Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

Pregnancy

Talk about every stage of pregnancy, from early symptoms to preparing for birth.

Flip

1 2 3

Original poster

been told having large baby growth scan

67 replies

jolly4 · 22/11/2004 21:23

had a 28week growth scan today and was told my babe is now 3llb in wieght that is three pound ! and they say that full term it will be 9/an half pound full term any one given birth too big babes b4? my ds was 9/4 0zs i had a c/ section and i plan 4 vbac help.

OP posts:

Are your children’s vaccines up to date?

Set a reminder

Tickle · 22/11/2004 21:25

how big are your feet jolly??? Apparently bigger feet means more pelvic space, so room for big baby - may be old wives tale but worked for me

I'm sure you'll be fine!

misdee · 22/11/2004 21:27

dd1 was 6lb 15, dd2 was 9lb!!!

quite a leap. dd2 was easy labour and birth compared to tiny dd1.

Yorkiegirl · 22/11/2004 21:37

Message withdrawn

coppertop · 22/11/2004 22:02

Ds1 was just over a week late and weighed 9lb 8oz. I had growth scans with ds2 because they wanted to induce me early so that I could avoid a c/s yet again. According to their calculations ds2 would have been approx 7.5lb when I was induced at 38 weeks. He actually weighed 9lbs.

The main complication was caused by both boys inheriting dh's rugby-player shoulders. Ouch!

misdee · 22/11/2004 22:04

they estimated dd2 at about 7lb as well, but that was without scans. i jsut dont appear to be pregnant, which is why the midwife wa shocked when she 9lb lol.

hoxtonchick · 22/11/2004 22:07

growth scans are v. inaccurate, don't trust them!

janeybops · 22/11/2004 22:21

I was told they have 10% margin of error . Unfortunately mine was the wrong side of big! Was told he would be 10 lbs at term but was 11 lb 4 oz. However, it was a much quicker and therefore easier labour - believe it or not!? Managed to deliver with no intervention - just.

tortoiseshell · 22/11/2004 22:33

I was told ds would be 7lbs - he was nearly 10lb, dd was described as 'tiny' when approaching term (though without a scan) and she was over 10lb. But, was delivered naturally at home, with no intervention and no stitches! Scans are notoriously inaccurate.

zaphod · 22/11/2004 22:46

My ds1 was 6lbs 10oz, ds3 9lb 15oz, and ds4 7lb 6oz. Ds3's birth was the easiest.

pinkmama · 22/11/2004 22:59

my dd was 9lb 11oz and due to a number of factors was a c section, with ds they scanned me throughout in case I was getting too big, I was scanned at 38 weeks and told he was 7lb, I gave birth 2 days later vbac and he was 8lb 9oz. Have very little faith in growth scans!

pinkmama · 22/11/2004 23:01

forgot to say, he was a very easy birth. I know a few people who have given birth to over 9lbs. Some people say it is easier because you have someting to push agains! Who knows?!

mouseman · 22/11/2004 23:16

I had a scan as they suspected the baby was large and guessed at around 10lbs. I went with the recommended c section and when she arrived she was 10lb 13oz!

AussieSim · 22/11/2004 23:40

My obstetrician did an ultrasound at 32 weeks told me my baby was going to be too big to deliver naturally - bigger than 4kg. At 35 weeks my midwife visited me at home and had a feel of my tummy and estimated the weight. I delivered within 48 hours and the midwife was spot on 2.89 kg - not bad for 5 weeks early. I will be very skeptical in my current pregnancy of warnings of big babies from ultrasounds.

kinderbob · 23/11/2004 06:03

My friend was told baby already over 10lb at 36 weeks, had a cs two weeks later on the strength of this, baby was 7lb4oz. So the scan could be wrong...

suedonim · 23/11/2004 06:51

My friend was told to expect a 9lb+ baby after a scan with new sooperdooper state-of-the-art equipment. The baby was 5lb 5oz!!!

My own babies ranged from about 8.8lb down to 7lb and the weights didn't make any difference to labour - they all hurt!

Original poster

jolly4 · 23/11/2004 11:28

thanks for your advice there was some whopper wieghts on there i will just go with the flow my feet are size 5 tickle/ pinkmama was you nervous bout the thought of vbac? suedomain that was nearly a 5lb difference wat a mistake

OP posts:

motherinferior · 23/11/2004 11:39

Also, that's based on 40 weeks. Which you may not get to. I was told dd2 would be an eight pounder plus but she emerged weighing less than seven, 16 days 'early'.

Sallie · 23/11/2004 11:43

DS was 8lb14oz and dd was 8lb7oz and both times had good labours, no tearing and very healthy pregnancies so don't worry unduly. I know of people who have had much smaller babies than me and have had bad tears and complex deliveries. You will be fine !

Bronze · 23/11/2004 12:33

tickle I'm a size 5 1/2 and had a 9lb 14 babe the first time. I am a very petite in the body 5ft 11 though if that makes sense

cupcakes · 23/11/2004 12:43

At 40 weeks (my dd was 5 days late) my bump was measuring up as too large - you know how it's roughly supposed to measure in cm's the same as the week you are. My midwife was worried as my first had been an emergency c-section and I was hoping for a vbac. They booked me in for a consultation for a c-section which would have been the day after my baby came - naturally! She was 8lb10oz and it was a very straightforward labour; quick and just gas and air.
I wouldn't worry too much - the growth may slow slightly and even if not I'm sure a vbac could still be possible.

MommyD · 23/11/2004 16:33

ds1 was 9lbs and I was told ds2 would be bigger - from an estimate at around 34 weeks. ds2 came out at 6lbs! I don't think I'll trust those 'estimates' for my third baby.....

redshoes · 23/11/2004 20:23

My first was 7 pounds 4 oz, 2nd was 9 pounds 9oz and much easier and faster! Third was 9 pounds 11oz and faster/easier again...no correlation imo between weight and ease of birth.
With all 3 I had no pain relief or stitches.
Also, with third (who was 2 weeks late) had scan day before she was born was told she would be about 8 pounds...so no faith in those either!!

Original poster

jolly4 · 23/11/2004 22:43

my, my what alot of different stories well we will just av too wait an see i suppose stick too my plan of water birth thou and gas and air fingers crossed

OP posts:

nightowl · 24/11/2004 04:51

i had lots of scans with dd due to what happened with ds and every scan they said she was normal average size baby. my last scan at 35 weeks they estimated that she was 5lb 4oz. when i had her at 40+ weeks she was actually 5lb 5oz! so no i dont have too much faith in scans either.

SoupDragon · 24/11/2004 08:07

DS1 was 10lb 1oz at 40 weeks, DS2 8lb 4oz at 38 weeks. DS2s weight was estimated at 7ln 14 oz 3 days befor he was born so they weren't far off. Both were normal deliveries.

Flip

1 2 3