"Carrying small" - where, exactly, is my baby hiding?

[sunandfire]

This is a strange post, and I'm not even sure I'll be able to form my thoughts into an actual question.

I'm currently 28+6 weeks, and "carrying small". I can suck my belly in some, and it wouldn't even really look like I was much pregnant. However, 'fundal height'-wise, I'm measuring accurately. Anyway, it's hard to imagine/believe that there's actually a 28+6 week baby in there because I just can't see it from the outside! Also, an account dedicated to premature babies (who go on to become fully developed, healthy babies) often appears on my 'Discover' page on Instagram, and it's hard to believe that my baby is the same gestational age as some of the babies featured on that account - "There's NO WAY that a baby of that size is fitting inside this tiny belly of mine - is there!?!?" is a common question. Although the babies on the page are tiny, of course, to me they're huge (when I think about their size in relation to the supposed size of the baby that's currently inside me).

Anyway, I guess my question is: what is the science behind carrying small? Where does the baby hide? Whenever I look at my belly, it's really hard to understand how an actual baby of a supposed size is actually fitting in there! Is it that he's "sitting in my back"? Might my uterus be tilted backwards (although I haven't been told this)? I guess, for my own reassurance, I'd just like to know how this is possible. For ages I was really quite worried about the fact that I was "carrying small", so I guess this need for reassurance and a way to understand the science behind this stems from some lingering worry.

Again, sorry for how strange this post is, and thanks for taking the time to make sense of it and maybe even respond to this absurdity! ☺️

What’s your body type and fitness level? Having really good abdominal muscle tone leads to a much smaller bump... I remember a new story where everyone was giving a model crap for starving herself and her baby (she was still going to gym and weight training). Her bump was minute but her baby was born totally healthy and 8lb something. If there was something to worry about I’m sure midwife would have picked it up.

I carried small both times and they put it down to me having a long torso.

@moreismore I'm a size 8-10 (UK), and I'd say I have an average fitness level. I know exactly which model you're referring to, and women like her reassure me that it's possible to give birth to a healthy-sized baby when "carrying small", I just wonder how it's possible!

@SleepFreeZone I know that taller women often carry small due to longer torsos, but I'm around 5"5/5"6 with what I'd consider an average-length torso!

I 'carried small' with my second baby until the last few weeks, when I had more of a proper bump. I measured a cm or two under but nothing concerning. When DS arrived (ELCS at 40 weeks) he surprised everyone in the operating theatre by weighing in at a strapping 9 lb 5! I put it down to the fact that I am tall (5' 11") with a long back, and also that DS was wedged up under my ribs (which was very uncomfortable towards the end).

@SoftSheen wow - what a nice, big baby! That's a story I hear often - taller women carrying smaller as they have more torso to accommodate the baby upwards, rather than outwards. I'm about 5"5/5"6 with an average-length torso, and a lot of my baby's movements are lower down (mainly around and just beneath the bellybutton), so I'd definitely be carrying small for another reason.

I'm just going to throw this out there (with the caveat that I'm a lady of large size) but it also depends where my baby is laying. Sometimes, if he's facing inwards towards my back, my bump sticks out a lot and is very hard / firm to touch. If he rotated and faces outwards and we are back to back then my bump is much less evident and soft to touch.

I wonder what you mean by averagely fit. The average UK woman is a size 14 not an 8/10 so you either have a much healthier diet, are a lot fitter or both.
For dc2 I wore some non maternity tops up to 36 weeks when DS was born. He was just under 6lbs but then so was ds1 who went to 39 weeks.

I carried small with dd1, long torso and good stomach muscles. I wanted to collect my buggy at 35 weeks and the shop assistant was very dismissive of me 'needing it too soon'. When I told her how far I was she was very surprised and had my pram delivered into store 2 days later.

Never mind I'd paid for the thing 2 months earlier

Dd2 I looked pregnant from about 4 weeks

I measured small for dates and had lots of extra scans as a result. They said I had oligohydramniosis (or something similar) which meant the amount of amniotic fluid was low - way off the scale actually.

When my waters finally went, 4 weeks early and just before they were going to induce me, there was hardly any to go! So it was a 'dry' birth, which is supposed to be more painful.

DD was fine.

@PistFump Wow, that's really interesting. Can you remember how early on you were able to notice these changes in your bump size? Was it later in your pregnancy?

@cheminotte but body type/size and fitness level are two completely different things, no? Just because a woman is slim (like myself), it doesn't immediately point to a good fitness level or even a healthy diet - she could just have a fast metabolism (which I imagine I do, because I can never seem to gain weight - even when I try). I thought 'fit' more referred to one's relationship to physical activity? So, by averagely fit, I was referring to the fact that I can handle an average level of physical activity, and I engage in physical activity every now and then (not excessively, but not never). I am healthy, yes, but even before I was this healthy I was this slim - it's just the body size/type that I naturally have. It's quite a misconception that to be slim means you are either 'fit' or healthy - what about metabolism?

No comment. Just absolutely jealous you can suck your belly in.

I make big babies and apparently have zero stomach muscle left so I’m basically just all over the place

I carried small throughout my pregnancy I didn't need to buy maternity clothes pretty much just wore my leggings and a slightly baggier tops just to feel more comfortable. I remember being 38 weeks and going to the GP and the GP being shocked I was even pregnant as she hadn't noticed before I mentioned it, I even heard her talking about it to the receptionist about it I don't know if there's a science behind it but I heard it's more common to carry small for your first pregnancy and to be bigger for subsequent pregnancies.

@HappyLollipop @GreenSeededGrape it always amuses me to hear stories about people being shocked to discover that a woman is pregnant, because it usually always results in said person feeling/looking quite embarrassed for having assumed (especially if the discovery followed some patronising statement they'd made) ☺️. I've already experienced a few of these scenarios!

I was exactly the same as you when I was pregnant with my first (and so far only) child OP - fundal height measured spot on all throughout but my bump was so small and neat. My baby was a lovely 7lbs 12oz
I'm quite fit and have good core muscles due to the sport I participate in so I put it down to my abs!

@DrMadelineMaxwell so glad your baby was fine! At one point I thought my fluid might be low, but it's always shown as 'normal' on notes!

@Castleway aw, what a lovely size! I've always had a 'flat' stomach with some ab definition if I tense, but I'm actually really quite low on core strength (you should see me in the gym - core/ab workouts are where I perform my worst), so it doesn't make sense to me that I'm carrying small (the assumption would be that I have really weak abs/core muscles)!

@FranticallyPeaceful haha! Oh, but it freaks me out that I can suck it in - it doesn't feel like something I should be able to do at this stage of pregnancy! 😱😅

As for your stomach muscles, nothing some ab/core workouts wouldn't improve!!!

I was absolutely massive in every way during my first pregnancy, but very small for the next two. The difference was pilates. I had severe spd with first, and physio said do not get pregnant again without doing pilates. I did and kept up an antenatal pilates class through both subsequent pregnancies. I'm short and have a very short torso, and my ribs expanded my at least 4-6 inches to accommodate baby. At 32 weeks, I could hold in my tummy and not look pregnant. I did have a significant bump by the end, but had two 8.5 lb babies and you honestly wouldn't believe my bump would produce babies that size. After they were born, I couldn't imagine where they fit. A couple of midwives looked at me in shock and said as much when they saw me next day.

On the other hand, I have a friend with diastis recti and her bump was massive because her abdominal muscles literally separated and everything pushed outwards. Smaller baby than me, too.

To answer your question, I think for some women, their abdomen is stronger (through exercise or genetics) and literally holds baby in more tightly.

Yes you are right thin does not always equal fit. But a faster metabolism is often linked to fitness levels.
What I meant was that you can underestimate how fit you are compared to most people, the vast majority don't go to the gym for example. Most people in the UK are very sedentary and at least a bit overweight.

Carried small with both my DDs. People didn't even know I was pregnant until 6/7 months. Both DDs were over 9lbs at birth. I am quite tall but naturally small build. Also, I found out during my second pregnancy that I have a very retroverted uterus so I assume the babies were just tucked well back towards my spine.

From about 24/25 weeks I think.

This was me at 42 weeks.. the day before giving birth to an 8lb 5 baby..I could still suck my tummy in, & if I wore a baggy hoodie or something people wouldn't know I was pregnant! My midwife kept asking where I was hiding the baby & I was really disappointed that for most of my pregnancy I didn't actually look pregnant. However it did mean that two weeks after giving birth I was back to my pre pregnancy weight!
I wasn't massively fit but I am 5'10 so that's what everyone put it down to. I think maybe some of us must have super squishy organs or something!

@SpacePenguin oh, wow - so pilates made a huge difference? I wish I'd've kept up with some kind of regular fitness regimen this pregnancy - I know being fit and active during pregnancy is good for both mum and baby). I've been pretty slack/inconsistent with it, but you've inspired me to take up a class again - thank you!

I've heard stories like that, yes - women who carried smaller giving birth to bigger babies than those who carried bigger. The human body really is quite spectacular!

I measured small in both of my pregnancies. With DD1 my bump looked tiny/non-existent too (I went off work at a little over 39wks some of my colleagues were confused where I was going when told "I'm off from tomorrow") and DD2's was small but bigger than DD1's. My abdominal muscles were far stronger for DD1 which I put most of the difference down to. However, overall I think it was caused by baby's position in both pregnancies: DD1 was tightly folded in a frank breech with her head fully wedged under my ribcage from fairly early on, and DD2 was sitting very low also from early (I had the 'smuggling a bowling ball' walk by the time I hit the 3rd tri). They were a pretty average birth weight at 7lb 4oz (on time) and 6lb 8oz (a week early).

Bumps were rock solid to the touch though! It felt like it was just one massive shell of bone.

@cheminotte Hm... I don't know how much I agree with that statement. As you stated, most people probably aren't signed up to a gym, which would indicate that the majority of slim people are just slim by nature, not as a result of the gym/fitness. I only signed up to a gym last year, and my metabolism has been this way long before I took up any kind of regular physical activity. Similarly, I know a lot of people who are slim yet engage in no physical activity and eat quite badly. I believe that, in an attempt to challenge/undo decades worth of fat-shaming and viewing 'larger' as something negative, misconceptions around slimness have been created as a way of comforting larger people - notions such as that slimness isn't likely to be a result of nature, that slimness has a certain unattainable nature to it, and that slimness is in some way unrealistic. As a slim person, I find these notions to be plain untrue/inaccurate, and even a little anti-slim in nature (without sounding dramatic). Now, slim people are being speculated/questioned about their slimness, and told that it must be down to them having done something extra, when often times it's not.