Are ELCS babies bigger?

[Ellennnn]

Just curious , DS I had an ELCS due to breach and of course they give you risk sheets etc and it said c section babies more prone to asthma and being an overweight child?

DS was born over 9lb, grew very fast. He’s steadied out now just tall but in clothes his age sizing

I am due DD in 2 months, unsure if I’m having another ELCS yet (waiting for consultant appt to weigh up risks of both type of births) and this sounds so silly. But I had an eating disorder growing up. The comments about DS being “massive” “a tank” “chubby” “a unit” while he was under 1 really got to me

and I’m worried it’ll happen again , she’ll grow really fast people will make those comments

but I’d snap this time. It really grated on me how people commented on my babies size when he was such a happy and gorgeous (still is but is a little boy now :) ) baby!

So were your C-section babies bigger ? Or no difference??

My cs baby was bigger than my VBAC baby based on birth weight but my VBAC baby is a solid little toddler now much better built than the eldest was at that age. I’m expecting the obese letter when the toddler starts school!

My daughter was biggish (100th percentile at birth) but she’s now quite a slim toddler. She’s still fitting into clothes for 3 months younger.

The main concern with c section babies is they miss out on the squeezing of the birth canal so they can have tension/tightness that can make them unhappy newborns, and they don’t get the benefit of mum’s vaginal bacteria which they think can cause obesity or asthma. Exclusive breastfeeding for a number of months can restore their bacteria to the same as a vaginal birth.

Without generalising, I think the link between c-section babies being more prone to certain conditions, is more likely due to the fact that mothers who already have similar sorts of conditions, are more likely to need, be advised, or opt for csection deliveries. So is probably more linked genetically and to maternal health, rather than being linked to the actual method of delivery. For example, an overweight mum who develops gestational diabetes, is more likely to have a larger baby, due to the condition, and will likely be advised to opt for a c section, that baby is more likely to be born larger (due to GD, and grow quicker) for the record, I have two c section babies, who don't have asthma and aren't at all overweight, but neither am I, and my c sections were emergencies after failed deliveries.

DS was born by ELCS at 37 weeks and was small. He’s absolutely huge now at 6 months, HUGE. He was very small for a few weeks then found his feeding legs and was gaining a lb a week.

They were both 9lb babies, but now primary aged kids, and both are tiny.

No, 3 ELCS, all 3 under 8.5 lbs, all smallish adults now.

I've had a CS and a VBAC and I've looked into it all extensively for making my own mind up.

I think with all the CS statistics one thing you need to bear in mind which no one ever seems to mention (and I think it's quite remiss of places like the NHS website not to say it) is that most C sections happen for health reasons or birth complications.

That inherently means you're looking at stats for a group of children who are more likely to have health conditions to start with. The CS isn't the cause of those health conditions, it's the reason those babies made it into the world safely and it's why they live long enough for us to do these health studies!

Included in that, I'd add obesity in mothers causes several big complications that increase the likelihood of needing a CS even with a healthy seeming baby. This can cause an increase in the number of babies who are on the larger side because if the mother is a chronic over eater or has disordered eating, she's likely to have disordered feeding of her child which will lead to the child being more likely to be overweight. Add into that gestational diabetes. Obesity in the mother is a risk factor and high birthweight in the baby is a complication of GD.

So the stats aren't being robustly questioned properly by the people who write these studies, and they're not taking into account that the group of mothers delivering by CS and babies born by CS is (as a group, not necessarily individually) less healthy to start with.

It isn't causality, it's correlation.

Ah I didn’t really think of the stats/studies link!

except I noticed the risks were more geared towards outcomes of emergency c sections (potential cut to babies face , haemorrhaging)

But it does make sense

i didn’t know this about the bacteria with vaginal birth. I did exclusively FF my 1st child, but want to breast feed this time