Does HCG actually slow down after 1200mIU/ml in a healthy pregnancy?
@lucia398 With my two older children, I never had betas, except one to verify pregnancy, so I don’t know how those rose. 10 years later we were dealing with secondary infertility due to a trauma my husband had, and so beta hell became a thing. My first pregnancy, my numbers doubled until about 700, then just started to rise, but didn’t come close to doubling. They just kept slow rising. Barely made it to 2,000 (before an ultrasound could should much of what was going on). They kept telling me “sometimes numbers go stagnant around 2,000, remain cautiously optimistic”. My first ultrasound at 5w2d, showed a gestational sac, a tiny tiny hint of yolk sac, then we did see fetal pole and heartbeat at 6w2d. I can’t recall the heartbeat then, but at 7w, it’s was 178, which seemed really really high. I ended up spotting shortly after 7w, and miscarried right around 8w. My second one was a chemical, but I didn’t even get to 100 before I suspected ectopic and went to the ER, where they confirmed there was no pregnancy (anywhere), anymore.
I do know they look for a 50% rise with my clinic, so it’s not always doubling they look for (according to them).
I do hope this is still a good outcome for you, though. I know I read everywhere of people saying it does slow at 1200 and beyond, it just wasn’t the case for me ):
I do know they look for a 50% rise with my clinic, so it’s not always doubling they look for (according to them).
I do hope this is still a good outcome for you, though. I know I read everywhere of people saying it does slow at 1200 and beyond, it just wasn’t the case for me ):
@jon97 Yea sometimes I wish clinics would be more upfront about the data. I know they can’t count people out if, say, 10% of pregnancies with a slower rate under 6000 still work out…. But it would be nice to know what is actually ideal and what the chances are with lower doubling rates per studies
@lucia398 I really needed to hear that there was a chance that that first pregnancy wouldn’t be viable. After 10 years of infertility, I was absolutely crushed to keep my hopes up, even when I went down so many rabbit holes, and none ended up ok. I thought “I was the exception” but I never am. I actually asked them after my second loss to never use the term cautiously optimistic with me again. With my current pregnancy (17w), I had one beta that didn’t double by 24, and they threw that term at me again. It was still so within the acceptable rate, and then I realized I had done that beta way earlier than my others because we were getting hit with a snowstorm and I wanted to beat it. Next numbers were great, and it made me upset that they even used that damn term again lol.
unenchantedlight
New member
@jon97 Exactly this. It is so, so, so much better for me personally to know I am receiving frank and honest information. I don’t want to be optimistic if that means I have further to fall when I get bad news when my team knew that was more than likely going to be the outcome all along. It doesn’t save me pain, it multiplies it. Not this particular post, but in general sometimes I worry I’m being too harsh on this sub when I read other people saying things will be okay when it seems pretty clear to me fetal demise is imminent or has even already occurred. But I genuinely think it is far more cruel to say to someone who didn’t see a HB at 7w2d or who’s betas went from 17 to 29 to 50 “It’s still early mama! This happened to my neighbor’s hairdresser’s dog walker’s second cousin and she ended up having triplets!” than to say “If I were in this situation I would prepare for loss. I’m sorry.”
My most recent loss was extremely traumatic and riddled with signs along the way that things were going to go south. The only reason I did not lose my ever loving shit to the point of no return when she died is because my expectations were managed.
My most recent loss was extremely traumatic and riddled with signs along the way that things were going to go south. The only reason I did not lose my ever loving shit to the point of no return when she died is because my expectations were managed.
516angelnell
New member
@lucia398 Mine did slow down acrually but it slowed down from doubling every like 24 hours to 48 . Whixh is still significant! Thsn it for to like 59 hours after 6,000. So it’s true for me but it being soooo many hours hasn’t been true .
My unviable pregnancies a slow down after 1200 was 96 hours ans this was non viable .
My rainbow baby is 2 weeks old now .
My unviable pregnancies a slow down after 1200 was 96 hours ans this was non viable .
My rainbow baby is 2 weeks old now .
@516angelnell Yea 48 hours is pretty close to the medians in the studies I found, unlike my 66 hours. It’s wild that the 72-96 hour figure is cited so frequently yet no one can find the source (and sources I can find contradict it).
516angelnell
New member
@lucia398 I understand the frustration with RPL and hearing that it’s normal when idk I’ve been in this community for 2 years now and I also don’t tend to see higher doubling times . I HAVE though I do know babies born with double time slowed after 1200 ans were around the 60 hour doubling time . But for most viable pregnancies it seems to be much higher .
For me , out of three pregnancies I had betas done . The only one that became a living child was the one that started out with numbered that quadrupled and tripled in the early 100s . As opposed to the other two that where standard 48 hours . And it seems most viable pregnancies do more than double in early betas but still for some reason we don’t see the doubling time is between 24-72 hours , it’s 48-72 everywhere you look .
It took me 5 losses including a second trimester one to get my rainbow . My first child was unplanned and I had one loss before him . My second , it was traumatic. RPL is truly so awful .
For me , out of three pregnancies I had betas done . The only one that became a living child was the one that started out with numbered that quadrupled and tripled in the early 100s . As opposed to the other two that where standard 48 hours . And it seems most viable pregnancies do more than double in early betas but still for some reason we don’t see the doubling time is between 24-72 hours , it’s 48-72 everywhere you look .
It took me 5 losses including a second trimester one to get my rainbow . My first child was unplanned and I had one loss before him . My second , it was traumatic. RPL is truly so awful .
@516angelnell Fwiw my pregnancy with my (now 5 year old) daughter, my doubling time went from 438 to 1367 at 43 hours to 3584 4 days later the doubling time was 70 hours. 
@lucia398 Hi, can you explain the study info? Link doesn’t work anymore…
My betas were looking good from 9 DPO to 16 DPO. Then I got sick and super busy, and didn’t go in for the blood draws for a week. I finally got a chance to go in yesterday (24 DPO) and based on my calculations, I think my latest beta is too low.
16 DPO: 380
24 DPO: 3951
If it’s supposed to at least double, then I think 8 days later it should be more around 6000.
I know hcg hits a point where the doubling slows down from 48 hours but I’m not exactly sure. I’ve seen different answers but it sounds like maybe not til 6 weeks at least (and I’m only 5ish weeks).
My betas were looking good from 9 DPO to 16 DPO. Then I got sick and super busy, and didn’t go in for the blood draws for a week. I finally got a chance to go in yesterday (24 DPO) and based on my calculations, I think my latest beta is too low.
16 DPO: 380
24 DPO: 3951
If it’s supposed to at least double, then I think 8 days later it should be more around 6000.
I know hcg hits a point where the doubling slows down from 48 hours but I’m not exactly sure. I’ve seen different answers but it sounds like maybe not til 6 weeks at least (and I’m only 5ish weeks).
sixteeen7leven
New member
@lucia398 For me at 9-10dpo I was 46.9, at 12-13dpo I was at 140, 31dpo 120,000, and 45dpo was 300,000. In the beginning my doctor said my levels were “low” but when i went to my OB he said my levels were “high”. I know it’s hard just try not to worry too much if it’s just something you read online vs what you are being told by professionals.