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?

lazylula DS1 had only a 38cm head compared to your DCs' whopping heads but by crackey I compared it to other babies' on the ward and winced. I remember looking around and thinking "well I think I could have managed that one, and that one and probably even THAT one, but not THIS one!" It was like a bloody cannonball!

DH has a very big head too.

When I was expecting DD, the midwife predicted "girl, about 7lbs" from her heartbeat and feeling my tummy. I didn't know the baby's sex in advance, DD was 6 lb 13oz (as was DS2 - the same weight as DS1 at 34 weeks' gestation) - so a good guess.

With ds1 I was told at about 27 weeks that I was measuring small for dates but that they werent concerned about it. I pointed out that I had been a very small baby-4lb full term but largely due imo to my mum smoking. They dismissed this even though all the data indicates if you were a small baby you have a higher chance of having a small baby.

When ds was born(38 weeks) midwives first words were gosh he is very small-when weighed and turned out to be just over 4 and half lbs she was straight on phone to scbu. Thankfully he never had to go in there and we were home in 8 days.

Sunsequently had other dcs also at 38 weeks and they were 6lb 1 and 6lb 2. I was also found to have a blood clotting disorder which effects blood flow to the placenta so I think they has contributed to me having fairly small babies.

They cant tell you really how big a baby is they can only guess,my 1st was born 8lb 12 after being told he was 6lb or so.2nd baby born 8lb 10 3rd baby 9lb 2 was tested for diabetes on him as i was huge.4th baby 9lb 13 wasnt tested on him and my bump wasnt as big.5th baby was tested for him i had diabetes and was induced 2 weeks earlier and he was 8lb 12.I think in some cases its to cover their own back but sometimes i dont know its a lot of guesswork.And my 4th son had shoulder dystocia.

I just think in my case ive big babies but he was my last so thats it

No its a load of nonsense. A very rough guide. Its like them changing your due date. I never paid any heed, always stuck to my own dates

Pink4ever i dont think thats the case i was 3lb born and mine were monsters compared to me.I think diet,exercise and a natural disposition of bigger/smaller babies.

My three:
DS1 10lb 5 - gained 4st evenly, loads of water, no one medical speculated on the size afair.
DD 11lb 19 - born at home, again no major medical speculation that I recall.
DS2 - 8lb 10 - an absolute tiddler in comparison, also born at home, but I had jittery midwives who tried to convince me to have a hospital birth every time I went for a check up, as this was 'a big baby.'

When I finally saw the home birth consultant, at about 38 wis I think, he was totally calm and unworried about the 'size issue.' Said guessing a baby's size was just that - guessing - so not reliable. Also, I'd already pushed out a near-12lber. He was happy for me to have a home birth, as long as I was happy to transfer if recommended, which of course I was.

I got him to make notes to this effect on my card, and went home feeling so relieved - but at my next check up the MW said: 'are you sure you wouldn't rather be in hospital?'

Op, yanbu.

My midwife sent me for a growth scan a couple of weeks before i was due as she thought i was measuring small. The ultrasound predicted a 7.5lb baby and that all was fine.

Midwife had been concerned as i had high blood pressure, headaches etc. I went into labour on my due date and ds was just over 5lbs and my placenta was wrecked. I still feel sick when i think about what could have happened if ds hadn't been born when he was. So scans are useless imo (for predicting size!)

What's the definition of big? DD was 8lb 10oz and everyone said ouch when we told them. I thought that was on the upper end of normal rather than massive?

when I was pg with dd1 i was 'neat' measuring slightly small for dates- she delivered at 41+1- 8lb 4oz
Then with dd2 I was measuring at least 5 wks under- my mw didnt worry as she knew i measured small and I told her the baby feels a lot bigger. I then callopsed (low b/pressure all pregnancy so fainting was a frequent thing) at work and they sent me to hospital- I was 37 weeks- they sent me for a scan (as I measured too small) and I was told dd2 would be small 7lb but a normal small (iyswim)
Delivered 40+1 and was 8lb8- she is 75th centile in wiehgt and 98th for height.

Reading all this, I wonder why the size matters anyway, since the impact varies so much for individuals? It sounds like some babies with the same size head as DS can't even engage, but DS was deeply engaged by 37 weeks and then born with no problem with his hand on his head! So the size of the mother must matter just as much.

Midwives are notoriously unreliable but I'm really surprised to hear about so many rubbish scans. How can a scan be wrong? It's a bloody photograph of the baby! They've got all the data! I'm baffled.

I was told at 37 week scan DS would be about 8lb - he was 8lb 2 at a week late.

i was scanned at 37 weeks nad told to expect a 7 and a half pounder - three weeks later I delivered a 7 and a half pounder!

Not very. Scans are only accurate to within 1lb either way -so your baby predicted to be 8lbs could be either 7lbs or 9lbs, which is a huge difference. Ime they are often very wrong in any direction. DD2 was going to be a barely 5 lbs tiddler- came out at 7lbs 9 (scans + obs assessment + midwives). DS was going to be average sized (midwives)- came out at 8lbs 12oz.

Big pinches of salt all round when "they" tell you the expected size. Wait and see is my motto.

DS2 was 10lb 5oz and I never measured big for dates. MW said she thought he'd be about 8lb

Community MW with first two never worried about size much and encouraged second home birth. DD1 9 lb 2 oz and DS 10 lb.

Third DC different place. Know alot of woman here told they would have big babies and started with induction on due dates as they are not 'allowed' longer or told to go straight for a c-section - some of those babies have ended up being only 5 lb most between 6-7 lb. They have very high c-section rates in the local hospital which is odd because its not are area that takes difficult cases they are referred on to nearby city hospital.

In one of several attempt to stop us having a home birth for third - MW sent to to a consultant who insisted that all babies got bigger every birth despite us knowing alot of woman that hasn't held true for . Also said I couldn't give birth to a large baby with no problems despite having done it twice - and he'd want me to have a c-section as soon as I came in.

They got nasty when I refused a one of scan to decide on size - as I'd done research saying that one of were notoriously unreliable. Apparent series of growth scans over time are much better but I wasn't offered that.

One of best indicators is apparently what an experienced mother feels - I felt it was between my first DC and second DC and I was right - 9 lb 10 oz.

I had all that stuff, repeated GTT's, growth scans etc. At one point she was measuring so big that they were considering inducing at 37 weeks. She was 7lb 9oz

I think they were slightly concerned that she had inherited my hyopthyroidism - I was a porker at 10lb 1

With dd1 I was measuring slightly big, went for scan at 30 weeksand was told not to worry, to expect a nice normal sized baby about 8lb, it'll be fine.

Went to 40w +11 and was induced. (yeeeeooouch), failed to progress when I was fully dilated. In fact I remember that they couldn't actually feel her little head as she hadn't engaged at all.

Eventual cs under GA and my beautiful baby girl was 11 pounds 4.

Just under 2 years later I had lots and lots of scans for my ds. 'He's measuring pretty large, defo a c=section". At 38 weeks I was told that actually it's fine, he's not that big, but you can still have a cs.

I stuck my ground and made sure he chose his birthday. Half way through normal labour I suddenly said actually that section sounds good. He was also a section of 11 pounds 4.

No gd. No big babies in my family. Scans are piffle.

My huge, unwieldy bump was a normal 8lb 12. My 'spot on average' sized bump was a 10lb 9 chunk of love.

I had a ridiculously massive bump and was told DD was 'huge' but she was 8lb 2 so it must have all been water or something.

4000g is just 8 lb 8 isn't it?

I was bigger than that. My eldest girl was born very long not fat at all, DS was very muscular surprised MW by trying to hold his head up straight away - even youngest was particularly fat looking baby. All now very lean tall DC.

I though the problem was small babies who put weight on fast were the ones linked to later life obesity.

Recent horizon program I saw seem to suggest higher birth weights - linked to better nutrition in pregnancy - meant healthy DC throughout life and into old age. So 7 lb good, 8 lb better and 9lb even better. Plus health benefits to grandkids - as eggs and sperm for them made during foetus stage.