Creighton vs Serena vs Billings

  • Thread starter Thread starter Econ101
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
E

Econ101

Guest
Hello All,

I’ve tried to search for a similar post, in order not to duplictae entries, but could not find one.
My wife and I (we live in Calgary, AB Canada), have taken on the resolution to go NFP courses, and wanted to know what you would all recommend:
Billings, Serena or Creighton Model (could not find a provider in Calgary).

Thanks and God Bless
 
We’ve used Billings for 11 years with 100% success (2 planned kids, 0 unplanned kids and 1 ‘what the heck’ child). If the woman has routinely clear mucus symptoms, I can’t think of a reason to use anything else. All you need is toilet paper and the ability to count to three.

It helps that my wife is quite healthy and generally doesn’t use medications that disrupt mucus symptoms (IMO cold medicines do this, though I can’t prove it via published studies).
 
We use the CCLI program, which seems similar to Serena, and have had much success with it. If there are local teachers for Serena, that may be the best. Billings has become a catch-all term for an early version of Creighton and there seems to be little consistency from one provider to the next (many providers claim to teach Billings but have outdated or inadequate certifications). If you go with a Billings instructor, make sure they have current certifications from an accredited association.

If there are no local local teachers, CCLI offers a home study course that includes chart review by their staff. NFPI offers a similar home study course but I don’t think it’s similarly supported.
 
It looks like Serena (which I had never heard of) teaches the Sympto-thermal method.
We’ve used this method for the full 11+ years of our marriage with complete success… 3 totally “planned” pregnancies + 1 “what the heck” pregnancy (I like that term!)…

Reality is, sometimes the first method you pick will work, other times it can be frustrating for people - so regardless of what method you choose (people have found success with all of them!) to start with, just be open and flexible to change if you find the method isn’t right for you!

Good luck! 🙂
 
Personally I found STM (Serena) less than great, difficult to temp accurately and my temp shifts never fit the “rules” enough to qualify to be in Phase 3. So I use Creighton which is mucus only. Similar to Billings only a very standardized method. Another method to consider is Marquette which uses the Clearblue Fertility Monitor.

Em- Serena is just the Canadian organization that teaches STM.
 
Creighton can be done long-distance, if you choose that route.

I have severe health problems. (To the point that charting my fertility has been QUITE the challenge.) And there’s no Creighton instructors around here. I found one who could teach me long-distance. And it’s worked out wonderfully!!!
 
I’ve been using STM and have been very happy with it. I like having three indicators to use as a cross-check. I’ve never tried any of the others because STM has worked for me.

Like others have pointed out, be flexible about learning a new method if you are not satisfied with the first one you learn. No two bodies work exactly the same, and different people will have different results with each method. The important thing is finding what works for you.
 
Thank you all for your kind responses.
I have found a local Billings Method Chapter and a Long Distance Creighton Model Teacher. We will listen to both introductory sessions and decide on one.
Again,
Thank you and God Bless:)
 
Creighton is connected to napro technology if there is any chance of health issues. It is also standardized teaching and scientific observation method, which no other method does.
 
The “thermal” part of Sympto-Thermal never worked for us, but my impression is that it works fine for most couples (if the wife doesn’t mind waking up at approximately the same time every morning and taking her temperature right away).

My wife and I have used Billings and it has worked well for us. Creighton is basically a more advanced version of Billings, so you may prefer to check out Creighton rather than Billings, if possible.

You should also consider the Marquette method, which uses the mucus symptom (similar to Billings or Creighton) plus a fertility monitor. My wife and I are planning to give it a try as soon as her cycles come back (following pregnancy and breastfeeding).

I think that different couples prefer different methods, or find that different methods work better for them. So my advice would be to pick a method and try it. If it doesn’t work well, or if it is too difficult, then try a different method.
 
Everyone has their opinion and experience with various methods of NFP, fair enough. Just want to clarify a bit for the Billings and Creighton side of things. Billings Ovulation Method has its own instructions and rules; one should approach the Billings website (woomb.org or boma-usa.org or woomb.ca) for information on the method, the instructors, and online courses. The Billings charts are used by physicians trained in the Billings method to diagnose and treat gynecological problems. The Billings Method has been taught around the world, it is accepted in all cultural groups, and it’s efficacy isn’t affected by poverty or level of education. Women use their own words in describing the vaginal mucus (and sensation is more important than observation). There are no practices like finger testing of the mucus, or using Kegel’s to expel seminal fluid after intercourse. The Creighton Method has deviated from the recognized science of the Billings Method by changing the rules and the way a woman makes her observations.

Dr. Lyn Billings wrote an article in 2006 clarifying the differences between the Billings and Crieghton methods because of the confusion felt by many who were seeking NFP information. (www.woomb.org/omrrca/BOMvCrMS.pdf).
 
PaulGH said:
Interesting and informative. Thanks for the link!
Click to expand...
Interesting, I agree.

I liked Billings, we switched to Creighton, because I was having a trouble with “basic infertile pattern” Creighton helped me understand my cycles a bit more clearly than Billings.

But I think it’s due to personal preference.

It’s nice to be able to have a choice. Some ladies swear by the methods that use temping…I would probably not do well with those.
 
The Billings organization in Alberta is very good, and they make sure their instructors have the requirements for accreditation. Here is the link:
Www.billingslife.ca

Billings is not an ‘earlier’ or ‘unscientific’ version of Creighton. They are 2 different mucus-only methods. Billings focusses on the sensation produced by the mucus, while Creighton focusses on visual observations of the mucus. The Billings method has been subject to some of the largest-scale scientific studies around the world.

Any of the 3 main nfp methods are effective if you learn from an accredited instructor, receive regular follow-up as you are learning the method, and follow the guidelines of the method you choose.

We have uses the Billings method for 11 years, and have 5 deliberate pregnancies (and zero ‘surprises’) We successfully postponed pregnancy for the first 3 years of marriage. It has also helped us to identify days of maximum fertility when we were trying to conceive, as well as monitor the return of fertility after childbirth. We have always found it simple to use, even during times of irregular cycles/irregular sleep patterns (which can disrupt temperature readings). I like the fact that I don’t have to do anything I normally wouldn’t (such as touch the mucus, make internal examinations, or record my temperature every day). However, different couples may prefer different methods. Whatever you choose, try to find an accredited instructor who will follow up with you during the learning phase.

Best wishes!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top