How Long Do You Bleed for After Having a Baby

How Long Can Y'all Expect to Have a Infant?

Deep feet about the ability to have children later in life plagues many women. But the turn down in fertility over the grade of a woman's 30s has been oversold. Here's what the statistics really tell us—and what they don't.

Geof Kern

Editor's Note: Read more stories in our series about women and political power.

In the tentative, mail-9/eleven spring of 2002, I was, at 30, in the midst of extricating myself from my first spousal relationship. My husband and I had met in graduate school merely couldn't detect ii bookish jobs in the aforementioned identify, and then we spent the three years of our marriage living in different states. After I accepted a tenure-runway position in California and he turned down a postdoctoral inquiry position nearby—the job wasn't good plenty, he said—it seemed clear that our living situation was not going to change.

I put off telling my parents about the carve up for weeks, hesitant to disappoint them. When I finally broke the news, they were, to my relief, supportive and understanding. Then my female parent said, "Have you read Fourth dimension mag this week? I know you lot want to have kids."

Fourth dimension'due south encompass that week had a baby on it. "Listen to a successful woman discuss her failure to bear a child, and the grief comes in layers of bitterness and regret," the story inside began. A generation of women who had waited to get-go a family was beginning to grapple with that decision, and i media outlet after some other was wringing its easily nigh the steep decline in women's fertility with historic period: "When It'southward Besides Late to Have a Baby," lamented the U.Thousand.'s Observer; "Baby Panic," New York mag appear on its cover.

The panic stemmed from the April 2002 publication of Sylvia Ann Hewlett's headline-grabbing book, Creating a Life, which counseled that women should accept their children while they're young or run a risk having none at all. Within corporate America, 42 percent of the professional women interviewed by Hewlett had no children at age forty, and about said they deeply regretted it. Only as you plan for a corner function, Hewlett advised her readers, y'all should program for grandchildren.

The previous autumn, an advertizing entrada sponsored by the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) had warned, "Advancing age decreases your power to accept children." I ad was illustrated with a baby bottle shaped like an hourglass that was—simply to brand the point glaringly obvious—running out of milk. Female person fertility, the grouping appear, begins to refuse at 27. "Should yous take your infant now?" asked Newsweek in response.

For me, that was no longer a viable option.

I had always wanted children. Even when I was busy with my postdoctoral enquiry, I volunteered to babysit a friend'due south preschooler. I frequently passed the time in airports by chatting upwardly frazzled mothers and babbling toddlers—a 2-year-old, quite to my surprise, in one case crawled into my lap. At a hymeneals I attended in my tardily 20s, I played with the groom'south preschool-age nephews, often on the flooring, during the entire rehearsal and about of the reception. ("Do you fart?" 1 of them asked me in an overly loud vox during the rehearsal. "Everyone does," I replied solemnly, as his grandpa laughed quietly in the next pew.)

Just, suddenly single at 30, I seemed destined to remain childless until at least my mid-30s, and perhaps e'er. Flying to a friend's nuptials in May 2002, I finally forced myself to read the Fourth dimension article. It upset me then much that I began doubting my divorce for the first fourth dimension. "And God, what if I desire to have two?," I wrote in my periodical every bit the cold plane sped over the Rockies. "First at 35, and if you look until the kid is ii to try, more than probable you have the second at 38 or 39. If at all." To reassure myself most the divorce, I wrote, "Nix I did would take changed the situation." I underlined that.

I was lucky: inside a few years, I married again, and this time the match was much better. But my new hubby and I seemed to face up frightening odds against having children. Most books and Spider web sites I read said that 1 in three women ages 35 to 39 would not get meaning within a year of starting to try. The first folio of the ASRM'southward 2003 guide for patients noted that women in their late 30s had a 30 percent chance of remaining childless altogether. The guide also included statistics that I'd seen repeated in many other places: a woman'southward chance of pregnancy was 20 percent each month at historic period 30, dwindling to v per centum by age xl.

Every time I read these statistics, my stomach dropped like a stone, heavy and foreboding. Had I already missed my chance to exist a mother?

As a psychology researcher who'd published articles in scientific journals, some covered in the pop press, I knew that many scientific findings differ significantly from what the public hears most them. Soon later my second wedding, I decided to go to the source: I scoured medical-research databases, and quickly learned that the statistics on women'south age and fertility—used by many to brand decisions about relationships, careers, and when to accept children—were one of the more than spectacular examples of the mainstream media's failure to correctly written report on and translate scientific inquiry.

The widely cited statistic that i in three women ages 35 to 39 will not exist pregnant afterwards a year of trying, for instance, is based on an article published in 2004 in the journal Human Reproduction. Rarely mentioned is the source of the information: French birth records from 1670 to 1830. The chance of remaining childless—30 percentage—was also calculated based on historical populations.

In other words, millions of women are being told when to become significant based on statistics from a fourth dimension before electricity, antibiotics, or fertility treatment. Most people assume these numbers are based on large, well-conducted studies of modernistic women, simply they are non. When I mention this to friends and associates, by far the most common reaction is: "No … No mode. Really?"

Surprisingly few well-designed studies of female person historic period and natural fertility include women born in the 20th century—but those that do tend to paint a more optimistic motion-picture show. One report, published in Obstetrics & Gynecology in 2004 and headed by David Dunson (at present of Duke University), examined the chances of pregnancy amongst 770 European women. It found that with sex at least twice a week, 82 per centum of 35-to-39-yr-old women conceive within a twelvemonth, compared with 86 percentage of 27-to-34-year-olds. (The fertility of women in their tardily 20s and early 30s was most identical—news in and of itself.) Another report, released this March in Fertility and Sterility and led by Kenneth Rothman of Boston Academy, followed ii,820 Danish women every bit they tried to get meaning. Amid women having sex during their fertile times, 78 per centum of 35-to-40-year-olds got significant inside a year, compared with 84 percent of 20-to-34-year-olds. A report headed by Anne Steiner, an associate professor at the University of North Carolina School of Medicine, the results of which were presented in June, found that among 38- and 39-yr-olds who had been pregnant before, fourscore percent of white women of normal weight got pregnant naturally within half-dozen months (although that percentage was lower among other races and amongst the overweight). "In our data, we're not seeing huge drops until historic period 40," she told me.

Fifty-fifty some studies based on historical birth records are more optimistic than what the press normally reports: One establish that, in the days before birth control, 89 pct of 38-year-sometime women were even so fertile. Another concluded that the typical woman was able to go pregnant until somewhere between ages 40 and 45. Withal these more encouraging numbers are rarely mentioned—none of these figures appear in the American Club for Reproductive Medicine's 2008 committee opinion on female historic period and fertility, which instead relies on the most-ominous historical data.

In curt, the "baby panic"—which has by no means abated since it hit me personally—is based largely on questionable data. We've rearranged our lives, worried endlessly, and forgone countless career opportunities based on a few statistics about women who resided in thatched-roof huts and never saw a lightbulb. In Dunson's study of modern women, the difference in pregnancy rates at age 28 versus 37 is only nearly 4 pct points. Fertility does decrease with age, but the refuse is not steep enough to keep the vast bulk of women in their late 30s from having a kid. And that, after all, is the whole point.

I am now the mother of three children, all born after I turned 35. My oldest started kindergarten on my 40th birthday; my youngest was born 5 months later. All were conceived naturally inside a few months. The toddler in my lap at the airport is at present mine.

Instead of worrying about my fertility, I now worry virtually paying for child care and getting 3 children to bed on time. These are good problems to take.

Notwithstanding the memory of my abject terror about age-related infertility still lingers. Every fourth dimension I tried to become pregnant, I was consumed by anxiety that my historic period meant doom. I was non lonely. Women on Cyberspace message boards write of scaling back their careers or having fewer children than they'd similar to, because they can't acquit the idea of trying to get pregnant after 35. Those who have already passed the dreaded altogether inquire for tips on how to stay calm when trying to get pregnant, constantly worrying—just as I did—that they will never take a child. "I'm scared considering I am 35 and anybody keeps reminding me that my 'clock is ticking.' My grandmother even reminded me of this at my wedding reception," one newly married woman wrote to me after reading my 2012 advice volume, The Impatient Woman'southward Guide to Getting Pregnant, based in part on my own experience. It'south not just grandmothers sounding this notation. "What science tells us about the crumbling parental body should alarm us more than information technology does," wrote the journalist Judith Shulevitz in a New Republic cover story late final yr that focused, laser-like, on the downsides of delayed parenthood.

How did the baby panic happen in the get-go place? And why hasn't there been more than public pushback from fertility experts?

One possibility is the "availability heuristic": when making judgments, people rely on what's right in front of them. Fertility doctors see the effects of historic period on the success rate of fertility treatment every solar day. That'due south specially true for in vitro fertilization, which relies on the extraction of a large number of eggs from the ovaries, considering some eggs are lost at every stage of the hard procedure. Younger women's ovaries respond meliorate to the drugs used to excerpt the eggs, and younger women'southward eggs are more than likely to be chromosomally normal. Every bit a issue, younger women's IVF success rates are indeed much college—about 42 per centum of those younger than 35 volition give nascency to a live baby after 1 IVF bike, versus 27 percent for those ages 35 to 40, and only 12 percent for those ages 41 to 42. Many studies have examined how IVF success declines with historic period, and these statistics are cited in many research articles and online forums.

All the same only virtually one pct of babies built-in each year in the U.South. are a result of IVF, and most of their mothers used the technique non because of their age, only to overcome blocked fallopian tubes, male infertility, or other issues: about 80 percent of IVF patients are 40 or younger. And the IVF statistics tell us very little about natural formulation, which requires just one egg rather than a dozen or more, amidst other differences.

Studies of natural conception are surprisingly difficult to conduct—that'south one reason both IVF statistics and historical records play an outsize function in fertility reporting. Modern birth records are uninformative, because most women have their children in their 20s and so use birth command or sterilization surgery to prevent pregnancy during their 30s and 40s. Studies asking couples how long it took them to conceive or how long they have been trying to get significant are as unreliable as human retentiveness. And finding and studying women who are trying to get significant is challenging, as in that location's such a narrow window between when they start trying and when some will succeed.

Millions of women are being told when to get significant based on statistics from a time before electricity, antibiotics, or fertility treatment.

Another problem looms even larger: women who are actively trying to get significant at age 35 or later might exist less fertile than the average over-35 woman. Some highly fertile women volition get meaning accidentally when they are younger, and others will become meaning quickly whenever they try, completing their families at a younger historic period. Those who are left are, disproportionately, the less fertile. Thus, "the observed lower fertility rates amongst older women presumably overestimate the effect of biological aging," says Dr. Allen Wilcox, who leads the Reproductive Epidemiology Group at the National Plant of Ecology Health Sciences. "If we're overestimating the biological decline of fertility with age, this will only be good news to women who have been about captious in their nascency-control apply, and may be more than fertile at older ages, on average, than our data would pb them to await."

These modern-day research problems help explain why historical data from an age earlier nascency control are so tempting. Even so, the downsides of a historical approach are numerous. Advanced medical intendance, antibiotics, and fifty-fifty a reliable food supply were unavailable hundreds of years agone. And the decline in fertility in the historical information may also stem from older couples' having sex less often than younger ones. Less-frequent sex might take been especially likely if couples had been married for a long fourth dimension, or had many children, or both. (Having more children of class makes it more difficult to fit in sex, and some couples surely realized—eureka!—that they could avert having another rima oris to feed by scaling back their nocturnal activities.) Some historical studies endeavour to control for these problems in various ways—such as looking only at just-married couples—but many of the same bug remain.

The all-time way to assess fertility might be to measure "cycle viability," or the chance of getting pregnant if a couple has sex on the most fertile day of the woman'due south bike. Studies based on bicycle viability utilise a prospective rather than retrospective blueprint—monitoring couples every bit they attempt to get pregnant instead of asking couples to recall how long information technology took them to go pregnant or how long they tried. Wheel-viability studies also eliminate the need to account for older couples' less active sexual activity lives. David Dunson'south analysis revealed that intercourse two days earlier ovulation resulted in pregnancy 29 percent of the time for 35-to-39-year-former women, compared with virtually 42 per centum for 27-to-29-yr-olds. And so, by this measure out, fertility falls by nigh a third from a adult female'south late 20s to her late 30s. However, a 35-to-39-year-old'south fertility two days earlier ovulation was the same as a 19-to-26-year-old's fertility iii days before ovulation: according to Dunson's data, older couples who time sex just one solar day better than younger ones will effectively eliminate the age difference.

Don't these numbers contradict the statistics you sometimes see in the popular press that simply 20 percentage of thirty-year-old women and 5 pct of 40-year-quondam women become significant per cycle? They practise, simply no periodical commodity I could locate contained these numbers, and none of the experts I contacted could tell me what information set they were based on. The American Society for Reproductive Medicine's guide provides no citation for these statistics; when I contacted the clan's press function asking where they came from, a representative said they were simplified for a pop audience, and did not provide a specific citation.

Dunson, a biostatistics professor, idea the lower numbers might be averages beyond many cycles rather than the chances of getting significant during the outset wheel of trying. More than women will get pregnant during the showtime cycle than in each subsequent one because the near fertile will conceive quickly, and those left volition take lower fertility on average.

Most fertility bug are non the consequence of female age. Blocked tubes and endometriosis (a condition in which the cells lining the uterus also grow outside it) strike both younger and older women. Almost half of infertility problems trace back to the man, and these seem to be more common among older men, although research suggests that men's fertility declines merely gradually with age.

Fertility problems unrelated to female person age may also explain why, in many studies, fertility at older ages is considerably higher amongst women who have been pregnant earlier. Among couples who oasis't had an accidental pregnancy—who, as Dr. Steiner put it, "have never had an 'oops' "—sperm issues and blocked tubes may be more than likely. Thus, the data from women who already have a child may requite a more accurate movie of the fertility decline due to "ovarian aging." In Kenneth Rothman's written report of the Danish women, among those who'd given nascence at to the lowest degree once previously, the take chances of getting pregnant at age 40 was similar to that at age 20.

Older women's fears, of grade, extend beyond the ability to get pregnant. The rates of miscarriages and nascence defects rising with age, and worries over both have been well ventilated in the popular printing. But how much practise these risks really ascent? Many miscarriage statistics come up from—you guessed it—women who undergo IVF or other fertility treatment, who may take a higher miscarriage gamble regardless of age. Nonetheless, the National Vital Statistics Reports, which draw data from the general population, find that 15 percent of women ages xx to 34, 27 percent of women 35 to 39, and 26 percent of women 40 to 44 report having had a miscarriage. These increases are hardly insignificant, and the truthful rate of miscarriages is higher, since many miscarriages occur extremely early in a pregnancy—before a missed menses or pregnancy test. However it should exist noted that even for older women, the likelihood of a pregnancy's continuing is most 3 times that of having a known miscarriage.

What about birth defects? The risk of chromosomal abnormalities such as Down syndrome does rise with a woman'southward historic period—such abnormalities are the source of many of those very early, undetected miscarriages. However, the probability of having a kid with a chromosomal aberration remains extremely low. Even at early fetal testing (known as chorionic villus sampling), 99 percentage of fetuses are chromosomally normal among 35-year-onetime pregnant women, and 97 per centum amidst xl-year-olds. At 45, when nigh women can no longer get pregnant, 87 percent of fetuses are still normal. (Many of those that are not will later exist miscarried.) In the near hereafter, fetal genetic testing volition be washed with a simple blood test, making it fifty-fifty easier than it is today for women to get early information about possible genetic problems.

What does all this mean for a woman trying to determine when to take children? More specifically, how long tin she safely wait?

This question tin can't be answered with absolutely certainty, for two big reasons. First, while the data on natural fertility among modern women are proliferating, they are still sparse. Collectively, the three mod studies by Dunson, Rothman, and Steiner included only near 400 women 35 or older, and they might non exist representative of all such women trying to conceive.

2nd, statistics, of course, can tell us only about probabilities and averages—they offer no guarantees to any particular person. "Fifty-fifty if we had good estimates for the average biological decline in fertility with age, that is still of relatively limited use to individuals, given the large range of fertility found in healthy women," says Allen Wilcox of the NIH.

So what is a woman—and her partner—to practise?

The data, imperfect every bit they are, suggest two conclusions. No. 1: fertility declines with historic period. No. 2, and much more relevant: the vast bulk of women in their late 30s will be able to get pregnant on their ain. The bottom line for women, in my view, is: plan to have your terminal child by the time you plow forty. Beyond that, you're rolling the dice, though they may still come in your favor. "Fertility is relatively stable until the belatedly 30s, with the inflection signal somewhere around 38 or 39," Steiner told me. "Women in their early on 30s can think well-nigh years, just in their tardily 30s, they demand to be thinking about months." That's also why many experts advise that women older than 35 should see a fertility specialist if they haven't conceived subsequently six months—especially if it's been six months of sexual practice during fertile times.

At that place is no single best time to accept a child. Some women and couples volition find that starting—and finishing—their families in their 20s is what's best for them, all things considered. They but shouldn't permit alarmist rhetoric push them to become parents earlier they're set up. Having children at a immature historic period slightly lowers the risks of infertility and chromosomal abnormalities, and moderately lowers the risk of miscarriage. Only it also carries costs for relationships and careers. Literally: an analysis by one economist found that, on boilerplate, every yr a woman postpones having children leads to a 10 percent increase in career earnings.

For women who aren't set up for children in their early on 30s but are still worried about waiting, new technologies—albeit imperfect ones—offer a third option. Some women choose to freeze their eggs, having a fertility doctor extract eggs when they are however young (say, early 30s) and cryogenically preserve them. And then, if they oasis't had children by their self-imposed deadline, they tin thaw the eggs, fertilize them, and implant the embryos using IVF. Considering the eggs will be younger, success rates are theoretically higher. The downsides are the expense—mayhap $10,000 for the egg freezing and an average of more than $12,000 per cycle for IVF—and having to use IVF to get pregnant. Women who already have a partner can, alternatively, freeze embryos, a more than common procedure that besides uses IVF technology.

At home, couples should recognize that having sexual practice at the most fertile time of the cycle matters enormously, potentially making the difference between an like shooting fish in a barrel conception in the sleeping room and expensive fertility handling in a clinic. Rothman's study found that timing sex activity around ovulation narrowed the fertility gap between younger and older women. Women older than 35 who want to get significant should consider recapturing the celebrity of their xx‑something sex lives, or learning to predict ovulation by charting their cycles or using a fertility monitor.

I wish I had known all this back in the bound of 2002, when the media coverage of historic period and infertility was deafening. I did, though, notice some relief from the smart women of Sabbatum Night Live.

"According to writer Sylvia Hewlett, career women shouldn't await to have babies, because our fertility takes a steep drop-off subsequently age 27," Tina Fey said during a "Weekend Update" sketch. "And Sylvia's right; I definitely should accept had a baby when I was 27, living in Chicago over a biker bar, pulling downwards a cool $12,000 a year. That would accept worked out great." Rachel Dratch said, "Yes. Sylvia, um, thanks for reminding me that I have to hurry up and take a baby. Uh, me and my four cats volition go right on that."

"My neighbor has this adorable, beautiful piddling Chinese infant that speaks Italian," noted Amy Poehler. "So, you lot know, I'll just buy one of those." Maya Rudolph rounded out the bluster: "Aye, Sylvia, maybe your next volume should tell men our age to stop playing K Theft Automobile Iii and holding out for the chick from Alias." ("You're non gonna become the chick from Allonym," Fey advised.)

11 years later, these four women take eight children amongst them, all but one built-in when they were older than 35. Information technology'south expert to be right.

mcclemensaness1936.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/07/how-long-can-you-wait-to-have-a-baby/309374/

Share this post