Mothering › Forums › Archives › Pregnancy Archives › June 2006 › Cycle length/Due date accuracy correlation?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Cycle length/Due date accuracy correlation?  

post #1 of 8
Thread Starter 
Have any of you experienced mamas noticed any correlation between the length of your menstrual cycle and whether or not you birthed earlier than, later than, or right on your edd?
As a first time mama I'm getting a little antsy about when this little one is going to come. I'm usually a few days over 28 on my cycle and am wondering if my little one won't be ready until after my edd?
Any thoughts?
post #2 of 8
EDD is just that--an estimate. You pretty much are open to birth anywhere from 37 to 42 weeks. Different babies mature at different rates, regardless of cycle length. Correct me if I am wrong. Anyone?

I am so obsessed with trying to figure out what day this baby will be born but short of a scheduled c-section, its pretty much impossible to guess.

However, 3 separate friends have told me I'm birthing on the 13th (though I am not due until the 25th). I am really thinking that is a BIG coincidence. So I'm counting ont eh 13th and if that day passes without a baby, then I am at a loss.

This is your first big lesson in patience!
post #3 of 8
My mws used an equation called the Woods method for calculating an alternate due date for me. It takes cycle length into consideration and came up with a date considerably later than the conventional due date. (DOH! ) I don't know much else about it though so hopefully someone else will be able to tell you more.
post #4 of 8
Going by my LMP my due date is June 10. My new mw gave me a "due date window". She said I'm basically due anywhere from May 21st to June 11th.
post #5 of 8
I have long cycles and both my babies came after the EDD.

We had an u/s a couple weeks back because I was concerned about the baby's growth (felt smaller than the last one at that stage) and our EDD was moved forward some.

I thought that was interesting and it really dovetailed into my theory that my body needs more time to grow babies. Baby was perfectly healthy and fine.

Also, when our older two were born they looked like they could have stayed in for another week or so, but you could also tell their gestational age was older than term. Does that make sense? And their placentas looked fab and there was no calcification or anything else that shows signs of age.
post #6 of 8
Well, it's less a matter of cycle length than of when in your cycle you ovulate. Were you charting at all when you conceived, or observing signs of ovulation at all? I always insist my due date be calculated by my date of ovulation/conception, which I track carefully, rather than by the LMP method - since I have irregular cycles (mostly because I typically get pg again within the first few cycles I have after a long period of lactational amennorhea) a due date calculated based on a 28-day cycle with O on day 14 would not be accurate for me. For example, the cycle I conceived this baby, I O'd on day 20 - so that would have made my date off by almost a week if I didn't know that. So it depends on how much you know about your cycle that month.
post #7 of 8
I think they just come when they come For the purpose of not getting hassled about induction, I'd always rather go with an EDD based around my ovulation day since I know I ovulate later in the cycle - day 19 as opposed to day 14. So an LMP due date for me would put me due 5 days earlier than the more accurate one from ovulation. But it's probably best to think of a due month (say 37-42 weeks), since people get so hung up on that one date as if it's magical. I've heard the figure that only 5% of women deliver on their EDD.
post #8 of 8
Quote:
Originally Posted by mommitola
I think they just come when they come For the purpose of not getting hassled about induction, I'd always rather go with an EDD based around my ovulation day since I know I ovulate later in the cycle - day 19 as opposed to day 14. So an LMP due date for me would put me due 5 days earlier than the more accurate one from ovulation. But it's probably best to think of a due month (say 37-42 weeks), since people get so hung up on that one date as if it's magical. I've heard the figure that only 5% of women deliver on their EDD.
EXACTLY!!!!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: June 2006
This thread is locked  
Mothering › Forums › Archives › Pregnancy Archives › June 2006 › Cycle length/Due date accuracy correlation?