We pride ourselves on having the friendliest
and most welcoming forums for moms and moms to be! Please take a moment
for free so you can be a part of our growing community of mothers.
If you have any problems registering please drop an email to email@example.com.
Our community is moderated by our moderation team so you won't see spam or offensive messages posted on our forums. Each of our message boards is hosted by JustMommies hosts, whose names are listed at the top each board. We hope you find our message boards friendly, helpful, and fun to be on!
So as I do more research into the rules of the marquette model and I am a little bit nervous about the relaxed nature of the rules. I see why it would work (for most people) the first 6 months because it is no intercourse day 6 until after peak, but after 6 cycles, it is the average of your peak -6 days or the first "high" on the monitor which is as little as 4 days before peak. I want to just rely on that method, I am sure that I will follow the rules, but if I am having CM, I might just have to either completely abstain per NFP requirements or using protection because technically with their rules I would be able to DTD. It just makes me nervous to depend on past cycles like that! I don't want to get pregnant at all! I will use the method as is starting in November because that was our original TTC date so if I were to get pregnant on the method it would be okay. Is it just me that is nervous by the way this method is set up?
4 days before peak does seem like it could get you preggo since sperm can live up to 5 days in good quality cervical fluid. If you are not wanting to get pregnant, go with what your gut tells you at the time and use protection or abstain.
I guess if you cycle is exactly the same day every month, then using past data to obtain an average and using that would be fine, but if you fluctuate between say 26 days one month and then 32 the next.....I'd be a little nervous too.
Keep us updated on that study every once in awhile and let us know how it is going.....I'm curious.
Hi! I'm Lee Ann<div align="center">
I would double check about the barriers, because it's supposed to be a study about NFP. Barrier use might compromise whether you can participate or not. Hypothetically, if you conceived - how could they prove whether it was because their rules don't work or whether it was a barrier failure? They wouldn't be able to, so they would probably have to omit your cycles from the data.
I would be skeptical about the rules too. That's why this is a study - they want to see if the rules work or not!
I would never use barriers or even DTD when the rules say to abstain. It is when it says I am infertile and I have CM that I am skeptical. I might just be overly cautious until September then since it isn't a dire need to avoid after that. We will always abstain during the times that the model says. Thanks for always keeping me honest Shawna.
It is when it says I am infertile and I have CM that I am skeptical.[/b]
Hmmm, well in that case I don't know enough about the Marquette CM protocols to say. I mean, with BOM there are certainly times when a woman is infertile but still has an infertile discharge - it you have to establish that before you consider it infertile. If Marquette has some way for you to do that, I wouldn't worry! But if it's just relying on counting back days from previous cycles....EEK! LOL
Me being in the "monitor group" it is solely based on the monitor which is solely based on "the previous 6 cycles earliest peak". In essence if I have any type of CM, but it is still >6 days before the past peak, you are able to DTD. I am definitely going to be a LOT skeptical about this. It seems a lot less reliable than the sympto thermal FAM that I have used for the last year. It will definitely be a learning experience!
Hmm, have you heard of the "Doering Rule" ? I wonder if they are partly studying the efficacy of that rule. We learned about it in my last CCL sympto-thermal method class. I think it might be what you're describing and I seem to remember my teachers saying that the rule is actually very effective.
Oh, I just looked up the Doering Rule in my student book and it says you subtract 7 from the earliest first day of temp rise in the last 12 cycles. It says you mark that day as the last day that you can assume Phase I infertility. The rule assumes the absence of mucus (although my teachers said that some people always have creamy mucus of some sort). And the rule also requires at least 6 cycles of temp history.
Anyhoo, that might be totally unhelpful, but I thought I would throw it out there. Sounds like a very similar idea and my teachers said it was very effective. If this rule is super similar and off by 1 day from what you're saying, maybe you could look up the efficacy of the Doering Rule. If you find that it's really effective, maybe it will make you feel better.