It's linking to an article on hispanic breast cancer rates. Also neat, but not very diet related.

The Fertility Diet really should be called the Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome Diet, and even then, there would be some degree of hooey involved.

PCOS can cause irregular or absent ovulation and is typically caused by insulin resistance. Insuline resistance can make you overweight. The theory is that losing weight will improve ovarian function. Ta-da!

Interesting, except that when you are insulin resistant, it's harder to lose weight, and being overweight is a symptom of PCOS, not always a causative factor.

Also, and this is my biggest problem with the book, 40% of infertility can be attributed to female factors (of which PCOS is one, but there are many more), 40% are male factors, and 20% are combined male and female factors.

So, um, way to oversimplify a complex issue like fertility and take one more opportunity to vilify fatness.

OK, so the combination of the headline and this photo of the poor baby on a scale is suggesting to me that the woman is about to eat the baby!

I was going to make a roasting time/bun in the oven joke . . . but then I thought better of it.

Akeeyu, I'm not sure what book you're referring to, but I recently read an article about the Fertility Diet and I thought it was really interesting.

The article said right off the bat that the claims were preliminary and would require many more years of study, but that, essentially, eating foods that helped to regulate insulin can help ensure regular ovulation (as you stated).

There was one section on weight, but I didn't feel that it was telling women that they had to be stick thin - it made a point of saying that women of a healthy weight had a better chance of conceiving and that women who were slightly "overweight" still had a better chance of conceiving that women who were underweight. This was all based on BMI, so take that with a grain of salt depending on your thoughts about the usefulness of BMI measurements.

All in all, I thought it was an interesting look at how what we put into our bodies really does matter and that if you're considering pregnancy might be some tips to conceive more quickly.

I didn't get the feeling it was bashing women over the head with creepy "pre-pregnant" instructions or saying that a gal has to starve herself down in order have a baby.

Perhaps there are other publications out there that aren't as balanced and non-crazy as the one I came across...

Misspie, my basic point is that any "fertility diet" is grossly oversimplifying fertility and infertility.

"eating foods that helped to regulate insulin can help ensure regular ovulation (as you stated)"

I didn't say that, I said that's the theory. The problem with the theory is that PCOS tends to make you gain weight. Gaining weight doesn't tend to make you have PCOS, therefore saying "eating the right foods and being a healthy weight = ovulation" just isn't true for a large segment of the population.

Fertility is more complicated than whether or not you eat twinkies, which is my problem with anything calling itself "The Fertility Diet."

Akeeyu's absolutely right.

And then there's that little tricky bit where you can have PCOS but not be insulin resistant.

Besides, weight has very little to do with ovulation or the ability to get pregnant.

I don't know if it's all 'hooey'. I read somewhere that women who maintain a high fat diet also tend to be more fertile. Diets to lose weight= hooey. But for medical purposes, I think what one eats has a lot to do with one's health.

Well, I mean, we've known for years that women who are anorexic or morbidly obese can have irregular or skipped periods, so it makes sense that there would be some ideal diet we could consume to best enable ovulation on a regular schedule.

Also, a proposed diet isn't saying we all have to be on it all the time, but many women who are desperate to conceive might be able to increase their fertility by a change in diet-- much better and safer than costly fertility treatments. I'd say that's a good thing all around.

"...women who are desperate to conceive..."

Ding! This has got to be one of my least favorite phrases of all time.

Basiorana, from your blog you seem like a lovely person, but your choice of words is somewhat offensive. My husband and I both have issues that contribute to infertility. We went through fertility treatment together because we both wanted to have children, and yet the default phrase and widespread public perception is that of "women who are desperate to conceive."

I have yet to determine which of us this insults more.

I think it might be important to remember that the word diet does not mean weight loss. A diet is just the pattern of foods a person chooses to eat as in: my friend Kate eats a vegetarian diet.

What a person eats does affect how well their body functions, so it makes sense that food affects fertility. Though I would hope there is information out there on what men should eat to improve their fertility as well. From what I've seen of various fertility diets they involve things like having a good iron source or eating full fat dairy which could be more accurately called a 'preparing for pregnancy' diet, but I'm guessing the PR people don't think thats catchy enough.

Akeeyu Buttmansion: I'm sorry. I should have said, "women who want to have children naturally and are having difficulty."

I normally would have referred to both halves of the couple but this is a dietary choice of the woman and thus has very little to do with her partner (except as moral support, of course).

I was at my ob/gyn the other day and she told me I better start taking folic acid supplements to help my future babies. I'm 20, and certainly not planning on having any children for a long long long time, if I decide to have any at all. I eat a healthy diet, but for my own sake! I told her this, and she replied, "Half of pregnancies are unplanned and you don't want your babies to be unhealthy, do you?" in the most cloying, guilt inducing voice. I almost yanked my foot out of the stirrup and hit her in the face.

Needless to say, I'm switching to a doctor that doesn't think of me just as a breeding machine.

Here's where it will get scary: when the well-intentioned "what to eat to improve your chances of getting pregnant" meets with the "every fertilized egg is a legal person" movement.
I realize that this recent report is related largely to ovulation, or lack thereof. But it is very plausible that further research may point to specific substances or behaviors that could affect the implantation process.
We know that some significant percentage of fertilized eggs fail to implant in normal healthy women, estimates range from 25 - 75%, let's say 50% for the average woman. And suppose (this is only a hypothetical) that future research showed that eating several servings of soy-based products within a few days of unprotected sex, by altering the hormonal environment, decreased the likelihood of successful implantation by another 50% - not enough to be useful as effective birth control, but info that may be helpful to those who are trying to conceive. Would the embryonic personhood advocates require all "pre-pregnant" women to avoid such products to prevent any possible harm to purely hypothetical "persons"?
What if the opposite were shown, if a food item or supplement were found that made the uterine lining slightly more favorable? Should all sexually active women (at least those who are not permanently sterilzed) be mandated to consume this supplement in order to protect the civil rights of the alleged "person"?
What if a legal drug prescribed for the health of the woman, did not interfere with ovulation, but was shown alter the uterine lining in a negative way? Can the state force a woman to live with depression or high blood pressure rather than take the chance that a few more fertilized eggs might be flushed from her system?
What if a particular behavior, say additional repeated instances of sexual intercourse, could be shown to increase or decrease the possibility of implantation? Could/should the state either prohibit or mandate such behavior in any possibly-pregnant woman?
As more women postpone their childbearing into their less-than-optimally-fertile years, we can expect more research into the earliest days and hours of potential pregnancy. But we should beware of the ways that helpful tools can be turned into bludgeons.

The chances of women with PCOS being able to control their condition with diet and exercise alone are pretty slim, although it is helpful to cut down on sugars and exercise regularly. I have been on 1000 mg of Metformin (for insulin resistance) for almost 6 months and it has really helped me ovulate more regularly.

I will admit that this whole thread makes me kind of sad. I say this as a woman currently facing fertility issues. To me, everything about this discussion dismisses fertility concerns as something only anti-feminists have. Can we all please stop treating any discussion of fertility issues as automatically helping the anti-choice, “all women are breeders� camp?

No one questioned my feminist credentials when I decided I wanted a PhD. No one called me desperate when I decided to pursue a career as a researcher and university professor. But now that I have gotten my PhD and successful career, I have also decided that I would like to add a child to my family. Suddenly this life goal is seen as less valuable or somehow changing my commitment to gender equality.

Now, every time I am looking into scientifically valid ways to increase my chances to get pregnant, I am confronted by women who see me as the enemy. Perhaps it is because I am in my 30s, but I really feel like this is one place I missed both “waves� – I am too young for the 2nd wave but I am too old for the 3rd wave when I want to talk about things like how to get pregnant. When I was in my 20s, I almost got my tubes tied I was so sure I never wanted a child and I can understand why fertility issues might seem like something that shouldn’t concern feminists. But here I am, a feminist, trying to get pregnant – turns out I do have to negotiate this issue and I find it unfortunate that there is such a blatant dismissal of my concerns.

Jessica, I am especially disheartened that you would post this as some kind of outrageous “get skinny to get pregnant� diet without actually even looking at the book. I’ve never read it, but I took two minutes and went to Amazon and looked at the blurb. Here are the main “diet� recommendations:
- Avoiding trans fats
- Eating more beans, nuts, and other fertility-boosting plant protein
- Embracing whole grains such as oatmeal and barley
- Having a glass of whole milk or other full-fat dairy product every day (a small bowl of ice cream every now and then counts, too!)
- Staying away from sugared sodas

It is not about getting skinny, it is about improving overall health if you are trying the get pregnant. They tell you to eat whole fats and I would be willing to bet there is a section on how being significantly underweight is a bad thing for fertility. I find it perfectly reasonable that there would be a direct correlation between general health and fertility and I have no problem eating better to increase my chances of getting pregnant.

Ah, the ol' "Morbidly obese" women and their irregular periods. Funny, I'm "morbidly obese", have been since I was oh, 17 or so and guess what? I've missed 2 periods in my entire life. I also have PCOS and am infertile.

Oddly enough, the 500+ lb woman who's having her second child in a few weeks? She has regular periods and no infertility issues at all. Which means, of course, a man has actually deigned to have :gasp: sex with her.

And as for 'waiting' to have children, I know very very very few women who are 'waiting'. A lot of women would like to have, y'know, a partner to have children with. Sounds pretty incredible these days, I know, but go figure. And then there are the women like me, who try, and try, and try some more and don't get pregnant, or who don't have the money (but let's not bring class or money into this discussion, that opens a whole nother can of worms, doesn't it) or the insurance, assuming their insurance even covers any infertility procedures, or can't find a doctor or clinic nearby or who are on are turned away because of fat prejudice or aren't young or thin enough, blah blah blah.

So yeah, a book on 'helping' your fertility given all the other things an infertile person has to deal with is pretty silly on the face of it. Women who are trying to get pregnant already know all of this anyway (except for the ones who are dieting to 'get healthy for pregnancy', or worse, dieting during their pregnancy because their doctors have told them not to gain any weight - oh yes) and it's not going to improve their situation if there's an underlying medical problem. I mean, come on, if this was the Quadraplegic Diet or the Blindness Diet, you'd be laughing out of your ear, not giving it actual credence.

I know I expect too much of people who aren't faced with infertility, but honestly, a little thought and/or research would not go amiss.

I am coming at this issue as a woman who both wants children someday and who is professionally interested in childbearing, birth, and women's health (both general and gynecological).

A physically healthy woman is more likely to conceive a child than an unhealthy woman. This does not mean that there are not infertile yet physically healthy women, fertile yet unhealthy women, and women who will not conceive because their partners are infertile. This does mean that a woman who wants to conceive a child and is having trouble (the official definition of infertility, by the way, is remaining childless after one year of actively trying to become pregnant, though the infertility rate decreases significantly if the definition is extended to two years of trying) may well benefit from improving her own physical health.

A diet to maximize female fertility is one that every woman should follow regardless of her desire to have children. It includes plenty of whole grains and produce, lean proteins, calcium sources, and sufficient fat. Is marketing such a diet as a "fertility diet" a gimmick? Yes. Is it detrimental to a woman's health? No. The sad part of all this is that women can't be convinced to eat right for their own sakes but will do so for their potential children.

What I find most distressing about infertility is the way expensive treatments with fairly low success rates are peddled to childless couples instead of discussing options like adoption.

I am coming at this issue as a woman who both wants children someday and who is professionally interested in childbearing, birth, and women's health (both general and gynecological).

A physically healthy woman is more likely to conceive a child than an unhealthy woman. This does not mean that there are not infertile yet physically healthy women, fertile yet unhealthy women, and women who will not conceive because their partners are infertile. This does mean that a woman who wants to conceive a child and is having trouble (the official definition of infertility, by the way, is remaining childless after one year of actively trying to become pregnant, though the infertility rate decreases significantly if the definition is extended to two years of trying) may well benefit from improving her own physical health.

A diet to maximize female fertility is one that every woman should follow regardless of her desire to have children. It includes plenty of whole grains and produce, lean proteins, calcium sources, and sufficient fat. Is marketing such a diet as a "fertility diet" a gimmick? Yes. Is it detrimental to a woman's health? No. The sad part of all this is that women can't be convinced to eat right for their own sakes but will do so for their potential children.

What I find most distressing about infertility is the way expensive treatments with fairly low success rates are peddled to childless couples instead of discussing options like adoption.

Shouldn't women try to keep healthy for their own physical and mental (yes, the two are related) well-being? Increased fertility is a side effect, not the reason, for keeping healthy.

A woman's lifestyle choices can affect her fertility (by affecting the quality of the matured ovum) up to three months prior to fertilisation. So yes, if you are trying to get pregnant, be healthy - but for heaven's sake, do it for yourself! Long after your child is born, raised, and grown up, you will still have your body. They don't run around handing out new ones. It's not like a woman only needs to be healthy to conceive.

Hello, people! What's good for women has the side benefit of being good for society as a whole, but that doesn't make the latter the justification for the former.

How does a book on fertility morph from "eat well to help you be healthy and conceive" to "the patriarchy will monitor our food intake" and accusations of fat shaming? I read the description of the book, and it looks like it was written by nutritionists based on a large nutritional study to help women who have PCOS regulate their insulin resistance in order to increace conception rates.

I read a lot of nutritional and diet books because I'm into being healthy - so this doesn't look any different for me than the China Study, Dr. MacDougal or Eat to Live, which are basically saying that nutrition is important and that eating nutritionally dense food tends to lower insulin resistance and help lose weight. None of those people are into the fat shaming or Orwellian mind control that this book is being accused of.

Let's face it - most Americans eat like shit, fat and skinny alike. If a book comes out touting a healthier way to eat that isn't another unhealthy Atkins clone, I say it's great.

As a matter of fact, the author of Eat to Live does claim that his wife was able to conceive after a diagnosis of PCOS, when she changed her diet to a healthier one, so even though it's anecdotal, it does make sense to me. Not to mention stories of people turning their type 2 diabetes around through diet and exercise, so I can really see insulin resistance being helped by better nutrition.

*headdesk*

"What I find most distressing about infertility is the way expensive treatments with fairly low success rates are peddled to childless couples instead of discussing options like adoption."

Oh really? Cuz the last time I checked, domestic adoption cost somewhere in the region of $20,000 or more. Unless you adopt from foster care, which might be free or have state loans and grants, depending on your state. But everyone wants babies, right, preferably white babies, and no one wants the messed up kids, so for lots of people, fertile and infertile, domestic adoption is out of the question.

Let's review:

IUI - from $800 -$2500 per cycle, 10-25% chance of pregnancy (the rate depends on methods used)

IVF - $8-$15,000 per cycle, 30-60% chance of pregnancy, tends to be much cheaper overseas

FET (frozen/fresh embryo transfer) - $2500-$5000 (at the extreme, from what I understand)

The difference is that with adoption your chance of coming home with a child is much higher - though of course not set in stone, and is obviously far more expensive than trying to get pregnant.