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

Pregnancy

Talk about every stage of pregnancy, from early symptoms to preparing for birth.

Flip

1 2

Original poster

Bump's measuring 6 weeks ahead..just HOW BIG IS THIS BABY GOING TO BE?!!

32 replies

MammaDavies · 11/08/2010 19:26

Hey all, need some reasuring here...just how acurate are the growth measureing charts in the green notes??
A little bit worried here because at 26+2 midwife said I was at 28+5 (fairly normal i thought..)
At 28+2 midwife measured me at 33 weeks (WTF?! where'd those extra 3 weeks come from?...)

Today at 31+2 I've reached the grand bump stage of 37+3 weeks! my chart says this means the babys about 7lb already!!!!

I'm not gonna lie to you I am bricking it a little worried as it is my first, and I wasn't expected a tiddler (I'm 6ft and DH is 6ft 3 and both big built) but COME ON really?! Babys shaping up to have a place in the world records at this rate!

OP posts:

Are your children’s vaccines up to date?

Set a reminder

Ronaldinhio · 11/08/2010 19:31

they might as well consult mystic mog

two of my dds were v large for dates. questioning strongly whether the edd was wrong
cue my purchasing larger baby clothing etc
dd1 was 6lb6
dd3 was 6lb14

it's about as exact a science as using a hearing trumpet on your belly
don't worry

LittleSilver · 11/08/2010 19:36

Why do you think that Pinards are inaccurate Ronaldinhio?

Ronaldinhio · 11/08/2010 21:02

as described in my post.....

bexxaa · 11/08/2010 21:56

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

ReshapeWhileDamp · 11/08/2010 22:02

Pinards are fine! Measuring tapes held with one end vaguely at your pubic bone and the other end floating round where they think your fundus is, and then compared to a chart of averages... forget it. And if more than one person takes your measurements (MW and GP, for instance) it can be way out.

I had a massive bump with DS. Really, grotesquely huge. I had growth scans because of it. Nonwithstanding the fact that I am 5'2" and short-bodied.

DS born at term, 7lb 4. Ha.

coppertop · 11/08/2010 22:07

IME they're not all that accurate.

With dd I was always 4-6wks bigger than the charts said I should've been. A growth scan confirmed that she was going to be much bigger than her brothers (both 9lbs+).

She was just over 7lbs when she was born at 40wks.

Nattynar · 11/08/2010 22:14

Don't panic. Could just be down to your waters.

My DH is 6'5" and I'm 5'10", and our baby was 8lb 5 at 39+6wks. Not especially big or long.

He's made up for it now, and is in clothes for 6 months more than his age. Unless you are well overdue, I wouldn't worry.

Good luck

LittleSilver · 11/08/2010 22:15

Sorry, I don't understand Ronaldhinio? I can't find anything in your post to clarify that?

ivykaty44 · 11/08/2010 22:18

I was scanned quite a ot with dd2 and at 32 weeks dd2 was over 7ilb - she was born at 39 weeks and just over 9Ibl

Mumcah · 11/08/2010 23:04

I had loads of Scans as my bump was measuring a few cm's ahead.The arms and legs were off the scale at each scan!
At the last scan the baby was estimated to be 9lb 8oz and he was born 5 days later at 10lb 6oz.So not accurate.

However,he was very very long....way off the chart for height and at 10 weeks was in 6-9 month babygros.

His head was not big at birth and he was quite skinny.

Women give birth to big babies all the time so don't think it means a harder delivery.I had 2 c sections but not because of my babies' size.

OnEdge · 11/08/2010 23:15

What if someone is fatter? Surely that would make the measurement bigger?

My MW measured me at 34 weeks and said "37cm" i said "AYE ????" and she measured it again and said " No, 34.5cm"

WTF ???

bratnav · 11/08/2010 23:18

DS (DC3) measured 44at 37 and was born at 39 weeks weighing 9lb 12oz.

bratnav · 11/08/2010 23:22

Same as DD1, born at 42 weeks, 9lb 14oz. I'm 5'7", DH 6'2", nice easy births. Size of baby doesn't necessarily indicate an easy/difficult birth. HTH

ProfessorLaytonIsMyLoveSlave · 11/08/2010 23:24

I was measuring consistently 5 weeks ahead with DS -- was referred to growth scan which showed large baby plus mild polyhydramnios (too much amniotic fluid). He was 10lb 5oz in the end, right in line with the estimate from the growth scan.

ProfessorLaytonIsMyLoveSlave · 11/08/2010 23:26

LittleSilver, it seems fairly clear that Ronaldhino was told twice on the basis of Pinards that she was measuring so far ahead that she either had her dates wrong or was going to have a huge baby, but then had two smaller-than-average babies on or about the expected date, and therefore she thinks that Pinards is inaccurate.

BaggedandTagged · 12/08/2010 03:04

My Obs has told me herself that growth estimates are not that accurate (here they use UltraSound and triangulate an estimated weight from femur and head measurements) and on that basis they tend not to get concerned unless the baby is top or bottom 10th percentile, as tht could indicate possible issues in a vaginal birth, or if there are other issues with the pregnancy.

NickOfTime · 12/08/2010 03:53

i was told i was having elcs the following day as they couldn't risk me going into labour naturally. i was 39+4 and had had weeks of additional growth scans because the baby was sooooo huge. apparently.

they told me she could be 10lb 13. i'm 5'2" and quite petite and they said it would be very dangerous. she was 8lb 6oz.

vbac2 was the heaviest at 9lbs, but by then every time someone said 'your baby is this big' i nodded sagely and ignored them utterly.

LittleSilver · 12/08/2010 07:44

Thanks ProfessorLayton, that clarifies her post. But I think she's confused as pinard are used for listening to the fetal heart, not for estimating weight!

louii · 12/08/2010 07:55

I measured 4-6 weeks ahead from 30 weeks.
They were all saying baby will be well over 9lb, massive baby etc
DD was 8lb8oz.

poppincandy · 12/08/2010 08:10

LittleSilver - the way I understand what ronaldinhio is not that pinards are inaccuarate (if that's what the listening device is called), but if you used an old fashioned hearing trumpet, and put it against the bump, and describe the baby's weight and size that way.

She could of said as much use as a chocolate teapot, and meant the same thing!

NoTeaForMe · 12/08/2010 08:11

But LittleSilver she didn't say anything about Pinard, you did. All she said was that measuring the baby is "about as exact a science as using a hearing trumpet on your belly"

poppincandy · 12/08/2010 08:14

Just to say I had it the other way throughout my pregnancies, that they were too small, and that they were concerned that my dates were too early!!! and that they would be born under 5lb.

All just shy of 7lb, and my youngest is now the average height of someone 3 years older!!

Personally I think nature is normally the accruate one, and sorts out what size they need to come out, and then lets them grow once outside. Of course, sometimes nature can get it wrong, but not in the majority of cases.

ProfessorLaytonIsMyLoveSlave · 12/08/2010 08:17

Yes, I think that was my fault -- I didn't know what Pinards was and made the wrong assumption from Ronaldinho's follow-up post when she said that her first post made it clear why she thought Pinards was inaccurate. Sorry.

LittleSilver · 12/08/2010 09:23

poppincandy, that makes sense now thank you. I obviously misunderstood her point!

NoTea, a Pinard IS a hearing trumpet!

professorLayton, don't worry, obviously confusion all round!

Ronaldinhio · 12/08/2010 09:41

thanks ladies

hope that clears it up for you now littlesilver

Flip

1 2