to think a 9lb'er is not really that big??

[teaaddict2012]

I was 9lbs when I was born and my DS was 9lbs 3 , I know it is big but I thought anything below 10lbs is okay really.

apparently not , I was told I need a special consultant as I had a 'big baby before' I was a bit I can understand 10/11/12lb being a bit concerning but 9lb!
AIBU to think this is slightly overboard.

Ds was 9lb so with dd1 and 2, i was told i was having another'big baby'. I was monitored and checked for diabetes and had 2 6lb dds.
Load of rubbish

In my area you are given consultant care if you're overweight as I was with both mine my first baby was 8 lb 10 and a half and my second by c section at 39 weeks 6lb. It may have more to do with your size than your babies

My 9lb 2oz baby had staff (Belgian hospital) saying "oh you are the one who had the huge baby". They tested and re-tested for gestational diabetes and in the end, when I had passed each test said that some people have it but it doesn't show up on the tests and to start eating as though I had it (I was 37 weeks at that stage!)

I was overweight when I conceived, but could have told them I just made big babies (DD1 was 8lbs at 3 weeks premature).

Here in NZ, the public health nurse considered 9lbs to be average (and DDs are fitting into the right age clothes, whereas in Belgium they were always at least one stage up). I guess Kiwis are just bigger than Belgians

I had Dd first 7lb 14oz, I still had all the gestational diabetes checks because I was 0.5 over the bmi thing, they were all negative.

Next time I still had all the diabetes tests, they were negative however ds1 was 9lb 10oz, with ++++ fluid.

I did have GD with ds2, insulin, the lot. I had about a million growth scans and they all said he would be massive, but he was 8lb 9oz, with only slightly excess fluid in the end. I imagine though if I hadn't been following a low gi diet and took insulin daily he would probably have been a massive baby. He was my smallest bump by far, so I imagine I was always inclined towards the gd end of things without being pathological.

Honestly I think I must have developed GD with ds1, my bump was comically huge with all the water, they weren't bothered about anything after his birth though. I did get lots of antagonism after ds2's birth though from Paeds wanting to take him to scbu for the sake of it .

Being large at birth is not unusual at all.

My four dds were from 5lb 11oz up to 7lb 8oz so i would consider 9lb big

Well average birth weight in the UK is 7lb 5oz and 9lbs puts you in the 90th centile of birth weight, so it is, by definition, relatively large.

But yeah, head size is definitely a factor in ease of delivery. I had a long, 7lb baby with a 90th centile head circumference. It was like trying to give birth to a Chupa-Chup, and because he didnt have a lot of weight behind the head, it was a bit of an effort.

Ds was 9lb, and on the 75th centile. I have been monitored this time, just meant gtt and a growth scan, no big deal.

I was told our trust automatically monitors you if

1. 1st baby is over 4 kg
2. Mother is overweight
3. Family history of diabetes

Or 4. Previous gestational diabetes.

I have 3 of those risk factors, but at 38+3 am told this pg could not be more normal!

I don't think 9lb is that massive, but it is clearly a flag for some risk factors, so I was happy enough to have extra monitoring. Oh, and for the gtt I said I would bring up their glucose solution, so was given ice cold lucozade instead. It was fine.

DS1 8lb 10 62 hour labour, forceps and had stitches Head circ 35.5cm
DS2 9lb 15
DD1 9lb 7
DD2 9lb 12 In hospital total of 3 hours Head cir 37cm (99.6 centile) no stitches

All of the 9lbers came out easier than the first.

bigboobie - no, it was all of us. She was cute as heck with it! big toothy grin, fat little cheeks. She just looked like les dawson.

My eldest, otoh, while looking to me like an angel sent from heaven at the time, appears to have morphed, in the photos, into some sort of troll He was not a pretty baby but my god I thought he was gorgeous!

isnt the average for both about 7.5 lb so that would make 9lb larger than average.

to me 9lb would be big though, as would the average , as my son was 5lb 10

On one hand, yanbu. It IS overboard...BUT....

9lb is big, but apparently 9lb 15oz is the macrosomic barrier. My first baby was 9/15, one stitch, have been called bucket ever since. I'm 5'2" tall, and was 7 stone 10 lbs when I got pregnant with her.

Since then, I've been monitored closely with all my pregnancies, checked for gestational diabetes (nope), poked, prodded, scanned to within an inch of my life. Sophisticated scans at 8 months told the consultant that baby 2 was going to be "at least 9 1/2 lbs", midwife felt my tummy and said "nonsense, 7lb 6oz if that". She was correct. Bang on, in fact. but I still had 12 stitches due to baby having FreddyKrugerlikes nails. Baby 3 was 8lb 7oz, and baby 4 I was monitored like a lab rat, due to my age, split pelvis nonsense, previous fat baby etc. Turned out he was large (9lb 8oz), I was polyhydramneous, etc, and ended up having an emergency c-section due to a failed induction.

Now, I know this was classic NHS arse-covering - I remember a more sensible consultant saying "Oh just break her waters for goodness sake" "Oh no, we can't, the polyhydramneous might cause a prolapse" "yes but that's a tiny percentage and could avoid surgery" (bear in mind I was out of my mind with 3 nights of excruciating pain and gas&air when I heard this, but the gist is there)

The thing is...you know, and I know, that it's all over-reactional bollocks. But there is that one percent. A tiny risk, yes, and the resulting faffing about is a pain in the arse. Or even in the ladygarden. I very probably DID have unnecessary surgery - after all, I'd squished out a fattier boom boom before that, hey presto (Though I think I might have said something other than that at the time...)

But just suppose. Just suppose their doomsaying HAD come to pass, for want of extra faffage? I know of too many people who weren't monitored when they should have been. They really should have been. And they weren't :(

Mine were both over 9llb and I am small and DH is small....now the DDs are 7 and 4 they are small when compared to their classmates....both in height and bones...I have no idea why I had big babies...I am 5.6 and weighed around 8 and a half stone when fell pregnant...but I ate a lOT of steak!

luna yikes! They gave me an emergency c section after 2 days....your poor fanjo!

My 2 DS were 8lb 13oz then 11lb 3oz!

Both quite easy vaginal births but DS2 was a much quicker labour (3 hours start to finish).

I was told that if I had any more children I'd be monitored closely and induced on my due date.

Woah just read through all this lol

some whoppers.

I do think they are more fussy now my grandma told me in her 13lbers werent that unusual!!!

My mum was 5ft 3 with me I'm 5'9 so I would have thought My body is more built for that kinda baby.

I think there is a chart in my maternity notes which suggests big is above 9 1/2lbs I believe. Although midwife claimed tthat my 8lb 13oz boy was big. TBF he probably was for me as I am short. I am also overwight too.

its a good healthy weight. Id say big but not massive. Excessive to monitor you for the sake of that though. I wasnt monitored after my previous baby was 10lb

I would think it big, my heaviest was 7lb 14, smallest was 5lb 12 (one of the twins).

DS1 was 10lb 15oz, T+2

DS2 was 10lb 12oz, Csection a week early.

I didn't have GD or anything. It's DP that makes whoppers - his son from a previous relationship was 10 weeks early and still weighed 4lb.