Creighton vs. sympto thermal methods of NFP


#1

I have to schedule an NFP class as part of marriage prep. They told me to choose one of two methods: Creighton or sympto thermal. The problem is, I know nothing about NFP or the difference between the two methods and yet we have to choose one. Can somebody tell me about the different methods and their pros and cons?


#2

Creighton is a mucus only method. Sympto-thermal observes temperature, mucus, and cervical position.

You can read about Creighton at www.creightonmodel.com and www.fertilitycare.org

You can read about sympto thermal at www.ccli.org. You can also visit www.nfpandmore.org


#3

Thank you. I have to admit, that is a little overwhelming, like information overload. I’m curious what couples here have used and recommend. Is one generally more effective than the other?


#4

They are all effective. A particular method may be more or less effective for a particular woman based on a host of factors.

I would focus somewhat on your own personal circumstances and what makes sense in your lifestyle. I did not want to temp every morning at the same time, and I often travel which disrupts my sleep patterns. I also wake up a lot at night and would have trouble sometimes with the continuous hours of sleep needed to get a resting temp.

I found mucus only to be more convenient.

Other women like the crorss-check of temp and cervical position. Some women feel more confident with these other signs.

Some women want to consult with Dr. Hilgers at the Pope Paul VI Institute (fertility issues) and therefore must chart Creighton for at least 6 months.


#5

We use sympto-thermal, but only because that’s what we were taught! I’ve never used Creighton. ST is pretty easy, and since I wake up at the same time 5 days in a row and can just go back to sleep, its not bad. If you have a varying schedule or night shifts it might not be ideal. I find the cross-checking of all three signs to be really helpful, and we can narrow down our abstinence period to about 6-7 days (That varies woman to woman and cycle to cycle). I’m not sure how Creighton works, but I know if I have fertility problems in the future, I’d have to switch, like Ke said.

So even though I like ST fine, we probably would have learned Creighton if it had been a choice.


#6

Yeah it's all about your schedule and willingness to deal with inconvenience (of temping mostly). If you're trying to be very conservative or, alternately, looking for ways to cut down on abstinence time, I'd argue for STM. Creighton is more straightforward imo, because it only checks one thing. But, of course, if you have a lot of inconsistencies with CM, it might be better to have another cross-checking sign or two. It's all up to your preference on that.

In our case, we have to use an "all of the above" Marquette style method because of little kids waking up at night and the need to be very conservative. So we use STM plus an ovulation test kit to confirm ovulation. :shrug: Not ideal since it makes that "window" CAmeliaD talked about pretty long, but we can't afford more than two little ones right now either financially or health wise! Not worth risking my wife's health, though I have to concede that it's not particularly fun. But hey, that's part of the sacrifices you have to make sometimes in life, and God did keep my wife and little ones safe through some rough patches, so it's OK with me.


#7

This might sound like an odd question: If Creighton is essentially just one component of the sympto-thermal, could you learn sympto-thermal and then just eliminate the thermal part and essentially practice Creighton? Does that even make any sense?


#8

sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/02/070221065200.htm

I've never used NFP, but this is the only (description of a) study I've been able to find about NFP in general. STM seems pretty effective.


#9

[quote="EeyoresButerfly, post:7, topic:182757"]
This might sound like an odd question: If Creighton is essentially just one component of the sympto-thermal, could you learn sympto-thermal and then just eliminate the thermal part and essentially practice Creighton? Does that even make any sense?

[/quote]

Yes - that's what we did. For many years all we followed was the mucus observation part of the signs. It worked fine for us at the time - we were younger and not as intent on avoiding.

Now that I'm older and perimenopausal, I really want that positive sign of rising temps to confirm ovulation. Creighton relies on a "negative" sign (lack of mucus) which with my wacky cycles is much harder to feel confident in now.

Good luck.


closed #10

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.