Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

Behaviour/development

Talk to others about child development and behaviour stages here. You can find more information on our development calendar.

Flip

Original poster

are babies who were overdue more....advanced earlier??

15 replies

Doublebubblebubble · 13/11/2015 17:25

Or am I noticing more because my baby is my 2nd??

(I dont know if this is the right place for this - Il ask for it to be moved if its not)

My son was 12 days overdue (he is four weeks today)and is very very alert, can fix his gaze on one thing at a time. is smiling (I think it is probably gas still though..) holding himself up when held

My DD (born at 39+6) was for lack of better words was a screaming, pooping potato for the first 6 weeks.... Any experiences or am I just seeing things lol x

OP posts:

Are your children’s vaccines up to date?

Set a reminder

kilmuir · 13/11/2015 17:57

i don't think so. my 4 DC were delivered at various gestations and can see no correlation

ragged · 13/11/2015 17:59

I think there's something in it, but obv. only for milestones typically met in first ~ 9 months. And always notable exceptions.

We have DC4 (11 days overdue, the most overdue by far) on video, smiling in response to environment (chatting to him) not his body. He was 2 weeks old which I think is crazy early, my other DC were weeks older before they smiled.

MrsHathaway · 13/11/2015 18:49

Mine were all overdue.

They were certainly strong (holding head clear of floor from birth, etc) but apart from that, "pooping potato" seems pretty accurate.

They're all terribly brilliant now though

On a more serious note, DB and I were born at very different gestations (36w and 42w) and are essentially educationally identical except that I stopped at MA to get married and have babies.

tabulahrasa · 13/11/2015 18:57

DD was 10 days late and definitely did the early stuff a bit early...she's nearly 16 now, if it was because of her being late or in fact just random - it's made no long term difference at all, she just did some milestones a bit early.

ShowOfBloodyStumps · 13/11/2015 19:02

Not here. DD was born at 39 weeks and DS at 36 weeks. DD, for example, smiled at 2 weeks but DS smiled and laughed from a few days old (I thought I was hallucinating from the morphine but the midwives confirmed it and said that some babies just do and they see it every now and then). He was definitely on the early side (small, vernix-covered, deeply unhappy about being born) but he was sitting at 4 months, crawling at 5, standing at 7 months and running at 9 months. He also spoke a few words from 8 months and put words together by 12 months. His sister was born 3 weeks later in terms of gestation and followed a much more average pattern.

Interestingly, it's dd who's the academically more advanced of the two now they're much older. Might change though. Who knows?

LibrariesGaveUsP0wer · 13/11/2015 19:04

I suspect it might impact milestones in the first month or two. Beyond that I doubt it.

BackforGood · 13/11/2015 19:05

No.
I mean, if a baby is very prem there are often delays, but a few days over or under doesn't make a lot of difference.

mudandmayhem01 · 13/11/2015 19:11

DD was 13 days late and was very alert, held her head up early and definitely smiled at 4 weeks. She walked at 9 months, she is now delightful but not ahead of her peers in anything as a preteen ( didn't master tying shoelaces till she was 10!)

waitingforsomething · 13/11/2015 20:33

Dd was 40 exactly and DS 39+6. Dd was rolling front to back by 10 weeks, rolling all over the place by 4 months, had a tooth at 12 weeks and slept through really early. DS smiles, sleeps badly and moves very little - just sits about being cute really! Same geststion, totally different babies!

StealthPolarBear · 13/11/2015 20:37

When I was pregnant I had a friend who was due on the same day. Her dd was five days early, ds four days late. It was a running joke between us that whatever her dd dud, ds would do about a week later.
not actually sure what that proves...

StealthPolarBear · 13/11/2015 20:39

Apart from rolling over and moving. Ds rolled back to front at ten weeks and crawled at six mnths. I'm not sure her dd ever crawled but was walking at 9 months, no exaggeration.

SparklyTinselTits · 13/11/2015 20:52

Don't think it makes a difference....my DD was born at 37+6, sat up at 5 months, crawled at 6 months and is now standing assisted by furniture at 6 and half months....whereas my nephew was born at 41+5, and didn't crawl until 8 months. But he stood and walked a couple of weeks after he crawled.
Every baby is completely different, I don't think their gestation period matters

Mummamayhem · 13/11/2015 20:54

Not mine in comparison to my early arriving DD

bigkidsdidit · 13/11/2015 20:59

No, mine was 15 days late and bang on average for sitting, crawling etc.

FuckOffJeffrey · 16/11/2015 12:09

DD was born at 41 weeks and she reached pretty much all her milestones early (can't remember them all now but she was walking at 10 months). She was quite a late talker but when she did eventually start talking she was quite quick at picking it up and stringing together words.

Not sure if it's got much to do with being overdue though. I don't think they let babies go much more than 2 weeks overdue these days so it's not a big difference in the grand scheme of things but maybe at the beginning with the very early milestones.

Flip