to think that we can't actually tell how big a baby is going to be?

[allhailtheaubergine]

1. I have lost count of the number of women who are told that they have "a very big baby in there" by various medical professionals, and then go on to have a perfectly average sized baby.

1. Even to the point of scans and monitoring and preparations for c-sections because the baby is SO BIG... and then a lovely little 7lb baby arrives via the traditional channels.

1. And people have to have a lucozade / glucose test thing for diabetes because they are "measuring big" and then go on to have demonstrably not particularly big babies.

1. You can't look at something and know how heavy it is. Scanning is looking. Big babies are weighed. What if they are small and dense? Or big and less dense?

1. And anyway, weighing is a silly way of determining what is a big baby and what isn't. What about head circumference? Shoulder width? Length?

Am I being a total arse (AIBATA) ? Or is predicting the size of babies a fairly inexact science?

My MW wouldn't say, but she said she expected it would be over 7lb (I think she thought more but didn't want to alarm me!) - she visited me when DD arrived, checked her over and commented that it was probably a blessing that we'd had a c-section as a normal delivery would have probably injured us both.
Saying that I know of women much tinier than me (I'm quite tall and broad) who have delivered 10lb ers without problems.

I had pre-eclampsia with DD3 and was monitored closely for the last 5 wks of the pregnancy including regular growth scans. I was told that there was no need to induce me early because she was a good 7lb, she was born by crash c-section at 39 wks and was 5 1/2lbs. However she was perfectly healthy and her lungs were fine so I have no complaints! Just shows how several scans can be wrong.

I was told DD was around 11 at 36 weeks and would be 13 at 38. I was given a c-section and she was 10lb 2oz, so big, but nowhere near as big as they suggested.

YANBU. at 35 weeks DS was supposedly 6lb 4 oz and we were discharged from weekly monitoring. Was born 3 weeks later at 5lb 11. Was normal length at 52 inches (50th percentile) but 2nd percentile for weight. He was actually thin with ribs showing. Maybe he actually lost weight in there. He was otherwise fine.

on a t.v program a while ago, doctor said 'trying to work out the weight of a baby in the womb is like putting someone in a bath tub and trying to work out their weight by measuring their waist when you are in the next room' or words to that effect.

but all my babies were born pretty much on their due date and almost exactly as predicted on my growth charts.

a friend i know who was told was going to have a big baby, had a big baby.

Sprinkles, my DD was the same. She looked like her skin was too big for her and was so tiny that we were afraid to undress her because she got cold so quickly.

The only baby I was told by a professional would be big was, well, big. 8-15, but then I'm quite small, so big for me, IYSWIM.

My stepsister is teeny weeny and had the smallest, neatest bump imaginable. Everyone told her it was a small baby, she always maintained it was a big one. And she was right - 11lbs or something. Dislocated his shoulder on the way out and she had all sorts of "down there" issues.

i was told mine would be small...

ds1 they said about 6-7lb he was 8lb 7, so not too big :)

ds2 small.... 9lb 3oz

ds3 small 9lb 5oz

ds4 again consultant said small as i always have small bump, i said no baby isnt small, midwife agreed with me, we thought another 9lber maybe 9lb 8oz, he was 10lb 13oz, had him in birthing pool in under an hour :)

dd they said would be big, at least 9lb 5oz according to scan 2 days before she was born, i said NO, have had big babies this baby doesnt feel big, but they wouldnt believe me, she was 8lb exactly :)

scans are said to be at least 10% out and 'officially' a baby is big if its over 9lb 8oz i think?

the 'average' for a newborn is still 7lb 8oz? but that of course is taken by collating data including prem babies etc.

oh and i am small, 5 2 and fairly petite when not carrying baby weight a size ten. but apparently i have good 'childbearing hips'... good job as ds4's head was 41cm at birth and off the top of the chart!

I was huge, with a 47 inch waist at 8 months pregnant. I was assured I would have an average baby "7 or 7 1/2 pounds - you have a lot of water in there". Cue tramautic emergency caesarian and 9 1/2 pound baby. Who knows?

I expected a 7 pound baby myself, because the biggest of my mum's 7 children was 8 pounds, but by the end I was convinced mine was much larger.... setting two family records (mine and his).

I've always thought some opinions should be taken with a pinch of salt, the midwife saying it's going to be a big baby just by looking at you etc. But still surprised in the age of 3d scans that sometimes they really have no idea.

My tiny 5 foot nothing friend laboured for 3 days before ending up with an emergency c-section and a 11lb 10oz baby. None of the scans, examinations etc she'd had indicated that she'd have an abnormally large baby. (No gestational diabetes or anything)

Everyone said DD was going to be big. When I had 20 week scan her femur measured on the 95th centile. She was 6lb 10oz and only 18 inches.

I had a scan the day before DD was born and they said she was spot on the 50th percentile. When born it turned out she was on the 9th.

So IMO YANBU.

I was tested for gestational diabetes but it was negative.

Knew I was going to have a large baby. My abdomen was taut as a drum. I didn't seem to have any 'thickness' to my skin, iyswim. You could see and feel all the baby's limbs at the front (posterior presentation).

1st baby 9lb 12oz
2nd baby 9lb 12oz
3rd baby (delivered at 37 weeks c/s) 9lb 6oz

I'm a slim build. 5'6''.

Had a 34 week scan for placental position with DS1, when it was flagged up that he might be a big baby. Measured 6lb 13oz, head circ 35cm (average at birth), femur length 40 weeks +

I was terrified. They asked me to come in for a scan two weeks later as "the baby might be too big."

Two weeks later the scan showed all the above plus two weeks. The verdict was "oh that's all fine."

I realise now that they were probably worried about diabetes but at the time my focus was on the birth and I couldn't get my head round how at 34 weeks I had a "too-big" baby but at 36 weeks it had grown proportionally but was suddenly no cause for concern.

Any mention I made of a caesarean due to the big baby "they" had alerted me to and consequently scared me shitless about was contemptuously brushed aside.

DS1 was a caesarean after 24 hours labour due to failure to progress, probably due to his massive head not engaging, even in labour I think - it was too high to get a blood sample from just before they did the section. (The lack of engagement in this first LARGE baby with very big head also having been contemptuously brushed aside.) He was 9 lb 9 oz; the biggest baby I had ever heard of in my social circle at the time, but that was a few years ago - I have encountered bigger since, born naturally too!

At the rate of a baby gaining half a pound a week and losing a bit after term, the 6lb 13oz at 34 weeks was right on target - I would estimate he should have been 9lb 13oz at term and was nearly 2 weeks late so the 5oz lost fits.

A friend at the same hospital had a section suggested as her baby was "so big" - turned out to be 7.5 lbs. Could never understand why no one suggested an elective for mine when I thought all the signs were there. But we were both fine in the end, so no big thing for us I guess.

Scan are actually known to be inaccurate. They are known to be plus or minus 25%! so v inaccurate.

The day before DD came, was scanned (35wks). Told all OK, about 6lbs-came out less than 24hrs later, was 4lb2oz! All skin and bone, though had a big head! Beautiful girl. :)

Had a scan at 36wks with DD as they thought I was measuring big (had previously had two GD tests, both negative)
They predicted a 9.5lb baby at term.
She was born at 39+4 weighing 8lb8oz, so not that big

Had a scan at 36wks with DS as they thought I was measuring big (had previously had a GD test, which was negative)
They predicted a 9.5lb baby at term. (Can you see a pattern here ) Yeah, Yeah I thought, heard that one before...
He was born at 40+10 weighing 10lb10.5oz, so rather larger than they were (and I was!) expecting

YANBU

I was told at my 36 week scan that DC1 would be "8 and a half pounds", he came out a week early weighing 8lb 6oz.

Seems like a good estimate to me :)

With ds1, a midwife booked me in for an induction at 37 weeks due to OC and warned me to be prepared for a 6 to 7lb baby as 'they do there fattening up in the last 4 weeks and it isn't going to get that'. I mentioned family histories on both sides, she laughed and said 'Well you could be hiding a 9lber in there but I doubt it very much'. One week later ds1 was born by c section weighing 9lb 15.5.
With ds2 the sonographer at my 34 week growth scan said 'not to worry about first size clothes' and a midwife examined me the week before I went in and said she believed it would be bigger than 9lb but probably not as big as 10lb' and when he was born by c section the midwife refused to let me do skin to skin as he was 'well over 10lb and too heavy to e laid so hig up on me'. He was 9lbs 10.5.
With dd, the midwife who examined me the week before the c section and said it was another big one. She was a tiny (for me anyway) 8lb 14ozs.
I think alot is guess work. All mine have had larger than average head circumferences.

Scans and midwife's predictions of my four were all fairly accurate(all predicted to be 7-7.5 lb,actual weights between 7lb10 and 6lb10)

Shoulder dystocia is just as likely to happen with smaller babies, BTW. DS1 (7lb3) was an asynclitic presentation, and got stuck during delivery. He looked like he'd been in a fight when they finally got him out. Both ears were bent forwards, his nose was squashed to one side and he was covered in bruises. He still has a wonky smile from (minor) facial nerve damage

Ballonslayer, they reckoned ds1 failed to progress due to his head being too big to fit on the cervix (his was 39cm, ds2's was 39.5cm and dd was 37cm). A nurse a my practice said 38cm was the average size of babies heads at their 6 week check! Their big heads are all down to their father and his family!

DS1 - growth scans for enlarged size 9lbs
DS2 - Measured 5 weeks ahead but midwife said I was "just a bit fat" (am not high BMI or anything so thanks pal) and he was 10lb 2oz.

Just to digress briefly, if you had a 9lb plus baby do you find people wince, ask if you had a c-section and if you didn't, look at you like you have a really big vagina? I get this all the time. Maybe I'm paranoid. Esp when I tell themI didn't tear with a 10lber

I had regular scans etc as I have high bmi. I was told baby was going to be a whopper,I had visions of an 11lb baby. I was carrying excess fluid,can't remember proper term,so I looked like I had a space hopper up my dress. I had my beautiful baby boy by emcs after being induced,he weighed 9.7lbs. I was surprised,thought he'd be bigger.

My fundal height measurement followed about the 75th centile all the way through til about 36 weeks, when it jumped to over the 100th. Added to this, DS was 9 days overdue and I'd had bastards people telling me I was HUGE, are you sure it's not twins, are you sure they have your dates right all the way through. By the time I had him I was crapping myself a bit concerned about the pain, but he was a dainty 6lb 11. So, can't say for accuracy of scans, but the fundal height measurement wasn't that reliable with me (think they were measuring chocolate and cake too!)