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

Big Babies

29 replies

ChaCha · 08/11/2005 09:06

Was told at scan yesterday that baby is measuring appx 8lbs and should be putting on a half pound each week from now. I still have 2-3 weeks to go so am scared at the prospect of biggish baby. He could go on to be 9.5-10lbs according to measurements.

Just wondering if any of you had any experience of having a bigger baby and are the scans at this late gestation genuinely accurate?

Thank you
37+3

OP posts:

Are your children’s vaccines up to date?

Set a reminder

Coathanger · 08/11/2005 09:15

Hi Cha-cha! Are you having a scan as routine or is it requested?

I didn't have particularly big babies but I had a routine sizing scan with my first and they correctly said he would be about 7 and a half pounds. But shortly before I fell PG with my second they stopped giving routine sizing scans in my area as they weren't accurate enough. Lots of women were being told they had big babies and in fact they were small and vice versa.

Sorry I wasn't more help. I hope everything goes well for you and will look out for your birth announcment to see if they were right xx

Biglips · 08/11/2005 09:19

all i was told that i was having a BIG baba - no measurements was given and so i did have a BIG baba - she was 9lb 1oz... i got rushed in for an emergency c-section, me and my DP heard the surgeons were putting a bet on each other saying "i bet its a 10 pounder", "no its 9.5" "its 10.5" EEK!

anchovies · 08/11/2005 09:22

I was told I was having a big baby in a late scan and I did (he was 10lbs)

No probs except I didn't go into labour even when induced so had a cs but was all fine.

gigglinggoblin · 08/11/2005 09:23

ds1 was 9lb 13. i asked mw if she thought ds2 would be over 10lb and she wouldnt answer me! paniced like mad. he was a fairly scrawny 8lb 7. have never had a scan so cant help with that but i cant say ds2s birth was much different to ds1s. not sure how much difference size makes to pain. ds3 was easiest of all. 9lb 6 in birth pool. very relaxing

ps dont buy newborn sleepsuits, get a few 0-3 months. dont buy too many of those cos ds1 was out of them in 6 weeks! ditto 1st size nappies. you might think its easier to stock up but you may end up throwing them away

Original poster

ChaCha · 08/11/2005 09:28

Coathanger - Thanks. The scan isn't routine, was initially booked to check baby's position as no one could tell at the time. Fortunately he's head down and 4/5 engaged but m/w has just told me that although that's all good it will be a case of luck with regards to labour! Hmmmm...

Biglips - I can't believe they were placing bets like that! Can I ask you why the emergency section though? I'm a bit ignorant..is it because a baby can face difficulty trying to get out if too big?

Anchovies - Thanks. M/w pointed out this morning that there are advantages to big babies, easier to handle etc.. am trying to focus on the positive now...geeeeh!

OP posts:

oliveoil · 08/11/2005 09:35

dd1 was 9lb 10 and delivered by emergency section. Phew said I, thank God I didn't have to push that out.

Forward 2 years, dd2 was 9lb 5, delivered vaginally with assistance from a vontouse (sp?), absolutely fine and dandy.

Agree on baby clothes, my vests fitted for about a week!

I have been told that big babies are 'easier' to deliver but I don't know how they work that one out, basic physics would tell you otherwise imo.

xxxx

monkeytrousers · 08/11/2005 09:40

Hi ChaCha , My ds was 10.4 (with epidural)and until he 'popped' out I was being told that he was just a wee thing, so I wouldn't rely too much on predicted outcomes. There was another thread on this a few weeks ago and lots of people were saying the same about how inaccurate their late scans were.

beejay · 08/11/2005 09:41

I had quite a few scans towards the end, they kept saying the baby was huge and would be well over ten pounds. Scared me quite a lot. In the end the baby was 8lbs 8, not small but not a monster anyway.
Don't let them scare you! The fact that it is big suggests you and the baby are very healthy, which is what you want when going into labour!
Good luck

Biglips · 08/11/2005 09:42

no she was back to back and facing the wrong way as she was facing to my left instead of straight on or otherwise i would've gave bith naturally as i was 10cm dilated

Rachey1969 · 08/11/2005 09:44

Hi chacha, my ds1 was 9'5, ds2 8'12 and dd 9'2 - I definitely think position is more important than size when it comes to a vaginal delivery. If your babe is 4/5 engaged then that bodes well. I was scanned in labour with dd (she was a face presentation) and they told me she would be 'about 8 1/2lb' - a couple of hours later she was actually 9'2! so no, not always accurate!

Rachey1969 · 08/11/2005 09:45

Sorry forgot to say good luck! ds2 was 'face to pubes' and dd chin first but they still all came out 'normally'!

chjlly · 08/11/2005 09:47

I was told I was having a big baby - about 8lb they thought about 2 weeks before I was booked to have her she weighed 10lb 5oz when born!!

TuttiFrutti · 08/11/2005 10:11

I was told by the midwives in hospital that head circumference and the baby's position is more crucial than weight - although big babies obviously can be more difficult to push out.

I had a scan when a week overdue and they said "This baby is at least 9lbs 3oz." He was born a week later by emergency C-section at 9lbs 8oz, so they got it about right, although I know these scans are not always accurate. He also had the largest head circumference in the hospital for the previous month, so I was very glad I didn't have to push him out!

coppertop · 08/11/2005 10:19

Ds1 was 9lbs 8oz and ds2 was 9lbs. The biggest risk IME was that their shoulders would get stuck. Luckily they were freed fairly quickly.

I agree with not buying many 0-3mths clothes. Ds1 was very long and thin and so went straight into 3-6mths sized sleepsuits.

shhhh · 08/11/2005 15:39

I was scanned for other reasons every 2 weeks till week 21. At each mw appointment I was told "Mmmm average size"...when I went into labour the mw said "mmmmmmm average size"...all they would say is that dd would be around 7-8lb..LOL dd was 9lb 4oz! I think in my case average must have meant bigish!! Don't think they wanted to scare me. Apparently its easier to deliver a bigger baby than it is a small one...Not sure how true but will consider this when we try for the next one !! .

ps I'm only 4ft 11in.

shhhh · 08/11/2005 15:41

pps dd was born "natuarally" with only gas and air to help. Although this was taken from me at the pushing stage wicked wicked.

Normsnockers · 08/11/2005 15:53

Message withdrawn

Shazzler · 08/11/2005 16:02

My ds was 9lbs 7 and I did have to have help at the end with forceps. (gas and air and pethidine)

My dd was 9lbs and I did have a scan to see what size she was because she was breech and consultant wanted to ensure she could be turned externally. She was and I delivered her with only gas and air.

Rachey1969 · 08/11/2005 19:31

I agree with the head size - ds1 had a head circumference of 39cm - I needed an episiotomy and forceps! Ds2's head was bent into a sort of mr.whippy shape and dd came out face first - not sure of the cirumference that way!

vickiyumyum · 08/11/2005 19:33

face presentation is the widest possible presentation for delivery! so you did really well tog et him out. if he had been brow presentation he wouldn't have been able to come out and that would be straight to section.

Rachey1969 · 08/11/2005 19:38

I think that I don't have the child bearing hips it looks like I have! God knows how this one (number 4) is going to come out They only discovered dd was face first when they broke my waters and she started sucking the midwife's finger! They gave me an epidural (in case I needed a section) but were really keen to get her out normally - every tom, dick and harry came in for a feel/scan and she came out sort of chin first with only a tiny tear (9'2) - probably the best delivery of the three I've had. Her navy blue complexion faded quite quickly!

Original poster

ChaCha · 08/11/2005 21:31

Thank you all for sharing your experiences.
Appreciated

OP posts:

eidsvold · 09/11/2005 03:13

was told at 36 weeks that dd2 looked like being about 4 kg on due date - when she was born she was 4.28kg ( 9lb 7oz) so they were probably pretty much spot on. I had an elective c-section for a number of reasons. I found it hard to get used to her size given that dd1 was just 6lb 1/2 oz!!

karmamother · 09/11/2005 20:29

Chacha, God knows how you've grown a big 'un with all the vomiting you've done in this pregnancy!!! Isn't it amazing how lots of people think delivering a bigger baby is easier? I'd love to know why.

earthtomummy · 09/11/2005 20:46

My scans were pretty accurate - DS1 was 9lb 11, DD was 9lb10 and the scans of DD 3 were at 28 and 36 wks, and showed her to be mcuh smaller - and she was, at 8lbs 4. I delivered all of mine naturally but I was lucky that they all had and still have q. small head circumferences.
Best of luck (think bigger babies sleep better as newborns - my experience!) if that's any comfort..?

Flip

1 2

Swipe left for the next trending thread