Does bump size correspond with baby size?

[Mummyk1982]

Hello!

For anyone who measured, I'm curious to know whether a 'big bump' resulted in a 'big baby', or a 'little bump' resulted in a 'little baby'?
Loads of ppl keep saying I have a little bump; it's certainly very neat and I guess on the smaller size, but my little lady in there is so strong- her movements are massive and I reckon she's bigger than she appears.
I'm 33 weeks and bump measures around 42 inches round where my belly button is (most pronounced part of bump)

Thanks in advance for anyone's thoughts/experience :-)

I had large bumps and quite small babies.

I had small ish bumps. My midwife friend told me it's likely because I'm tall so there's more room for baby. On shorter women, the bump pokes out more as less room. No idea if it's right or not but my babies weren't small - 7lbs 9 and 8lbs 5.

I had normal sized bump (so measuring 37cm at 37 weeks) but baby was enormous (10lbs 5oz). a scan when I was 14 days overdue showed I had quite low levels of amniotic fluid, so maybe that is why. there are just too many variables for bump size to be an accurate gauge of baby size.

Everyone carries differently depending on size, height, uterus, fat on tummy, amount of fluid etc etc. I know women who barely have to wear maternity clothes and still have average babies. I was rather large and had a smallish baby.

With my DS i measured 47 inch's around (at about 36 weeks) and he arrived at 38+4 weighing 8lb 2oz.

With DD i measured 48 inch's around (again at about 36 weeks) and she arrived at 39+2 weighing 7lb 12oz.

So in my case bump size doesnt mean much. I had a succenturiant lobe (an extra bit of placenta) with DD which probably made my bump bigger even though she was smaller.

My friend was enormous, had been told to expect a 9lber. Her baby was around 5lb!

My bumps have always measured normal and babies have been below average. This time I'm measuring a little ahead but I'm expecting baby to be bigger as it's my 3rd.

My first measured bang on week by week which plotted against my height gave an estimated weight of 8.5lb.

She was 6lb.

This time I'm measuring small so it'll probably be a whopper. It doesn't seem as though there is a correlation.

In my NCT the woman with the neatest bump had the biggest baby but the woman with the biggest bump had the second biggest by 2oz.

All 3 times I've had a massive bump and the first two babies were big, this ones coming on Monday and she's also excepted to be big.
However I'm only just five foot tall and so I think my bump would be huge even if baby wasnt.
My sister had a nearly 11 pounder and hardly had a bump, but she's almost 6 foot tall so baby had more hiding room .

No. My bump measured average throughout pregnancy (ie 38cm at 38 weeks) and my baby was 9lb 10oz!

My midwife had assured me I was having an average sized baby (I asked her the same question because my husband is very tall and was a big baby).

Luckily DD was breech and I had an ELCS.

Small bumps here and 8-9lb babies. I'm tall so have plenty if room in the middle. Everyone I know with huge bumps had 6lb babies!

I had a bump measuring about a week behind my dates, and I only put on about 20lbs. I'm short and small framed, and didn't really get THAT big, but I had an 8lb 8oz baby.
I'm still not entirely sure how he fitted.

I measured ahead and had a growth scan at 33 weeks which indicated a big baby, as did bump measurements. He was 6lbs11oz! I had scared myself silly about him getting stuck during birth so in a panic pushed him out all in one go and I remember the mw exclaiming in surprise whilst she fished him out of the pool "he's a tiddler!" We were all expecting a whopper!

(And my panicky push resulted in a 2nd degree tear. I am definitely going to follow mw instructions this time around!)

My bump was measuring very small (about 6 weeks behind) and I kept getting sent for growth scans to check baby was okay. He was born 6lb 8oz at 39 weeks so on the small size but well within normal range

Thanks everyone. Sounds like just because bump is small she may not be! I was hoping for an easy ride ;-)

I think it depends as much on how tall you are, as on baby size.

I was pretty average with Dd1, who was 8lb 6oz at birth. Which was a bit of a surprise

With DD2 I was huge. Even my lovely MW said 'wow. You BIIIIG'. DD2 was 9lb 4oz at birth, and 60cm long. Funnily enough though it was a very easy birth and I barely tore. Just because they're fatter doesn't mean the head is too!

But I also have a friend who is pretty slender and short, who had a bump measuring on the small side and regular growth scans, and she managed to have a 10-pounder :-o. Baby was 2 weeks overdue. But I suppose it must have been down to the way she was carrying him, I know she had vicious heartburn for the last few months.

My sister was enormous but produced a 5lb baby at full term.

Good point about head size - my ds was 25th centile for weight but 75th for head. We could never get a newborn hat on him and have always had to size up hats whilst he wears clothes for a younger age! And he was born looking up as well instead of tucking his chin down so he had a massive pointy cone coming straight up out of the top of his head for the first few days. So even small babies can position themselves awkwardly whereas a bigger baby might be cooperative and come out more smoothly. Good luck , OP, hope all goes well!

With my son I was sent for growth scans as throughout my pregnancy I measured just over 3 weeks ahead. They expected him to be massive. He was born at 37 weeks weighing a tiny 6lb 8oz. I'm currently 33 weeks pregnant with my daughter and have to have regular scans due to medication but off her scans, she's again, another tiny baby but I'm measuring 35 weeks so 2 weeks ahead. When the midwife palpates, they're measuring the height of your uterus plus baby and your waters. So as my midwife said, it's not the most accurate way of guessing how big a baby will be :)

I really don't think you can tell from bump size. A lot of your bump size/shape is due to your physique, the way you are carrying, amount of fluid etc. I was very 'out front' and had a lot of (tactless) people telling me I was going to have a huge baby. DS weighed in at a respectable 7lb 10.

I'm very short with a short body and had massive bumps, particularly with DS. He weighed 6lbs.

And the baby's weight doesn't determine ease of labour. My titchy babies got very very stuck and I ended up with 2xemcs. It was head circumference and position which caused this. My friend has had relatively 'easy' labours and deliveries with 10lb+ babies. In fact, our midwives agree that bigger babies are easier due to gravity.

In my case the amount if fluid made a difference. I was bigger with my second pregnancy than my third, but the second was loads of fluid and 7lb3oz, the smaller third pregnancy bump turned out to be mostly baby and very little fluid, and a 9lb weight. So nearly 2lbs difference in baby weights but bigger belly with the smaller baby.

Most of my second pregnancy, the midwives queried twins due to size!

And to add some extra comfort my third and biggest baby was the easiest and quickest delivery with no tearing (I did tear with the smaller ones!)

I have to admit I've been concerned as this is my first and my bump is basically non existent! Even my midwife said I'm looking extremely trim for 18 weeks! I've put on no weight at all anywhere minus the bigger boobs yet a friend of mine who is only a few weeks ahead of me has ballooned and had a pronounced bump from 12 weeks. All these posts have made me feel a lot better as I was afraid there was something wrong with me!

Standard size bump, midwife told me to expect 7-8 lbs baby. I was showing from very early on too. She was 6lbs3 and a week late!