Age 35 Isn’t a Fertility Cliff. Why Do We Think It Is?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think this would be good for women to know: "One of the largest studies found that 78 percent of women aged 35 to 40 will conceive within a year, compared with 84 percent of women aged 20 to 34."

The difference between the groups isn't the part that stands out as much as the 16% of women 20-34 who WON'T conceive in a year and the 22% ages 35-40. I honestly didn't know the number was that high.

This. There is a steep decline, and until you try you won't know if it will happen at 33, 35, 37, or 40. But it WILL happen and the longer you wait, the greater the risk that you won't be able to conceive. I've been trying for a second since I was 33 (including IUIs and IVF cycles) and I had NO idea that my fertility plummeted and had ran out of time. I thought the statistics were overblown, and for most women they won't be on the wrong side of the statistics, but only you can say if it's a gamble you're willing to take. But the one thing you shouldn't do is ignore the statistics and make decisions based on the assumption that your fertility at 35 will be the same as it was at 25.

I'm sorry that it's been hard for you to conceive your second, PP. In retrospect, do you think something like an annual AMH test would have helped?

NP. Yes. I think AMH testing plus thyroid testing yearly from 25+ should be encouraged. So many women have undiagnosed thyroid issues too.

I have PCOS. I think a lot of people don't realize that fat produces its own hormones and can mess with your own. PCOS rates are rising as our society gets heavier and I'm sure that has an impact on infertility as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think more should be made of this. Everyone thinks its OK to wait, it's really not. Over 40 many people are using DE and not talking about it. That wouldn't have been an option for me.

Huh? What this shows is that it IS ok to wait. Most people who wait until their mid/late 30s do it because they haven't met the right partner yet or are dealing with some other life circumstance.

If that's the hand life dealt them, fine. I'm 35 trying to have a 3rd and have had one chemical pregnancy and one miscarriage at 35. My experience is consistent with the data.

You've already had 2 kids and it's statistically overwhelming likely you'll have your 3rd. So it sounds like, just like the data says, your reproductive choices have and will continue to work out. If you want to beat yourself up over trying for #3 at 35 instead of 34 go ahead, but that's totally irrational.

I had #2 at 33. I knew the risks of trying again at 35--namely, increased risk of miscarriages. We should shout this from the rooftops. Women should know the risk of having multiple miscarriages will go up trying to conceive at 35+.

[Anonymous]

Question- I've suffered from infertility for almost 10 years (started trying at 25 and am 35 now). I've never had a miscarriage, but have had 2 pregnancies in my 30s. How common is that? It seems like there's so much emphasis on rainbow babies and losses, but what about those of us who just can't get pregnant (I did IVF). Is that really uncommon?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I had #2 at 33. I knew the risks of trying again at 35--namely, increased risk of miscarriages. We should shout this from the rooftops. Women should know the risk of having multiple miscarriages will go up trying to conceive at 35+.

They should know about it, but the impact shouldn't be exaggerated. Someone who has never had kids probably pictures a "miscarriage" as a really huge deal, like one step below a stillbirth. At least I did when I was younger.

Then I had three kids in four years, starting at 31. And I also had three pregnancy losses during this same period. They were all pretty early on and were not a big deal at all. No comparison between my experience and my friend who lost a fetus at 5 months.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think this would be good for women to know: "One of the largest studies found that 78 percent of women aged 35 to 40 will conceive within a year, compared with 84 percent of women aged 20 to 34."

The difference between the groups isn't the part that stands out as much as the 16% of women 20-34 who WON'T conceive in a year and the 22% ages 35-40. I honestly didn't know the number was that high.

This. There is a steep decline, and until you try you won't know if it will happen at 33, 35, 37, or 40. But it WILL happen and the longer you wait, the greater the risk that you won't be able to conceive. I've been trying for a second since I was 33 (including IUIs and IVF cycles) and I had NO idea that my fertility plummeted and had ran out of time. I thought the statistics were overblown, and for most women they won't be on the wrong side of the statistics, but only you can say if it's a gamble you're willing to take. But the one thing you shouldn't do is ignore the statistics and make decisions based on the assumption that your fertility at 35 will be the same as it was at 25.

I'm sorry that it's been hard for you to conceive your second, PP. In retrospect, do you think something like an annual AMH test would have helped?

PP here. Yes it would have been helpful FOR ME. My entire family has conceived easily into their late 30’s, so it wasn’t on my radar at all. I have low AMH, so an annual test would have been a heads up that things weren’t as they should be. I would have started TTC #2 sooner had I known. However, many women have low AMH and still conceive normally, so I think overall it would cause more false alarms than anything. It’s tough, but I think my biggest advice would be to get started as soon as you’re able and ready. Don’t wait until things are perfect - be that saving a bit more, traveling, trying to time that perfect age gap.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I had #2 at 33. I knew the risks of trying again at 35--namely, increased risk of miscarriages. We should shout this from the rooftops. Women should know the risk of having multiple miscarriages will go up trying to conceive at 35+.

They should know about it, but the impact shouldn't be exaggerated. Someone who has never had kids probably pictures a "miscarriage" as a really huge deal, like one step below a stillbirth. At least I did when I was younger.

Then I had three kids in four years, starting at 31. And I also had three pregnancy losses during this same period. They were all pretty early on and were not a big deal at all. No comparison between my experience and my friend who lost a fetus at 5 months.

That’s your opinion. I had my first baby at 32. Finally conceived again at 40 after many years of IVF, but miscarried. I found it frightening, painful and traumatic not to mention terribly sad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think this would be good for women to know: "One of the largest studies found that 78 percent of women aged 35 to 40 will conceive within a year, compared with 84 percent of women aged 20 to 34."

The difference between the groups isn't the part that stands out as much as the 16% of women 20-34 who WON'T conceive in a year and the 22% ages 35-40. I honestly didn't know the number was that high.

This. There is a steep decline, and until you try you won't know if it will happen at 33, 35, 37, or 40. But it WILL happen and the longer you wait, the greater the risk that you won't be able to conceive. I've been trying for a second since I was 33 (including IUIs and IVF cycles) and I had NO idea that my fertility plummeted and had ran out of time. I thought the statistics were overblown, and for most women they won't be on the wrong side of the statistics, but only you can say if it's a gamble you're willing to take. But the one thing you shouldn't do is ignore the statistics and make decisions based on the assumption that your fertility at 35 will be the same as it was at 25.

I'm sorry that it's been hard for you to conceive your second, PP. In retrospect, do you think something like an annual AMH test would have helped?

PP here. Yes it would have been helpful FOR ME. My entire family has conceived easily into their late 30’s, so it wasn’t on my radar at all. I have low AMH, so an annual test would have been a heads up that things weren’t as they should be. I would have started TTC #2 sooner had I known. However, many women have low AMH and still conceive normally, so I think overall it would cause more false alarms than anything. It’s tough, but I think my biggest advice would be to get started as soon as you’re able and ready. Don’t wait until things are perfect - be that saving a bit more, traveling, trying to time that perfect age gap.

Sadly, the converse is true too. I did IVF for years with no success. My AMH and all other labs are excellent so it’s “unexplained” why it won’t work for me. My fertility was apparently long gone by the time I started IVF at 37.

[Anonymous]

/\ PP here. I'm sorry to hear that. And yes, exactly. Close to half of infertility cases are unexplained, so something like normal AMH results would be false reassurance that everything is okay.

[Anonymous]

Miscarriage is a big deal for many women. I think its harsh to say , oh, miscarriages, no biggie.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:/\ PP here. I'm sorry to hear that. And yes, exactly. Close to half of infertility cases are unexplained, so something like normal AMH results would be false reassurance that everything is okay.

I don't know, though. I hear what you're saying, and I'm another one with unexplained infertility, but I think there certainly are women who'd benefit from early testing and learning about issues that might be addressed if caught in time. I'm not sure if the fact that the results wouldn't be a slam-dunk for everyone doesn't mean it wouldn't be worth doing since it could still help a lot of people, especially as we continue to learn more about fertility and develop increasingly better treatments. And even just knowing at a younger age so one could start making financial plans for treatment or coming to terms with the fact that they aren't likely to ever have their own biological child would be helpful to plenty of people IMO.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:/\ PP here. I'm sorry to hear that. And yes, exactly. Close to half of infertility cases are unexplained, so something like normal AMH results would be false reassurance that everything is okay.

I don't know, though. I hear what you're saying, and I'm another one with unexplained infertility, but I think there certainly are women who'd benefit from early testing and learning about issues that might be addressed if caught in time. I'm not sure if the fact that the results wouldn't be a slam-dunk for everyone doesn't mean it wouldn't be worth doing since it could still help a lot of people, especially as we continue to learn more about fertility and develop increasingly better treatments. And even just knowing at a younger age so one could start making financial plans for treatment or coming to terms with the fact that they aren't likely to ever have their own biological child would be helpful to plenty of people IMO.

AMH is so far from a complete picture, though, that I doubt it would really give you much. The other problem is, what about single women in their early/mid-30s who want kids? When I was that age, there were no options like that modern fertility testing company that will give you (some of) your CD3 numbers to tell you where you stand. But even if there had been, I'm not sure what I could/would have done with that information at the time. I wasn't willing to be a single mother, and I was dating like my life depended on it, but I knew I was still years out from a baby. Ultimately I froze my eggs (and I'm glad I did) but the RE told me right after getting a bumper crop of 22 eggs from me at 35 that I "should try to get pregnant as soon as possible" because the eggs were no guarantee. It's funny, my whole life, I always loved being a girl, but when I hit 35, was still single with no prospects and desperately wanting to be a mom, I never hated being female so much as I did then. I really hope that someday doctors are able to extend the fertility window for women by another 5-7 years at least to catch up with later marriage/childbearing in our society.

[Anonymous]

This Jean Twenge article from 2013 was popular when I was TTC: "The bottom line for women, in my view, is: plan to have your last child by the time you turn 40. Beyond that, you’re rolling the dice, though they may still come up in your favor. “Fertility is relatively stable until the late 30s, with the inflection point somewhere around 38 or 39,”

It also discusses potential reasons for society's age 35 cliff view.

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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This Jean Twenge article from 2013 was popular when I was TTC: "The bottom line for women, in my view, is: plan to have your last child by the time you turn 40. Beyond that, you’re rolling the dice, though they may still come up in your favor. “Fertility is relatively stable until the late 30s, with the inflection point somewhere around 38 or 39,”

It also discusses potential reasons for society's age 35 cliff view.

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

Yep. Told you it was 40 and above....not 35!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This Jean Twenge article from 2013 was popular when I was TTC: "The bottom line for women, in my view, is: plan to have your last child by the time you turn 40. Beyond that, you’re rolling the dice, though they may still come up in your favor. “Fertility is relatively stable until the late 30s, with the inflection point somewhere around 38 or 39,”

It also discusses potential reasons for society's age 35 cliff view.

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

Yep. Told you it was 40 and above....not 35!

My RE and my friend's RE at a different clinic both said after 37/38 it gets harder to have success. Granted we're talking about people already at the RE, but I trust their opinions more than the psychology professor that wrote that article.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Question- I've suffered from infertility for almost 10 years (started trying at 25 and am 35 now). I've never had a miscarriage, but have had 2 pregnancies in my 30s. How common is that? It seems like there's so much emphasis on rainbow babies and losses, but what about those of us who just can't get pregnant (I did IVF). Is that really uncommon?

A decent size chunk of the population of couples will struggle to get pregnant at all at any age. I say couples because the underlying reason can be with the female and/or the male.