What Nobody Can Tell You Yet About Preparing for IVF

by | Aug 20, 2026 | Male Fertility

What Nobody Can Tell You Yet About Preparing for IVF

Evidence-based · Written by Dr. Leila Fazlicic, D.Ac, L.Ac · All key claims cited to peer-reviewed research

The short answer: Does preparing for IVF improve live birth? Nobody can tell you that yet. Three randomised trials have asked whether changing your life before treatment leads to more babies, and all three missed. In the largest, 27.1 per cent of the women who spent six months preparing had a healthy baby at term, against 35.2 per cent of the women sent straight to treatment. The strongest case for preparing is a mechanical one, not an outcome one — and you deserve to know which of those you are being sold.

Is the Case for Preparing a Mechanical One or an Outcome One?

Two arguments get made for preparing before IVF, in the same tone of voice.

The mechanical one: sperm are built over weeks, eggs mature over months, so what happens in that window shows up in the cells that reach the clinic. That is reasonable, and part of it has been measured. The outcome one: you are therefore more likely to take a baby home. That is a different claim, it needs different evidence, and the evidence is largely missing.

I sell a twelve to fourteen week programme, so here is the uncomfortable sentence first. That window rests on a sperm-production figure measured directly twice in sixty years, and on an argument about egg maturation I have not found a trial of. The two trials whose windows most resemble mine found nothing. And nobody has compared twelve weeks with six, or with twenty-four.

Does Changing Your Lifestyle Before IVF Improve Live Birth?

Three randomised trials have asked this with a birth as the outcome. All three missed.

The largest gave 577 women six months of lifestyle change before treatment, or sent them straight to treatment.1 They did lose more weight. But the outcome the trial was built around — a healthy baby born at term within two years — came out at 27.1 per cent in the lifestyle group against 35.2 per cent in the group treated promptly. That difference was large enough to be real, and it points against delaying. Nearly a fifth of the lifestyle group dropped out.

A second trial put 317 women on a twelve-week 880 kcal liquid diet before IVF.2 They lost 9.44 kg. The birth rate was 29.6 per cent against 27.5 per cent — no real difference. It did find more spontaneous pregnancies leading to a birth in the diet group, which is a genuine finding, but a secondary one inside a trial that missed.

A third gave 379 women sixteen weeks of intensive weight loss or activity alone, and found 12.2 per cent against 15.2 per cent.3 Their conclusion: “Improvement in metabolic health may not translate into improved female fecundity.”

The closest published thing to what I offer is a trial of 211 couples given a lifestyle app and coaching calls. It stopped early, changed its main outcome partway through, and found nothing — and 38 per cent of the men did not use all the modules.4 That last number is itself the finding. Adherence is the bottleneck.

Cochrane’s review of preconception lifestyle advice covers seven trials, but its birth estimate rests on a single trial of 626 people: “little to no difference in the number of live births”, on low-quality evidence, and “This review does not provide clear guidance for clinical practice in this area.”5 Only one of the seven trials included male partners.

Two trials that could have answered this properly are registered but their status is unknown, so the honest statement is neither that preparing fails nor that it works. And the sentence everyone quotes from ASRM has two halves: “robust evidence is lacking that dietary and lifestyle interventions improve natural fertility, although dietary and lifestyle modifications may be recommended to improve overall health.”6

Is the Twelve-Week Window Real, and Where Did 74 Days Come From?

This is the number my offer stands on, so I will not round it in my favour.

How long sperm take to be made has been measured directly, in living men, twice. In the 1960s, researchers concluded that “one cycle of the seminiferous epithelium lasts 16 days, and the whole of spermatogenesis is estimated to consume approximately 64 days.”7 Forty-three years later, eleven men drank labelled water for three weeks, and the labelled sperm turned up at 64 days, give or take 8, with individual men ranging from 42 to 76.8

So where does 74 come from? A calculation, not a measurement: 4.6 cycles multiplied by 16 days gives 73.6. I have not read the paper that convention is usually traced to, so I make no claim about what is in it. And the travel time through the epididymis does not close the gap — it widens it, because the 64-day figure already includes that journey, while the conventional 74 covers production alone. The best review of this says the 1960s data are “neither robust nor precise” and asks the field to measure it again.9

So the pipeline argument is right in direction and soft in the number. Two measurements, forty-three years apart. And 64 days is about nine weeks, not twelve. “Sperm take 74 days, so twelve weeks makes sense” is a mechanism dressed up as a result.

Has Anyone Tested How Long a Preparation Period Should Be?

Not that I can find, and I went looking. Every trial here picked a length and never varied it: twelve weeks, sixteen weeks, six months.

I searched the ClinicalTrials.gov registry using six sets of terms, among them duration preconception intervention fertility and three months before IVF preparation, and searched Europe PMC for titles and abstracts combining duration or timing with preconception. I found no study that randomly assigned people to different lengths of preparation. That is an absence I looked for, not one I am asserting from silence.

What this means for an offer like mine: the two trials with the closest windows — one running fourteen to seventeen weeks in total, the other sixteen — both found nothing. Both were in women with obesity, weight-focused, without male partners, and too small to detect a modest effect. So this does not disprove the premise. It does mean my window comes from biology, not from a trial that compared windows.

A disclosure that changes nothing is decoration, so: if you have six weeks before your cycle, take the six weeks. I have no evidence that twelve is better, and I will not ask you to postpone a cycle to fit a programme length nobody has compared.

Should He Have a Sperm DNA Fragmentation Test?

The newest guideline is the bluntest. NICE, published in March 2026, recommendation 1.17.6: “Do not carry out testing for sperm DNA integrity (fragmentation).” And 1.24.6: “Do not offer supplements, antioxidants or medical treatments to improve sperm DNA integrity (fragmentation).”10

The committee’s reasoning matters more than the recommendation. There was “no justification for routine testing” because treating fragmentation showed no clear benefit — and when asked what research should happen next, they wrote that it would be “premature to draft a fully specified and implementable research recommendation.”11 The uncertainty runs deep enough that they could not specify what study to run.

ASRM says the same in older words: current methods “do not reliably predict treatment outcomes and cannot be recommended routinely for clinical use.”12 The AUA/ASRM guideline says fragmentation testing “is not recommended in the initial evaluation of the infertile couple”, and adds that no study has directly tested whether the result changes how a couple is managed.13,14

The link between fragmentation and outcome is real and weaker than the marketing implies. Pooling 32 studies and 12,380 cycles gives a live-birth risk ratio of 0.78, in a range from 0.58 to 1.06 — which includes no effect.15 Those authors still conclude routine testing is justified, which their own birth numbers do not carry.

Has anyone shown that lowering fragmentation leads to more babies? I searched and could not find such a trial, and two large ones point the other way. One gave 2,370 couples six months of folic acid and zinc or a placebo: births came out at 34 against 35 per cent, and fragmentation was higher on the supplements.16 In another, three months of antioxidants left fragmentation where it started in the men who had the most of it.17

So I do not order fragmentation tests as part of preparation, and I will not sell you one. If your clinic has ordered one, our guide to DFI testing, cost and interpretation covers what a number can and cannot say.

Do Antioxidants Do Anything, for Him or for Me?

This is the clearest demonstration in fertility research that an effect can shrink as the evidence improves.

For men, Cochrane’s pooled birth figure has fallen with every version: 4.21 in 2014, 1.79 in 2019, 1.43 in 2022 — and the reviewers’ own confidence fell with it, ending at very low.18,19,20 More trials, smaller effect, less certainty. Take out the studies at high risk of bias and it disappears entirely. Their verdict: “Subfertile couples should be advised that overall, the current evidence is inconclusive.”

For women the same trajectory, with a second problem on top. The reviewers wrote it carefully: “Due to the very low-quality of the evidence we are uncertain whether antioxidants improve live birth rate.”21,22 Then, on 5 March 2026, Cochrane published a note recording seven retractions and two expressions of concern among the studies inside that review. Both halves belong here: the editors judged that removing them “leads to no meaningful impact on the review’s findings”, and also that at the next update “these nine studies will be excluded from the analyses.”

One trial tested the premise directly in 174 men, double-blind and placebo-controlled, and found no difference at three months in sperm shape, movement or DNA damage.17 A follow-up analysis found the men’s vitamin E, selenium and zinc levels were all normal to begin with, and none of them predicted anything.23 They were not deficient, so there was nothing to correct — and trials of antioxidants have generally not selected men on measured oxidative stress in the first place. Doses and specific agents are covered in our article on sleep, caffeine, supplements and stress.

Can I Actually Improve My Egg Quality?

Age dominates, and ASRM is blunt about the tests: markers of ovarian reserve “are poor predictors of fecundity in noninfertile women.”6

CoQ10 moves the steps in between and stops there. Pooling five trials and 449 women, clinical pregnancy rose from 14.1 to 28.8 per cent — but the birth figure came out at 1.67, in a range from 0.66 to 4.25, which includes no effect.24 The largest single trial found more eggs and better fertilisation, and reported that pregnancy and birth rates “tended to be higher in CoQ10 group but did not achieve statistical significance.”25 The gap between more pregnancies and more babies is where most fertility marketing lives.

DHEA is the cleanest example of evidence going backwards. Cochrane in 2015 found 1.88 for birth or ongoing pregnancy, at moderate quality — which fell to 1.50, and stopped being a real difference, once the weaker trials were removed.27 By 2024 the verdict was that DHEA “likely results in little to no difference in live birth/ongoing pregnancy rates”, at 1.30 from the nine trials and 1,433 women reporting it.26

Growth hormone is the “significant but very low certainty” trap in pure form. In women who respond poorly to stimulation, the pooled birth figure is 1.77 with a range that excludes no effect — attached to a very low certainty rating and to the authors’ own conclusion of “an uncertain effect on live birth rates in this group.”28 The best-designed test, a placebo-controlled trial stopped early, found 14.5 per cent against 13.7 per cent.29

Do Plastics, Pesticides and Non-Stick Pans Matter?

The observed signal is genuine. The evidence that doing anything about it helps is absent.

In one group of 325 women across 541 treatment cycles, fruit and vegetables were sorted into high- and low-pesticide-residue using national surveillance data — note that this is an estimate of exposure, not pesticide measured in the women.30 The women eating the most high-residue produce had a 26 per cent lower chance of a birth than those eating the least. Low-residue produce showed nothing. In the same group, 256 women who gave urine samples showed a similar pattern for phthalates.31

BPA is the cautionary tale. An early study of 137 women reported rising odds of failed implantation as BPA levels rose — with every range crossing no effect, and a trend test that did not reach significance — and still concluded there was a dose-response.32 Three years later the same group, with more women, reported that BPA “concentrations were not associated with adverse reproductive and pregnancy outcomes.”33 ASRM’s review of twelve articles is the corrective: the evidence “largely indicated little to no association” between these chemicals and how long it takes to get pregnant.6

I searched for any randomised trial of reducing exposure — an organic diet, avoiding plastics, changing personal-care products — with a pregnancy or birth outcome, and could not find one. Strong mechanism, decent observation, no intervention data.

Does Acupuncture Improve IVF Success?

I am a licensed acupuncturist. On live birth, the honest summary is that acupuncture has not been shown to improve it, and the two largest properly controlled trials found nothing.

The best of them randomised 848 women at 16 IVF centres to acupuncture or to a fake needle placed away from real points.34 Births occurred in 18.3 per cent with acupuncture and 17.8 per cent with the sham. The authors: “These findings do not support the use of acupuncture to improve the rate of live births among women undergoing IVF.” A second trial in 1,000 Chinese women with PCOS found 21.8 against 22.4 per cent.35

Cochrane’s review of 20 trials found no evidence that acupuncture improves birth or pregnancy rates around embryo transfer, on low-quality evidence.36 It has not been updated since 2013, and I would rather tell you that than let its date do quiet work for me.

Two further reviews need reading carefully. A 2025 review of 42 trials found more clinical pregnancies — live birth is not among the outcomes its abstract reports as improved, and I could not get the full text to check whether a birth figure exists. It also reports a significantly higher early miscarriage rate in the acupuncture groups.37 A 2022 review found no significant increase in clinical pregnancy worldwide; split by where the trials were run, acupuncture looked worse in China and better outside it, with births no different either way.38 An effect that flips direction depending on the country is telling you about the trials, not the needles.

Two absences, precisely. I went through 17 registered acupuncture-and-IVF trials one by one; every one that reported a reproductive outcome gave the treatment during stimulation or around retrieval or transfer. I could not find a single trial of acupuncture started around three months before a cycle with a birth as its outcome — which is the protocol many clinics use, mine included. And the one large trial that might have settled it has been listed status unknown since 2021.

So: I cannot show you that acupuncture produces more babies. If you are choosing between paying for acupuncture and paying for your next transfer, pay for the transfer.

What Is Being Sold Ahead of Its Evidence?

Seminal oxidative-stress testing failed when someone independent checked it. Across 118 repeat samples from 31 men, two commercial tests were run alongside established measures: “Neither MiOXSYS® nor OxiSperm® II assays were predictive of sperm function or sperm oxidative stress”, and they “seem to provide no additional clinical utility beyond that of a standard semen analysis.”39 A methodological review explains why: the index divides a redox reading by sperm concentration, and “The creation of such an index is flawed.”40

The seminal microbiome is the purest example of no evidence either way — correlations with semen results, and nothing else. I could not find a trial of any microbiome-directed treatment with a pregnancy or birth outcome anywhere in the literature I searched.

One note for the “it cannot hurt to try” instinct: sometimes it can. Folic acid and zinc raised DNA fragmentation. Male antioxidants caused more mild stomach upset. In that placebo-controlled trial, the change in sperm concentration favoured the dummy pill. Active acupuncture raised diarrhoea and bruising, and one review found more early miscarriage. And the least ambiguous effect on live birth in this whole article belongs to delay: the women asked to spend six months preparing had the lower rate of healthy births.

What Is Known, What Is Not, and Which Kind of Gap Is It?

Two sentences get blurred constantly: this was tested and did not work, and nobody has tested this. The last column separates them, and the full numbers for every claim above sit in the middle two.

Question a couple would ask What is actually known, and how strong Outcome measured What is not known Tested and null, or never tested?
Will changing our lifestyle before IVF give us a baby? Three RCTs, all null; in LIFEstyle the primary outcome favoured going straight to treatment, RR 0.77 (0.60–0.99). Cochrane: RR 0.93 (0.79–1.10), low quality1,2,3,5 Live birth Whether a multi-component, male-inclusive couple programme helps. Only 1 of 7 Cochrane RCTs included male partners Tested and null for weight-focused programmes; never adequately tested for couple programmes
Is the conventional three-month sperm window real? Measured twice: approximately 64 days in 1963, and 64 ± 8 days, range 42–76, in 11 men in 20067,8 Days from labelling to labelled sperm in the ejaculate Where 74 days comes from as a measurement; whether the window changes any outcome Measured — and the conventional figure is not the measured figure
How long before the cycle should we start? Nothing. Trial durations of 12 weeks, 16 weeks, 3–6 months and 12 months were chosen, never compared — Whether 12 weeks beats 6 weeks or 6 months Never tested. I searched interventional registries and Europe PMC and found no trial randomising duration
Should he have a DNA fragmentation test? NICE 2026, ASRM and AUA/ASRM all advise against routine testing. Pooled live birth RR 0.78 (0.58–1.06), not significant10,12,13,14,15 Live birth, clinical pregnancy, implantation, % DFI Which assay, which threshold, and whether testing changes management Tested and null for treatments; never tested for testing itself — no prospective study of testing as management exists
Does lowering DFI improve live birth? FAZST, n=2,370: no live-birth effect and DFI rose 2.4% (0.5–4.4). MOXI: no fall in DFI in men with high DFI16,17 Live birth and % DFI Any intervention that reliably lowers DFI and raises live birth. I could not find one Tested and null — and, for DFI itself, tested and adverse
Should he take antioxidants? Live birth OR 1.43 (1.07–1.91), very low certainty; removing high-risk-of-bias trials gives 1.22 (0.85–1.75)18 Live birth Which antioxidant, what dose, in whom. 20 agents were pooled Tested; fragile and inconclusive. Not proven, not disproven
Should I take antioxidants? OR 1.81 (1.36–2.43) from 13 RCTs, but Cochrane is “uncertain whether antioxidants improve live birth rate”, and a 2026 note records 7 retractions and 2 expressions of concern21 Live birth Whether the estimate survives the integrity problem Tested; very low certainty with an active research-integrity flag
Can I improve my egg quality? CoQ10: clinical pregnancy OR 2.44 (1.30–4.59) but live birth OR 1.67 (0.66–4.25). DHEA: OR 1.88 (1.30–2.71), moderate quality in 2015, became 1.30 (0.95–1.76) in 202424,26,27 Clinical pregnancy and live birth Any supplement with live-birth evidence in women with normal ovarian reserve. Almost all trials are in poor responders Tested and null on live birth
Does growth hormone work? Poor responders: live birth OR 1.77 (1.17–2.70) but very low certainty; the best placebo-controlled trial gave 14.5% vs 13.7%, OR 1.07 (0.37–3.10)28,29 Live birth Whether the meta-analytic signal is real Significant in meta-analysis at very low certainty; the single best RCT was null
Should I avoid plastics and non-organic produce? Real observational signals: 26% (13–37%) lower probability of live birth in the highest quartile of high-residue produce; DEHP live-birth difference −0.19 (−0.28 to −0.08)30,31 Clinical pregnancy and live birth per cycle Whether reducing exposure changes anything Never tested as an intervention. I searched and found no randomised exposure-reduction trial with a pregnancy outcome
Does acupuncture help IVF? Best sham-controlled trial: live birth 18.3% vs 17.8%, RR 1.02 (0.76–1.38). Cochrane: no evidence it improves live birth or pregnancy rates34,36 Live birth Why positive meta-analyses persist; the effect reverses sign by country of origin Tested and null on live birth in the two largest sham-controlled RCTs; I could not find a trial of the pre-cycle protocol
Should he get an oxidative-stress or semen microbiome test? The leading commercial oxidative-stress assays “provide no additional clinical utility beyond that of a standard semen analysis”39,40 Sperm function, DFI, oxidative stress Everything, for the microbiome Tested and null for the oxidative-stress assays; for the microbiome, I could not find a trial reporting any pregnancy or live-birth outcome

So Is There Any Honest Case for Preparing At All?

There is, and it is smaller than the version you have been sold, including by me.

The mechanistic case stands on its own terms: sperm made over roughly nine weeks reflect the conditions of those weeks. It does not carry you to a live birth, and I will not pretend the bridge is built.

Most of what the first article in this series recommends is worth doing for you rather than for the cycle. Sleep, moving, not smoking, drinking less: these hold up as health advice whether or not a transfer works. If your cycle does not work, you will still be the person who slept.

One more thing, and it is my opinion rather than a finding: knowing what you did and why seems to make a failed cycle easier to carry. No trial has measured that, and it is not a reason to pay me. If someone offers you more than this, with more confidence, ask which trial they are quoting and what it measured.

Related reading

Frequently Asked Questions

Does preparing for three months actually improve IVF success?

No trial has shown that it improves live birth, and I searched for one specifically. Three randomised trials of preconception lifestyle change measured live birth and all three missed: LIFEstyle, where the primary outcome of a healthy term singleton within 24 months was 27.1 per cent in the lifestyle arm against 35.2 per cent in the arm sent straight to treatment — rate ratio 0.77 (95% CI 0.60 to 0.99), an interval excluding 1 against the lifestyle arm, so what that trial signals is harm from delay; Einarsson, 29.6 against 27.5 per cent after a 12-week diet plus two to five weeks of stabilisation; and FIT-PLESE, 12.2 against 15.2 per cent after 16 weeks. All three were in women with obesity and weight-focused rather than multi-component, and Einarsson and FIT-PLESE did not include the male partner, so they do not close the question. But note which trials they are: the preparation windows closest to the 12 to 14 weeks I sell are among the ones that missed. The case for preparing is a mechanistic one about how sperm and eggs are built, not a demonstrated effect on the chance of a baby.

Is a sperm DNA fragmentation test worth paying for?

Three independent bodies advise against routine testing, and the newest is the bluntest: NICE, in March 2026, says “Do not carry out testing for sperm DNA integrity (fragmentation).” ASRM says current methods “do not reliably predict treatment outcomes and cannot be recommended routinely for clinical use”, and the AUA/ASRM guideline notes that no prospective study has evaluated the impact of fragmentation testing on the clinical management of infertile couples. The pooled association with live birth is not statistically significant, RR 0.78 (95% CI 0.58 to 1.06). I could not find a trial showing that lowering fragmentation improves live birth, and in the largest supplement trial, involving 2,370 couples, fragmentation actually rose by 2.4 per cent. If your clinic has ordered one for a specific reason in your history, that is a conversation to have with them, but I do not sell them as part of preparation.

Do supplements improve egg quality?

They move intermediate measures more convincingly than they move babies. Pooled CoQ10 trials in 449 women showed clinical pregnancy at odds ratio 2.44 (95% CI 1.30 to 4.59) but live birth at 1.67 (95% CI 0.66 to 4.25), which does not reach significance. DHEA looked promising in 2015 at odds ratio 1.88 (1.30 to 2.71), moderate quality, and was reassessed by Cochrane in 2024 — on the 9 trials and 1,433 women that reported the outcome — as likely to make little to no difference to live birth or ongoing pregnancy, odds ratio 1.30 (95% CI 0.95 to 1.76). Almost all of these trials were run in women with diminished ovarian reserve or poor response, so they tell you little about a woman with normal ovarian reserve. And Cochrane’s own summary of antioxidants for women is that it is uncertain whether they improve live birth rate.

Does acupuncture improve IVF success rates?

Not on live birth, as far as the best evidence can show, and I say that as a licensed acupuncturist. In the largest sham-controlled trial, 848 women across 16 IVF centres, live birth was 18.3 per cent with acupuncture and 17.8 per cent with sham, relative risk 1.02 (95% CI 0.76 to 1.38). In a trial of 1,000 women with PCOS, live birth was 21.8 against 22.4 per cent. Cochrane’s conclusion is that there is no evidence acupuncture improves live birth or pregnancy rates in assisted conception, though that review has not been updated since 2013. One 2022 review found no significant increase in clinical pregnancy worldwide, and when it split its trials by country the effect reversed sign: clinical pregnancy relative risk 0.80 inside China and 1.38 outside it, which tells you about the trials rather than the treatment. One 2025 review also reported a higher early miscarriage rate, relative risk 1.51 (95% CI 1.10 to 2.08).

How long before an IVF cycle should we start preparing?

I could not find anyone who has tested this, and I want to be exact about how I know. I searched the ClinicalTrials.gov interventional registry using six sets of terms about preconception intervention duration, and searched Europe PMC for titles and abstracts combining duration or timing with preconception and optimal duration, and I found no trial that randomised the length of a preparation period. The durations in published trials — 12 weeks, 16 weeks, three to six months, twelve months — were chosen, never compared. The conventional three-month figure is a rounding of the sperm production pipeline, which has been measured directly twice, at approximately 64 days in 1963 and at 64 plus or minus 8 days with a range of 42 to 76 days in eleven men in 2006. If you have six weeks rather than twelve, use the six weeks. Delay itself is the one exposure with an unambiguous signal: in LIFEstyle, the arm asked to wait had the lower rate of healthy term birth.

References

  1. Mutsaerts MA, et al. Randomized Trial of a Lifestyle Program in Obese Infertile Women. N Engl J Med. 2016;374(20):1942–1953. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1505297
  2. Einarsson S, et al. Weight reduction intervention for obese infertile women prior to IVF: a randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod. 2017;32(8):1621–1630. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dex235
  3. Legro RS, et al. Effects of preconception lifestyle intervention in infertile women with obesity: The FIT-PLESE randomized controlled trial. PLoS Med. 2022;19(1):e1003883. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1003883
  4. Boedt T, et al. A blended preconception lifestyle programme for couples undergoing IVF: lessons learned from a multicentre randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod Open. 2023;2023(4):hoad036. https://doi.org/10.1093/hropen/hoad036
  5. Boedt T, et al. Preconception lifestyle advice for people with infertility. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021;4:CD008189. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD008189.pub3
  6. Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine and the Practice Committee of the Society for Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility. Optimizing natural fertility: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2022;117(1):53–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2021.10.007
  7. Heller CG, Clermont Y. Spermatogenesis in Man: An Estimate of Its Duration. Science. 1963;140(3563):184–186. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.140.3563.184
  8. Misell LM, et al. A Stable Isotope-Mass Spectrometric Method for Measuring Human Spermatogenesis Kinetics In Vivo. J Urol. 2006;175(1):242–246. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(05)00053-4
  9. Amann RP. The Cycle of the Seminiferous Epithelium in Humans: A Need to Revisit? J Androl. 2008;29(5):469–487. https://doi.org/10.2164/jandrol.107.004655
  10. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Fertility problems: assessment and treatment. NICE guideline NG257. Published 31 March 2026. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng257
  11. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Fertility problems: assessment and treatment — [S] Sperm DNA fragmentation. Evidence reviews underpinning recommendations 1.17.6, 1.24.6 and 1.27.1. NICE guideline NG257. March 2026. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng257/evidence/s-sperm-dna-fragmentation-pdf-563921039736
  12. Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. The clinical utility of sperm DNA integrity testing: a guideline. Fertil Steril. 2013;99(3):673–677. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2012.12.049
  13. Schlegel PN, et al. Diagnosis and treatment of infertility in men: AUA/ASRM guideline part I. Fertil Steril. 2021;115(1):54–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2020.11.015
  14. Schlegel PN, et al. Diagnosis and treatment of infertility in men: AUA/ASRM guideline part II. Fertil Steril. 2021;115(1):62–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2020.11.016
  15. Ribas-Maynou J, et al. Clinical implications of sperm DNA damage in IVF and ICSI: updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 2021;96(4):1284–1300. https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12700
  16. Schisterman EF, et al. Effect of Folic Acid and Zinc Supplementation in Men on Semen Quality and Live Birth Among Couples Undergoing Infertility Treatment: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2020;323(1):35–48. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2019.18714
  17. Steiner AZ, et al. The effect of antioxidants on male factor infertility: the Males, Antioxidants, and Infertility (MOXI) randomized clinical trial. Fertil Steril. 2020;113(3):552–560.e3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2019.11.008
  18. de Ligny W, et al. Antioxidants for male subfertility. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022;5:CD007411. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD007411.pub5
  19. Smits RM, et al. Antioxidants for male subfertility. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019;3:CD007411. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD007411.pub4
  20. Showell MG, et al. Antioxidants for male subfertility. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;(12):CD007411. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD007411.pub3
  21. Showell MG, et al. Antioxidants for female subfertility. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020;8:CD007807. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD007807.pub4 (carries an editorial note published 5 March 2026 concerning nine included studies)
  22. Showell MG, et al. Antioxidants for female subfertility. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;7:CD007807. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD007807.pub3
  23. Knudtson JF, et al. The relationship of plasma antioxidant levels to semen parameters: the Males, Antioxidants, and Infertility (MOXI) randomized clinical trial. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2021;38(11):3005–3013. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-021-02301-2
  24. Florou P, et al. Does coenzyme Q10 supplementation improve fertility outcomes in women undergoing assisted reproductive technology procedures? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized-controlled trials. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2020;37(10):2377–2387. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-020-01906-3
  25. Xu Y, et al. Pretreatment with coenzyme Q10 improves ovarian response and embryo quality in low-prognosis young women with decreased ovarian reserve: a randomized controlled trial. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2018;16(1):29. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12958-018-0343-0
  26. Naik S, et al. Androgens (dehydroepiandrosterone or testosterone) for women undergoing assisted reproduction. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2024;6:CD009749. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD009749.pub3
  27. Nagels HE, et al. Androgens (dehydroepiandrosterone or testosterone) for women undergoing assisted reproduction. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;(11):CD009749. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD009749.pub2
  28. Sood A, et al. Growth hormone for in vitro fertilisation (IVF). Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021;11:CD000099. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD000099.pub4
  29. Norman RJ, et al. Human growth hormone for poor responders: a randomized placebo-controlled trial provides no evidence for improved live birth rate. Reprod Biomed Online. 2019;38(6):908–915. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2019.02.003
  30. Chiu YH, et al. Association Between Pesticide Residue Intake From Consumption of Fruits and Vegetables and Pregnancy Outcomes Among Women Undergoing Infertility Treatment With Assisted Reproductive Technology. JAMA Intern Med. 2018;178(1):17–26. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2017.5038
  31. Hauser R, et al. Urinary Phthalate Metabolite Concentrations and Reproductive Outcomes among Women Undergoing in Vitro Fertilization: Results from the EARTH Study. Environ Health Perspect. 2016;124(6):831–839. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1509760
  32. Ehrlich S, et al. Urinary Bisphenol A Concentrations and Implantation Failure among Women Undergoing in Vitro Fertilization. Environ Health Perspect. 2012;120(7):978–983. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1104307
  33. Mínguez-Alarcón L, et al. Urinary bisphenol A concentrations and association with in vitro fertilization outcomes among women from a fertility clinic. Hum Reprod. 2015;30(9):2120–2128. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dev183
  34. Smith CA, et al. Effect of Acupuncture vs Sham Acupuncture on Live Births Among Women Undergoing In Vitro Fertilization: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2018;319(19):1990–1998. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2018.5336
  35. Wu XK, et al. Effect of Acupuncture and Clomiphene in Chinese Women With Polycystic Ovary Syndrome: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2017;317(24):2502–2514. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2017.7217
  36. Cheong YC, et al. Acupuncture and assisted reproductive technology. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;(7):CD006920. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD006920.pub3
  37. Fu QW, et al. Acupuncture for women undergoing in vitro fertilization: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis. Int J Nurs Stud. 2025;168:105097. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2025.105097
  38. Masoud A, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of the efficacy of acupuncture as an adjunct to IVF cycles in China and the world. Turk J Obstet Gynecol. 2022;19(4):315–326. https://doi.org/10.4274/tjod.galenos.2022.04752
  39. Castleton P, et al. MiOXSYS® and OxiSperm® II assays appear to provide no clinical utility for determining oxidative stress in human sperm — results from repeated semen collections. Andrology. 2023;11(8):1566–1578. https://doi.org/10.1111/andr.13356
  40. Aitken RJ, Gharagozloo P. The assessment of oxidative stress in human semen: chaos and confusion in pursuit of diagnostic precision. Reprod Biomed Online. 2025;50(2):104488. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2024.104488

If you would like help working out which parts of this apply to the two of you, and which parts you can set down — including whether preparing with me is worth your money at all, Book a free 15-minute call. It is a conversation about your preparation, not a substitute for the advice of your reproductive endocrinologist or urologist.

Want the biology behind the habits?

Get the free guide — The Biology Behind the Clarity Check: what everyday habits may do to sperm DNA and egg quality — every claim cited to peer-reviewed research.

Free, evidence-based, unsubscribe anytime.

Educational only — not medical advice, diagnosis, or a substitute for your physician or fertility clinic.