I've been advised to have a GTT because my previous babies were "big", do you think this sounds big?

[meemarsgotabrandnewbump]

I saw the hospital doctor last week who advised I had a glucose tolerence test at 28 weeks because of my previous 'big' babies.

DS1 was 6lb despite being 5 weeks early, so would have been about 8 1/2lb at term.

DS2 was 8lb 13

Also my mum has late onset diabetes (she is 75) so he considered this a risk factor.

I didnt consider the birth weights to be particularly massive, just the larger side of average. However, DH and I are not big - so do they take this into account?

I don't really want to go through unneccessary testing if the doc was just being over zealous. Is it worth asking the midwife about it or will she just agree with him?

I don't think that sounds big. But DS1 was 10lb 1oz and DS2 8lb 4oz and 2 weeks early...

I agree the 8lb range is the large side of average though.

I would have thought that glucose problems would show up in your urine tests though. I did have a GTT with both DS1 and 2 due to glucose showing up in late pregnancy. I managed to avoid it entirely with DD though (8lb 11oz, on due date)

I thought that about the urine tests too. All urine samples have been fine so far though.

He did seem to thing the boys were very big, which I was surprised at.

I might see what the mw thinks.

I have GD but have never showed sugar in my urine! With the added factor of your Mum I guess the doctor is being cautios (my dad is Type 2 which is why I was tested). I'd check with your mw but I'd imagine she'll probably back up the doctor

thanks beccabump. What does having GD mean for you in terms of care in your pregnancy?

I'm only concerned because I'm hoping to go for a VBAC and really want to avoid being under any more monitoring than I need.

I think the trigger for a GTT is a previous baby over 9lb8oz or so. You're previous children have not been particularly big in fact it's a pretty 'normal' weight imho.

I think that a family history of diabetes is probably more of a trigger factor for it.

The GTT isn't a very invasive test, it's just a couple of blood tests and a bit of lucozade! I'm actually quite looking forward to having a morning to put my feet up while someone else looks after my two dc's!

(btw my 'big' baby was 10lb6oz... my sister had a 9lb 7oz baby and didn't have to have a GTT)

Everyone in my area has them. It's hardly a test at all - but put the lucozade in the freezer first so it's not sickly (extreme cold kills sugar taste; it's why icecream is so much sweeter melted).

My glucose was fine, but my iron was low, so I was glad they tested. I took Spatone which sorted that.

Thanks everyone. I'll try to stop worrying and take the test if needs be.

I hope it's all fine though, could do with an uncomplicated pregnancy!

I had Gestational diabetes after a GTT my first was 8lbs 6 and my second was 8lbs that might not sound big but im quite petite. I have family history of diabetes too and I think this was the factor thats why they tested, im really glad they did because I dare not think how big they might have been had it not been controlled!

I have had several GTT in 2 pregnancies I do get glucose in urine tests and produce tiddly wee babies. One of the reasons they are so cautious with me and don't become complacent is that my mum and her mum had big babies (I was 9lb 14 and my brother 9lb 3 and 3 weeks early) and her mother had all 10lb. All these babies were born in the days before they actually tested for sugar in dip tests as a routine practice so rather than get a bit complacent and say oh you always have sugar (which goes up and up throughout pregnancy) they always kept doing the GTT at various intervals.

It is probably better to do the test which as everyone else said is nothing at all really and find nothing that not test and there be a problem.

I had the same with my last 3 pregnancies.
DS was 9lb1oz 15 days late so subsequent pregnancies I had to have GTT despite dd1 and dd2 being 6lb14 and dd3 was 7lb14.
When I had the GTT with dd3 even the MW doing bloods said I had very low readings that would almost be borderline hypo