> During this whole thread I have had an old "tale" or theory echoing in my
> head. I once heard it said that the 280 day figure is derived from
> multiplying the most common (or oft-quoted 28) # of days in a menstrual
> cycle x 10, (as primitive women figured their pregnancies to be 10 moons
> long) and that often, women who consistently have longer or shorter
> cycles will tend to have pregnancies that go more days, or fewer days
> accordingly. (e.g. 27 day cyclers going 270 days, 29 day cyclers going
> 290 days, etc.

Interesting and food for thought, Jean.
I had mainly not very regular cycles, but commonly more than 28 days and 4 of 5
pregnancies went for three days past the drs due-date, but close to my own
calculations, based on my experienced ovulation time. Anecdotal data gives me
the impression that the due dates women calculate themselves are often more
accurate than the dr's, more so for women who know their bodies, for example
know when they ovulate.

The one child that kept me waiting (10 days longer than I calculated), was the
only one with pregnancy complications: I had lost one twin in the first
trimester. Some time ago, we had a discussion on wether a child could grieve for
a lost twin. My dd who should have been 1 of twins has had very severe
separation fears since birth. She had to be carried with me 24 hours a day for
two years and more, stayed close (within meters if possible) untill schoolage,
was terrified if I showed up to pick her up from school late, and only recently
(13 yo now) started staying somewhere overnight without me.

Gonneke van Veldhuizen, IBCLC, living in Maaseik, Belgium, back from camping at
the riverside
http://www.users.skynet.be/eurolac
[log in to unmask]

             ***********************************************
The LACTNET mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software together with L-Soft's LSMTP(TM)
mailer for lightning fast mail delivery. For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html