Considering changing NFP method

[LundyLund]

Hello all. We use the sympto thermal method of NFP, but are considering a switch. We like that the STM uses a bunch of different data points, but the temperature component has proven wonky. It rarely stays low pre-ovulation, instead yo-yoing, and even post ovulation, sometimes drops dramatically. We just don’t find that it has been very useful, and often end up making an educated guess as to when we are in phase III. Maybe our thermometer just stinks, but I have to admit that this is probably just wishful thinking on my part.

We are looking at the Marquette method (with mucus) as an alternative. I’d like to hear your thoughts on reliability, ease of use, and any tips on getting the testing sticks relatively inexpensively. If you’ve had experience with the STM, I’d love to hear your thoughts on how the two compare.

Thank you, and have a terrific day.

 

[EnglishTeacher]

Hello all. We use the sympto thermal method of NFP, but are considering a switch. We like that the STM uses a bunch of different data points, but the temperature component has proven wonky. It rarely stays low pre-ovulation, instead yo-yoing, and even post ovulation, sometimes drops dramatically. We just don’t find that it has been very useful, and often end up making an educated guess as to when we are in phase III. Maybe our thermometer just stinks, but I have to admit that this is probably just wishful thinking on my part.

We are looking at the Marquette method (with mucus) as an alternative. I’d like to hear your thoughts on reliability, ease of use, and any tips on getting the testing sticks relatively inexpensively. If you’ve had experience with the STM, I’d love to hear your thoughts on how the two compare.

Thank you, and have a terrific day.

I learned the sympto-thermal method of NFP and began charting about two years ago, but I have long since stopped taking and charting my temperature because I didn’t think it was worth the hassle. I chart the other signs and sometimes use ovulation testing sticks (just the cheap kind from Walmart) to confirm ovulation. We are trying to conceive, not avoid, though; so if you are looking to avoid pregnancy, your needs would be different.

I have heard good things about all the different forms of NFP; I think any of them can work if you learn them well and (if at all possible) have a good tutor to coach you through the trickier times, such as post-partum or nursing, etc.

 

[bjames1728]

Hello all. We use the sympto thermal method of NFP, but are considering a switch. We like that the STM uses a bunch of different data points, but the temperature component has proven wonky. It rarely stays low pre-ovulation, instead yo-yoing, and even post ovulation, sometimes drops dramatically. We just don’t find that it has been very useful, and often end up making an educated guess as to when we are in phase III. Maybe our thermometer just stinks, but I have to admit that this is probably just wishful thinking on my part.

We are looking at the Marquette method (with mucus) as an alternative. I’d like to hear your thoughts on reliability, ease of use, and any tips on getting the testing sticks relatively inexpensively. If you’ve had experience with the STM, I’d love to hear your thoughts on how the two compare.

Thank you, and have a terrific day.

We were told by a Creighton instructor that as a woman ages, temperature becomes an increasingly unreliable indicator. Based on family experience, mid/late-30’s is when both the S & T in STM experienced significant fluctuation. I’m sorry I have no experience with Marquette, so I can’t speak to that at all. At least I can revive your thread so more experienced people can comment.

One last comment: if you are essentially guessing in your use of NFP, you and your partner should be of the mindset that pregnancy is more of a “when”, than an “if”. In other words, don’t be surprised. Especially later in your childbearing years, unexpected pregnancies can be rough, so start having the conversations now to make sure everyone expects the unexpected (so to speak).

 

[Xantippe]

We were told by a Creighton instructor that as a woman ages, temperature becomes an increasingly unreliable indicator. Based on family experience, mid/late-30’s is when both the S & T in STM experienced significant fluctuation. I’m sorry I have no experience with Marquette, so I can’t speak to that at all. At least I can revive your thread so more experienced people can comment.

One last comment: if you are essentially guessing in your use of NFP, you and your partner should be of the mindset that pregnancy is more of a “when”, than an “if”. In other words, don’t be surprised. Especially later in your childbearing years, unexpected pregnancies can be rough, so start having the conversations now to make sure everyone expects the unexpected (so to speak).

Those are very good points, especially the bit about fertility signs becoming more muted with age.

I’m 41 and I’ve definitely noticed that the last few years, since having Baby Girl at 37. Recently, for example, we’ve noted that my high temperatures are now substantially lower than they used to be–I’ve gone from having highs of 98.2/98.4 to typical Phase 3 temperatures being 97.8 (with maybe a single bounce to 98 or above). My new highs are now what my old lows used to look like. Also, my cycles have gotten noticeably shorter. At this point, they’ve gotten so short that we’ve lost all of Phase 1 except for Day 1. We’re keeping an eye out for further shortening, because as the cycles continue to shorten, we’ll need to eliminate more days.

It’s also worthwhile to have a look at the NFP guidelines on perimenopause.

But in the OP’s case, I also wonder if it isn’t time to talk to a specialist. The erratic temperatures may be a sign of some sort of hormonal issue or other health problem.

 

[macstar]

My doctor thought that it was nice that I had learned STM, but wanted me to learn Creighton to diagnose and treat health issues. When I learned it, it was very helpful in treating the issues.

 

[ColleenEH]

I’ve been using Marquette for a few months and it’s been a breeze. I always had problems remembering to temp/temping at the same time every day. The monitor itself is easy to set up and gives you your daily result in 5 minutes.

It can be a bit pricey- around $100 for the monitor and then $40 for 30 testing sticks. I buy them on Amazon. A box of sticks generally lasts about 2 months. You use a lot during the initial month but then gradually use less as the monitor “gets to know” your cycle.

I personally don’t mind the cost for the extra convenience of not having to chart. Although I can’t speak to its reliability as I haven’t gotten pregnant yet…But that is likely due to other fertility issues.

 

[UbiCaritas]

This is going to be a really long post, so I apologize in advance, with the caveat that I hope it answers all your questions.

Currently using Marquette and have been for three years, including two rounds of postpartum NFP. We used STM prior to our first kid.

Standard I-am-not-an-NFP-instructor-please-don’t-treat-this-post-as-comprehensive-NFP-education disclaimer here.

First off, I agree with another poster who suggested telling your doctor about your temps. As I recall, low post-ovulatory body temperature can be a sign of an underfunctioning thyroid–might be nothing, but if your thyroid is acting up, then it can cause other health problems, and a simple blood test can find that issue.

Secondly, I find Marquette extremely easy. I particularly like that the primary sign (ie, testing) is completely objective: there’s no fuzziness about “is this mucus slightly stretchy or not?”. For my personality, it’s a GREAT fit. (Mucus-based methods work great for others, and that’s totally fine, of course! Just not a good fit for me.) After the first 2-3 cycles, the monitor will have learned your cycles well enough to have you use ten test sticks per cycle on average. I watch Amazon sales like a hawk and get boxes at $30/each or less, stocking up on a couple of boxes at a time, so that the cost is about $10/month. Worth every penny and more.

Someone above mentioned not charting. If you need to avoid, that could mess with your plans. The monitor may not give sufficient warning of ovulation alone, so in Marquette, you use an algorithm–earliest day of ovulation for the last six months minus six days and unless you get a High reading on the monitor–to determine the end of Phase I. Past cycle information, then, is really useful for Phase I, if you plan on utilizing it. However, charting isn’t at all laborious. I note the monitor’s daily reading plus my interpretation of mucus and if we had sex that day on my chart–that’s it.

When we avoid, it’s due to serious health reasons, so we really, REALLY need to. It’s been successful for us thus far in both avoiding and achieving.

If you are on Facebook, there’s a really excellent Marquette NFP group that I can highly recommend. All the latest protocols get posted on there, along with new research and information. Perhaps the biggest downside to Marquette is that it’s not very well funded. Their website is out of date, though the charts they have for you to print are still correct, and ditto all of their non-postpartum information. The group has a lot of instructors who are willing to help a little for free, and whom you can contact to meet either face-to-face or via Skype for more information. All Marquette instructors, incidentally, must be health care professionals with a minimum of a BSN (bachelor of science in nursing) or its equivalent.

In terms of comparison to STM: I prefer it. No worries about disturbed nights=bad temps, no worrying about if I interpreted mucus wrong. There is also the fact that the culture in Marquette circles is more academic and straightforward than in other methods I have encountered, and I personally really like that. In Marquette circles, you’ll find people who also use temps to confirm. Or Creighton mucus charting. Or Billings. Or some combination of all of the above. And, well, no one cares, much less the instructors. It’s NFP. Unlike one or two other methods with which I have passing familiarity, there’s a strong culture of “if you need to use NFP, figure out what combination of testing/symptom observation works for you and your family, and do that,” rather than “if our method doesn’t work well for you at a given time, there’s something wrong with you,” which is an attitude I’ve encountered elsewhere.

One last thing: I spend $20 to buy a box of cheap ovulation predictor sticks every year. I use these as an additional backup: when I start seeing fertile mucus, I use the OPKs in the evening to double-check the monitor, and also in case the monitor misses ovulation. The monitor has missed ovulation exactly once in my three years of using it, but I like to be careful. (See: serious health reasons to space kids.)

I do apologize for the novel, but I hope it helps!

 

[jeanj]

Have you considered Billings method?

We used rhythm for long time but as I get into 40s (sigh) felt that my always-regular cycles would become less so and wanted a more robust method.

No need for expensive monitors and test sticks … and yes, we tried adding temp to rhythm but apart from difficulty in seeing a reliable pattern in temps, it really tells you when you have ovulated not when you will. Also found taking temp a chore.

So good to confirm I guess but no help (for us anyway) identifying the crucial phase between end of period and beginning of fertility…

Lots of good Billings sites and teachers too.

Hope this helps

Jean