How soon after conception did you get a Bfp

[Cigarettessuffragettesandboys]

How soon after conception did you get a positive?

Also in the case of an eptopic pregnancy, would there be a chance of testing positive sooner? As the egg implants sooner due to implanting in the Fallopian tube? Or does it not work like that? Thanks for anyone who can help

I got my 10 days after conception. I'm positive of that because it was an ivf pregnancy. Otherwise it's hard to know exactly when conception has happened.

Ectopics tend to have a slower rise in hcg, but not always. Not sure they actually implant earlier, as embryo needs to reach a certain stage before it can implant anyway (it needs to hatch, which generally doesn't happen until at least 6 days after conception). But it's an interesting question!!! And I don't have a precise answer for it which might drive me nuts!!!

Ah thanks! That’s actually very interesting to know - I didn’t realise they had to get to a certain stage before implanting. Makes sense though. I was 8dpo with both my positives and had symptoms as early as 6 days so I was just guessing if symptoms came earlier than 6 days for me it could mean an eptopic but that seems unlikely now! I think I’m reading in to feelings of nausea which are purely coincidental

Going off my scan date and my dates of DTD, it works out at 11 DPO when I got my BFP. That was on a clear blue digital.

its actually the opposite. You tend to get a later bfp if it’s ectopic.

The egg is pushed down the Fallopian tube by little ‘hairs’ called cilia. The majority of ectopic pregnancies are caused by damage to the cilia which means that it can’t push the egg to the uterus efficiently. (Think of it a bit like trying to get a comb through tangled hair Vs combing smooth hair)
People who get an earlier bfp have the better working cilia as the egg is guided to the right place so can therefore implant and start hatching more quickly.

@physicskate I can’t actually find any links on line that explain it better but there’s a more technical account by Elaine Marieb in her anatomy and physiology textbook if you can lay your hands on one.

Thanks that’s very interesting - I was just making very uneducated assumptions before but this does make sense

When I had my ectopic I tested on the day off a missed period. I used a Clear Blue digital and I got pregnant 1-2 weeks. At the time I thought nothing of it and thought the tests calculated the weeks differently (I believe they actually do) but if I understand it correctly I should have had "pregnant 2-3 weeks" on the test.

I then took another cheaper line test a few days later and I actually noticed that the line was quite fade (compared to my first pregnancy). I got a bit nervous since I didn't know what that meant, but just thought "a line is a line" and booked in my first appointment with a GP for bloodtests etc.

Never made it to that appointment, but that's another story.

So yeah. My hcg appears to have been much lower than in a normal pregnancy and would probably not have showed on a test before a missed period.

Thanks for that @L0kiWh0!!! It makes sense!! Leave it to a physicist to forget about silly cilia!

No problem @physicskate.

My memory has only recently been jogged (I haven’t studied since 2007) as I was reading up about how the cilia in the lungs starts restoring itself within days when a patient stops smoking, yet it takes months to years for the cilia elsewhere (including Fallopian tubes) to do the same thing.