Melissa in Australia Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 do you know any good ways to reduce the birth weight of your baby? I'm seriously considering just bypassing all the natural stuff & seeing if I can be induced. ;) My 1st 2 were 8.8lbs, next 2 9.8lbs. Mw says diet & exercise, & while I don't discount those, my healthiest most active pg was w/ one of the 9lbers. Dh's family is huge, & I tend to think it's genetics. Current baby is already measuring in the 97th percentile (nearly 2lb at 23 weeks). :svengo: My babies got bigger and bigger as well. After the 4th at 9lb 7 oz, got who got stuck at the shoulders, just a little to big for me, the Doctor put me on a diet for my fifth. I was pretty strict on myself, and it made the difference of 1 lb. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dianachoate Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 No, but after my son was born at 40 weeks weighing 9lb 10 oz. My next two were induced one a week early and one 1 1/2 weeks early. Thank goodness because they were 9lb. 5oz. and 9lbs. I asked the nurse if she was sure my baby was 9 lbs because she was so small. The nurse thought I was crazy until the doctor said you should have seen the big brother when he was born. I had no problem with induction. Good luck. Diana Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catherine Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 Very true. My "nice size" 7 pounder was actually 9 lb. 6 oz. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boscopup Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 Unless you had physical problems getting the bigger ones out, I don't think I'd worry about it. My kids were 3 lbs 13 oz (29 weeks), 7 lbs 4 oz (36w6d), and 7 lbs 8 oz (36w6d). The middle one was by far the easiest. The first one hurt the most (no fat to squish!). The last one was the hardest labor only because he got in some weird position causing labor to go longer. He had his arm up across his forehead and came out with a bruise on that arm. The arm got out of the way when he actually came out, and pushing him out was easy peasy (especially in the water - wonderful water!). It just took him a bit longer to get into active labor because of the funky positioning (he also liked to flip transverse a lot during pregnancy). I will agree that the u/s at 23 weeks won't be predicative of as much. My middle son measured 2 weeks ahead at the 20 week u/s, and the 3rd son measured right on at 20 weeks. Third son was the biggest at birth, and they both went the exact same length of gestation (apparently, my body refuses to go "full term", but the last two babies were perfectly normal newborns and were born out of hospital). I can't believe your midwife was lecturing you on your baby's weights though? My midwife celebrates large birth weights! I remember one of the local ladies that homebirthed here had a 12 lb baby at home, and we all said she'd given birth to a 3 month old (it was about a month after my preemie was born - they looked SOOOO funny together! :lol:). She was a vegan, IIRC. I know her kids were always eating sea weed snacks at our meetings. I just don't think there's really anything you can do to change your kids' birth weights. Just keep reminding yourself that fat is squishy! :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pippen Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 I'm not one to ask. I had a 10lb 5 oz baby on a 26 lb weight gain. My 9 lb 3 oz baby was by far the easiest delivery, thanks to the epidural. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4wildberrys Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 do you know any good ways to reduce the birth weight of your baby? I'm seriously considering just bypassing all the natural stuff & seeing if I can be induced. ;) My 1st 2 were 8.8lbs, next 2 9.8lbs. Mw says diet & exercise, & while I don't discount those, my healthiest most active pg was w/ one of the 9lbers. Dh's family is huge, & I tend to think it's genetics. Current baby is already measuring in the 97th percentile (nearly 2lb at 23 weeks). :svengo: How to reduce size of next baby you ask---don't have another one! :lol: Seriously---our first was 9lb even, second was 10lb 11 oz---and this was after moving to relatively high altitude, which is supposed to create a smaller baby!! We stopped after ds----I just could NOT do it again. Honestly---I doubt there is anything you can do if it's from genetics. I just found out my niece has JUMBO babies too.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aubrey Posted July 9, 2011 Author Share Posted July 9, 2011 It really has to be genetics. I was obsessive (literally) about healthy eating and exercise and only gained 24 pounds with my first. She swam in a different gene pool than the rest of my kids and weighed 9-14 at birth. The rest were 7.5 to 9lbs even. Most were around 8ish. I gained 34-39 pounds with them. I think you're just going to have to make peace with it, Sweetie :grouphug: If I have to, that's fine. But if I have to, mw has to, too. She's convinced I'm just a slob who deserves to get GD & a 10lb baby. And that's after looking at what I'd eaten over 7 days & saying it "wasn't that bad." Lots of salad. Not that I eat well (at all), but if 3-5 salads in 7 days (w/ real veggies & vinaigrette dressing) isn't good enough, there's no hope for me. I could take "you need to improve your diet." I could take "you're probably going to have another big baby." But not "you're going to have another big baby, & it's your own fault." We ate w/ mil that night. I guarantee you we eat better than a big percentage of the population, & the meal mil fixed reminded me of that. Not great, but definitely in the upper 1/2. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sara in AZ Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 Ah, I get it. It's not so much that the size of the baby bothers you, but that it bothers your midwife? Which seems pretty silly at this stage of the game, unless you do, in fact, have GD? Or a history of GD? If not, then I don't understand why she is so worried about it. Is it an option to find a new MW since this is causing you so much dread? I worry enough about labor and delivery without the MW breathing down my neck about things I can't control. :grouphug: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleIzumi Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 If I have to, that's fine. But if I have to, mw has to, too. She's convinced I'm just a slob who deserves to get GD & a 10lb baby. And that's after looking at what I'd eaten over 7 days & saying it "wasn't that bad." Lots of salad. Not that I eat well (at all), but if 3-5 salads in 7 days (w/ real veggies & vinaigrette dressing) isn't good enough, there's no hope for me. I could take "you need to improve your diet." I could take "you're probably going to have another big baby." But not "you're going to have another big baby, & it's your own fault." We ate w/ mil that night. I guarantee you we eat better than a big percentage of the population, & the meal mil fixed reminded me of that. Not great, but definitely in the upper 1/2. And what does she think is wrong with having squishy, healthy babies?? It's not like 10 lbs is obese or anything. I know two moms with 11-lb natural births & they were totally healthy & happy. I don't know if she would stay my midwife after that without a DARN good reason. Personally.:grouphug: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aubrey Posted July 9, 2011 Author Share Posted July 9, 2011 Ah, I get it. It's not so much that the size of the baby bothers you, but that it bothers your midwife? Which seems pretty silly at this stage of the game, unless you do, in fact, have GD? Or a history of GD? If not, then I don't understand why she is so worried about it. Is it an option to find a new MW since this is causing you so much dread? I worry enough about labor and delivery without the MW breathing down my neck about things I can't control. :grouphug: No, I asked her about helping the baby come a little early so it wouldn't be as big. Apparently, that got to her, & she let loose. She's done "something" before, but she obviously doesn't remember. She told me in an unfriendly tone that I could take my business to a hospital & get induced if I wanted it to come early. Followed by all the eating "advice." She was having a bad day--it was obvious when we got there. I kind-of want to give her the benefit of the doubt, since I've known her for 10 yrs & she's delivered all 4 babies. Otoh...I guess I'm a little raw right now. :001_huh: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aubrey Posted July 9, 2011 Author Share Posted July 9, 2011 And what does she think is wrong with having squishy, healthy babies?? It's not like 10 lbs is obese or anything. I know two moms with 11-lb natural births & they were totally healthy & happy. I don't know if she would stay my midwife after that without a DARN good reason. Personally.:grouphug: Yeah, she's an hour away now--she's moved, & we've moved since first baby. And the a/c in the van isn't working well. I was thinking the same thing on the way home the other day. :001_huh: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C_l_e_0..Q_c Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 I am 4ft 11" I weighed 90 lbs when I got pregnant with number 3. I weighed 198 when he was born and he weighed 10 lbs 8 oz and was 24 in long. There was no medical reason for his size an ultrasound taken during labor due to pain in my side said he was almost 8 libs :001_huh: Getting out a big baby is no FUN Woah! You're the first person I hear of that "beats" me ;-) I'm 5'3", and my son was born at 9lbs 8oz (which in itself isn't bad) but he was also 24 inches! People look at me like I'm crazy when I mention the 24 inches! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heather in OK Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 My 1st 2 were 8.8lbs, next 2 9.8lbs. Mw says diet & exercise, & while I don't discount those, my healthiest most active pg was w/ one of the 9lbers. Dh's family is huge, & I tend to think it's genetics. Those are VERY healthy weights. The average weight of a baby is 6-7lbs because SO many inductions are done before baby is ready for birth. So many in the medical field think a 7lb baby is "normal" and that a 8.5lb baby is HUGE!!!!! A baby between 8-9lbs is ready for life outside the womb. Most nurse very well also. I want to slap your midwife. Since it sounds like switching mws isn't an option, at your next appointment you need to have a VERY candid talk with her about how she made you feel. Remind her that you have birthed your other babies just fine and that you are sure this one will come out just like the others did. ;) And then tell her not to bring up the baby's size again. You can always wait to call her later in labor. ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MelanieM Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 No, I asked her about helping the baby come a little early so it wouldn't be as big. Apparently, that got to her, & she let loose. She's done "something" before, but she obviously doesn't remember. She told me in an unfriendly tone that I could take my business to a hospital & get induced if I wanted it to come early. Followed by all the eating "advice." She was having a bad day--it was obvious when we got there. I kind-of want to give her the benefit of the doubt, since I've known her for 10 yrs & she's delivered all 4 babies. Otoh...I guess I'm a little raw right now. :001_huh: So it sounds like you were the one concerned with baby weight and she got irritated by that? Perhaps she's running into a lot of this type of stuff with clients/medical people lately and lashed out inappropriately. Because really, baby weight is not nearly the big deal that people make of it, and I can understand being a little fed up with the level of induction and other interventions that come about because of this suggestion that women can't birth the babies their bodies make. Not that this excuses her abrasive tone with you, of course, but it might help to explain her behaviour. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
texasmama Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 I tend to think that birth weight is much about genetics. With four babies ranging in gestational age from 37.5 weeks to 39 weeks, 5 days, the babies only ranged in size by 10 ounces. My last two weighed exactly the same, though one was a girl and one a boy. Both were born before their due dates, one by 10 days and one by two days. None of my babies' birth weights seemed to be overly affected by my own weight gain, either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ktgrok Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 Keep in mind that baby coming earlier means your pelvis won't have softened and spread as much yet, so it could be harder to get the baby out, not easier. Also, my midwife SWEARS that women with roomy pelvises, which you seem to have, do better with larger babies, because smaller babies can get twisted and turned around in there and get stuck. A big baby has no room to do anything but come out properly, lol. Worked for me. My 7.b 13 oz boy was a c-section after 40 hours of labor. My 9lb girl was a vbac after only 8 hours of labor, and less than 30 minutes of pushing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ktgrok Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 Best website about this issue: http://www.pregnancybirthandbabies.com/Big_baby.htm fat squishes! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vonfirmath Posted July 11, 2011 Share Posted July 11, 2011 No, I asked her about helping the baby come a little early so it wouldn't be as big. Apparently, that got to her, & she let loose. She's done "something" before, but she obviously doesn't remember. She told me in an unfriendly tone that I could take my business to a hospital & get induced if I wanted it to come early. Followed by all the eating "advice." She was having a bad day--it was obvious when we got there. I kind-of want to give her the benefit of the doubt, since I've known her for 10 yrs & she's delivered all 4 babies. Otoh...I guess I'm a little raw right now. :001_huh: It was after a harangue like this, and my doctor making it obvious to me that an induction for size was NOT acceptable in her practice that I decided she was too "natural" for me and I fired her. I got a new doctor that I'm happier with. AND I just found out at last appointment that she starts checking for readiness at 39 weeks and doesn't like mamas going to 42 weeks because her experience is that the later the baby cooks the more complications she sees. So I won't have to worry about being forced to go to the extreme ends and ending up with a size-induced C-section (big first baby induced at 40w, sister had a C-section with her first that went to 42w and then never dropped far enough into the pelvis) that could have been avoided with a sooner induction. I KNOW I can birth a baby vaginally after an induction. I fear the C-section if forced to go until my body "naturally" goes into labor. (or they won't let you wait any longer) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vonfirmath Posted July 11, 2011 Share Posted July 11, 2011 So it sounds like you were the one concerned with baby weight and she got irritated by that? Perhaps she's running into a lot of this type of stuff with clients/medical people lately and lashed out inappropriately. Because really, baby weight is not nearly the big deal that people make of it, and I can understand being a little fed up with the level of induction and other interventions that come about because of this suggestion that women can't birth the babies their bodies make. Not that this excuses her abrasive tone with you, of course, but it might help to explain her behaviour. Except that -- in my sister's case, her body could NOT birth the size of baby her body made. Not when they made the baby grow inside her for 42w. And she's not the only one. This makes a nice fable "Your body won't make a baby it can't birth" -- but it really is not true. There are plenty of babies that get STUCK trying to come out to go along with the anecdotes of folks who managed to birth large babies. Just like back in the "olden days" before we had these medicated births that get so much scorn these days, many women and babies died from stuff that is now caught and survive. There are advantages and disadvantages to both and each mom has to decide for herself which set of advantages/disadvantages she is comfortable with for herself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4wildberrys Posted July 11, 2011 Share Posted July 11, 2011 Keep in mind that baby coming earlier means your pelvis won't have softened and spread as much yet, so it could be harder to get the baby out, not easier. Also, my midwife SWEARS that women with roomy pelvises, which you seem to have, do better with larger babies, because smaller babies can get twisted and turned around in there and get stuck. A big baby has no room to do anything but come out properly, lol. Worked for me. My 7.b 13 oz boy was a c-section after 40 hours of labor. My 9lb girl was a vbac after only 8 hours of labor, and less than 30 minutes of pushing. Ho very interesting! My 9lb'er was 21 hours of very hard labor and hours of pushing and my over 10lb'er was very easy! He was just a bear to carry. It sure sounds like midwives are much more informed than MDs too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MelanieM Posted July 11, 2011 Share Posted July 11, 2011 Except that -- in my sister's case, her body could NOT birth the size of baby her body made. Not when they made the baby grow inside her for 42w. And she's not the only one. This makes a nice fable "Your body won't make a baby it can't birth" -- but it really is not true. There are plenty of babies that get STUCK trying to come out to go along with the anecdotes of folks who managed to birth large babies. Just like back in the "olden days" before we had these medicated births that get so much scorn these days, many women and babies died from stuff that is now caught and survive. There are advantages and disadvantages to both and each mom has to decide for herself which set of advantages/disadvantages she is comfortable with for herself. Sure, there are situations where babies get stuck. But how much of that is due to the size of the baby, and how much is due to the care providers insisting that Mama stay strapped to monitoring devices in a bed, or on her back to push rather than in a position that leads to easier birthing, etc.? I'm not saying that there aren't situations where women need emergency c-sections, or even where earlier induction might be preferable to later issues (though you'd need a crystal ball to know when those situations were warranted). But I do think there are far, far more cases of women being induced and/or scheduled for c-sections for 'big' babies than nature would deem necessary. I guess the bottom line is these issues are typically about positioning, and not the size of the baby. Therefore baby size in and of itself should not be used as a reason for intervention. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Impish Posted July 11, 2011 Share Posted July 11, 2011 If I have to, that's fine. But if I have to, mw has to, too. She's convinced I'm just a slob who deserves to get GD & a 10lb baby. And that's after looking at what I'd eaten over 7 days & saying it "wasn't that bad." Lots of salad. Not that I eat well (at all), but if 3-5 salads in 7 days (w/ real veggies & vinaigrette dressing) isn't good enough, there's no hope for me. I could take "you need to improve your diet." I could take "you're probably going to have another big baby." But not "you're going to have another big baby, & it's your own fault." We ate w/ mil that night. I guarantee you we eat better than a big percentage of the population, & the meal mil fixed reminded me of that. Not great, but definitely in the upper 1/2. I'd be furious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stacie Leigh Posted July 11, 2011 Share Posted July 11, 2011 (edited) I'm a chubby (135-145lb) 5'5" mom with 4 kids and my biggest were both 7lb 11oz. My last was 5lbs 13oz at 40 weeks! I honestly think it's genetic. I ate Reese's and ice cream like it was going out of style with my DD. I doubt there's much you can do that would be healthy, but more power to ya, Momma! You go girl! ;) And to the last poster... if you want to talk about big feet, my poor DD, born at under 6lbs had feet that filled the box. I wear a size 11 at just under 5'5"!! Edited July 11, 2011 by Stacie Leigh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amy in NH Posted July 11, 2011 Share Posted July 11, 2011 i'm not convinced the test catches everyone with GD My GD test for dd came back normal, but at the high end. She ended up being 10lb 12oz. She got stuck, but the MW was able to maneuver her out without breaking any bones. I think I'm hypoglycemic. My (RN) Mom thinks so too, and she also thinks that would make my baseline lower, so that the high-end normal test should really have been in the GD range. FWIW, my first three were 8lb15oz, 8lb9oz, and 8lb12oz. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Veritaserum Posted July 11, 2011 Share Posted July 11, 2011 It was after a harangue like this, and my doctor making it obvious to me that an induction for size was NOT acceptable in her practice that I decided she was too "natural" for me and I fired her. I got a new doctor that I'm happier with. AND I just found out at last appointment that she starts checking for readiness at 39 weeks and doesn't like mamas going to 42 weeks because her experience is that the later the baby cooks the more complications she sees. So I won't have to worry about being forced to go to the extreme ends and ending up with a size-induced C-section (big first baby induced at 40w, sister had a C-section with her first that went to 42w and then never dropped far enough into the pelvis) that could have been avoided with a sooner induction. I KNOW I can birth a baby vaginally after an induction. I fear the C-section if forced to go until my body "naturally" goes into labor. (or they won't let you wait any longer) The statistics don't back up the claim that inductions for big babies reduce the rate of c-sections--especially for first-time moms. Inductions increase the risk of c-section, particularly if a woman's Bishop's score is less than 9, so a woman who wants to avoid a c-section would be wise to avoid induction as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ktgrok Posted July 11, 2011 Share Posted July 11, 2011 The statistics don't back up the claim that inductions for big babies reduce the rate of c-sections--especially for first-time moms. Inductions increase the risk of c-section, particularly if a woman's Bishop's score is less than 9, so a woman who wants to avoid a c-section would be wise to avoid induction as well. Exactly. The evidence shows that inducing when your body isn't ready means you are MORE likely to end up with a c-section, even though the baby is smaller. The head doesn't grow much in those last few weeks, they are just putting on fat. And fat squishes :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C_l_e_0..Q_c Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 Anyone in Texas? Texans love to brag about how everything is bigger in the Lone Star State. Now they have proof, with the birth of a baby boy who weighed a whopping 16 pounds and one ounce. JaMichael Brown's weight was more than double the national average for a newborn and he measures 24 inches long, just a few inches shy of an average one-year-old. Read more: http://www.montrealgazette.com/life/Texas+sized+newborn+weighs+over+pounds/5088814/story.html#ixzz1RvFgvuf0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Governess Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 Sorry your midwife is giving you a hard time. :grouphug: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Veritaserum Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 Anyone in Texas? That story makes me so mad! Untreated GD makes very, very big AND sick babies. If he had been 16 lbs. without his mother having gestational diabetes, his story would be, "Wow!" With GD, I hope he lives and is healthy (no brain damage). Poor, poor baby. :( Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C_l_e_0..Q_c Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 That story makes me so mad! Untreated GD makes very, very big AND sick babies. If he had been 16 lbs. without his mother having gestational diabetes, his story would be, "Wow!" With GD, I hope he lives and is healthy (no brain damage). Poor, poor baby. :( did the article mention GD? I totally missed it then (I'll admit I read only the beginning.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Veritaserum Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 did the article mention GD? I totally missed it then (I'll admit I read only the beginning.) I don't think it was mentioned in the article you linked. The one I read yesterday talked about it, though. Here's one: http://www.inquisitr.com/125701/16-pound-baby-in-texas-born-to-mom-with-gestational-diabetes/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happypamama Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 My first three all came 5-8 days after their official due dates, and my smallest (#1) was 8 lbs. 11 oz. DS1 was just under 10 pounds, and he and DD were 21" long, with 14+" heads and chests. I am anxiously waiting to see if this baby matches the others in terms of gestational age and size! Just had to bump this to encourage you, Aubrey -- maybe this baby will surprise you like my little guy did. He arrived at 38.5 weeks, 16 days earlier than my previous earliest baby (DS2, 40w5d, 20 1/4", 9 lbs. 5 oz.), and while he was 21" like my first two, with the 14" head, he was only 8 lbs. exactly. And though my other labors were 11.5, 7, and 8 hours, this labor was only 4 hours (though really intense), with just one (very big) push -- less than a minute from "let's find a position in the water that is comfortable" to "it's a boy!" I have no idea why he decided to come early, but I think that is what made him a little smaller -- if he'd waited until the point at which the other two boys came, I think he'd have been just over 9 pounds, so similar to DS2. (He looks like a newborn though; the others all looked like three-month-olds after a day or two.) So here's hoping your newest one will surprise you! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aubrey Posted July 23, 2011 Author Share Posted July 23, 2011 Just had to bump this to encourage you, Aubrey -- maybe this baby will surprise you like my little guy did. He arrived at 38.5 weeks, 16 days earlier than my previous earliest baby (DS2, 40w5d, 20 1/4", 9 lbs. 5 oz.), and while he was 21" like my first two, with the 14" head, he was only 8 lbs. exactly. And though my other labors were 11.5, 7, and 8 hours, this labor was only 4 hours (though really intense), with just one (very big) push -- less than a minute from "let's find a position in the water that is comfortable" to "it's a boy!" I have no idea why he decided to come early, but I think that is what made him a little smaller -- if he'd waited until the point at which the other two boys came, I think he'd have been just over 9 pounds, so similar to DS2. (He looks like a newborn though; the others all looked like three-month-olds after a day or two.) So here's hoping your newest one will surprise you! Thanks! After the warnings about what can happen to pg women if they move to higher altitudes sank in today, I got all giddy. LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.