Community post

Superfetation vs Ovulating twice in one cycle

Found this interesting
the question really is what defines the end of a cycle? If you achieve pregnancy then the natural end to a cycle ( the beginning of the shedding of the uterine lining) never occurs, so where do you mark the end of a cycle when a woman has conceived? It would seem to me to be a rather arbitrary thing to state the end as the day of her expected period shen that period hasn't ( and never will arrive.) So if there is no specific end to her cycle if pregnant, and she shortly thereafter ovulates again how can it be stated that she ovulated in the next cycle? If the beginning of a new cycle is mensuration, which she doesn't experience due to pregnancy, then has she in fact begun a new cycle? If so what is the biological ( not calendar based) marker of that new cycle. Point being I think it is ridiculous to argue that superfetation is ovulating in two separate cycles when there is no clear end oo beginning indication thereof. Furthermore, superfetation may be rare or perhaps drastic superfetation is what is rare, with superfetation occurring before implantation being far less rare, but simply dismissed as individual variances between fraternal twins. Lastly, many of the cases of superfetation the twins show a small span of distance, around two weeks seems to be most common. If that is the case, then I find it even harder to argue that the second ovulation was firmly within the bounds of a second cycle, as two weeks beyond the first ovulation would hardly place that ovulation at "certainly" sufficient days past ovulation as to have been beyond the onset of menstration is the beginning of a new cycle. So therefore ovulations in superfetation of less than the luteal phase length ( which varies from woman to woman) would place the second ovulation firmly in the shared cycle with the first ovulation.

0 Replies • 8 years ago

0 0 0 0