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

I am overweight, not severely but enough to make me a size 18 and classed BMI-wise as 'obese'. DD1 was born at 39 weeks at 9lb 7.5oz but I had Polyhydramnios with her and they couldn't figure out why. DD2 was born at 38 weeks at 8lb 11oz. Big babies but not overweight. DD1 is now 3.3 and is a petite little thing whereas DD2 is 9 months and 29lb and resembles Jabba the Hutt.

But again, you wouldn't know if the fat was clinging to their organs or not?

I thought fat was supposed to coat baby's organs. A baby's surface area to weight ratio is so big they would be at risk of losing a lot of heat in pre-historic times.

worraliberty - well, not sure if this answers your question re fat distribution - DD was actually quite thin (very thin arms and legs), as was DS2, but DS3 was a bit chubby all over.

And I would say I probably ate a fair bit healthier when pregnant with DS2 & DS3, as I was older and had more health issues to worry about, whereas when I was pregnant with DD, I was young and a bit more cavalier, shall we say? Although, no alcohol or smoking for any pregnancies, so that wasn't an effect either. I gained more weight during my pregnancy with DD (25-30 pounds) and only gained about 10 pounds with DS2 and 8 pounds with DS3. Had GD during pregnancy with DS3 only, although wasn't surprised as it's common in my family and a high number of diabetics in both my mother's and father's families.

worra - does that give a better picture? I'm curious, because there was less than 6 ounces difference in all 3 children's weights at birth, despite different variables.

I think they're most concerned about fat in the liver spiderpig

www3.imperial.ac.uk/newsandeventspggrp/imperialcollege/newssummary/news_19-8-2011-11-14-39

It kind of does Triggles but I've confused myself by reading the report again

worraliberty it really isn't sinking in with some, they just don't get the difference between fat babies and birth weight... your doing a great job though of trying to get through that barrier

I am overweight.
My DD is nearly six, she was 8lbs 13.5oz when born.
My DS is four months, he was 10lbs when born.

Both of them were born on the 99% line.

Both dropped gradually down the charts (both breast fed).

With DD, the HV drove me MAD, telling me I needed to feed her more. They have started expressing the same concerns for DS.

DD is now 3 stone 1 lb. She measured as being a healthy range when measured last year.

It takes me forever to try to get the HVs to understand that I believe the babies are governed by my body (despite the fact that I lost 2 stone in each pregnancy) and when they're "free and independent" then they seem to get my DHs body type, and fast calorie burning. He's nearly six foot and weighs 10 stone.

Should add, they were both on the 99% line for HC and length (for DS, DD was on about 80% for length).

I was size 12-14 pre pregnancy with dd but put on a lot of weight with her (about 4 stone!) She came out at 7lbs 2oz and has always been a skinny little thing and still on the 9th percentile.
I was size 16 pre pregnancy this time (due in October) and the fundal heights are spot on so we will see if this one is any bigger.
I have a couple of friend with pretty fat toddlers and babies and they are all much slimmer than me as are many at playgroup. I don't think I have actually seen a really fat mum with a really fat baby in a long time.

....and surely the mother's AND the father's genes would have something to do with it too?

Allboxedin - exactly! How much research have they done regarding the father's genes? Sorry, but I still think it's another stick to beat women with - I swear the way it's going they'll be regulating what we should be allowed to eat and drink during pregnancy. Bad enough the midwives are doing those smoking tests and such.

yeah, sorry, I'm tired today. Probably a bad day to be browsing AIBU.

talk about sensationalist journalism

(for starters metformin is not a weight loss drug, it is a drug for diabeties that helps control the bodies absorption of glucose)

We know that in diabetic mothers, it is important to closely control blood sugars and monitor the weight/size of the baby. If you have high blood sugar levels, your baby may grow to be larger than usual. This is because the baby has to make extra insulin to control the increased blood sugar, which causes more fat and tissue to be stored. This can make delivery difficult. For example, there is an increased risk of shoulder dystocia.

We know that obesity causes insulin resistance. (the body still produces insulin, but the cells become resistant to the insulin produced) this results in a higher than normal circulating blood sugar and eventually will lead to type two diabetes. In pregnancy, the effects on the baby are very similar to diabetes. A high circulating blood sugar causes the baby to produce more insulin and lay down more fat stores.

For people with polycystic ovarian syndrome, metformin is prescribed to aid conception!! It is not known to be harmful during pregnancy

So, if we know that high sugar levels (hyperglycaemia) are bad, and we know the types of babies are at high risk of suffering the consequences of maternal hyperglycaemia in utero, is it not reasonable to take steps to prevent this.

Similarly is it not reasonable to look at the long term consequences of in utero exposure to hyperglycaemia and then decide if we can take step to minimise the risks for the baby??

What smoking tests Trigger? I wish they would just leave mums alone too, its beginning to get ridiculous. They seem to think all mums are absolutely thick nowdays and need to be treated like kids. In fact it worries me how all this need to be perfect and fit into certain moulds - Reminds me a little of history. :(
I agree PIMS on guiding through reasearch and what we are aware of to prevent serious illnesses ect. I am actually on blood thinners myself and being consultant led because of clotting problems in the past. But where do you draw the line when it comes to assessing each and every woman who gets pregnant for potential non conformities?

...I'm 37 weeks with a miserable teething toddler and tired also!

My mum was a skinny size 8-10 when she fell pg with my brother and he was 9lb 12oz born. I was over weight with ds1 and he weighed 8lb 13oz ?

ivykaty You're right, it's not sinking in at all for some Lol

"What smoking tests Trigger?"

In some areas like where we are they test Co2 levels to see if you are lying about smoking. It was in the local papers several times as a 'good' thing - though the paper articles also suggest gas appliances could be a source.

I was never asked to give specific permission for this - though they were very cagey about were they testing for - odd for me as I really didn't care and last lot of MW in previous location were very upfront about all that stuff.

I have no idea what they do with the data - a lot of women do give up smoking but their dp/dh and other family members, friends do not presumably affecting them via second hand smoke. Do they accuse the women of lying if they say they don't smoke ?

I assume it a test tacked on to all the other blood test.

I'd be interested to know if the sample of mothers were tested for syndrome X diseases, frequently the cause of overweight women and likely (imo) their children. X-reference this study with GD, which we also all know is not confined to the obese alone.

See I just think that's wrong penguin. Not because I am a smoker or because of my views on it but who the heck has the authority to treat all pregnant women as potential liars? It's almost like they are being treated like crimminals. Maybe if we were still all at school or something but I think the average age of a first time mum nowdays is about 29!!

I do not think it was right Allboxedin- but really didn't care as a non-smoker.

I was picking my battles - despite also having loads of articles in the paper about how they were encouraging home births - I had loads of crap thrown my way trying to prevent us having one. Which they then failed to turn up in time for .

Perhaps in hindsight the smoking thing gave an indication of how MW viewed mothers in the area.

I know penguin - wasnt aimed at you! I'm just thinking out aloud as usual!

The doctors need to do more research. I am a size 8/10, non smoking 30 year old, with a healthy BMI. Early in my pregnancy with my son, now 1 yr, the docs told me I was likely to have a very small baby. As the pregnancy went on they revised their opinion and said the baby would be 50-75th centile. He was 11lbs 11ozs, way off the scale centile-wise for weight, height and head circumference. He went straight into clothes for 3-6 months. He was 41 weeks gestation and I know the dates were correct. Neither me nor the baby had diabetes, nor did we develop it after the pregnancy. He is now, at 15 months, approx 75th centile for weight and height. The docs simply don't know why I grew such a large baby and they tell me there are more and more healthy women with good diets having very large babies - they need to do more research asap.

Worra - You've done a sterling job, but think the thread's given over to anecdata now

Re: smoking tests. I can understand why you might feel they are trying to catch you out, but I think it would be wrong to assume the tests suggest pregnant women are liars.

Let's face it, many occasional smokers do tell a lie to the midwife to avoid the lecture of what smoking can do.

To be honest, health promotion is a huge part of a mw job, and it's not just about telling you the risks, but there is a HUGE support network available to try and help you cut down or stop.
I know that smokers are probably well aware of the risks, but..
You are entitled to all the help available to try and protect your baby as much as possible as well as improving your health.

Anything that opens up an avenue to improving your health and your babies health can't be bad, can it??