Trying to Get Pregnant

Creighton Method? TW: loss and LC mentioned

Hi 👋 
i was a member here back in 2015/2016 while we tried for our first. I ended up having a loss on our 13th cycle, presumably due to low progesterone, then on our 15th cycle got pregnant with our daughter and was immediately put on progesterone. No problems after that. 

Were now TFAS, and I figured I’d have to be back on it again. I was shocked that I got a squinty squinter on our 1st month after it took 13 mos previously, I asked about being put back on progesterone, but by the time I went in for BW, I was already sure it was a loss and it was confirmed. My progesterone was only .82, so my midwives referred me to a specialist and also gave me a prescription to use immediately after a month on the bench. 

The specialist they said was because my pregesterone was VERY low, and I spoke to them, they use the Creighton model of charting and NaPro along with regular bloodwork.  I did some research and it seems that it relies on charting CM mostly, which I already do, along with BBT and opks. 

Can anyone tell me if there’s any difference that I’m missing for it to be called the “Creighton method”? Anyone here had success with a more “crunchy” (natural) fertility place like this? I’m a fan of less medicine more natural methods, but if I need something medical to keep a baby, so be it. 

Admins, please move if you think this should be in T-ttc, I wasn’t sure where it should go. 

Re: Creighton Method? TW: loss and LC mentioned

  • Lurker**** if you search @BusinessWife did an amazing explanation of the creighton method 2-3 years ago...
    TTC 1/2012
    Diagnosed : unexplained infertility
    6 rounds of IUI and a MC 2/2014, rainbow twins 4/2015
    TTC #3 5/2016
    Restarted Fertility tx
    IUI 2 rounds, baby girl 12/17

    keikilove[Deleted User]kiki75
  • Loading the player...
  • Hi, you should know that Creighton Method/NaPro actually is not "crunchy" based. It's religiously based. It does not use up to date science. In addition, it is premised on the woman always being the problem. This is not true. Male factor infertility (or dual factor) is equally common. 

    NaPro has not been proven to be effective in randomized controlled trials. It may help some people who have issues with timing intercourse -- for instance, people who make little CM and need help charting. But unless that specifically is your problem, or you are religiously/morally opposed to real assisted reproductive technologies like IUI and IVF, it is not worth your time. 

Sign In or Register to comment.
Choose Another Board
Search Boards