Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To think 7lb 12 is not “a big baby”?

127 replies

MrSpock · 08/08/2018 13:30

I’ve just found out I’ve been booked for a GTT test. This was out of the blue and no one had told me about this. Rang the hospital and was told it was because of “previous big baby”. My son was 7lb 12...

I have no history of GD (I had the test last time because of extra water), I have a BMI of 20.7, I’ve gained no weight so far and have no reason to think I’d have it.

I also hate blood tests and have HG so I’ll probably end up being sick.

Is it just me or is this a really strange reason to refer someone?

OP posts:
Branleuse · 08/08/2018 13:57

Id consider that a small to average baby

Original poster
MrSpock · 08/08/2018 13:58

The extra waters were in the pregnancy with DS, not this one.

The reason I’m hesitant is I’ve had diabetes tests yearly since the age of 14. I have unexplained fatigue and so they always do a test on me every so often and it’s always been completely fine, which makes me think I’m incredibly unlikely to have it.

I probably will just have the test, if I can keep the drink down. Can they not just test my finger sugars? Seems far less likely to make me vomit.

OP posts:
Original poster
MrSpock · 08/08/2018 13:59

due to maternal grandmother diabetes

My grandmother is diabetic too, but I was told only first degree relatives increase the risk. Maybe it’s because of that then!

OP posts:
Tomorrowillbeachicken · 08/08/2018 13:59

Not at all, some of my friends had 10lbers. My son was 5l 10 and dropped a lot of weight so would seem large to me but not in scheme of things no.

Cottongusset · 08/08/2018 14:01

I had this test - doesnt taste that good and a lot of hanging around involved for it to "pass through" although this was 40 years ago. He was nearly 9lbs when born. Not sure if it has any bearing but son developed Type 1 diabetes at 13.

RatRolyPoly · 08/08/2018 14:01

Depends on the gestation. My first was almost exactly that weight but was born at 37+0. He was definitely a big baby at that gestation; imagine if he hadn't needed to be induced and I'd gone on for another five weeks!!!

Original poster
MrSpock · 08/08/2018 14:02

Gestation was around 38 weeks when he was born.

OP posts:
RatRolyPoly · 08/08/2018 14:03

Oh, that's probably why they're saying he was a big baby then. They usually gain around 0.5lb a week in the third trimster I believe, so he would have been a 9lb baby at 40 weeks and a 10lb baby at 42.

Lunde · 08/08/2018 14:04

I refused the test second time around as it made me so ill (I had hyperemesis both times) that I lost a further 6lbs on top of the 1½ stone I had already lost.

They just tested blood sugar at my antenatal appointments - and I never developed GD

Original poster
MrSpock · 08/08/2018 14:06

But 37-42 weeks is all considered a normal time for babies to be born? I could understand if he was prem, but a 7lb 41 weeker wouldn’t be classed as a small baby because he’d have been small at 37 weeks surely? Confused

OP posts:
Crunchymum · 08/08/2018 14:06

Can you see if they do the "mini" GTT. It's just one blood test after the drink and if that shows elevated numbers then you have the proper GTT.

DragonNoodleCake · 08/08/2018 14:06

I was borderline for the test, did it and tried very hard to control blood sugars by diet. Which I mostly managed. DD1 was 40+3 and 9lb3 (I was having sweeps from 37+3 to try to encourage labour to start. I was induced 40+2) I also had weekly scans as the fluid reduced a lot near the end (it can with GD)
Do the test if you can. Be sure as it may be important in those last few weeks

Original poster
MrSpock · 08/08/2018 14:07

They just tested blood sugar at my antenatal appointments - and I never developed GD

I might request this. My HG has been awful, I’ve been unable to eat anything and I’ve gained no weight at all. This is a twin pregnancy and I’m near 18 weeks so would’ve expected something but no.

OP posts:
SoyDora · 08/08/2018 14:08

Im slim with a small build (and only 5ft 5) and my first (and smallest) baby was 7lbs 12oz. No one suggested that was a cause for concern and I didn’t need a GTT in my second pregnancy because of it.
However she was born at 41 weeks so maybe that’s the difference? If she was born 3 weeks earlier she’d probably have only been 6lbs ish.

DragonNoodleCake · 08/08/2018 14:08

Sorry I meant that is DD2

frugi · 08/08/2018 14:10

It’ll be because the baby was over the 90th centile on your customised growth chart. If you’re quite petite then this is a large baby for you.

lazyminimoo · 08/08/2018 14:11

Its not big my son was 7lb 12 i thought it he was average and normal not big

RatRolyPoly · 08/08/2018 14:12

But 37-42 weeks is all considered a normal time for babies to be born? I could understand if he was prem, but a 7lb 41 weeker wouldn’t be classed as a small baby because he’d have been small at 37 weeks surely?

It is a normal time for them to be born, but I'm pretty sure they decide whether or not a baby is big or small for this sort of thing on the basis of what percentile their weight is on at birth? I remember in my second pregnancy (recent) the midwife plotted my previous baby's birth weight on a chart so they could compare new baby growth to my first, and she plotted his weight against his gestation to give the percentile.

So yes, I guess a 7lb 41 weeker could indeed be a small baby if that puts them on a small percentile line. My first was huge on the percentiles, but not a massive weight due to gestation at birth.

Did they plot your previous baby on a graph in your maternity notes? You should be able to see what percentile it put him on in there :)

Tomorrowillbeachicken · 08/08/2018 14:12

Do you have any conditions like pcos? I was tested due to pcos and family member having diabetes

SoyDora · 08/08/2018 14:12

Yes, the growth chart is plotted according to the gestation at which you give birth so a baby born at 38 weeks at 7lbs 12oz would be on a high centile line.

lazyminimoo · 08/08/2018 14:13

Im 4"11 ann very small boned slim and son was 7lb 12 no one said he was big I just thought this was an average size

Original poster
MrSpock · 08/08/2018 14:13

It’ll be because the baby was over the 90th centile on your customised growth chart. If you’re quite petite then this is a large baby for you.

I think he was on the 90th centile. He is very tall now, a head taller than his peers but quite skinny. Seems to have a “lanky” build.

OP posts:
Original poster
MrSpock · 08/08/2018 14:15

I don’t have PCOS, I have antiphospolipid disease and inject clexane but I don’t think that’s relevant to diabetes

OP posts:
RatRolyPoly · 08/08/2018 14:16

90th centile they will definitely say he's a big baby. It just goes to show how many calories the baby is getting in the womb, and mothers with GD tend to grow big babies in utero because of all the extra sugar I think. Doesn't really matter how heavy they were at birth because what's important for GD is how big they were in your womb compared to how many weeks pregnant you are. If they're 90th percentile in there they'll consider GD a possible explanation for that.

Suresurelah · 08/08/2018 14:16

I have PCO (just not the syndrome) and very slim. I was tested due to ethnicity, the only symptom I had was constant urination.

I won’t lie it was difficult re: the food restrictions. I was diagnosed at 30w and didn’t put on any weight at all after the diagnosis.

Swipe left for the next trending thread