TCOYF

Resa77

I just got the book yesterday, and read the first 5 chapters before bed!  I'm impressed with how easy-to-read this book is.  I don't feel too overwhelmed with the information, but I definitely feel like I learned a lot.  I just hope I'm able to make sense of it all and get comfortable with it! 

Any advice/encouragement for beginners?

mica178

Just get started.  The more that you get used to charting, the more comfortable you'll feel.  That's why most recommend at least 3 months/cycles of practice before considering yourself reliable enough to use it for trying to avoid.

Calypso1977

ditto mica.  just get started!  also, make sure you have a good BBT.  i had bought one from CVS and it crapped out right away.  i then ordered 2 from CCL online - and i'm still using the first one!  it has an endless battery!  it also stores the last temp taken, so that's good if you dont want to write the temp down right away.

Resa77

I ordered mine with the book, and it seems pretty decent.  It was only $6 though so if I end up replacing it, I won't be too mad. 

I don't think I'll feel comfortable with it after just 3 months though!  I don't trust my interpretation skills lol.  I think the CM part will takes MONTHS before I can understand and label it properly lol.

ellen73

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_tcoyf?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural Wedding BoardsForum:615Discussion:3daef2a8-40eb-464f-9cef-62ce1e3e3417Post:eb3b6235-1d0c-450b-9a32-3b3acade7aff">Re: TCOYF</a>:
[QUOTE]I ordered mine with the book, and it seems pretty decent.  It was only $6 though so if I end up replacing it, I won't be too mad.  I don't think I'll feel comfortable with it after just 3 months though!  I don't trust my interpretation skills lol.  I think the CM part will takes MONTHS before I can understand and label it properly lol.
Posted by Resa77[/QUOTE]

Maybe it's the scientist in me, but I didn't like the descriptions given in the TCOYF for CM.  I also bought <a href="http://www.google.com/products/catalog?q=napro+technology+book&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&oe=&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=shop&cid=8075137574790854278&sa=X&ei=v6RfTpeUJ8WKsQKUycxA&ved=0CDgQ8gIwAw#">NaPro technology book (clicky)-</a> and the few chapters on CM in those books (with descriptions) made much more sense to me!  

agapecarrie

In order to do the NAPRO accurately, you need a teacher...another reason I'm a huge fan.

It took me a long time to feel comfortable with cm, because there is other stuff besides textbook stuff that needed to be figured out.

CM is the main indicator of fertility. Everything else is secondary.

catarntina

I thought the descriptions in TCOYF were way better than what they teach you in a CCL class.  Just sayin'... Classes & instructors aren't the end-all-save-all.

I took a CCL class, and I was still rather confused because my CM didn't match the descriptions in the text they had given us, nor were my temperature patterns meeting their requirements.  I bought TCOYF and it cleared up everything for me instantly.  Not everyone needs to do Creighton with NaPro.  STM works fine the majority of most women.

Resa... Just get started. That's the only way you'll learn.  You have to apply what you've read in the book in order to be able to understand it correctly.  "OK, this is what *MY* eggwhite CM looks like..."  That's the only way you'll learn.  You'll get the hang of it, and it does take about 3 cycles.

agapecarrie

Catarntina, creighton uses different terms than stm or tcoyf for descriptions, and then has additional descriptions for non-textbook type stuff.

TCOYF does not have statistical backing to its effectiveness though. STM does.

Whatever works for you is great. However, I would not say stm is "majority". Lots of people don't like the terms in one and switch to the other.

catarntina

Agapecarrie, STM is the method that is taught in TCOYF.  So how can it not have statistical backing to its effectiveness, if STM has statistical backing?  Have you read TCOYF?  It teaches you to check for CM and temperature is described as a secondary sign in that book.

TBH, I know 2 people who use Creighton -- you and 1 other person on a different forum.  And many, many others who use STM.  If you ever check out TTC boards, or TTGP boards, you'll see they use Fertility Friend to chart their cycles -- which is using STM.  So I believe that the majority of women who use NFP are using STM.

I'm sure that there are some people who do not like the terms -- like I did not like the terms in the CCL class which probably works great for other people.  But it'd be nice if you wouldn't shoot down anyone trying to learn STM by saying Creighton w/NaPro is better.  In all your NFP posts, you say that method is better when there's nothing wrong with trying to learn STM -- From a CCL class, from TCOYF, or from some other source.  Isn't the goal to get woman to use NFP rather than ABC, and not to discourage them if they pick a method they may like?  STM will work for the majority of most women.  If you have health complications, then yes, I think Creighton w/NaPro is a much better choice.  Otherwise, I think STM is just fine.

Resa77

Ellen (or anyone, really) -- What, in a few words, is the main difference between TCOYF and Napro?  The whole Creighton/NaPro thing is a huge mystery to me!

Catarntina-  I agree that the TCOYF book is way better than the CCL book/classes.  I never took classes, but read the CCL book and walked away thinking "well, this clearly only works for people with a very simple, regular cycle."  I don't feel that way after having started TCOYF. 

agapecarrie

If they are using different terms, then it isn't the same method. Yes, indeed I have read the book. THey are not the same method.

I NEVER shoot down anyone about which method is better...  In fact, if you read what I just posted, I said whatever works for you is best.

Most of the people I know use creighton.

There are major philosophical differences between the 2 different methods, but that aside....Creighton is cm only. It is scientifically observed with standardized teaching method. There are no "iffy" days. There is no "Conservative use". It is tied to napro technology so that when there are health issues, docs use the charts to aid in diagnosing and treating issues.

catarntina

http://www.armenianchurchlibrary.com/files/nfpmethods.pdf

Carrie, Please see the bottom of page 1/beginning of page 2.  TCOYF teaches STM.

Resa, this link also has some explanation on other methods.

agapecarrie

It uses the same indicators, yes, that does not make it the same method. Different terms mean different methods.. Billings and Creighton both only use cm, but they are different methods.
The reason I keep answering this is because NFP is compiled into umbrella terms, and then misrepresented negatively (I'm not saying you are doing this), or incorrectly.

catarntina

Then I would like for you to explain to me the difference between STM and the method taught in TCOYF.  Because in several sources I've read it says that they are in fact one in the same.

Resa77

So how do you get to a point where you can regoznize/label/interpret your CM?  I mean, I can sit there and come up with words to describe it, but that doesn't mean I can tell you whether it's fertile or not.  I think that's the part that makes me most nervous.

mica178

Resa -- just start doing it every day.  After a couple cycles, you'll start noticing the differences as you move through your cycle.  That's really the only way to explain it -- words on a page can't describe what you'll see and feel.

catarntina

Resa -- You can have dry, wet, or lubractive/slippery sensations.  If you have mucus, it can be tacky, creamy, or eggwhite.  The eggwhite is the most fertile and it looks like eggwhite.  It will also have some stretch to it if you have it between your fingers (yes it sounds gross but you get used to it).

If it's dry and you have no mucus, it's infertile.
Dry and tacky mucus is still considered infertile -- All though, while you're learning, if you see tacky, it's best to just abstain.
Wet tacky is fertile.
Wet creamy is fertile
Wet eggwhite is fertile
Slippery Eggwhite is extremely fertile and your best day to TTC.

It'll typically progess from dry/nothing to slippery/eggwhite.  Then taper off rapidly to nothing.

Resa77

Thanks for all the info! 

agapecarrie

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_tcoyf?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:615Discussion:3daef2a8-40eb-464f-9cef-62ce1e3e3417Post:0d3d3257-6970-4db6-b151-4659cc6a2a37">Re: TCOYF</a>:
[QUOTE]Then I would like for you to explain to me the difference between STM and the method taught in TCOYF.  Because in several sources I've read it says that they are in fact one in the same.
Posted by catarntina[/QUOTE]

You've already said it...the terms.

agapecarrie

Here's the problem with teaching it here....if its dry within 4 days after fertile mucous, you're still fertile.

This is why its so important to be precise.

Jay&Marissa

My 2 cents...we took an NFP class with CCL (yes it is the sympto-thermal method) and that was great for us. We liked being able to talk about it with people who had successfully used it.

I also just scheduled our post-partum class...I don't know what TCOYF has to say about that period, but I am happy that CCL has an entire class/book dedicated to it and that we can take it with a local teacher. To me that is probably the most "dangerous" period of possible fertility!

bibliophile2010

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_tcoyf?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:615Discussion:3daef2a8-40eb-464f-9cef-62ce1e3e3417Post:e4d73d3c-3e0a-4e92-a308-3ce31dabb1ea">Re: TCOYF</a>:
[QUOTE]Here's the problem with teaching it here....if its dry within 4 days after fertile mucous, you're still fertile. This is why its so important to be precise.
Posted by agapecarrie[/QUOTE]

But if we're arguing semantics, being fertile and having fertile-quality mucous are <strong>not </strong>the same thing. Clearly, they are closely related, but ultimately, they are not the same thing.

My two cents: I get that terminology and rules differ between teaching methods, but ultimately, a woman's body is doing what her body is doing and the CM she's looking at is the same, regardless of which words describe it. She's going to ovulate the same day and her body is doing the same things. The "fertile period" is going to be about the same, because its her body and her fertile period. I get that some methods have rules/descriptions/etc. that work better for some people than others. This can be because of our individual bodies, individual lifestyles and our individual minds (how we process the information).

I have read TCOYF and believe I have a solid understanding of ST from it, but I agree with the Church in its encouragement to have teachers to troubleshoot with, get more information from, assess challenges from, go to for the troublesome times like postpartum (J&M, I've heard the same things about challenges PP), etc. I think the book is great; I just think that having people to help out is great, too.

My understanding is further that ST as taught in TCOYF and other places is slightly different than what CCL teaches, but ultimately, these are two different kinds of apples (not apples and oranges or apples and potato chips).

Which method to use was not an easy decision for me. Ultimately, I decided I would go with a CM only method. I use Creighton. I really like Creighton for me and for my body, my family history of fertility problems, my sleep patterns, etc. I encourage girls who come on here with concerns about going off the Pill becuase of past gynocological problems to look into it, because it presents an alternative to the "modern" solution of throwing HBC at every problem.

For your average person, however, I encourage research. Read TCOYF, take a class, think about your cycles, your lifestyle, your body, figure out what is right for you. I know lots of people have great luck with the variants of ST. It's not for me, but sometimes I really wish it was.

agapecarrie

Yes.

The crux of the "fertile" argument is semantics, absolutely.

But how many people do we hear about saying they conceived while on NFP? It's because of user error of some sort. I was trying to be very clear so that there weren't misunderstandings from that statement.

Riss91

agape, just be careful that you do not come off as discrediting other methods. There is scientific basis for the sympto-thermal method. Even though temperature is a secondary sign of fertility - it is still a scientific indicator. And it is one of the few methods of determining when/whether ovulation has occurred. I agree that we need to be careful about how information is given so that users do not mix signs, but it isn't fair to make it seem that one method is inferior.

agapecarrie

I never said that, nor did I discredit it.

I keep saying that temps are secondary because everywhere I see how so many people rely on that alone. It is out of concern that NFP gets blamed for not working when the methods are not even used correctly.

But even so, if I had an opinion that another method was superior, and gave back up for it...why is that not allowed to be said?

catarntina

No you can't post that stuff.  Because when you do, it makes people like me feel like I'm failing since I'm not using the superior method.  I don't have the option of learning Creighton unless I drive a pretty long distance -- in fact, the Pope Paul VI Institute might be the closest and it's 7 hours away.  And the class that was taught by CCL was taught by lay people who had no experience with infertility issues, or outside the 'norm' charts.

There are some people who do not have the option of taking a STM class either, so they have to rely on books if they want to be good Catholics.  Some areas do not offer CCL classes or Creighton methods, and why would you expect them to have to drive several hours just for a class when a method can be taught from a book?

You are very discouraging to people who do not have options by implying that your method is superior to all others.  "In order to do this correctly, you need a teacher."  That just brings people down when they cannot get a teacher, or cannot afford the $100's it can cost in a class.  I full-heartedly think that you should educate women on other methods, but you shouldn't state or even imply that one method is superior to the other, when all methods of NFP have scientific backing.

Riss91

I'm not saying you can't explain your preferences. I think it's great that there are different methods to choose from and some methods are better in certain circumstances. I always encourage ladies that may have concerns about their reproductive health to use Creighton, even though I do not use it myself. I see the merits to it.

I also agree that it is important to draw attention to CM as being the primary indicator of fertility. I just think sometimes when you respond, it comes off that temp is not important and there isn't science behind it. Temp doesn't signal fertility, it's an after-the-fact indicator of ovulation. But it is really important for those who want to know if they are ovulating and I don't want people to get the impression that it is irrelevant.

agapecarrie

catan, I have never implied one method is superior to the other. ANd for Creighton, THAT IS the method...for quality to control to have a teacher. If you don't have a teacher, you are not doing Creighton correctly. Its that simple. I didn't make up that rule. It's part of the method is the interval and standardized instruction.

I have never discouraged either. Please read what I actually write instead of inferring something that is not there.

agapecarrie

Cantarntina,

I think your rules are out of place here. I might have an opinion and compare something with factual evidence to support this,

but because it makes you feel like your failing, I'm not allowed to say it.

catarntina

I haven't seen you compare anything with factual evidence.  You always state your opinion on this matter.  You don't back up with evidence that Creighton is far superior to STM, except that it works with NaPro technology.  That only makes it superior if you're dealing with health issues.  And your posts also made it seem that TCOYF was an inferior way of learning STM all together.  "TCOYF does not have statistical backing..."

And OP was NOT doing Creighton, she was doing STM, so I stand by my statement that instructors aren't the end-all-save-all here.

Instead of, "This is why you need a teacher."  You could have suggested different methods such as, "If you're having trouble understanding the text, perhaps a class would be benefitial!  Creighton Method is a mucus only method, and it's very instructor heavy so you work one-on-one with someone to get the confidence you need when trying to decipher different mucus patterns.  The CCL organization also offers classes that teach STM, which is the method taught in TCOYF."

But no, you shoot it down..."In order to do NAPRO correctly you need an instructor."  Stop being so negative on these forums!  People want help, and that statement doesn't help at all.  They don't want to be discouraged.  It makes people feel like they just can't win.

ElisabethJoanne

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_tcoyf?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:615Discussion:3daef2a8-40eb-464f-9cef-62ce1e3e3417Post:c653fee4-c216-4f76-802e-93c5dacba3c8">Re: TCOYF</a>:
[QUOTE]Cantarntina, I think your rules are out of place here. I might have an opinion and compare something with factual evidence to support this, but because it makes you feel like your failing, I'm not allowed to say it.
Posted by agapecarrie[/QUOTE]

To avoid hurt feelings, I suggest everyone point out WHY they think a method is better than another. If it's medical reasons, say so, and recognize that other people's bodies may be different and so a generally medically better method may not be better for an individual. If it's practical reasons, say so, and recognize there is often a trade-off between what is practical and what is medically best. We're dealing with real people with real bodies and real lifestyles. The "best method" for any individual is going to be a balance of a whole bunch of factors - her body, her lifestyle, her location, partner cooperation, etc., etc.