"He's always been on the 99th centile"

[StickerPlace]

I'm in a bad mood this morning. So I may we'll BU.

But I've seen this twice today. (Granted was on the same thread about child size)

But I feel like I've read/heard that comment so many times. But it can't be true?

Or are the 1% of parents with 99% children very keen to talk about that?

(FWIW just weighed/measured mine for new dance uniform as had a growth spurt and nothing fits and 11th centile.)

I have a 50th and a 95th and having a tall boy means you often do have to say. I remember when he was 4 being asked in the supermarket by the attendant why he couldn’t read (because he has just started reception), being looked at when he was 3 and having a massive tantrum and worrying that school clothes won’t fit him through school.

And yes it is actually more common give it is 1/100 (probably 5 actually if you take it from 95) DS is one of 3 tall boys in his year of 90 who have different builds
DD (12) good friend (girl) is 6ft and size nine feet (and has 2 equally big younger sisters) and her mum finds clothes and shoe buying tricky and her DD finds it hard being so tall around her shorter froends

I've also been told that because my children are taller than their age they should act older than their age. It mightily pisses me off. Family are just as bad. Many times had to remind people that DC are only X age and therefore acting perfectly normal for their age!!!

I sympathise, I had that experience with one of mine, I also had one who was tiny and is still below average height as an adult, as they were bright and academic it caused even more comments about how amazing they were, no just a bright 5, 6 or 7 year old.

My 4 year old is on the 12th percentile so he’s a little dot.

Someone the other day thought he was 2 years old and it made me feel like shit.

Agree with @C8H10N4O2 as well. DD is tall but probably something like 85th percentile, but she's big - large feet, definitely a bit overweight etc. It is stressful and worrying. And then there are issues like the fact that she's wearing size 2 shoes in Year 2 which means the last time we went into a shoe shop, none of the cute boots with pink fur or unicorn glitter were in her size - they all only went up to size 1. She doesn't want the more grown up shoes - she's only 6. Similar issues with coats.
Or the fact that her school clothes are all too long and have to be altered.

And as another PP said, it's self selecting. I worry about her size so tend to click on posts about these issues. Similarly, DS used to be overweight but has lost it all so I tend to click on posts about that sort of thing because maybe our experience can help other families.

My child has been on the 99th centile since my 37 week scan until now (they are 5). I find it useful to explain that they have always been larger rather than be accused of feeding them crap etc. They were large in utero (I was a healthy weight, no GD, no excessive weight gain) when EBF and when weaned on single vegetables. Some people are so aggressive towards parents of larger children blaming them for their health that I feel the need to justify this.

@StickerPlace

I'm in a bad mood this morning. So I may we'll BU.

But I've seen this twice today. (Granted was on the same thread about child size)

But I feel like I've read/heard that comment so many times. But it can't be true?

Or are the 1% of parents with 99% children very keen to talk about that?

(FWIW just weighed/measured mine for new dance uniform as had a growth spurt and nothing fits and 11th centile.)

First up, lets debunk the '1% of kids' here.

Its NOT. Thats the issue.

When the scale was drawn up a while ago. So at the point the scale was drawn up it was accurate. Only 1% of kids were on the 99th Centile.

The problem now is that more and more kids are obese and bigger than they should be for their age. We now have more kids, who would have been on the 99% centile at it was because the size of kids are increasing. This is not a reflection of an increase in nutrition or genetics in such a short period of time. It will account for a portion of the increase being natural and healthy, but not the majority of it. And even with a natural increase, we know that extra height carries an increase in the lifetime risk of cancers so this matters.

This is where it isn't necessarily a 'normal' or a 'good' thing that many try to make out. Where there is a problem because we now have an excess of children who are at a weight/height that is potentially problematic.

Only a small number of children who are clocking the 99% SHOULD be that size based on their genetics. The majority SHOULD NOT be on the 99% centile because its problematic and shows there is a problem.

The dismissal of this as a concern is worrying.

If you have a child on this centile, it should be a concern if there isn't obviously a family trait.

For example, if you have a 5'1" woman and a 5'10" man who are averagely built and they had normal development and never had a medical history which asked questions about their size and they have a child who is huge, you might want to be asking a few questions. If you have a 5'11" woman and a 6'4" man who are broad and well build, maybe not so much.

Thats why if you have a child who is registering very high on the scale it really should be being flagged and monitored. It shouldn't result in a diet to lose weight. Parents should be being encouraged to have a think about what they are feeding their children and portion sizes but not a full on diet.

I think the lack of understanding of WHY its a problem and what steps should be taken if it raises a flag is the issue.

The denialism is often reflective of parents not wanting to address their OWN eating and exercise habits. Its easy to hide behind the 'its normal because someone has to be in the 1%' phrase, without actually acknowledging whats going on here.

The reality is that a sizeable % of the excess of children on the 99th Centile are known to have problematic diets or issues with a lack of exercise.

Its just that too many people don't want to admit this.

DS2 always used to be on the 50th centile or thereabouts until he was around 13 so I didn't post about him because it seemed so boring.

He's now 15 and 6'3 - those centile calculations don't always follow through!

People will post about the extremes though, it just makes it more newsworthy (notice I haven't said anything about DS1)

It seems a bit odd as the whole concept of centiles means that anywhere very high or very low is an outlier and there shouldn't be many of them at all.

People with kids around the middle of the centiles don't give a stuff because it's not remarkable and their kids are average sized. It's only parents with smaller or larger kids who talk about centiles because it might be a cause for remark or concern.

I don't give a stuff what centile my kids are, they seem fairly average and that's ok for me.

Both of mine are 🤷‍♀️ I often say it when people say how tall they are for their ages.
Also when people ask how heavy they are and then they delight in telling me that's far too big and their 20 year old is that heavy.

I should add, my dh is 6 foot 2 so it's not surprising.

I don’t know when the centiles were drawn up, but kids have got taller in the last couple of decades. So if it was made I’m the 80’s yes 1 in 100 then, probably 5 in 100 now.

The centiles are based on the worldwide population so you would expect more children in the UK and other western countries to be above the 50th centile.

Why wouldn’t it be true? Also of course they would have “always” been on that percentile if they started there - babies/children are supposed to track, and a drop in a couple of centiles is a warning sign. Are you one of those people who assume every kid should be aiming for the 50th?

@elfycat

I clicked on this post BECAUSE it said 99th centile. Which DD1 has never been on since birth as she's off the top in length/height. She's tall and thin (I take no pride in this - genetics and all that) and a pain to get school uniform for - the elastic waists can be uncomfortable for her as so much material is gathered.

If you'd specified bottom 1% or 25th I might not have bothered even clicking on this thread. You've created a self-fulfilling prophecy here.

Me too. Mine is probably on 90th or thereabouts. His height is commented on, his dad's height is also commented on, usually in relation to one another (both are are tall, see where he gets it from etc). It's harmless, but yes, it could mean that I say he's always been around 90th.

@Treaclepie19

Both of mine are 🤷‍♀️ I often say it when people say how tall they are for their ages. Also when people ask how heavy they are and then they delight in telling me that's far too big and their 20 year old is that heavy.

Yeah I get this too.

If you have a child on this centile, it should be a concern if there isn't obviously a family trait.

OP is taking about babies that were born on the high centiles. Not sure how you can put a foetus on a diet. Yes of course you can diet yourself, but I am normal size, ate healthily (could hardly eat due to sickness), didn't put on much weight, no gd. People commented that my bump was small. And baby was 95th centile. I am just not sure what I could have done.

Those charts only give you a rough idea and are not that accurate. They are.probably based on some small group of kids from a long time ago.

DD1 is 6' and I believe off the chart. It is unusual for a girl to be that tall but on the other hand it is not that rare these days. We know others her height.

The reality is that a sizeable % of the excess of children on the 99th Centile are known to have problematic diets or issues with a lack of exercise.

Its just that too many people don't want to admit this.

Not sure how my baby managed to have poor diet in the womb?!!

By definition, 1 in 100 babyes are born abover the 99th. And - if it's genetic, then that'll be pretty much the same regardless of diet - surely.

Although I guess there could be factors like mothers smoking less while pregnant these days, meaning fewer babies have their growth stunted. That's not poor diet though, that's health improvements.

Yes, when they're older I have no doubt that modern diet and lack of exercise play a part, but that doesn't affect the underlying 1% who are are there because of genetics.

Mine was only 92nd centile. Was at birth and still is. He's 14 and 184cm. For weight he was 50th centile at birth and still is now.

As others have said if you post about big/tall children you get people with big children answering.

Incidentally DS is one of the smaller (certainly thinner) kids at his rugby club and one of the tall kids at his tennis club. Rugby clearly attracts the 99th centile children

My son was on the 99.6th centile at birth, he was just under 10lb though. The centiles you are given when preggo (now anyway) are customised charts based on a range of factors, including maternal weight and height. So it didn't mean he was massively tall or heavy (I mean he was...) but he was big for me. I've no idea what he weighs or how tall he is now (he's 2).

No idea what centile my kids were on but nothing fitted when they were kids - skinny feet made buying school shoes a nightmare and skinny bodies made buying uniforms a nightmare too.
Late teens now and they have gained some breadth - still have skinny feet though no need to buy school shoes, so all much easier.
The thought of school uniform still gives me the rage!😂

Oh I can relate to this in terms of fetal growth curves. My little one has been on the smaller side so I always have my fingers crossed they're staying on their little curve about 15-20th percentile.

I only know 5 other pregnant women and of those 3 have said at some point that their bump/ baby is measuring on or over the 99th percentile.

Well I know I'm being sensetive because of my own anxieties, but that just doesn't make any mathematical sense does it?!

It's not true that the WHO charts are solely based on wolrd data.

The WHO charts we use are labeled UK and say that whereas the data is worldwide from 2-4 weeks, the birth measurements are based on British data. It says:

The UK–WHO growth chart combines World Health
Organization (WHO) standards with UK preterm and birth
data. The chart from 2 weeks to 4 years of age is based on
the WHO growth standard, derived from measurements of
healthy, non-deprived, breastfed children of mothers who did
not smoke.

1 The chart for birth measurements (32–42 weeks
gestation) is based on British children measured around
1990.

2 The charts depict a healthy pattern of growth that is
desirable for all children, whether breast fed or formula fed,
and of whatever ethnic origin."

I get what you mean op, it's a statistics qn not a child size qn.

99th percentile indicates that at that size, only a tiny % of similarly aged children are that size. Same for being in 1st percentile. But if every child is 99th then that measurement is not longer accurate.

I think the percentiles are probably very outdated and I think babies in general seem to be large this year. Like extra fat chickens that are prepared for a cold winter.
DTwins were 6lb 12 and 6lb 13 at four weeks early. They're two and I'm contemplating a move to 3-4 (always been a size ahead). But they're similar size at respective ages to the two other babies bornin our school mom group. It's like they're pandemic prepped