Midwife - Small bump = big baby. Eh?!

[acatcalledfelix]

29 weeks, had MW apt today. I've not huge by any means, but have a nice little bump, pretty similar to when I had DS (17 days early, 6lb10).

When feeling for baby and measuring my belly, my MW said that usually those bellys that don't really "look" pg usually hold big babies, and that mine will be "at least" 8lb. She couldn't explain what she meant, and it made no sense to me!

Anyone else been told this?

I had a small bump, and a normal sized baby 7lb6oz. So its bollocks.

My bump looked small because I have a long torso, so plenty of space. And I went 9 days overdue, so no lack of extra growth time. How the hell can they make any kind of accurate prediction at 29 weeks anyway?

I had a growth chart printed out at my 12 week appointment that predicted -with my measurements - previous birth, height, weight, age etc that my baby would be born 8lb 8oz. It was plotted on a graph in my maternity notes.

I was sent for a scan at 34 weeks because the mw thought my bump was small - all ok.

Then when baby came, 12 days overdue, he was spot on 8lb 8oz!

Coincidence? I don't know, but I wouldn't worry about your bump.

Not worried, just a bit confused! It seemed like an illogical thing to say. Like I said I was pretty small with DS, which I'm quite thankful for as I've got enough back pain etc without having shed loads of extra weight making it worse (I do eat a lot though, no worries there!)

I am a normal bump/ large bump depending on midwife but at scan, as bump hadn't changed in 6 weeks, although still normal, I was carrying a small baby (10th centile). 2 weeks later still small (20th centile). The measurements at the midwife with a tape aren't too accurate as they measure the mother not the baby and sometimes genes play a role too. I was a small baby as were my cousins and siblings.

I had a small neat bump, and had to have extra growth scans for low bmi, which apparently can indicate smaller babies. DS was 10lb 4oz!!

Bump seems bigger earlier this time, and I like your mw's theory of small bump/big baby and presumably big bump/smaller baby. Don't fancy pushing out a 12 pounder!!

Apparently i have a LARGE bump, but a normal size baby

guess in about 5 weeks time i'll find out!!!!!

DS was my smallest bump, in fact at 29 weeks one of the mums from the toddler group I went to didn't even know I was pregnant! DS was 9lb!

With DD1 and DD2 I was huge and they were 6lb 9oz and 7lb.

I guess she's just talking about her experience.

My midwife said I have a nice neat bump which she has said with all 3, but with my other two she said I am not built to carry big which turned out to be right my DD was 5lb 13oz 39+1, my DS was 6lb 3oz 36+3.
This time however she said this baby is in a compacted position and she hasn't mentioned my build and baby size this time. So I took it to mean that the baby is larger than my bump indicates due to the position he/she is in.

I had a small bump, dd was 8lb born at 36 weeks

I had a huge bump with all 3 of mine, but tiny babies. With my 3rd my waters broke in a big whoosh and my bump suddenly deflated like a popped balloon to half the size so I obviously carry alot of fluid and have zero stomach muscles

I had a huge bump and DS was born 4wks early at 7lb ... Thank god he came early
I'm tiny tho so I think was more to do with me being small that the bump was relatively big when baby took after dad

Do mw s give u a rough estimate of baby's size as standard? I'm expecting my first and intrigued as to how big/small it might be :0) I'm currently 32 +2 x

If yours was 17 days early at 6lb 10 then it might have been big had you carried to term...

My bump is measuring bang-on for dates but because I'm 6' tall, looks neat as I've so much space up and down.

Maybe your midwife has just noticed a general trend herself, but I can't think of any explanation for it!