the old wives tale that if you have bad morning sickness (throwing up) that you're having a girl and that if you don't have it that bad, you're having a boy?
I'd be interested in hearing your remarks and experiences!
My u/s said mine is a girl, and I only had a few days of nausea here and there in my first trimester. Considering my mom was sick with me every day of her pregnancy, I wouldn't call that bad morning sickness. I think I got off easy.
> the old wives tale that if you have bad morning sickness (throwing up) that > you're having a girl and that if you don't have it that bad, you're having a > boy?
> I'd be interested in hearing your remarks and experiences!
cloud nine wrote in message <8r7oar02...@enews1.newsguy.com>... >the old wives tale that if you have bad morning sickness (throwing up) that >you're having a girl and that if you don't have it that bad, you're having a >boy?
>I'd be interested in hearing your remarks and experiences!
On Sun, 1 Oct 2000 12:20:30 -0400, "cloud nine" <grif...@perigee.net> wrote:
>the old wives tale that if you have bad morning sickness (throwing up) that >you're having a girl and that if you don't have it that bad, you're having a >boy?
>I'd be interested in hearing your remarks and experiences!
There was a study done that showed that if you have morning sickness bad enough to require medical treatment, but ONLY in the first trimester, there was a increased chance of you having a girl. Increased by %5 or something like that, so you still might as well flip a coin.
"Lady" <SAM...@att.netNOSPAM> wrote: > I had no morning sickness and had a beautiful baby girl
> Brenjo --- Mommy to Ashley Jo born 3/4/00
> cloud nine wrote in message <8r7oar02...@enews1.newsguy.com>... > >the old wives tale that if you have bad morning sickness (throwing up) that > >you're having a girl and that if you don't have it that bad, you're having > a > >boy?
> >I'd be interested in hearing your remarks and experiences!
> >Sue > >edd 5-16-01
some women always have morning sickness and some women never do -- some vary -- but for most it is more about their own bodies than their fetuses. There is a slight correlation between sex of the baby and morning sickness -- but it is very slight -- so it isn't much of a sex predictor
>the old wives tale that if you have bad morning sickness (throwing up) >that >> you're having a girl and that if you don't have it that bad, you're having >a >> boy?
I think it's an old wives tale, however, I had horrible morning sickness for 4 months, and I had a girl :-)
I've had four...pregnancies. Two girls, a boy and a miscarriage. The only pregnancy in which I had ANY morning sickness at all was the one I miscarried (blighted ovum).
> the old wives tale that if you have bad morning sickness (throwing up) that > you're having a girl and that if you don't have it that bad, you're having a > boy?
> I'd be interested in hearing your remarks and experiences!
cloud nine wrote: > the old wives tale that if you have bad morning sickness (throwing up) that > you're having a girl and that if you don't have it that bad, you're having a > boy?
Well, I threw up about once or twice a week during my morning sickness phase and I've had two ultrasounds and am certain this baby is a boy, so NO there isn't any truth to that old wives tale.
> > the old wives tale that if you have bad morning sickness (throwing up) that > > you're having a girl and that if you don't have it that bad, you're having a > > boy?
> Well, I threw up about once or twice a week during my morning sickness phase and > I've had two ultrasounds and am certain this baby is a boy, so NO there isn't > any truth to that old wives tale.
There was a study earlier this year that confirmed this (I think it was a Swedish study?). It basically said that sickness *bad enough to cause hospitalisation* (ie hyperemesis gravadium) was more likely to occur in pregnancies with a girl. The results were statisically significant, which means that you wouldn't get the same results purely by chance.
FWIW, my mother had hyperemesis when when pregnant with me - & I'm definitely female :-). But she also had less severe (but still quite bad) sickness for 9 months with each of her other pregnancies (resulting in 1 other girl and 2 boys), so I'm not sure how much I believe in it either.
> Michelle > edd today!
Best of luck to you - hope all goes well.
Jean
-- "I believe in Karma, What you give is what you get returned" Affirmation - Savage Garden
With my son, I never ever actually got sick, although I felt a little queasy till my 8th week.
THIS baby, I was/am sooo sick. Was sick every day thru the 5th month and every now and then smells can send me running to the bathroom ! YUP - u/s confirmed last week that it's a GIRL !
So..to each her own, but in my case, there ain't no old wives around this house !!
On Sun, 1 Oct 2000, cloud nine wrote: > the old wives tale that if you have bad morning sickness (throwing up) that > you're having a girl and that if you don't have it that bad, you're having a > boy?
#1 was a girl, didn't have a second of morning sickness. Only felt a little yucky if I got too tired but never threw up or had real nausea.
#2 (this pregnancy) I felt like crud from about 5 weeks until 16 weeks. Again, never threw up but had what I would consider true m/sickness for a good 3 months. Still have a green day here or there at 17 wks. Don't know gender yet. :-)
My mom had no sickness w/ #1 (girl) or #3 (boy) but bad sickness w/#2 (girl).
> the old wives tale that if you have bad morning sickness (throwing up) that > you're having a girl and that if you don't have it that bad, you're having a > boy?
> I'd be interested in hearing your remarks and experiences!
> the old wives tale that if you have bad morning sickness (throwing up) that > you're having a girl and that if you don't have it that bad, you're having a > boy?
> I'd be interested in hearing your remarks and experiences!
> the old wives tale that if you have bad morning sickness (throwing up) that > you're having a girl and that if you don't have it that bad, you're having a > boy?
> I'd be interested in hearing your remarks and experiences!
Well, I think that old wives tale is definately wrong. My first pregnancy I was sick right into the 8th month, and I had a boy.. This time i was sick again right into the 8th month and the u/s said it is a boy, I just think its up to the individual pregnancy on whether or not you get good or bad morning sickness. I thought my sickness was due to a higher level of testosterone (carrying boys) but I dont really think that has anything to do with it..
Take Care Melissa Mum to Jesse (2) and Jacob (edd 11 Nov 00)
>the old wives tale that if you have bad morning sickness (throwing up) that >you're having a girl and that if you don't have it that bad, you're having a >boy?
>I'd be interested in hearing your remarks and experiences!
> the old wives tale that if you have bad morning sickness (throwing up) that > you're having a girl and that if you don't have it that bad, you're having a > boy?
> I'd be interested in hearing your remarks and experiences!
> On Sun, 1 Oct 2000 12:20:30 -0400, "cloud nine" <grif...@perigee.net> > wrote:
> >the old wives tale that if you have bad morning sickness (throwing up) that > >you're having a girl and that if you don't have it that bad, you're having a > >boy?
> >I'd be interested in hearing your remarks and experiences!
> There was a study done that showed that if you have morning sickness > bad enough to require medical treatment, but ONLY in the first > trimester, there was a increased chance of you having a girl. > Increased by %5 or something like that, so you still might as well > flip a coin.
cloud nine <grif...@perigee.net> wrote: > the old wives tale that if you have bad morning sickness (throwing up) that > you're having a girl and that if you don't have it that bad, you're having a > boy? > I'd be interested in hearing your remarks and experiences!
I believe I read about a study recently that found a small correlation between morning sickness and the sex of the baby. However, the correlation was very small, and absense or presence of mornign sickness cannot possibly be used to determine the gender of the baby.
stormstr...@nospam.my-deja.com wrote: >If you factor in that people are slightly more likely to conceive and carry >to term a girl then you'd probably be back to square one ;o)
Nope, you've got it backwards -- more boys than girls are conceived and carried to term.
> >If you factor in that people are slightly more likely to conceive and carry > >to term a girl then you'd probably be back to square one ;o)
> Nope, you've got it backwards -- more boys than girls are conceived and carried > to term.
> --Helen
No, you both have part of it: more boys are conceived than girls (about 105:100 ratio), but the males are more likely to be miscarried or otherwise fail to mature. At birth, the girls slightly outnumber the boys, and the gap just widens throughout life. Stastically, females are more viable than males at all stages of life.
> the old wives tale that if you have bad morning sickness (throwing up) that > you're having a girl and that if you don't have it that bad, you're having a > boy?
> I'd be interested in hearing your remarks and experiences!
> the old wives tale that if you have bad morning sickness (throwing up) that > you're having a girl and that if you don't have it that bad, you're having a > boy?
> I'd be interested in hearing your remarks and experiences!
murn...@my-deja.com wrote: >No, you both have part of it: more boys are conceived >than girls (about 105:100 ratio), but the males are more >likely to be miscarried or otherwise fail to mature. At >birth, the girls slightly outnumber the boys, and the >gap just widens throughout life.
We've got a disagreement about *when* the girls outnumber the boys, but I agree on everything else you say -- I've always heard that the percentage of boys was still greater at birth and that the girls didn't outnumber them until later (for the reasons you give).
|
