also, do you think there is a correlation...

Blakes mommy · October 2009

Between those who go past due and people not actually know when they concieved their baby?

Like if someone was "not trying, not preventing", could it be possible they ovulated later than "day 14" per say of a 28 day cycle and thus, they go past due because the baby hasn't cooked as long as a baby that was concieved on exactly day 14 and the mom knows the exact day and moment the baby was concieved?

Like we were trying and I REALLY kept track of my ovulation. I can tell you I ovulated earlier than day 14 of my very regular 28 day cycle and thus, I called my husband up at work, said "hey, I'm ovulating, want to have a nooner" and thus, baby Blake was concieved. Maybe he will come exactly on time because he will have cooked the exact "40 weeks".

I'm aware I am delusional and sick of being pregnant and thus, trying to find a way to tell myself I won't go overdue.

Weird question, I know. But I am alone covering the office and have a lot to ponder...

bbowie · October 2009

Hehehe - I knew exactly when I ovulated and my EDD was accurate at 40w but he still was 10 days late.

EMTX · October 2009

Your due date is "more accurate" if you know more specifically when you ovulated, yes.

But it's still not likely that you will be exactly 40 weeks.

Here's hoping! (I am sure of when we conceived, too, so I feel you!)

getnmarried910 · October 2009

I don't think that's necessarily the case. I've known people who knew exactly when they ovulated and still went over due. I was charting and know when I ovulated, but they moved my EDD up a week. I KNOW I didn't ovulate a week earlier.

CTri17 · October 2009

I've read *and pregnancy brain is striking and I can't remember which book* but the book said that normal gestation ends up being 41w1d

We'll see, I know the exact day I ovulated so when Squirt gets here we'll see where I ended up.

WhiteysWifey · October 2009

I've wondered this myself, as we know the exact time I ovulated and conceived. So far it hasn't made a difference with me :-)

xnbride · October 2009

well if we would have based my EDD on my LMP then it would have been two weeks earlier than my actual due date. However ultrasound showed baby was due in alignment with my adjusted ovulation date (day 23 not day 15).

NFL_Wife · October 2009

40 weeks is just an average, not a definite date. Anytime from 38-42 weeks is considered on time.

DS was born at 41w1d, but only because the doctors went in after him. He was never coming out on his own!

Fasa · October 2009

xnbride:
well if we would have based my EDD on my LMP then it would have been two weeks earlier than my actual due date. However ultrasound showed baby was due in alignment with my adjusted ovulation date (day 23 not day 15).

I have wondered something similar to this, but more in regards of those of us who have had a early ultrasound. From what I have heard, the early ultrasounds are more accurate than those that are done while futher along. I wonder if more people had an early ultrasound, would the EDD be closer to the actual date. (Just my thoughts, and honestly, I would have rather not had to have the early ultrasound but it was due to previous miscarriage.)

Hulahoop1234 · October 2009

getnmarried910:
I don't think that's necessarily the case. I've known people who knew exactly when they ovulated and still went over due. I was charting and know when I ovulated, but they moved my EDD up a week. I KNOW I didn't ovulate a week earlier.

The same thing happened to me pretty much. They moved my EDD to 6 days earlier than what the date would be based on the ovulation day in my chart. The NP mentioned that there is no set amount of time that it takes for the egg to make it down the fallopian tube and implant. She literally told me I probably had a speedy egg and that is why LO measured ahead on my early ultrasounds. LOL.

epphd · October 2009

Hmmm - one way to figure it out would be to see if IVFers tend to more "on time" than non-IVF pregnancies. With IVF you know to the minute when "conception" occurs.

I wonder if anyone has studied this... off to look!

bbowie · October 2009

Fasa:
xnbride:
well if we would have based my EDD on my LMP then it would have been two weeks earlier than my actual due date. However ultrasound showed baby was due in alignment with my adjusted ovulation date (day 23 not day 15).

I have wondered something similar to this, but more in regards of those of us who have had a early ultrasound. From what I have heard, the early ultrasounds are more accurate than those that are done while futher along. I wonder if more people had an early ultrasound, would the EDD be closer to the actual date. (Just my thoughts, and honestly, I would have rather not had to have the early ultrasound but it was due to previous miscarriage.)

I also had an early u/s...still 10 days late.

dkays · October 2009

My first was 13 days late and I wasn't sure when I ovulated. My second was 10 days late and we new exactly when ovulation occured because we were seeing a fertility specialist. The early ultrasound agree on the the EDD. My third was 12 days late. The LMP EDD was 3 days earlier than EDD from the early ultrasound. So I based on this I think my DDs just cook longer. I know this isn't the answer you were hoping for but you will have a precious little one soon. Blessings!

ToledoDeux · October 2009

The problem with this is that 40 weeks is not an exact "cooking date."

Want a personalized experience?

also, do you think there is a correlation...

Re: also, do you think there is a correlation...

Choose Another Board

Search Boards