The customised growth charts in pg notes....

[pucca]

Are they supposed to be accurate? They didnt have them when i was pg with my dd, but have one in my notes this time around (27wks) and mine are saying that i measure 2 weeks bigger than what i should (i.e measuring 29 wks instead of 27) and according to this chart this baby will be 10lb 6oz at full term if i keep measuring likei am now

Are you talking about fundal height?
What a load of old cobblers that is.
Depends on how much fat on your stomach to begin with,how much fluid around baby,position of baby,how many previous pregnancies etc etc.
Far too many variables to clain any kind of accuracy to within 1cm IMO.
Stop worrying.

That is what i thought Sugarfree, so i wonder why they have bothered doing this now, sure they like scaring people lol.

Very odd!

I used to sit agape at my midwife when she started panicking at mine, 6 weeks to big sometimes.She never did take into account

1)I was a size 20 to begin with.
2)It was 3rd baby
3)I had a history of polyhydraminous with previous babies.
4)Previous babies were 8.5lbs+

Seems to me that each midwife would measusre from and to, slightly differing points every time too.

Load of tish,honestly.

I agree Sugarfree, they are a load of tripe those fundal height measurements. I was sent for a re-scan at 28 weeks because midwife was concerned I was on target for a 'big' baby (so of course you start panicking). Now at 36 weeks apparently I'm measuring too small!!!

on the otherhand none of my mw's seemed concerned about my size..I was sure I was big for dates. I was a size 12/14 prebaby and 4ft 11in.

DD was born full term weighing 9lb 4ozs . Surely this should have been noticed prior to the birth..??!!!!

Hey ho, they have to come out sometime and somehow I suppose..!

don't know why they bother with fundal height, all my doctors and mw's were able to feel baby through my abdomine(sp?) and could tell me exactly how big dd was. they got it spot on too.

fundal height has got to be the most illogical way of measuring a baby as so many variables besides babies weight can determine it.

ahy old cobblers here as well - they reconned Joey was gonna be a big baby - at least 8lb I measured the right CM etc and all but he felt big, then the m/w the day b4 labour said between 7-8.5lb, ones previously had said def not a 6/7lb baby he turned out at 7lb. (my chart said he'd be 8.5lb+ as well) and he was only 8 dyas early.

not too sure on the predictablity or that might just be our m/w's - my friend was told she'd have a small abby at about 6lb bubba turned out 9lb odd.

I consistently measured 5 weeks ahead. They weren't worried, particularly since my mother had always carried large as well, but did suggest a growth scan at 35 weeks to check things out. It showed slightly high amniotic fluid levels (which was handy to know, as this can make you higher risk for some procedures, e.g. artificial rupture of membranes, so they know not to do them (it can also indicate problems with the baby, but they ruled those out at the same scan)) and a big baby (he was eventually 10lb 5.5oz at 39+5). So personally I found it useful as the fundal height measurement led to the growth scan, which gave me some useful information -- but no one ever tried to imply that there was some trivial "if you are measuring this much then your baby will be this big" rule at play. I think I'd have laughed at them if they had...