AIBU to think I'm 39 weeks not 35?

[NameChangedNow]

My baby has been measuring massive throughout pregnancy. At 33 weeks she had 37 week measurements. Before this pregnancy I was 3 weeks pregnant then had a bleed. I took one test which was negative. Then got pregnant again immediately. AIBU to wonder if I never actually miscarried and I'm further along than I and doctors think?

It would have been picked up on a scan if you were 4 weeks further along than you think you are.

The measurements don't matter, everyone is different. If you had a scan prior to 16 weeks it can't have been 4 weeks out, not a chance.

No prob just a big baby or a big bump

They do the dating scan at 12 weeks because different genetics and other factors determine babies final size. At 12 weeks it's only just developed so it's easier to get an accurate due date. You've probably just got a big baby.

If your measurements are based on ‘the tape’ I’d ignore them. They’re often ridiculously out.

I had a colleague who was measuring perfectly. She had a scab after some reduced movement and the baby was found to be small. The tape is just a guide.

Only worry about ‘measuring big’ if a scan says so and even then they’re not hugely helpful.

The dating scan would not be 4 weeks out.

you could be just carrying a lot of water.

I had growth scans as they thought ds2 was going to be big. he turned out to be 4lb.

they 12 week scan could be out a week or two max but not by 4 weeks.

The measurements are from scans. I had my first scan around 14 weeks though so from what everyone's saying it looks like the baby's probably just big as it would have been picked up at that point.

My first baby consistently measured big for dates! Born at 40+10 weighing just 7lb 2oz; second baby I was warned was very small for dates...born at 41 weeks 9lb3oz! Those measurements really are rubbish!

Measurements from scans must be accurate though surely as they are looking directly at the baby.

Well you’d think so, but no! The reason they date the pregnancy at 12-14 weeks is because that’s the only time they can do it with any degree of accuracy. It is much harder the further on you are. I’ve never had a growth scan but I’ve heard so many stories of them being out by up to 2lbs either way. A friend of mine was monitored throughout due to having a big baby... born at 40+1 at 6lbs 1oz.

name change I had numerous scans to measure ds growth, they was expecting 8lb plus.

he was born full term and was half the weight at 4lb. granted if he had had actually fat on him he may have been 6lb and I was huge. it was mainly water I was carrying.

they can give aguid. but there not that accurate ime

Oh right... But at the scans didn't they see how much water you had and measure how big the baby actually was? Or did the baby measure large but weigh small? I don't disbelieve you at all!! I just can't get my head around the idea that you can SEE on the monitor that a baby is large and it measures x, and then not have that be accurate. How is that possible?! For example they measured my waters on the screen and they were normal. Measured the baby, huge.

I was referred for a scan at 36 weeks with my first DC as following tape measurement there had been no growth since last ante natal appointment. At the scan she said size was fine weight about 7lbs. However i could expect a biggish baby as in the last few weeks they put on most of their weight. DC1 was born 39+2 and weighed 6lbs 14oz so I'm not sure how accurate they are.

No, it's not possible for the reasons others have stated.
Late scans are very inaccurate for sizing.

If you were 3-4 weeks out it would have been flagged up at your 20 week scan, and at your first measure you would have at least been sent for the glucose tollerence test to rule out gestational diabetes.

The measurements in scans in terms of dating are pretty accurate with a small margin or error. Weight however is more often mis-predicted from scans.
Though I'm not sure why entirely.

this was 9 almost 10 years ago so can't remeber if they said about my waters they where just going of ds. BUT they also missed a knot in his cord to so. ( which is why he was small with no fat on him, though even with out that I doubt he would of put on more the 2lb in the last week. (he was born at 39 week)

I went nuts at my doc for this, I was measuring similar to you and getting a monthly scan. My husband sat me down for a serious chat about a section cos he felt I was delivering a turkey not a baby. I asked my doc (when I was measuring at 4 days overdue- and I was 36 weeks) what was going on and he said the scans weren’t accurate so I asked why he did them and he said it’s all he had! He then took out the tape measure and also had a good mooch around my tummy. And said all seemed normal. Baby was born a week early and just under 8lbs

I’m convinced my dates were definitely at least 2/3 weeks out. But I was 18 weeks (or 20!) at my first scan so it was much harder to be accurate!

I measured over 43 weeks by the fundus... baby was born at 39 weeks and a decent 8lb 10 (2+ lb more than me at similar gestation). The growth scan at 37 weeks estimated him at 8lb ish already so I was potentially expecting 9lb. Decent baby, lots of fluid.

Big baby, in my experience. I know they're not always accurate but have been for me. With my first baby I measured three weeks ahead (scan for reduced movement at 30 weeks) and he was 9lb 6oz. With my 3 week old I measured five weeks ahead at 30 weeks, then six ahead at 35 weeks. I had a c section at 38 weeks for this reason. He was 11lb 2oz.

The later scans are notoriously inaccurate for predicting size. I was told all along that I was dry going to have a big baby >4kg(almost 9lbs). When he came, at full term, he was just 3.3 kg (7lbs3oz). You dating scan, as everyone has pointed out is pretty accurate and really won't be 4 weeks out.

Growth scans can be inaccurate as pp has said, with my first baby it was predicted he would be 7lb 6oz at term and he was born at 39+5 weighing 6lb 2oz.

Second pregnancy I had a much bigger bump but he was only 6lb.

I measured small and both baker had growth scans and I was warned they would be very small babies. Well DD1 was born at 40+1 8lb on the nose and DD2 was born at 40+4 and was 8lb 7oz so far far from very small babies. I guess scans are just a guide but in my case were useless apart from showing the babies were fine and were growing.

I don't think growth scans are that accurate.
When I was expecting Ds2 I was measuring small for dates and I was told he would be small around 5 lbs, he was born at 41 weeks weighing 7lb 13.5.
When I was expecting Ds4 I was measuring 4 weeks in front by measuring with a tape measure, I was scanned at 34 weeks and told he would weigh about 7lb at birth.
I was induced at 37+1 due to me having severe spd he weighed 9lb 2
Dd was measuring 2 weeks in front and they scanned me at 35 weeks as last baby was 9lb 2 at 37+1 and was told she would be about 8lb I was induced at 38 weeks due to bad spd again and she was 7lb 1.