|
|
|
|
Last Updated:
Sep 15th, 2008 - 18:55:44
|
Question
I was driven to write after reading Sheila St. John's review of the Lady-Comp fertility monitor. While considering buying one, I came across Ms. St. John's review, as it comes up on the first page of Lady-Comp's Google search.
While I do not own one of these devices, and so cannot vouch personally for its effectiveness, I can argue with certainty that Ms. St. John's assertion of the Lady-Comp as a high-tech version of the "rhythm method" is entirely mistaken.
While the Lady-Comp does use your previous temperature readings to determine your fertile period, this differs in that the Rhythm Method is calendar based, and relies on an average of a woman's cycle length to determine fertility. The biggest failing of the Rhythm Method is that it uses a standard calculation for a woman's luteal phase, which while usually standard, can vary slightly from month to month.
The Lady-Comp uses a woman's cycle length and her temperature each day while also comparing this data to information saved for that particular woman. Thus it adjusts for any variations in a woman's cycle by using any changes as a guide. As such, Lady-Comp can be used by women with small to broad cycle variations.
I feel correct information in this regard, is paramount, as your article has such a high page rank in a Lady-Comp Google search.
Of course, any woman could learn to chart her temperature and fertility signs herself, and thus save the $500+ in the cost of this device. But that, I'm sure you'll agree, comes down to personal preference.
I feel to dismiss the Lady-Comp as high-tech rhythm method is misleading, especially considering the countless women who use it successfully.
Lynnette
Answer
Thank you for contacting us---
I stand by my evaluation found at: http://www.canfp.org/artman/publish/article_138 of the limitations of the lady comp fertility monitors. I find the sites I reviewed which promote this device misleading, in that they claim it can identify the beginning of fertility. The temperature rise does not identify the beginning of fertility, but the beginning of the luteal phase. And one certainly cannot identify the beginning of the current fertile phase based on a history of temperatures, just a statistical likelihood. You say it adjusts based on her current temperatures, but since the temperature does not indicate the beginning of fertility, any adjustments would not reflect fertility beginning earlier than it has in past cycles, because the temperature would not reflect this prospectively, only retrospectively.
You also say this device is appropriate for women with broad cycle variations, but the only way a history of temperature rises would estimate fertile days in a woman with great cycle length variation is to identify an extremely lengthy fertile phase, to encompass the early and late ovulations that occur in cycles of varying length. And still, it cannot predict, by current temperature, when a cycle is occurring earlier than experienced to date, and hence will not accurately predict the beginning of fertility in those cycles.
As you state so well:
"Of course, any woman could learn to chart her temperature and fertility signs herself, and thus save the $500+ in the cost of this device. But that, I'm sure you'll agree, comes down to personal preference."
Women seeking accurate, modern, effective methods of Natural Family Planning have many methods to choose from. My only desire in responding to the inquiry we received, was to assist women in making an informed, educated choice. I am gratified to know you encountered my evaluation, and our site, in your research, and now your comments will also be available to women researching this topic. I am confident in women's ability to make an informed choice, and trust our dialogue has contributed to that process.
Thank you for your comments.
Sheila St. John
Sheila St. John, CFCP, is a Certified Fertility Care Practitioner, actively teaching in hospital, parish, and private settings in Monterey and Santa Cruz Counties since the early 1980’s.
She is the Executive Director of the California Association of Natural Family Planning.
© Copyright 2005 by CANFP
The information on this page and web site is for informational purposes only,
and is not a substitute for medical diagnosis and treatment by a physician.
Top of Page
|
|
|
|
