or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Pregnancy and Birth › Fertility › Is there a connection between luteal phase length and pregnancy length?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Is there a connection between luteal phase length and pregnancy length?

post #1 of 16
Thread Starter 
So I was just wondering about this. It seems like it could be logical, a shorter luteal phase, say 10-13 days, leading to a shorter pregnancy ("early" baby), and a longer luteal phase (more like 14-16 days) leading to a longer pregnancy ("overdue" baby). But I have no idea if it is true or just a wild thought that popped into my head.

So for those who have charted and have given birth, can you tell me, how long is your typical luteal phase, and when did you go into labor with your child(ren)?

In my case, my LP is 12 days (11-13, usually 12 though), and my DS was born at a little over 37 weeks.
post #2 of 16
I didn't chart with DD1...but with DD2 I had a 10 day lp and she was born at 41w1d.
post #3 of 16
Ever since I started charting in 12/2003 (the cycle DS was conceived), my luteal phase ranges from 5-8 days. The only times it has ever been longer than 8 days was when I was pregnant.

DS was born at 39 weeks (induction ), DD1 at 39w6d and DD2 sometime between 38-39 weeks.
post #4 of 16
Long LP here (14-16 days)...preemie twins (32 weeks) and lots of Preterm labor starting at 21 weeks (I know twins are different, but a single would have likely been early as well)

So no correlation here.
post #5 of 16
LONG LP: 14-16 days average over the last 9 years, though recently it's gotten closer to 16-18 days in recent years.

DD was born 2 weeks early.

I don't see why LP would be related to pregnancy length at all.
post #6 of 16
I have short LPs (8-11 days) and DD was born 5 days "late." I don't think LP length is a factor in delivery dates, but implantation day might be. I think DD was a late implanter, based on symptoms.
post #7 of 16
Thread Starter 
Huh. Interesting. It seems opposite for most of you.

There goes that thought, then.
post #8 of 16
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by AmyKT View Post
I have short LPs (8-11 days) and DD was born 5 days "late." I don't think LP length is a factor in delivery dates, but implantation day might be. I think DD was a late implanter, based on symptoms.
Do you have any idea what influences implantation time?
post #9 of 16
Saw this on new posts.

DD1 was 8 days overdue. My lp with her was average.

DD2 was 3 days overdue. My lp with her was 8 days.

DD3 is currently still gestating and my average lp with her was 7 days but still working itself out. It was 8 days the cycle before I conceived.
post #10 of 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by BarefootScientist View Post
Do you have any idea what influences implantation time?
No, I don't. Long tubes?

I have read that late implantations are less likely to result in a (lasting) pregnancy, though. Probably because progesterone is already on the decline.
post #11 of 16
LP for me has always been about 12 days

dd1 was born at 37 weeks

dd2 was born at 38 weeks
post #12 of 16
I am probably an oddity. My LP is 16 days. ( OMG!) but remarkably, both my kids were born on their projected due date, without intervention. Maybe I implanted at the "average" time then? That's all I can think of...
post #13 of 16
Mine is 12 days and I had her at 42 weeks exactly (went into labor at 41 and 6). I can't think of a reason LP would influence gestation, but it is an interesting thought.
post #14 of 16
My LP has always been average. My son was a week and half overdue, my daughter was just over a week early.
post #15 of 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by BarefootScientist View Post
Do you have any idea what influences implantation time?
Well... whenever after the initial 30 hour growth time that it snuggles into the uterine wall. Anywhere from 30 hours post-O (in cases such as my DD, whom I got a bfp with at 6dpo) to 10 days post-O. However, it usually ends up being at 7dpo. Like, insanely a lot.

I dont think that has anything to do with pregnancy length.

Things that do:

1. age and health of the mother
2. health of baby
3. whether or not the pregnancy is correctly dated
4. number of babies (twins generally come sooner than singletons even when delivering naturally, triplets sooner yet.)
5. external influences (such as smoking, stress, etc.)
6. number of pregnancy (seconds tend to be born earlier than firsts... not always but they tend to)

and what point parents were born and size of parents at birth actually has NOTHING to do with when baby will be born NOR their size at birth.

And Im glad.

Because XH was a 10 pound baby (his mom had diabetes) and I was a 9 pound baby (totally healthy! LOL) and both of mine so far have been 7 1/2 pounds and 7 pounds.
post #16 of 16
My LP is typically 10-12 days long and I have delivered both my babies slightly early, one at 39 weeks and the other at 38 weeks, days. Both were spontaneous labors.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Fertility
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Pregnancy and Birth › Fertility › Is there a connection between luteal phase length and pregnancy length?