Standard Days NFP - Any Good?

Has anyone used the “standard days” method (see below) - is it any good?



The “standard days” method is **NOT ** modern NFP.

The Standard Days Method is a modified version the old rhythm method. It is based on predicting ovulation using averages.

It does not teach observing the signs of fertility using temperature, mucus, and/or cervical position-- that is the basis of modern NFP methods including the Sympto-Thermal, Billings, and Creighton Methods.

**Stay away from it. **

Based on the info provided on their website it’s ridiculously inaccurate! Looking at my charts from the past 12 months, and using their method instructions, there are many days they would deem “safe” that were in fact FERTILE days for me… and I have a “regular” cycle according to their website.


I agree with 1ke…
The “standard days” nfp is really inaccurate.
It relies on guessing and statistics rather than looking at the actual, real data.

Modern NFP (like sympto-thermal, creighton, billings, etc) looks at SYMPTOMS of fertility (real data)… which can change from month to month.

Hope that helps!

[quote="PLNA86]WHAT WEB SITE MIGHT THAT BE??? thank you

That might be the website in the original post.:smiley:

GREAT THANK YOU:D :smiley: :smiley: :smiley: :smiley: SORRY I GUESS I DIDNT SEE IT THE1 ST TIME:o


Before I got pregnant with my first baby I was able to use this method reliably. My ovulation was like clockwork for a whole year. If you do decide to use it, make sure you cross reference from time-to-time with another method to make sure the standard days remain the standard days. :thumbsup:

Well, it worked for me for the year I used it, just instead of abstaining during the fertile times we used a barrier. Then back in November of 2006, we ditched barriers altogether (not for religious reasons, my reversion to the Church was still “in process” at that point - and still is, I think) The whole method is just to abstain days 8-19, and can be used as long as the woman’s cycles are 26 to 32 days long. We kind of used this method in conjunction with observing cervical fluid, but I did not do any charting. (Our current pregnancy is a result of failing to observe the rules of the method, that is, we used the “What the heck, why not? Another baby would be okay by me!” method :slight_smile: :thumbsup: )

But other methods provide a lot more info and pinpoint the fertile time which makes for (1) more certainty, and (2) less days of abstinence if you are trying to avoid pregnancy. My guess is that the SDM fails most often in women who tend to ovulate late in the cycle (just my guess…).

I think if you’re willing to accept a little higher chance of pregnancy AND if the woman’s cycles are regular AND if she tends to ovulate about midcycle AND if you’re someone who’s just not into charting, it can be a workable method.

Many thanks everyone, sounds like modern NFP is the way forward, we have been using “persona” successfully until our second child after which the days of abstinence became 30 out of 31!

We think this is due to varying changes in cycle length (anything from 4-6 weeks) which hasnt settled down even now some 10 months later - we are trying to find another method of NFP which doesnt rely on so much asbtinence and can handle varying cycle lenths every month, sounds like sympto-thermal, creighton, billings, etc may be the way forward for us

We’d be deliighted if those that have used modern NFP would let us know these methods can accommodate varying cycle lengths in excess of 32 days, or are we always gonna have longer periods of abstinence?

Thanks again,


Yes, all of the methods work just fine with cycles of varying lengths, including those greater than 32 days.

Can’t really say at this point. After you learn a method and chart you will see more clearly exactly what your fertile patterns are, and that information will determine how much abstinence is required. You might also see more clearly why the cycle is so long and pinpoint corrective action.

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