Short mum= smaller fundal height?

[Ava50x]

Hi all

Just wondering if you'd care to share your experience.

I'm short- just 5ft 1" and measuring very small (at 37+1 measured just 31cm). Going for yet another growth scan tomorrow- at each scan baby seems to be measuring fine but midwife wants to make sure he's growing properly.

Now the females in my family are mostly short- DM is 4ft 9" and measured small in all her pregnancies, DSis is 5ft 2" and the biggest she got was 30cm at 40 weeks. In case genetics play a role here, my friend who is also short at 5ft measured 31 at 41 weeks. All were made to go back for growth scans and in general made to worry if baby is OK. My sister was induced with her first because they were worried baby was too small; she was born a healthy 7lb.

So I'm wondering if there is any correlation between shorter Mums having smaller fundal height measurements? Perhaps because we have less room for the uterus to grow in??

I'm curious to know how much you measure and how tall you are!

TIA, Ava

[avocadotoast]

Afaik your growth chart (or expected growth chart) is plotted and tailored to you depending on your height and weight. So even though you're short, if they say you're measuring small it'll be small for your height.

I'm 5ft 1 as well and measured pretty much bang on all the way through. DD was 7lb.

[houseofstark]

I'm 5ft and measured almost exactly as my dates dictated, both times.

But then I delivered two 8lb 8oz babies (separate pregnancies, not twins) which is very big for my size.

I was quite surprised by both my measurements and the babies' weights to be honest, as I previously thought there may be some differences due to maternal height.

[Frolicacid]

I'm only 5ft. My fundal height is way above the 95th percentile at 38 weeks and has been throughout the pregnancy. I am absolutely massive.

[Fatty12]

I'm vurrently 32 weeks pregnant and had a scan yesterday which said baby was measuring to dates and the legs were measuring at 35 weeks!

I'm quite the opposite to you ladies at 5ft7, so I'm quite tall but most of my family isn't! But the baby seems to have taken the long legs from me lol

[Feline9]

I'm 5"7 but I have a really short body. At 36 weeks I measured 31cm, I still get told my bump is small (I'm 37) but growth scans show he's on the 90th.

I've been told I'm "all baby" and just don't have a lot of extra room. They don't bother measuring me anymore

[Hellionandfriends]

I'm average height and had measurements that were 5/6 weeks behind. Babies all 7lb. It was just how I carried them. Thinking about it though, I have numerous friend who have been told they are having a small/large baby, then were surprised to give birth to an average sized baby. At the end of the day medics struggle to tell the size of a baby

[overreactionemoticon]

Dd measured correctly whole way through.
Ds never got bigger than 29 cm.
There was only 2oz between them!

[SnozzberryPie]

I'm 5'2 and measured a few cm ahead for my whole pregnancy. DD was completely average sized but I flooded a whole room when my waters broke...

[Groovee]

I'm 5ft, dh is 5ft 8 and I was measuring 30 with Dd at 35 weeks. I had her at 37 weeks due to pre eclampsia and she was 5lb 4oz. Now at 15 she is 5ft 3 and still growing.

Ds was born at 39 weeks and was 6lb 10 but still small at nearly 13.

[FindingNormal]

I'm 5ft and a quarter inch (very important to recognise the quarter!) I measured bang on as expected all the way through and my girl was born at 39 weeks weighing 7lb 11. I ate a fuckton all the way through pregnancy however so I suspect much of my bump was cake.

[WillowB]

I'm 4ft 11 and measured bang on for dates during my last pregnancy with my son. He was pretty tiny though at 6lb 3.
I'm measuring spot on for dates again this time around but being sent for growth scans at 32 & 36 weeks because my son was small.
A poster above mentioned the chart being tailored to your weight & height. The one used by our hospital isn't. It's a standard chart in my maternity notes which they use for everyone.

[Ava50x]

Thanks for sharing your experiences, everyone!
I'm finding it really interesting how we're all so different, and how baby's size has nothing to do with how you're measuring.

WillowB, my hospital also uses a standard chart for everyone. I suspect that if they would use one based on my height and weight, I would probably be measuring big as I feel massive!!

[ScrambledEggAndToast]

I'm 5 foot and my son was born at 42 weeks weighing a healthy 10lb 4oz

[scatterthenuns]

My mum is 5 foot, but my Dad is 6 foot 5. I measured well all the way through and was big but not massive. Was very long though - my foot got wedged under her rib due to my length, and was born all wonky. I have therapy all throughout my childhood to strengthen/straighten it, and even now it points in the wrong direction!

[cjt110]

I'm 5ft. My fundal height was always give or take 1cm to the week I was. My DS was born at 40+1 weighing 8lb11.

[Ava50x]

Scatterthenuns, I find that very interesting- and frightening! I'm 5 ft 1, DH is well over 6 ft. Hope my baby won't have any problems due to our combined heights!!

[Skiptonlass]

I'm just over five foot and measuring half a cm ahead...

But.., it's a really crude measure so don't fret. It depends on the midwife too. One visit I got measured three times by three different people. All the measurements were different.

[sianihedgehog]

I'm 4'11" and my bump is measuring over 90th percentile now, but has been normal for most of the pregnancy.