Classical NFP Rules vs. Fertiliy Trackers
Natural Family Planning (NFP) and the symptothermal method have been widely used for decades to help women understand their fertility cycles. The symptothermal approach relies on the observation of multiple fertility indicators, such as basal body temperature (BBT) and cervical mucus, to determine fertile and infertile phases. With the advancement of digital technology, fertility tracking devices like Lady-Comp and Daysy have revolutionized the process, offering automated and highly accurate cycle analysis. Below, we examine in detail the NFP rules of the traditional symptothermal method and how they compare to the advanced, algorithm-based evaluation system used by Daysy and Lady-Comp.
Evolution of NFP and the Birth of Digital Fertility Trackers
The modern NFP rules were formalized in the early 1980s by the German working group “Natural Fertility,” which standardized the recording and assessment of specific fertility signs. At the time, fertility tracking was taught through structured courses, as there were no digital tools to assist women in interpreting their cycle data. The launch of the first digital fertility tracker, Lady-Comp, in 1986, marked a turning point, paving the way for advanced devices like Daysy, which combine science-based algorithms with high-precision technology.
Given their shared origins, it is not surprising that Daysy incorporates the fundamental principles of the symptothermal method. However, digitalization has streamlined the process, minimized user errors, and increased the accuracy of predictions.
Temperature Measurement as the Basis
Determining Fertile and Non Fertile Days After Menstruation
Determining Infertile Days After Ovulation
Cervical Mucus as a Fertility Marker
Cervix Position
Additional Benefits Of Daysy & Lady-Comp
FAQs
1. Frank-Herrmann, P., Gnoth, C., Baur, S., Strowitzki, T. & Freundl, G. Determination of the fertile window: reproductive competence of women--European cycle databases. Gynecol. Endocrinol. Off. J. Int. Soc. Gynecol. Endocrinol. 20, 305–312 (2005).
2. Händel, P. & Wahlström, J. Digital contraceptives based on basal body temperature measurements. Biomed. Signal Process. Control 52, 141–151 (2019).
3. Roemer, N. van de, Haile, L. & Koch, M. C. The performance of a fertility tracking device. Eur. J. Contracept. Reprod. Health Care 0, 1–15 (2021).
4. Lupinska-Dubicka, A. & Druz, M. J. A Comparison of Popular Fertility Awareness Methods to a DBN Model of the Woman’s Monthly Cycle. 8.