Can a bump be too big?

[marsup]

I haven't put on weight anywhere apart from breasts and bump, but my bump is a whopper and I'm only 25+4 or thereabouts! I've had a scan and it is not twins. But I've already put on almost all the 'normal' weight for entire pregnancy and it is piling up on my tummy. I thought first babies were supposed to make small bumps! Should I be worrying? does the size of the bump reflect the size of the baby, or could it just be lots of amniotic fluid? or a fibroma?

An old lady took my arm to help me get on the bus yesterday - she probably thought I had two weeks to go and might go into contractions if left to climb steps alone!

This happened to me as well - turned out to be a big baby AND a lot of fluid (normal levels vary a lot from 5 to 25, mine is 23 just at the upper limit of acceptable). Baby's weight at 32 weeks was estimated at close to 6 pounds.

I found that once I got past about 34 weeks bump circumference got no larger but it got more and more barrel-shaped. Bump has always felt pretty solid (it would be flabbier if there were lots of fat deposits). The sonographer at 32 weeks said I would lose a lot of weight in fluid quite quickly after the baby is born.

I had quite a big bump for my size. Like you, I only put weight on breasts and bump. I put on 2.5 stone which is a third of my normal body weight but came home from hospital only about 7 lb over pre-pregnant weight which is about right for extra breast tissue and fluid. Ds was only 7lb 8oz so the rest of the weight must have been mainly fluid. If you're a bit concerned, mention it to your midwife.

One downside for me was that by the end some of my maternity clothes wouldn't fit any more, I got so big . Was back in normal clothes very quickly afterwards though .

according to someone I worked with I was "enormous" with ds1 for most of my pregnancy (think I was smaller with ds2). It was all bump- didn't really put on weight elsewhere. Like gingernut a lot of my maternity clothes didn't fit at the end.

Only problem really is sometimes too much amniotic fluid can be a problem, but they check for that on the scan and when you have antenatal visits. A registrar sent me for a scan saying I had too much fluid, but I'd seen the midwife the same day and she'd told me the baby had grown although my bump hadn't grown- so I believed her- and the scanner said the registrar didn't know what he was talking about (most don't- lol) and I had a perfectly normal amount of fluid so trust your midwife. If you're worried ask the midwife at the next antenatal visit but if your bump is all out front that almost certainly explains it.

Like gingernut - I lost a lot of weight immediately after the birth.

My bump was so huge that people always made rude comments! In fact baby came two weeks early and weighed 7 14 so not enormous. Most of the excess weight turned out to be fluid. I wouldn't worry at all. Be pregnant and proud

i'd only worry if u couldnt fit thro double doors.

Susie40 (or other well-informed people): what is the measure of fluid levels, when you say 5 to 25 is 'normal'? and how do they measure them?

I think the 'lots of fluid' explanation is plausible in my case - very hard bump and no flab to speak of. Thanks to all for these reassuring comparisons!

Marsup, fluid levels are measured at ultrasound scans - they measure the depth in centimetres of 4 pockets of amniotic fluid and add them together. I had a fetal wellbeing scan at 36 weeks and on the report it says "Amniotic fluid index 22.3cm, deepest pool 8.1cm". At an earlier scan I was told the fluid index was 23 but the figure didn't appear on the report (it just said "Slight Increase" for liquor volume).

I had a Google around for the information earlier in the pregnancy when my doctor said he suspected I had too much fluid (I didn't). Here is a percentile chart & table:

www.fetalanomalies.org/Fluid.html

Hiya...I had a hugeormous bump first time round and had people asking me "are you nearly there", "is it twins" (yes, all those chestnuts, from about 22 weeks. Turned out ds1 was very big. Weighed 11lb 2oz and was breech (I sometimes if this added to the sticky-outiness of bump). Rest of me stayed thin...boobs weren't even that big which I think added to prominence. Also, I'm not particularly huge and my hips aren't THAT wide, so I think how much your bump sticks out depends on your physiology, as well as baby size. Don't worry though, big babies are beautiful and at least you don't have people mistaking your tummy for overindulgence at lunchtime.

P.S DS2 was 10lbs and bump a bit smaller, but was a proper bump by, like, 14 weeks. Probably 'cos muscles shot to pieces with ds1.

Sorry - always think of something else after I've posted message. Re; maternity clothes...Hennes is fab style-wise but far too small by third trimester if you're prone to big bumps.

Rather in awe of advance knowledge of fluid levels by the way...blimey!

gooseygosling - 11lbs 2oz!!! my DS1 was 9lb 13oz and I thought that was big - crikey, you go girl. and I agree, big babies are beautiful, less wrinkly.

That is really scarey, Gooseygosling - I didn't know babies came that size! This is starting to make me nervous: I am much smaller than dh, and I'm worried about having a very big baby. But I guess short of taking up smoking for the last few months there is not much I can do about it???

ooooh - whenever the conversation turns to big babies I have to mention the woman who gave birth when I was in with DD1. She was called Moore - she had twins - 10 lbs each! We saw her husband looking at them through the nursery window afterwards, he looked completely stunned. (DH trotted out a "Moore and Moore" joke for years afterwards.)

gooseygosling, one 11-2 breech must beat that at the delivery stage though! Well done!

MMm, I know, he was rather large. It was my first baby, I was only 23 and I couldn't believe how huge I was (my doc said fundal height was biggest he'd ever measured). I have to admit defeat though. He was a planned c/s - docs said, "no way, jose" so delivered him a week early. Goodness knows how monstrous he might have been had he been left in there to stew! I CANNOT BELIEVE THE 10LB TWINS...THAT IS INCREDIBLE. I least I know there must be someone in this country with stretchmarks (and piles!) as bad as mine

Don't mean to frighten you marsup...maybe you are going to have a big baby, maybe not - and they do say that if the baby's in a good position, gravity means a big baby can be born easier (I think this may have been made up though). I know of women who were pretty huge and had normal-sized babies and also women with quite neat bumps who had big ones...only time will tell.

Mind you, if you're really concerned - by about 30 weeks an experienced midwife or doctor should be able to judge quite easily whether the baby is big or not. I also went for growth scans with both of mine and they turned out to be pretty accurate. In fact, with ds2, they estimated him to be 8lb 11oz on 1st June and he was born on 21st June weighing 10lb exactly. Since they're supposed to be putting on an ounce a day at this stage that's incredibly accurate. Funnily, my GP had said a couple of weeks earlier that baby would be an average 8lb (apparently it's more difficult to judge when it's your second as everything's a bit more wobbly).

Finally, DS1 is a fairly average-size 8 and a half year old now and DS2 isn't that big at all. Funny how things work out.

Friend of dp's had twins over 12lbs each.

AAAAARGH.

WELL, my friend HAD TRIPLETS WHO WERE 13lbs each (are you serious Mother Inferior?).

If not, shouldn't we find them in the Guiness Book of World Records?

I am indeed quite serious. Admittedly this is via dp, and the info may have been garbled, but I know they were in that sort of range.

I cannot believe the triplets. How? What did she look like? Could she move at all???

MI, I think gooseygander was kidding ("my dad's bigger than your dad", you know!)

Oops, gooseygosling, SORRY!

There's a little bit HERE (about 2/3rds down the page) on the biggest newborn twins, and also about triplets .