My gals were *all* around 140-145... *always*. This one... 168-170, every time I check it. I find myself constantly saying, "Oh, I found his heartbeat..." or "Oh, I think I felt him flutter there..." And then I correct myself... "Duh, Jen, it's probably a *girl*, cut that out..." It's weird.

Anyways... I was wondering... what were your children's heart rates? Did you have a boy and a girl have the *same* heart rates? Or were they different. I found several articles that the whole "A female's heart rate is this high and the male's are this low..." is a bunch of hooey.

After several studies, they found that fetal heart rates, both male and female, were consistently similar at the same stages of pregnancy. Sooo... it just means that Mom A might have a boy who's heart rate is 143 and Mom B might have a boy who's heart rate is 138 and Mom C might have a boy who's hr is around 178. I wish the theory were true... it'd be a lot easier to find out early on what you're having. :D Anywho... Just wondering and looking for other's accounts~ :)

i've never really put much stock into it as I've always heard it was just an old wives tale. But when I was about 36wks pregnant with Abby the midwife asked if we knew what we were having and I said a girl, and she said that the heart rate would indicate that as well. And then this one the mw said the heart rate is fast as well, so I guess we'll see in a few months if it's a girl or not.

I'll have to check my charts...remind me tomorrow ;)
I remember something being rather consistently different with her, but, I can't remember. I'm just here doing pics :p Waiting on community group folk

I have kept journals through my pregnancies and have tried to find a difference, but nothing. :-D All the babies were between 135-140 in my 30-40 week check-ups and that is 2 girls and 1 boy and 1 ? :-D They have all been up and down? I know that babies h/r is higher at the beginning. That might be why you are seeing the difference. When I was in labour with our first the nurse had us convinced it was a boy because of the low h/r. When she popped out I was kind of confused to see a girl. Hee he she shocked all of us? :-D

My first pregnancy (which was a girl) was 160-170ish and I'm remembering Payton's always being around 160 or so.

My doc always said girls are usually a bit lower (I think in the 140-150 range or lower), and boys are often a bit higher (high 150's to 170), though, if memory serves, and it 'has' been a long time, the heartbeat can be higher early on in both genders. May be wrong about that part. Anyway, the heartbeat thing did prove to be accurate with all of ours, but you have to be sure there are going to be variances. :-D I wouldn't paint the nursery based on heartbeat alone. That's for sure. heehee! :lol:

[lovingsmiley]

Joy [welcomewave]

Fiona's heartbeat was different than the boys....for the life of me I can't recall if she was high or low. I have *heard* that HB is consistent for each individual. Meaning, if you have a lower HB with a girl pregnancy, then you will likely have a higher HB with a boy pregnancy. And vice versa. Who really knows though. It's fun to try to guess! :mrgreen:

My 1st doctor for my 1st pg did meantion that a girls heart beat was faster, she's like your having a girl. 4 SURE IT WAS A GIRL
I had another doc. for the next 3 babies(new insurnce) he told me the same thing girls fast boys slow. He too was right with what I was having.
I dont know I think it's strange?!

Jo's was higher, this time around it is lower.

At about 15 weeks or so it was Between 145 to 150
When I got my u/s yesterday is was 142.

Checked online. Says (if you believe it ;-)) girls are lower, boys are higher. :-D Seems like it would be the other way around.

[lovesign]

Joy [welcomewave]

Wow... this has been super interesting~ I just found it fascinating that all my gals had been *the same*, all FIVE of them... and here I have one much higher. Guess we'll see in a couple months, eh? Thanks for all your answers, gals! :)

Maybe, just maybe, you're about to be the proud parent of a little prince :mrgreen:

I think it's more significant that it's different for YOU, KWIM? Maybe for some their boys had higher rates and girls lower and others it's the opposite.

Lawsons hb was higher then the girls. :mrgreen:

I think it's more significant that it's different for YOU, KWIM? Maybe for some their boys had higher rates and girls lower and others it's the opposite.

That's exactly what I was trying to explain in my previous post. Maybe the way you put it is easier to understand. :D All I know is that the heart rates of my kids was opposite what "they" say heart rates are supposed to be for girls and boys.

I'm all messed up! I said Lawsons was higher but I meant to say lower.. I think, lol. Sigh.. I know it was different anyway! :p