Interesting. I weighed 105 pounds wringing wet before my daughter...but I ate constantly (I know...I'm just one of those people. Sorry.). But I was breastfeeding a 15 month old and chasing her around (and she never stopped moving) when I got pregnant with my son. I'm willing to bet I was eating a whole hell of a lot of calories. But they were being sucked out of me pretty fast....I wonder if that makes a difference?

I have one son, and unfortunately I was overweight when I got pregnant with him, and was sooo hungry while I was pregnant.  I didn't crave anything in particular, but I would be hit by these hunger pains that felt like if I didn't put something in my mouth within two minutes, I was going to fall over.

But my SIL is slim and she has two boys.  I read that the study also noted that women who skip breakfast were more likely to have girls, and my SIL is pretty healthy, so I doubt she ever did that, but I don't know.  I think she likes cereal, but I don't and rarely eat it.  If anything, I'm likely to eat it for lunch.  This is interesting, but still seems to me like they're grasping at connections.

Wow, this is really true for me.  

I was very thin when I got pregnant with my daughter, and er, not-so-thin when I got pregnant with my son.

I was the first girl on my dad's side in over 90 years.

DH and I are trying to conceive. I think I would feel relived if my first was a boy but I would not try to manipulate my diet or anything else to make that happen (although I happen to be a cereal eater).

My concern would be that if I did go through a lot of trouble to have one sex over the other and it didn't work out I might be disappointed. I would prefer to just let the chips fall and be happy (thrilled) either way.

a girl and don't recall any difference in my eating habits a year prior to getting pregnant either time.  I am not a big cereal eater to begin with, so I don't quite fit in with this group.  Now, my husband, on the other hand....he eats several bowls of cereal a day.   Perhaps that had an effect LOL.

His Mom had 6 boys and one girl - hmmm....wonder what her habits were?

His only sister had 3 boys.

There are a whole lot of sons in the family clan and very few daughters.  Everyone (except me) was shocked when I had a daughter....I felt she was a daughter when I realized I was pregnant with her....She was my dh's fourth child and only daughter.

I realize you can't disprove a scientific study with just one example, but DH and I laughed about this article in the newspaper this morning.  We have one girl and I was overweight and ate bran flakes with banana on top almost every morning when I got pregnant with her.   Basically, everything that should have led to a boy.  ha!

I hate how the media gets ahold of a scientific study and makes wild claims about results, when the authors probably hedged in their article and acknowledged the limitations of the study...  

You have got to be kidding me!  I had 2 sons and then a daughter.  I'm positive that I weighed more when she was conceived than when my 2 sons were.

I was eating eggs for breakfast when DS#2 was conceived and cereal with DD.  In my teens and early 20s I had a tendency to faint if I skipped breakfast so I will always eat something in the morning because it is a habit I developed in self-defense.

I see plenty of chunky moms with girls and very thin ones with sons when I drop my son off at nursery school.  

I can't see that they factored in the weight of the mother- perhaps just her calorie intake and food choices.

true, the article I read said "has a hearty appetite" and I translated that to "overweight" for myself.  I'm overweight because I have a hearty appetite!  But that wouldn't be true for everyone, I suppose.

how some granola would influence a sperm.  You know, perhaps boy sperm like Quakers or something.  Then I realized that my science brain has taken over every aspect of my life.  ;)

having boy/girl twins?

equal opportunity oats

I downloaded the study and skimmed it.  You can't draw any conclusions.  They left out a lot of the critical analysis; I can't even see whether their numbers were even valid most of the time.

One simple example: they looked at 133 individual foods to see if any had a "significant" correlation to gender.  They define significant as 100 to 1 odds against this being a chance correlation.  In other words, one false positive out of every 100 foods is expected; a higher rate of positives than this would suggest that something might be having a real effect.  They found one positive, breakfast cereal, out of 133 foods.  A true positive or a false positive?  Who knows?  But there's absolutely no reason to think it's real.

If they'd found say 5 foods, maybe that would be interesting.  Especially if they could tie them together into some sort of category.  But give me a break, who publishes their expected error rate as a breakthrough?

Cause I was drinking wine when we made our daughter and I'm pretty sure it was tequila for the first boy and beer for the second boy.  

I have a friend who has 5 daughters and one son and I'm sure that her appetite didn't change much for the son - he's in the middle...poor thing.  

I can't get the idea out of my head that someone will now market a breakfast cereal... umm- it give a whole new meaning to "Lucky Charms" in my mind!  What shapes would those marshmallows be?

Men are responsible for the sex of the fetus period.  The egg(s) is released long before it is fertlized.  Now pseudoscience is trying to pin it on us again for failing to produce the correct sex.  This study is flawed and ridiculous.  We have people dying of cancer and AIDS, why waste money on garbage like this.