Midwife said "Oooft, this is a big bump for 22.5 weeks!"

[Missgiraffe1]

... and has marked me on the top line (90%) of the fundal height chart. Trying hard not to panic think about the delivery of the large baby on OBEM earlier this week , someone please tell me this is just because I'm small (5'1/2"), and have a short torso etc, and doesn't necessarily mean I'm having a whopper!!!

DH is 6'2", but wasn't a particularly large baby (8lb 5oz). I am way more anxious about giving birth this time around than last for some reason. Was 20yo last time, and will be 36 this time - I think I know too much now!

The baby may just be tall. Mine were very long, 58cms. One was 9 lbs 7oz, the other was 10 lbs 11oz, and I had them naturally with no stitches or interventions. They were long and skinny...thank goodness!
Plus size estimates are notoriously dubious.

Thanks whoopsi, these are the stories I want to hear! I tore with DD (she was only 6lb 12oz) and I had pain and tightness there for years afterwards, but didn't really think there was anything I could do about it. They were about to do an episiotomy but she shot out before they could.
I only had gas & air, and I'm pretty sure they didn't give me anything locally whilst doing the stitches, as they were actually way more painful than giving birth itself! They just kept telling me to keep breathing on the gas & air whilst several people were consulted on how to stitch me back together again... which seemed to take ages!!

at my 24 week check when i got measured i was on the top line

at my 28 week check i was on the top line

At my 31/32 week check i was between the 2 lines on my chart.

Basically it's early days, babies have growth spurts, and alot depends on how they are lead as well as this will affect the height of your bump!

My bump measured 96th centile with dd....i'm 5'4, dh 6'4. I was so scared of a massive baby, but DD was 7lb 5.5oz . I also tore though, a third degree tear. But bump height in itself isn't a worry I think.

A suggestion rather than a story, but it may be you have a lot of fluid rather than a large baby? And there's still plenty of time for your bump to even out, as subsequent pregnancies show bigger, earlier on

My midwife always told me that shorter people have bigger bumps. I had a mahoosive bump - got asked if I was having twins/if I had my dates right quite a lot . I had late growth scans and they thought DS would be massive, but in fact I just had a huge placenta (sorry if tmi) and DS was only a largish 8 lbs 8 oz.

Mine measures ok but looks massive for 24wks to me. I am also a short arse and i suspect have crap abdominal muscles after zero proper exercise since DC1!

I measured in the 90th percentile at 20 weeks...my OB said I should think about a C-section as 'my pelvis might never be the same again' otherwise. Eeek. Now at 25 weeks my bump seems huge. But, I keep telling myself, a big baby is much better than one that measures small as that is much more worrying

Is it possible to tell how much aproximately a baby will weigh at birth, before it's born? Just wondering. If you could find out before you're actually in labour, you'd have more choices of ways to deliver it.

Well, only two ways I guess - c section and vb.

During my pregnancy, I was told repeatedly that my DS was very small (predicted weight less than 6lbs).

I was criticised by the consultant in front of students as 'a woman your size should have bigger babies' - I'm average height and weight ffs.

I worried all through my pregnancy but at birth DS weighed 8lb 4oz - he was short and plump!

Ime, the biggest baby was the easiest birth too.

I second the could just be more water....

My second baby, I was huge, midwives kept asking if I was sure it was not twins!!!! I grew fast and stayed well above what I should have been, but right towards the end, growth slowed and I was only a couple of weeks ahead by the end. This baby was my smallest at 7lb3oz, I did tear with the same tear as first birth, but was much quicker healing second time around. The bump was loads of water!!!

My third baby, I had a smaller bump than my second, but baby a two pounds heavier and overall bigger (fatter!!!!), very little water. That labour had no tearing and was easy peasy. So even a big baby does not mean worst labour and birth. (I am short statue too). I hope this reasssures you that big bump does not mean much but that second births are almost always easier anyway.

Hello
I was told at my 38 week check with my dd that there was no worries that I was carrying a small baby def a a good size and it worried the hell out of me but she was born at 39 weeks weighing 6lb 11 1/2oz so not big at all!!!
Im now being monitoredvia reg scans as my baby is measuring small for dates im 27 weeks but people now keep saying yeah right bet you have a whopper now and also my bump is v big this time people keep saying are you having twins im so confused!!!!!!
Ems xx

Missgiraffe1

I'm a short one just like you and yesterday MW measured my bump and said it's two weeks bigger than normal.

This is my 2nd pregnancy and I do feel much bigger than in my 1st even starting weight was pretty much the same in both pregnancies.

So glad to have read this thread! I am 14+ 5 and midwife told me I am measuring between 16-18 weeks. After conversations with my doctor and midwife, try told me that he scan is the most accurate measurement rather than the measurement of my bump!!considering I'm a short arse at less than 5 foot and this being my third baby, this must all contribute to me being huge already!!

Oh and my friend is v v slim but taller than me she was told her bump qas measuring small so semt for a growth scan turnt out yes a small bump but they said the baby was already measuring big at about 29 weeks so guessing bump size dosent mean alot!!! X

I guess this shows that big babies don't necessarily mean difficult births and/or tearing. And that there is really no reason to be worrying about bump size. My SIL kept being told she was having a monster baby last year, and it really spoiled her last few weeks of pregnancy. She stressed about it all the time. minitoot she had a couple of extra scans towards the end, and was told that she was looking at 10lbs, my nephew was 7lb 5oz. Quite a difference!

sandra same here. 2nd pg, feel & look much bigger and have put on a few pounds more at this stage than with DD.

deebee sounds like your OB might be worrying you unecessarily! Although, I suppose it's good that he/she is giving you options. I get extra scans at 28, 32 & 36 weeks so will be interesting to see what they think about size (although I'll try not to get too hung up on it!)

When I was in labour almost 16years ago, a MW told me that your ability to give birth vaginally used to be estimated from the size of your feet! Size 2 or smaller & your pelvis might not open enough! I swear she said that!

My dgm couldn't deliver naturally and she was a 2 feet wise. So there may be truth in that.

I had growth scans at 28 32 &36 weeks. Predicted weight was over 10lbs but ds was 8lbs1. I measured big all through and. At 5'1me said it was due to my short torso.

I was huge with 2nd baby and MW and I discussed a scan but decided against, both late scans(as a one off rather than 2 or 3 in a row) and measuring bump are extremely unreliable.

I am also a shortarse. The massive baby I was carrying was 7lb6. They used to go a bit on feet size but stopped because it was nonsense. Birth wise, position makes a lot more difference than weight. My first was only 6lb4 but couldn't come out because of position, coming forehead first.