Daysy and Natural Cycles are right for some people, but they are not right for all people. To know whether these products are the right choice, customers really need to have been provided with adequate information through the education and healthcare systems as to how their fertility actually functions. Unfortunately, fertility awareness is barely covered by schools and GP’s, leaving a large majority of women with a substantial knowledge gap when it comes to their menstrual cycles. This means that companies existing within the femtech space are largely marketing to an uninformed audience who cannot critically evaluate the claims that are made about effectiveness.

In many ways, this is not the fault of companies such as Daysy/Natural Cycles, but the fault of the social structures in which they exist.

The below video is my personal opinion as to why I choose NOT to use these apps/devices.


Press play to join the conversation.

 

For those of you who prefer to read, I’ve included a brief summary below of the points I make in the video.

1.) Natural Cycles and Daysy/Ladycomp are temperature-only methoDS:

Your basal body temperature generally only shows a sustained rise *after* you’ve ovulated (due to the release of progesterone by the corpus luteum after ovulation). This means that your temperature does not give you any real-time information about the state of your fertility prior to ovulation (apart from telling you that you haven’t ovulated yet).  If you’re trying to avoid becoming pregnant, you need to know at least six days prior to ovulation, that ovulation is approaching. This is due to the fact that sperm can survive for up to 5-7 days in the reproductive tract. Cervical fluid is your warning sign of approaching ovulation, due to the fact that cervical fluid is influenced by rising levels of oestrogen. Natural Cycles and Daysy/Ladycomp do not take cervical fluid into account. Instead, they predict your current cycle based on past cycles. This can be risky for those who experience an unexpectedly early ovulation.

2.) Temperature-only methods were superceded by the Symptothermal Method in the 1950s:

Temperature-only methods were used in the 1930s, before it was discovered in the 1950s that cervical fluid allowed a user to “see” oestrogen levels rising in real-time. For an in-depth overview of the transition and development of Fertility Awareness-based Methods see this post here:

3.) Effectiveness and research:

As of the date of publishing this article, the typical-use probability of an unintended pregnancy after 13 cycles of use are as follows:

Natural Cycles: 8.3%
Daysy: 2.7%
Symptothermal Method(Sensiplan): 1.8%

To put this into perspective: If 5000 women are using each of the above contraceptive methods, after 1 year of use 415 Natural Cycles users will experience an unintended pregnancy, 135 Daysy users will experience an unintended pregnancy, and 90 Sensiplan users will experience an unintended pregnancy*. This is based on “typical use”  – so users who are making mistakes and/or being careless.

*Note: Because these percentages have been taken from a range of different types of studies (including clinical trials and retrospective surveys), it is difficult for a comparison to be truly accurate – these figures are just to give you a rough idea.

Natural Cycles’ latest study was questioned by the Natural Fertility Department of the German Society of Gynecological Endocrinology and Reproductive Medicine. You can read their concerns here: https://sektion-natuerliche-fertilitaet.de/warnung-vor-fda-zugelassener-verhuetungs-app/?fbclid=IwAR0YvpBQV7-HRcIW3ILH0zkhGyFPlRhO-ndjEzXXcaa0nWbw9-QMpWJS7R4

Daysy’s latest study was questioned by Chelsea Polis, a senior researcher with the Guttmacher Institute, and you can read about her concerns here: http://chelseapolis.com/1/post/2018/06/pushing-daysys-how-people-could-be-misled-into-buying-an-unproven-device-for-contraception.html

As a comparison, you can read about concerns that were raised about Symptothermal Method studies here: https://fertilitycharting.com.au/2018/08/10/new-research-released-on-the-effectiveness-of-fertility-awareness-based-methods/

4.) Marketing:

Despite the concerns raised about the issues (both minor and major) with the Daysy and Natural Cycles studies, both companies continue to aggressively market their products to a primarily young demographic on social media. They often do this through the use of social media influencers who either happily receive a commission by referring their followers to purchase, or are paid to create a sponsored post. Natural Cycles especially concern me given the fact that their founder Elina Berglund is quoted as saying that the ideal user “is a woman in a stable relationship who is planning to have children at some point, and who would like a break from hormonal contraception ahead of trying.” Kristina Gemzell Danielsson is a professor in obstetrics and gynaecology at Karolinska Institutet and is one of the research scientists behind the Natural Cycles studies. She is quoted as saying that Natural Cycles is “not a good option for women who absolutely want to avoid a pregnancy”.

5.) body literacy:

Placing your fertility in the hands of an app or device is in some ways just another way of handing over your power and autonomy. What happens when you lose your phone or your batteries run flat? Without the deeper level of knowledge about how our fertility functions, we are stripping women of the chance to experience true empowerment and reproductive freedom. When Daysy and Natural Cycles only give users half the picture (temp-only as opposed to informing users of the importance of cervical fluid), they are simply keeping them tethered to an expensive product that provides a sense of security (however misplaced), at the expense of true body literacy.

conclusion

If Daysy and Natural Cycles are the right choice for you, you will know. Each person has the freedom to make their own choices when it comes to contraception and for some people, a temperature-only method will be an ideal fit for their lifestyle and their reproductive intentions. My hope is that the above video will help you to understand the full picture, so that you can provide truly informed consent about the Fertility Awareness-Based Method that is right for you.

Want to start using the Symptothermal Method of Fertility Awareness? Consider working with an instructor, or read about self-teaching here.

 

14 comments

  1. Ana carolina says:

    Hello… I’m trying to het rid of the hormonal methods and I deftely don’t want to get preagnant. I read your text and saw the video about daysy (that I was thinking could be a good solution, but now I’m not sure anymore).
    What do you suggest?

    • Jessie Brebner says:

      Hi Ana,

      Thanks for reaching out, and I’m so glad you found my YouTube video.

      I recommend working with an instructor to learn the Symptothermal Method – if English is not your first language, let me know which country you are in and I may be able to recommend instructors that can teach in your first language 🙂

      Otherwise, you can visit the instructor directory here to find mostly English-speaking instructors: https://fertilitycharting.com.au/find-an-instructor/

      If price is a barrier, you can also read about self-teaching here, although it does have some limitations: https://fertilitycharting.com.au/self-teach/

      Let me know if you are in a different country and are looking for an instructor who speaks a different language 🙂

      Kind Regards,
      Jessie

  2. Jenna says:

    I appreciate what you saying, but if you recognize that there is an array of legitimate symptothermal methods, with varying levels of “carefulness” built in, you must recognize that choosing a symptothermal method vs choosing a temp-only method represents basically the same thing–another choice on the spectrum of “carefulness”. These methods are all in the top 10% of “carefulness.”

    There are devices/apps/algorithms that do use legit symptothermal rules, too, and aren’t temp-only (eg. Sympto, I think one called Lily). There is no reason to think it would be a bad idea to use a symptothermal-based device or app just because it’s a device or app. In fact surely Sympto makes fewer mistakes in calculating complex temperature patterns or symptom patterns than a human. The rules for symptothermal methods happen to be exactly the kind of application-of-rules task that computers/ algorithms do better than humans.

    I totally agree that no one should falsely advertise, but the identified problem with NS and Daysy (that they are temp-only) isn’t a problem, it’s simply a trade-off. Of course the holy grail would be a “Daysy” that was fully symptothermal… There’s no reason this doesn’t exist except that device-makers don’t seem to think women want to know about cm, much less input information about it into their birth control device. 🤷‍♀️

    I think there’s an idea out there that most women need 99.9% accuracy out of their method or it’s a disaster. But actually, no one has studied this question. I personally seriously doubt that it’s true. Of course most women *want* 99.9% accuracy, but ultimately not at the price of their health and sanity (aka hormonal bc). What percentage of women can be well-served by a method with 8%, 5%, or 2% failure rates? What if it was a huge proportion of women?

    (Sorry this is long, I’m just thinking out loud, not ranting… I swear! I just thought I’d share my train of thought. Thanks for your great work in the FABM arena👏)

    • Jessie Brebner says:

      Hi Jenna,

      Thanks for your comment. Unfortunately I think you have missed the point a little. If someone (who has a serious need to avoid a pregnancy) wants to rely on a temp-only Fertility Awareness-Based Method, they are better off choosing a proper temp-only method as opposed to relying on the Natural Cycles algorithm.

      As a basic example, research by Dr. Döring into temp-only effectiveness found that it was necessary to wait for the third consecutive temperature at 0.2C above the highest of the previous six lows before considering unprotected sex. This is because his research identified pregnancies that resulted from unprotected sex on the second raised temperature. Despite this, Natural Cycles routinely provides green days on the second raised temperature for some users.

      In terms of pre-ovulatory unprotected sex, the same goes. Existing research by Dr. Döring, and later Dr. Roetzer, established a formula (now often known as the Minus 8 Rule) based on earliest temperature shifts to establish a cut-off after which pre-ovulatory unprotected sex would risk unintended pregnancy. Natural Cycles does not use this existing research on calculation rules to open the fertile window, and instead provides green days deeper into the fertile window than is safe.

      I’m not against temp-only methods (many established Symptothermal Method protocols offer specific temp-only protocols for clients who do not wish to chart cervical mucus). What I am against, is apps and devices that market themselves as high-tech and modern, when they are really simply reinventing the wheel in a way that *reduces* safety and efficacy for users.

      I hope this clarifies for you.

      Regards,
      Jessie.

      • Jessie Brebner says:

        Hi Ponpon,

        Thank you for your comment. This article is not designed to persuade anyone, simply to provide facts. I hope that knowing these facts allows people to make a truly informed decision about whether they would like to use either Natural Cycles or Daysy, depending on how seriously they are wanting to prevent a pregnancy.

        While the differences might seem inconsequential to you, I know that they are very important for some other charters 🙂

        Warmest regards,
        Jessie

    • Jessie Brebner says:

      Hi Katriina,

      This is a great question. The Symptothermal Method has a very specific protocol for both temperatures and cervical mucus combined.

      Using Natural Cycles at the same time would be unnecessary. Natural Cycles is less effective than the Symptothermal Method, so it would not add any safety or extra effectiveness to the Symptothermal Method.

      Of course there is no harm in doing both, but the danger is that you may be tempted to rely more on Natural Cycles’ predictions than your real-time observations.

      I hope this helps!

      Kind Regards,
      Jessie

Leave a Reply