Anyone use the Marquette method?

[cbderosa]

Hi all,
I’m new to these forums, but I have sort of technical questions for anyone who knows the Marquette method of NFP.
In theory, Marquette is the method that works best for me–I have a lot of trouble charting temps because I work rotating shifts and I don’t get up at the same time every day.
My past couple cycles I’ve been having trouble with “not enough mucus to interpret,” I suppose I will call it. The Marquette method uses a cross-check with mucus signs and the ovulation monitor. I didnt get a peak on my monitor in my current cycle. The only other time this has happened was when I first started charting about a year ago and was trying to override the monitor (NOT recommended )
I was wondering if anyone else has had a cycle with no peak on a monitor? My OB wants to test my progesterone but the test is based on when I peak (ie, peak + 5, peak +7, peak + 9), but I didn’t think I had any potential issues with the pre-peak phase.
My Marquette instructor is very nice and available to talk, but it doesnt seem to be a charting issue. My OB is an NFP only doctor and is familiar with Marquette but most of his patients use Creighton or other temperature based methods. So I’m kind of stuck.
Would appreciate any (name removed by moderator)ut, informal opinions, and constructive criticisms! Thanks

 

[agapewolf]

I’m single and have been using Creighton for 11 years for my health. At first, it was difficult because I had a lot of health issues-- but that’s what it was for…to figure out the health issues. I see a napro doc that helped fix those issues.

There is only one method that uses temp: that’s Sympto thermal.

Marquette, as I understand it, is basically like Creighton with the added benefit of the fertility monitor. Remember, in all methods, cm is the main indicator of fertility. I don’t know how in detail marquette gets with cm, but Creighton is VERY detailed, so you can learn the different kinds, and that helps you determine things better.

 

[Lorelei12]

This is the method that works the best for me- I like having the monitor as a cross-check, and it has generally worked very predictably. But, to answer your question, there have been a few (not many, maybe about 3-4 in two years of use) months where I got no peak. Each time, though, I’m pretty sure I knew what happened- a couple of times I likely didn’t actually ovulate (and other signs pointed that way too) and the remaining times were user error.

Something that I do as an additional check is keep a supply of ovulation tests handy in case I think something is weird with the monitor. It’s not foolproof, since you can easily miss the LH surge, but if I think something is off I will doublecheck with just one ovulation test. I’ve always found the monitor to match it, so it’s me that’s off.

 

[SonCatcher]

We use STM as taught by the Couple to Couple League several years ago (they have since updated) and have integrated it more or less completely into our lifestyle (except that we have omitted the temperature reading).

All of our children were either planned or allowed for explicitly.

 

[silentfactor80]

I am a nerd and the Ovacue system is similar to Marquette but supposedly more accurate. You also don’t have to worry about mucus at all as the Ovacue uses an electrolyte method. It has an oral and vaginal sensor so no strips to worry about. It is 98.99% accurate too.

 

[silentfactor80]

@agapewolf: i stand corrected, It has been a while since I’ve looked up different methods. What convinced me that I would like the Marquette method was the objectivity of the monitor, paired with the cross check of cm. Marquette has a rating scale of 1-8.
@ lorelei: I hadnt thought of using an ovulation test but I think I will next time I’m unsure. I tested from days 8-21 this cycle, and it’s getting a little expensive
@ soncatcher: I’m happy to hear that NFP has worked for you It’s really encouraging to hear success stories.
@silent factor: I have not heard of this, but I am definitely looking into it. I really would like my method to rely on data and not MY interpretation of symptoms. Take my potential for misinterpretation out of the equation, please
p.s. what’s a ballpark figure for the cost?

It costs about $325 for the kit. That includes oral and vaginal sensor. It is only 98.99% accurate when you have the vaginal sensor. You can do just oral but not as accurate. They have the data on the site in the Natural Family Planning section.

 

[agapewolf]

I really would like my method to rely on data and not MY interpretation of symptoms. Take my potential for misinterpretation out of the equation, please

You can’t do that. Each body is different, and you should learn yours well. That is why NFP charting is so good to learn-- so you get in tune with YOUR body.

This is why I like Creighton so much – it is extremely methodical and step by step, and you measure and interpret according to the standards they give you. It takes a bit to learn but eventually it becomes very easy.

For ALL methods, cm is the MAIN indicator. You should not be using cm as a cross check. It is the main indicator.

 

[agapewolf]

I’m really glad Creighton works well for you. I’ll be honest, I allowed myself to think about this overnight, because my first reaction upon reading it was, ouch! I don’t want to get defensive, but I suppose that’s what I get for opening up to an online forum, my fault!

I do believe I know my body pretty well, after all, I have been living in it my whole life I think any method of NFP is going to put you more in tune with your body; it makes you more aware of things that maybe you wouldn’t have noticed otherwise. So I really am in favor of NFP. I’ll speak of marquette because it’s the method I am the most familiar with, but Marquette has a variation that doesn’t use cm at all: nfp.marquette.edu/pdf/MonitorChart.pdf
(in a nutshell, the box at the bottom). From what I looked up about Creighton, it uses cm as the main indicator, with no cross check, if I am correct. I don’t use the monitor-only version of Marquette because I prefer to have more than one indicator of fertility, that’s all. At this point in my life, I’m charting primarily to plan my family, if I were charting primarily for the pure purpose of understanding my health, I might not need a second indicator.

I understand the put-off of having a piece of technology dictate a cycle. There have been a few times where I’ve been ready to defenestrate the monitor and the whole system. But more often than not, I appreciate the simplicity and peace of mind. I understand that the system is not perfect, and I’m ok with that.

No reason to be defensive (I dont’ think you were, but you suggested you were thinking about it)

First of all, I’ve been in my body for my entire life and still didn’t know it much at all until I started charting. I’m not trying to push creighton on you. I’m trying to show you that in order for a method to be reliable, ALL of them, use cm for main indicator.

cm IS the main indicator of health as well–It’s completely incorrect to say that you wouldn’t need it as a secondary indicator if tracking for health. cm observation IS what indicates health.

My whole point here is the problem with your statement about not wanting to rely on your own interpretation. I get it-- I’d like hard data with numbers. But that is seriously lacking in understanding the methodology of charting.

 

[Lorelei12]

I’m trying to show you that in order for a method to be reliable, ALL of them, use cm for main indicator.

cm IS the main indicator of health as well–It’s completely incorrect to say that you wouldn’t need it as a secondary indicator if tracking for health. cm observation IS what indicates health.

My whole point here is the problem with your statement about not wanting to rely on your own interpretation. I get it-- I’d like hard data with numbers. But that is seriously lacking in understanding the methodology of charting.

Just FYI- as the OP pointed out, one of the variations of Marquette is using only the monitor. Women who use Marquette choose one of three options- Monitor, CM, or both. Obviously, both is best, but the first variation does not use CM as a main indicator- doesn’t use it at all in fact.