Baby Weight

[MovingMad87]

I'm 39 weeks pregnant with my 2nd child; a miracle natural pregnancy after 3 failed ivf transfers.

I chatted to an obstetrician yesterday and they said something that worried me a little.

For context, My daughter was 9 pounds when she was born but my son is definitely measuring smaller but completely average; they reckon my son will be about 7.5/8pounds.

The obstetrician said that it's a bit unusual for a second baby, especially if it's a boy, to be smaller than the first baby. Anyone else had this? My son is still measuring completely normal so I'm not too worried but as this pregnancy is so precious to us and we are so close to the end I want to cover all bases...

[Totterytumble]

I have never heard that. My second (a boy) was nearly a pound smaller than his sister.

[JC89]

My cousin's first baby was over 10lb and second baby was under 8lb -all fine!

[KnickerlessFlannel]

Mine were within an ounce of each other. I had a growth scan the day before dd2 was born and they estimated her to be born 2 pounds bigger than she was. Given less than 24 hours between scan and her arrival, I really don't think they are a great tool for weight estimation tbh

[MovingMad87]

@Totterytumble

I have never heard that. My second (a boy) was nearly a pound smaller than his sister.

This is really reassuring Thankyou!

[MovingMad87]

@JC89

My cousin's first baby was over 10lb and second baby was under 8lb -all fine!

Ok this makes me feel a lot better!

[MovingMad87]

@KnickerlessFlannel

Mine were within an ounce of each other. I had a growth scan the day before dd2 was born and they estimated her to be born 2 pounds bigger than she was. Given less than 24 hours between scan and her arrival, I really don't think they are a great tool for weight estimation tbh

It seems like they get them wrong all the time - so not even sure if I would trust the scan if I went for another one.

[PurBal]

I wouldn’t worry. Growth scans are notoriously inaccurate. I was measuring “normally” and ended up with a whopper.

[MovingMad87]

@PurBal

I wouldn’t worry. Growth scans are notoriously inaccurate. I was measuring “normally” and ended up with a whopper.

Hence I'm even sure whether it's worth going for an extra scan as it will probably be wrong anyway. The clinic I went to for an extra scan last time were very very accurate though.

[EarthbarsforMartians]

Was your first baby late OP? They keep getting bigger so a 9lb baby born at 42 weeks is not on the same growth curve as a 9lb baby born at 38weeks.

[MovingMad87]

@EarthbarsforMartians

Was your first baby late OP? They keep getting bigger so a 9lb baby born at 42 weeks is not on the same growth curve as a 9lb baby born at 38weeks.

First baby was bang on time. Went into labour on her due date and she was born the next day!

[CadyEastman]

Agree that growth scans can be notoriously inaccurate. I had regular growth scans with my second as they were convinced she would be small.

She came in at a very healthy 8lb 3oz. The week before I was told I'd be lucky if she was 6lb

[MovingMad87]

@CadyEastman

Agree that growth scans can be notoriously inaccurate. I had regular growth scans with my second as they were convinced she would be small.

She came in at a very healthy 8lb 3oz. The week before I was told I'd be lucky if she was 6lb

Wow - I've heard this so many times. Seems like the growth scans in the later stages are a waste of time really...

[allfurcoatnoknickers]

My first baby was a boy and a very average 7.5lbs. Second was a girl and she was teeny - 6.1lbs and only just above the cutoff for IUGR. I did have to have a lot of extra monitoring, but that was because of the potential IUGR, not because she was smaller than DS IYSWIM.