Was just wondering, out of curiosity, and this may be a question for those of you who are not on their first baby....is there any connection between having regular periods before you conceived and your baby arriving on schedule? I have no basis for asking this question really but just wondered if there could be a connection. Say if your cycles were always 28 days long, is it more likely that your baby will arrive when expected than if say, your cycles were a little unpredictable?
Someone I know recently had her first baby on the date she herself expected it. I know first babies are often late so I thought this was interesting.
. From the first scan at 10 weeks she measured a week ahead of my dates, this went up to two weeks ahead by later in pregnancy. I was baffled but the docs said she may just be big and stick to my own dates. She arrived two and a bit weeks early so it almost seems like her size/growth predicted her arrival better than the 40 weeks thing.
My interest in this is renewed as my scan on this LO shows him/her being weeks behind what he/she should be based on my cycle. But I wasn't temping so not really sure when I conceived. Am going to go on scan dates as they were more right last time.
I always had 28 day cycles, generally ovulated on day 14 (I was temping) so pretty much knew to the minute when I conceived DD
This got me thinking. DD1 was born exactly 38 weeks to the day after I ovulated.
So I got my book out from dd2 where I recorded my ovulation - and yep, 38 weeks to the day too!
Wow, you're like clockwork so LMB! That is amazing. Just posted over on M&K too to reach a wider audience.
my cycles are clock work and bang on 28 days- i ovulate late in my cycles- roughly day 17-18 and ds1 was a week early, ds2 3 weeks early. am so hoping this babba doesn't throw a spanner in the works and be late.