of a dark LH line yet on these ovulation strips. I had a quick peek a couple days back with the ultrasound and I did have a dominant follicle going, so presumably I'll ovulate eventually  I'm testing twice a day, approximately 12 hours apart. Hoping I don't fall into that group of folks who never get a dark line on OPKs, I've got lots of these to use up!
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2015 00:42
|
|
|
Cycle day 6 today. I never ended up getting a strong line on these ovulation strips last cycle, tested twice a day during the recommended period. Was a shorter cycle though- only 27 days(I'm normally 30-31 days) so either ovulated early/anovulatory or else maybe I had urine that was too dilute? I'll give testing a go from earlier this month, see if that makes any difference.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2015 22:29
|
|
|
Wahey, got a double LH line this morning! Guess the strips work after all. Followed by that weird awkward pain-but-not-pain of ovulation in the afternoon, which I don't experience all that often. Guess it's on for young and old tonight! I'm on call too, boo.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2015 09:14
|
|
|
samizdat posted:The pregnancy tests look the same except for being super hot pink instead of blue and it says "HCG" on the handle. One downside of the fakes from another site is that it was taking some people a longer time than usual to get a result on their test, and that they had to hold it in for longer than 3 seconds. I figure if I'm going to be cheap then I might as well get my money's worth and make my Amazon Prime count by getting the real thing. I've got both Wondfo and these knockoff LH strips, but haven't noticed a real huge difference yet--going to test both with Wondfo + the knockoff and see what happens. To be fair the seller for the noname brand LH strips wasn't trying to pass them as Wondfos. The info slip that came with the knockoff ones says to hold it in the urine for 10+ seconds--does it make any difference if you hold it in for longer than the recommended time? Say 15 seconds compared to 10 or 10 instead of 3 or whatever. Would that lead to lighter control/test lines? CD12 today and round 3 of focused trying is on--this month we're just going to follow the fertility app's lead and just try to have sex every night I could potentially ovulate, just to take some of the pressure of reading the drat strips off. Dominant follicle on the left again. Edit: Comparison between knockoff and Wondfo brand- Wondfo's have the green strip, the knockoffs are blue. For reference I did dip the knockoff ones for longer, about 15 seconds, Wondfo for about 8; tested off the same sample at the same time   Without flash, I had to tilt my phone or cast a shadow-sorry for shoddy lighting  Personally I'd definitely call the Wondfo one positive for a surge, but the knockoff is debatable. Will test again later to see if they darken any more, maybe with less time held in the sample? Suggestions? nyerf fucked around with this message at 03:05 on May 17, 2015 |
|
#
¿
May 16, 2015 10:23
|
|
|
Don't forget the other half- it might not be you after all! Cycle day 4, boo. I never thought I'd be here, hanging on LH strips and cycle data, and despite ambivalence about child raising, still managing to not avoid feeling weirdly disappointed about not being pregnant yet and simultaneously envious of others who are/who apparently had no trouble. Is this kind of anxiety infectious? Seems to happen to everyone who looks into fertility forums of one kind or another. Can I commiserate here too? Walked past a heavily pregnant woman this morning who was hurriedly puffing on a cigarette. Life is stupidly unfair.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2015 04:35
|
|
|
Doubling good luck wishes! I'm day two post ovulation. Probably will go for it again tonight just for luck, though I know it's more the sex in the 24 hours before ovulation that'll make any difference. Kinda nervous because it was in the morning the day before I ovulated, so relatively a long time, possibly even too soon? Crazy to think that if it's going to happen the first cell divisions are happening RIGHT NOW. If, though. It's always an if until it's not. Gah.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2015 04:14
|
|
|
At the same time age doesn't guarantee anything either. I've done a number of IVF related scans for 20-28 year olds for all sorts of reasons- endometriosis, failed reversed vasectomies, low sperm counts, unexplained infertility, the list goes on. We get them younger because the pool of women having children in this area is much younger than the national average. It's amazing humans manage to reproduce as often as they do. It's just your luck, all said and done. And IVF is still cheaper and more accessible than adoption in this county! Day 10 post ovulation for me. Next 4 days (well really 4 days, and then some really) are going to drag. I'm not feeling optimistic though.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2015 04:19
|
|
|
Don't forget the dozens and dozens of transvaginal ultrasounds along the way too- a special brand of horrible those of us with lady parts have to endure. It's probably the main thing putting me off IVF- particularly since it'd likely be someone I know from work doing the scan. The joys of living in a rural area with only the one imaging service! Mind you, as far as I know in Aus, it's still cheaper and faster than adoption 
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2015 04:02
|
|
|
If you're only legit a few days post ovulation my opinion is any symptoms are more likely premenstrual than pregnancy. 4 weeks GA(approx 2 weeks post conception) on ultrasound isn't even distinguishable from late secretory phase. In the week before your period starts the embryo is just trying to stick to your lining, and if it does it only really manages to put out enough hormone to affect your ovary carrying the luteal body. Maybe. Maybe it doesn't stick, or maybe your ovary doesn't get the message, in which case your period will start as normal. Or maybe it sticks and your period holds off for a couple of days but then the embryo fails, your ovary loses that simulation to maintain your corpus luteum, credits roll on that attempt.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2015 04:22
|
|
|
The longer you can stand to wait the better I'd say. Not to be a complete wet blanket, but people drive themselves batty with these early response tests. I see it all the drat time. Soon as they miss day one of the next cycle, test positive (because some of these tests are super sensitive), dash off to the GP and then turn up at my door at GA 5 weeks expecting me to show them a dancing baby on the screen. I go ahead and measure this tiny gestational sac (~10mm average diameter at 5 weeks) and then tell them to come back in 2 weeks, hell- a whole drat month if they can. At nine weeks I don't have to bust out the transvaginal probe unless you're on the wrong side of a 30 BMI. The embryo might even do a little wiggle on the screen for you. If there's no cardiac activity it'll be unequivocal. Testing early changes nothing about whether the pregnancy will go anywhere or not, is my thinking. If you miss the whole period you're still only 5 weeks. Miss a whole period and _two_ more weeks and your embryo is still only ~7mm long. Go look at a ruler and see how tiny that is. Babies take a drat long time to grow, and so, so many steps have to go the right way before they're born. So many dice rolls. So what's a few more days? As an aside about early ultrasounds: Doing an internal scan even up to the 7 week mark doesn't even guarantee we'll see cardiac activity, even if we see an embryo. The only thing that it'll help with is to determine whether there is a gestational sac with presumed embryo inside your uterus and not in a fallopian tube or outside the uterus. If you're higher risk for an ectopic or have pain +/- bleeding, or have absolutely zero idea how far along you really are, or suspect multiples, early scans before 8-9 weeks are definitely useful. But it's no guarantee of a live birth. If you know your dates accurately and your cycles are regular and you know when you ovulate, most of the time ultrasound will date you to within a week to 3 days of your expected due date anyway. A scan at 8-10 weeks should give enough of a confirmation to book the 12-13 week nuchal screening scan, and you'll see something bigger than a static baked bean at least. Good luck to everyone. I'm coming up to day 12 of our fifth month trying, and looks like left ovary is up again for like the third time in a row! I was right about last month. Starting to feel like maybe my suspicions about our potential sub-fertility/infertility may well be right. At least birth control won't be much of a worry in the years to come, if this is anything to go by. Had a patient today who'd had 5 pregnancies and 5 Caesarean sections by the age of 25. And up until a year or two ago they had been trying to conceive number 6. I was somewhat ambivalent about that, heh. nyerf fucked around with this message at 13:50 on Jul 10, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2015 13:47
|
|
|
Cycle day 14 and strongest ever double LH lines this morning! Here we go again 
|
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2015 23:45
|
|
|
The first day you bleed is day one of your cycle. Start counting days until the first day of the next period and you have your cycle day length. Track this over a period of months to see if it varies much. +/- 3 days and you could be reasonably considered to be 'regular'. It won't follow calendar dates because obviously not every month has the same number of days. What you want to call late is up to you, like I said before- some people are so regular they could test on day 16 post ovulation and turn up positive. E: The '2 week wait' refers to your luteal period which usually is pretty consistent in a normal lady, and goes from ovulation to day one of the next cycle. Typically 14 days, but each individual could be different by a day or two. What can vary more per cycle is time to ovulation, so a longer cycle may be from ovulating later. For example my cycle averages 29 days, but that's because they're as short as 28 days or as long as 32. If i ovulate on day 14, 28 days. If day 16, 30 days. E2: don't get confused between cycle day number and 'days post ovulation'. DPO is just a way to avoid having to say cycle day 30, 27, etc I guess. I dunno why it gets used, it's one of those things. Fertility talk doesn't seem to like numbers over 20 it seems. nyerf fucked around with this message at 22:50 on Jul 16, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2015 22:40
|
|
|
Halfway through the two week wait. Man, I hate waiting. How's everyone else doing?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2015 10:36
|
|
|
That sucks. But happy birthday! Considering your implant just came out (was it an IUCD or a bar in your arm?) it can take a few cycles to get back to normal. Sometimes up to a year, depending on how long you've been on hormonal contraception. It's why I got off the pill at age 28 and we switched to barrier methods, in advance of trying to conceive around when I was 30-31.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 23, 2015 22:37
|
|
|
That sucks. Hope the talk goes well. The deeper, more esoteric parts of assisted reproduction technology go way over my head. Once you're into immune system modulation stuff it all really sounds like magic voodoo science to me. Still fascinating though! Day 12 post ovulation. Going slightly mad- I've still got a vascular corpus luteum on the left ovary but I feel maybe premenstrual now with the sore boobs so I dunno what the gently caress. Just hoping I guess. Next 48-72 hours are going to suck I'd be happy just to be able to have a reason to test this cycle.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2015 13:51
|
|
|
Congratulations though! This Internet stranger is happy for you even if you're scared What's the consensus on faint Wondfo HCG lines again? Positive until period turns up? Because I bit the bullet this morning and opened the HCG pack of strips for the first time and we're reasonably sure there's a definite second colour line there, just faint. I suppose if I get my period today that'll go out the window but I do feel slightly different to my pms self. Boobs are sore but not swollen. Pelvis doesn't feel congested. God this is so weird.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2015 23:17
|
|
|
Had a moment this morning and pulled out four hcg strips- two of the knock off variety and two Wondfos. The knock offs had darker double lines but the Wondfo ones had double lines too. Still faint. Still no period. Boob tenderness has eased a bit, so I don't know wtf. If this period doesn't show up the plan is to go to the GP for some blood tests to check rising levels. And then if that works out I'll have to somehow broach the subject with the boss since someone at work is going to have to do the formal ultrasound. Going to be so awkward. Oh, and probably should start posting in the pregnancy thread huh. Thanks for the support guys! Good luck and see you on the other side soon 
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2015 23:34
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 4, 2024 01:55 |
|
|
Well, I guess I could. I'm a wuss and never been pregnant before though. I was thinking that if the levels weren't rising then I'd try to keep work (I work at basically the only ultrasound provider out here) out of my personal life as much as possible and not book in for the scan. They need to check my vitamin D and thyroid levels anyway too.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2015 20:43
|
|