Fertility over 30

jaja321

I was chatting to a friend of mine last night and the whole question around having children cropped up – we are both in our mid 30’s and were discussing the drop in fertility rates at our age and whether we will find it difficult to have children or not. A recent article however in Atlantic Magazine suggests that much of discussion around the decline in women’s fertility in their 30’s is largely overstated and based on ancient data.

It’s a very interesting read, so thought I would share. It made me, for one, feel better anyway

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

lazygal

I read this, but the study isn't the most accurate. There's medical evidence of a decline in fertility after 30, and for men after 40. Talk to any fertility expert worth their salt and they'll tell you your chances of conceiving after 35 reduce. If you're wondering what your fertility is like, get things like AMH tested, it'll give you an idea.


Totally anecdotal, but the mums I know who started trying after 35 all wished they'd started a bit sooner and had more time to play with. It can feel very rushed trying to get pregnant as you get older.

fits

lazygal wrote: »

I read this, but the study isn't the most accurate. There's medical evidence of a decline in fertility after 30

did you really read the article? The author references several studies, points out their flaws and acknowledges that while there is a decline, it is not as severe as we are led to believe. Of course earlier is better if people are in that situation.

wallycharlo

Each individual will differ, and I'm sure that some 35 year olds will be more fertile than other 25 year olds, etc.

But it still remains a solid fact that fertility decreases with age, and dramatically from mid 30s onwards.

fits

wallycharlo wrote: »

But it still remains a solid fact that fertility decreases with age, and dramatically from mid 30s onwards.

did you read article? It says decline not as dramatic as made out to be. what is your source for this dramatic decline? Sometimes it is no harm to challenge our own assumptions.

wallycharlo

fits wrote: »

did you read article? It says decline not as dramatic as made out to be. what is your source for this dramatic decline? Sometimes it is no harm to challenge our own assumptions.

Yes, I read the article.

My source is what I have been told first hand (in a clinical setting) by several renowned experts in the field.

lazygal

fits wrote: »

did you really read the article? The author references several studies, points out their flaws and acknowledges that while there is a decline, it is not as severe as we are led to believe. Of course earlier is better if people are in that situation.

Yeah, I read it last week. I still think its not as accurate as the author might think.

jaja321

lazygal wrote: »

Yeah, I read it last week. I still think its not as accurate as the author might think.

Which of the studies do you feel are not accurate?

shinikins

wallycharlo wrote: »

Yes, I read the article.

My source is what I have been told first hand (in a clinical setting) by several renowned experts in the field.

I think the problem though, is that these experts are basing their data on the studies mentioned in the article making it either obsolete or inaccurate.

meeeeh

I think this is very interesting article and raises some interesting points. But it is written by psychologist so it would be quite to see what response comes from the field.