All 3 of my boys have been between 140-150 range, so I don't have the girl heartbeat experience, but I do believe my cousins girls HB's were always in the 160-170 range...if that helps<img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="http://www.mothering.com/discussions/images/smilies/winky.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="Wink">
This babe's (girl) has been in the 145 range. But, I had an u/s at 7 weeks, and it was 180 then. All babies heartrate's slow down the older they get, so is there a certain trimester for which the old wives' tale is supposed to be true?
I thought it was closer to the end (third trimester) was when this was predictable? Could be wrong though....<img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="http://www.mothering.com/discussions/images/smilies/lol.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="lol">
I know my DD's heartbeat was close to 160 at her 20 week u/s. I don't remember with this baby at the u/s. Since we were looking for soft markers for Down's Syndrome I really forgot to even ask what the heart rate was.
Our baby's heartrate has always been between 150-160. and he's a boy. <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="http://www.mothering.com/discussions/images/smilies/redface.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="Embarrassment">
After my last prenatal, when the hb was in like the high 120s, I researched this, because I'd thought I was having a girl but thought that this hb meant it was a boy. The one or two studies I found on this topic (would search out links but am too lazy right now) concluded that this wive's tale has no predictive value.
With my DS, they told me the whole pregnancy, almost every visit, "based on the heartrate, it's a girl."<br><br>
My mom had three boys, then a girl. She said they told her the opposite every time too. Maybe has more to do with genetics? <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="http://www.mothering.com/discussions/images/smilies/smile.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="smile">
With ds1, it was always 140's...<br><br>
With this babe (ds2) at first it was 166's... another signal pointing to him being a girl...<br><br>
I haven't had it done recently to compare the 19 wk mark...<br><br>
******I've read that the most accurate, where they could determine a "correlation" was if the hbpm, was done before 9.3wks..
wow! it seems like according to all of your experiences it is almost opposite.<br>
with ds he was always just below 140, and this one was 160 today.<br>
just wondering if it is a girl.<br>
i guess i'll have to wait one more week to find out, thats when my u/s is.<br><br>
At 12 weeks, our girl was at 141, so technically it was true but that's not very high on the spectrum! Both DH and I have normally fast pulse rates (mine--resting, pre-pregnancy--was around 90 bpm), so I don't know if that has anything to do with the baby's heart rate. With the doppler at 12 weeks, the midwife estimated 166, but that first ultrasound was the next day so I'm not sure which was more accurate (I assumed the u/s)? Didn't get a number from the u/s today, now that we know it's a girl!
DD #1 stayed around 153-155 most of my pregnancy...<br><br>
DD #2 so far has been all over the map, so to say...LOL...at 12wks she was around 162 has settled on the low end of the range...140-141..<br><br>
I have a fast bpm myself at about 91 most of the time and have always been like that even with good blood pressure (117/60).....