I learned sympto-thermal (STM) first and have generally preferred it over mucus-only methods. I like seeing the temperature rise on my charts - I just use paper and pens. But it’s not for everyone, and if I ever need to use it again, I’d probably be cautious of relying on the temps since I’m now up a lot at night with my little ones. We have not needed to use NFP at all very much in our five years of marriage. I can recall twice needing to postpone children and both for very short periods of time.
I would advise against relying on this sort of poll. Any information gleaned would be anecdotal at best. Sort of like asking people to take a poll on which toothpaste best prevents cavities. We have the published numbers on NFP efficacy because there have been randomized control trials and other studies conducted. The long and short of it is, when you use a modern method of NFP consistently and correctly, they are all highly effective at preventing pregnancy.
)p) I downgraded and will use paper charts once my cycles return this time around. We are self-taught using the book Taking Charge of Your Fertility.Both of ours were “what the heck” babies.
It was nice to know the day I could test!
Marquette to cross check. I have issues with all of them. Marquette seems to be the most user friendly but like I said, not the most effective for us. For one reason or another, I cannot check cm 100% of the time before and after I go to the bathroom so Creighton is challenging. I either wait to go to long and can’t check before or I have a group of children in the bathroom with me and don’t want to explain to them why I am so interested in the toilet paper
Temps worked ok in the beginning of our marriage but now with 6 little ones(and 1 in particular who likes to torment me at night), my wake up time is usually based on how long I actually get to sleep during the night. I am trying to work with someone from marquette’s website to figure out why that didn’t work for us so we can feel more confident with it postpartum. It did work well during the postpartum year, and I was able to determine when I ovulated. We waited until we got our last peak day, counted 3 full days, and used the evening of the fourth day. Not quite long enough I guess:shrug:or has an irregular period.The fertile window is actually closer to a week. Although true that a released egg cannot survive longer than about 24 hours, sperm can survive in fertile-quality mucus for several days. So if a woman has intercourse three or four days before she ovulates, she can still get pregnant. This is why most NFP methods suggest abstinence for three or more days “post-peak” to avoid conception.
I think what she meant is that conception can only occur within a 12-24 hour window. Which is true. Its not as though you can conceive just any random time of the month, its a pretty small window.
) and it even does interpretations for you. It doesn’t have the most user-friendly interface, but I’ve gotten used to it, and like other parts of it enough that I will be using it again once I need to chart again.In all methods, mucous is the main indicator of fertility. Temps are only a secondary confirmation and should not be relied on as the main oneWe use STM, and chart online. I like it because I’m a scientist, and like to have something quantitative (the temp reading) as opposed to only something qualitative (mucus signs). I find that I rely the most on the temp, and mostly end up using mucus and cervix observations as a double-checking. It has worked really well for us while we were using it, though it was only for a couple of months since we got pregnant after that (we were not following the rules closely that month on purpose, so it was not a surprise).
I also found that the method was easy to learn, we never took a class, just got the self-study book and went from there.
Edited to say: CCL has come out with an online charting software recently, it’s accessible from anywhere (DH can check it during the day