Overweight Mothers give birth to fat babies?

[worraliberty]

AIBU to think that measuring the BMI of babies in the womb, is a step too far? I mean, surely a child's birth weight (unless it's extremely high/low) isn't exactly an indicator of anything much...considering all babies feed differently?

My DS2 was only 5lb 7oz (the smallest by far of my 3 DS) and yet, he's the heaviest of all of them and gained about an ounce per day from birth.

Other babies, can be born heavy and lose an ounce a day....so what does the study really mean in terms of anything much?

www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/8788593/Overweight-mothers-give-birth-to-fat-babies-study-finds.html

But is it utter tripe annie seeing as you wouldn't know if any of the babies you mention had too much fat stored around their liver?

I think that's what this report is getting at...though again it's not really clear?

I was ideal weight for height when I had DS. He was a big baby. I was obese when I had my second baby and she was a little dot - and still is.

Buggered if I know, I suppose is the answer.

That's my answer to so many things lately

I was about 16 st when I had my kids. They were 8lb 8oz and 11lb 1oz. Both are now skinny and tall.

I was just into the obese bracket when DD was born, she was 8lb 2 but due to probs with BF she went down to 7lb 4. The study does seem daft really.

and now she's 5ft 10 and size 8

My son was 10lb 14. I am a size 12 and 5'10". Didn't put on tons of weight whilst pregnant and lost it fairly quickly too. Son is big for his age but not fat.

I have been large with all 3 of mine -1st was 8lb 12 (so quite big), 2nd was 7lb 7 (and she was 2 weeks late) and the last 8lb 7 (though she lost a whole 1lb in the first 10 days). The oldest is the tallest in her year and her BMI is spot on, the middle one is tiny (we were even referred to the GP when she was a year old) and the last is, at 15 months, still finding 9-12 months clothes too big.

So does seem a bit ridiculous to me too.

I am a size 8, 5' 10" and was all bump when I was pregnant with Thomas (he is now 1). He was 10lb 12oz when born and 62cms (I was in shock, as this hadn't been predicted). I was quite hurt when one of the midwives said "you must have eaten lots of cakes", to which I said "No. I was also tested for GD and was fine". Thomas is by no means fat- he is just a very tall boy (already in 2-3 year old clothes). i was back in my normal clothes within a week and have never been obese. If Thomas had been a small baby, would I have been accused of starving myself through pregnancy. I think not. i just think it is one of those things- you have average sized babies, but to have that, you also need to have above and below average babies.

I don't see anything at all in the article which says that fat mothers give birth to heavier babies, so why is everyone talking about their baby's birthweight?

Exactly rabbit it's not about the weight, it's about the distribution of fat levels.

So two babies could be exactly the same weight, but one could have too much of that weight stored around the internal organs...rather than distributed evenly.

is the report talking about fat babies or high birth weight babies? Is the report suggesting that the fat around the liver is to be measured or just the birth weight?

I don't see any mention of straight forward birth weight in the report

Those of you that had large birth weight babies - did you get their fat content measured? if so what was the fat content and was it more than the 700g that is suggested as normal?

like a few have said, BMI very different to weight. you can have a 10lber with a low BMI or a 6lb with a high BMI. the former is probably healthier due to fat in the wrong places...

as a woman it is worth knowing that it is better to have a heavier more robust baby with a low BMI and that there are things you can do to maximise your chances of this happening.

mothers BMI linked to fatter babies

Agree this isn't about weight of baby- it's about body fat and body fat distribution. There are two issues

• the sample size is quite small
• they dont know whether those fat levels seen in the newborns endure throughout life or whether the baby's own fat distribution tendencies take over as he/she grows. If that's the case, it's presumably not such a big issue

However, in adults fat distribution is a biggie. Fat arse is much healthier than fat tum for example.

doesn't seem to be what photograph two is trying to say thebride..!

Thanks iveykaty that's the report I couldn't find!

It makes a bit more sense now

Ha! Well, maybe not that fat, but my point was that it's healthier not to have fat around your abdomen.

Oh I hadn't seen photograph 2

Not sure if I should have opened it before lunch

I'm the same as VAJAZZLE

9 pounds 11 for the first
7 pounds 14 for the second.

Both girls.

I had a healthy BMI when I conceived the first. Slightly elevated when I conceived the second. Ate more crap in my second pregnancy during to being ill and depressed, did less exercise, had a smaller baby.

But again, it's not about the weight...it's about the distribution

tbh how fat/thin you were as a mother and how fat/thin your baby and child is/was is kind of irrelevant. Studies look at significant statistical samples - there will always be anomalies.

Hence the -my GD smoked 40 a day for 70 years and didn't do him any harm - doesn't disprove that smoking increases risk of premature death.

There is a small bit of research to show that influences on the foetus do have an impact on health of adults in ways that are surprising. This is still a very under researched area, so it is impossible to draw definite conclusions from current research. So more research is needed. But weight at birth and distribution of fat do seem to have some impact on health as an adult.