To be worrying about my fertility?

[black2cat]

I turn 35 next year and it is a concern as obviously I have heard that fertility really drops after 35.

I do really want to have my own children in the future and am worried I won't be able to!

How true is the '35' thing!?

I got pregnant first time after deciding to try at the ripe old age of 37! I didn't think I would be so lucky and I had a lot of people telling me just how lucky I was as I was so "old".
However my Great Grandmother had my Grandmother at the ripe old age of 42 nearly 100 years ago. So I don't think age has anything to do with it.

This is so frustrating! Age DOES have something to do with it, despite individual anecdotes to the contrary!

That's the problem with anecdotes Hester - they are often given more credibility than cold hard facts

I find it heartbreaking that people keep presenting these things as facts and give people false hope. I know people are trying to be helpful and kind but it is neither when you get women presenting to the gp at 39 and 3/4 and expect them to be able to help.

I've spent years begging policy makers to make exceptions for couples who put off seeking help. Funding is tight, not only for treatment, but for investigations. People who push the "happily ever after" stories just contribute to the problem

I haven't read the whole thread. I was a bit surprised at the number of reassuring responses near the start. I've found the relevant Wikipedia article.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_and_female_fertility

A quick glance through it and I come across a table that shows fertility at different ages, according to different research. Taking the most recent research, it seems if you start trying to conceive at 35 there's a one in five chance you won't be able to have children, if you start at 40 it's nearly 50:50.

I only scanned the article quickly before posting, so may be have got this wrong. Treat my comments merely as an incentive to read.

Fertility does decline after 35, whichever study you read. And it is not only fertility, in fact. If you manage to get pregnant, there are a long list of conditions that have much higher risks to happen during pregnancy due to being over 35, among them: gestational diabetes, pre-eclampsia, placental abruption and premature birth. Labour and birth is much harder when the first time mum is over 30, and much more likely to end up in induction or cesarean section, which come with their own risks. Chances of your baby having chromosomal abnormalities shoot up after 35.

I know this is not what you want to read, but I see no point sugar-coating it. Unfortunately, although our lives have changed a lot in the last 100 years, our bodies haven't. A woman's body is not as well prepared to start and maintain a pregnancy after 35.

Yes, men are very lucky.

I had a full rake of blood tests done at 34 after failure to conceive after a year of trying. The results showed I would find it difficult to conceive without artificial intervention. I conceived (with my now DH) at 38 and 40 years old with no intervention, so don't give up

OP, go to your GP and ask for tests on your fertility and that of your partner. This will give you a better idea of where you stand than any internet speculation can do. While some people fall pregnant in their 40s without trying, others truly struggle. Statistics suggest that the likelihood of struggling after the age of 36 or so increases, but remember that an increase is not a sudden change of state- it does not mean that there is any immediate need for panic stations.

Theoretician, though the same article also states from elsewhere " 94 out of every 100 women aged 35 who have regular unprotected sexual intercourse will get pregnant within 3 years of trying", which is a lot more than one in five! As is often the way with Wikipedia articles, the structure/which sources are useful is a bit muddled.

I do agree that your risks of pregnancy complications go up. I had to do the gestational diabetes test (passed with flying colours) on my last pregnancy purely because I was so geriatric (the midwife was like "why are you here, you've no complications, your weight looks fine ... oh, right, you're 40, automatically high risk").

leedy, you need to bear in mind that saying that 94% of 35 yr olds will get pregnant within 3 yrs of trying isn't the same thing as 94% of 35 yr olds having an actual baby within 3 yrs and 9 months of trying.

The rate of miscarriage goes up with age too. The section right below your quote says that "at age 35 84% will have a conception ending in a live birth within four years" which is probably a bit more relevant.
That would give a 16% chance of not being able to have a baby rather than the 1 in 5 chance (20%) of not being able to have a baby suggested up thread by Theoretician. So slightly better, although I wouldn't call it lots better personally.

I haven't RTFT so apologies if this has come up before, but your GP won't do any sort of fertility test. We only investigate after a year of trying and we need a semen analysis from the partner before referring. The test that gives an idea of ovarian reserve is the AMH and it is only done if IVF is being considered. A consultation and the test would probably cost £500 or so privately.

It's also, however, not massively worse than the rate of live births at 30, which is 90% - the stats aren't that you are virtually guaranteed a baby if you TTC in your late 20s/early 30s and then it gets much worse, it's that at no time are you virtually guaranteed a baby but it's a bit worse after 35 and a lot worse after 40.

Pretty sure GP can do bloods to check if your hormone levels look like you're ovulating, though, or at least mine did.

The OP IS SINGLE!!!!

You can't go to the GP with problems conceiving if you are not having sex!

That's a fair point. :)

My sister started trying in her late thirties. She assumed that, because our Mum had babies in her late thirties early fifties, she'd be fine. She wasn't. After two decades taking birth control she discovered (after a year of failed ttc and one ectopic) that she had pcos, fibroids and a problem with her uterine lining. She's now waiting for ivf and approaching 40. She's realistic that she probably won't be a Mum. I know lots of similar situations with relatives and friends. I suspect a thread like this will mostly attract the positive stories to give the op hope.
There are more older Mums. I was one. But there are many many sad stories and the fact that fertility drops sharply as we age is an irrefutable scientific fact.

There's just no point in asking other people for their personal experiences on subjects like this, is there? Because our fertility is our own, so no one else's has any bearing. I have effortlessly got pregnant twice over 35 but I have friends who have struggled and friends who have been unsuccessful. None of our stories have any bearing on the OP. Nor do statistics, because that's the population, not individuals.

It's like all the threads asking people how they went into labour/how overdue their babies were/how long they took to conceive.

One thing I did do and others can too whether single or just for some reason unable to ttc just yet, was I stopped hormonal birth control nearly a year before we were interested in ttc and we used condoms.

I tracked my cycle and let it settle down and discovered a regular cycle with some ovulation pain at exactly the halfway point and the textbook ov symptoms in terms of mucus etc. That I think was worth doing.

Many GPs will do an early follicular phase hormone measurement - single or not.

if there is anything in your medical history - such as abdominal surgery, history of STIs, irregular bleeding - then implications for future fertility can be discussed.

Yes, GPs are over worked and there is massive pressure to meet targets etc, but the majority that I know would be quite happy to have a consultation with a patient/arrange a very basic and very cheap test, if it puts that patient's mind at rest.

It is also worth noting that if a woman wanted to "go it alone", or if a woman is in a same sex relationship, then the above also applies.

Just to pick up on a point that Green made.

Investigations should commence after a year of trying UNLESS clinically indicated. For example, if you are not having regular periods then referral should happen much sooner, likewise if a male partner has a family history of cystic fibrosis. Specialist referral is crucial - GPs should not attempt to treat infertility as they (understandably) do not have specialist knowledge. This is backed up by guidance from NICE.

In terms of AMH, this is not only tested when IVF is the only option being considered. There are many treatment options which may or may not be available depending on your clinical history. It may be that another treatment offers the best chance of a successful pregnancy, so you may be asked to have an AMH test if different treatment is considered.

Also, a private AMH test costs approximately £100 (this is for the test itself and the fee for someone to take it/for it to be processed etc). But of course you would have to find a doctor who is able to arrange it, which may or may not mean that you need a formal private consultation with a specialist (this is where the cost goes up to the ~£500 that Green refers to).

The other thing to bear in mind that many GPs are totally clueless when it comes to this sort of thing. It was a long time ago but mine did my day 21 bloods on day 17 or something, and then solemnly told me, despite my protestations, that my progesterone levels were very very low . She had also never heard of AMH levels and told me I was "reading too much into things I had heard about on the Internet."

Holy fuck Hester

I would support what Hester says. Some doctors are just rubbish. I found out from my own temp tracking that I had too short a luteal phase ( the time between ovulation and period). I was ovulating very late in my cycle and had a fake gooey bit around mid way when I thought I was OVing but wasn't. So a. I was mistiming shagging sessions and b. there wasn't enough time for an egg to embed either.

My own GP was rubbish and three cheap and easy things that I found out about on the internet (B complex and switching to full fat milk products/ butter and ditching artificial sweeteners) helped me get that luteal phase from 7 days to 11 days. Still short but just enough for my little boy to hang in in there.

So I would say, start temp-tracking and charting your cycles so you can work on any bits that need tweaking.That way you can see if you are working properly and get to know your body's signs.

Oh don't worry Hester, I had a very solemn call from my GP's Receptionist last month, asking me to make an appointment with the doctor as my blood test result had come back and my Progesterone was too low.

I rung them back pretty puzzled as I'd had my day 3 test taken just days before and wasn't booked in for my day 21 until two weeks time. She said she would check that the doctor wanted me to complete the test first before I came in to discuss them. Unsurprisingly the answer was yes. My day 21 was surely taken and my Progesterone level was normal . Thank god I read the interest quite honestly!

If it helps I was single at 35, met my partner at 36 and gave birth at 38 and 40 after first time of trying both times. I was amazed. Prior to children I was a smoking and diet coke addict.

35. Went off contraception. Had one period. Had baby. Everybody's said it already: it's mostly a myth based on outdated and flawed data. Not entirely without truth once you get to 40: but individuals matter. Your fertility now may be as good or as bad as it was at 22. How would you know...