PeacefulChaos Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 Just curious? In my experience (which isn't much :lol: ) birth weight and future weight aren't related at all. Is that the case with everyone? Just out of curiosity, you know how there are these calculators and things that supposedly estimate how big kids will be when they are adults -- is there any truth to those? (I've honestly always just rolled my eyes at them!) So has the size of anyone's baby been an obvious precursor to their size when they are older? DH: 9 lb 3 oz at birth, now 32yo, 5'8", 150 lbs. Me: 7 lb 13 oz at birth, now 29yo, 5'6", more than 150 lbs :p Link: 8 lb 7 oz at birth, now 8.5yo, ~52", 52 lbs Astro: 9 lb 2 oz at birth, now 6.5yo, ~49", 54 lbs Pink: 8 lb 4 oz at birth, now 3yo, ~37", 32 lbs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IsabelC Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 Fwiw, I have been told that birth weight is more influenced by conditions in utero, ie health and nutritional status of the mother, whereas eventual size will tend to revert to the genetic blueprint for that child. My younger daughter looks like she may end up bigger and taller than her sister who was quite a bit heavier as a newborn. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TranquilMind Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 Just curious?In my experience (which isn't much :lol: ) birth weight and future weight aren't related at all. Is that the case with everyone? Just out of curiosity, you know how there are these calculators and things that supposedly estimate how big kids will be when they are adults -- is there any truth to those? (I've honestly always just rolled my eyes at them!) So has the size of anyone's baby been an obvious precursor to their size when they are older? DH: 9 lb 3 oz at birth, now 32yo, 5'8", 150 lbs. Me: 7 lb 13 oz at birth, now 29yo, 5'6", more than 150 lbs :p Link: 8 lb 7 oz at birth, now 8.5yo, ~52", 52 lbs Astro: 9 lb 2 oz at birth, now 6.5yo, ~49", 54 lbs Pink: 8 lb 4 oz at birth, now 3yo, ~37", 32 lbs My Mom told me a similar story. A boy in her class back in the what, 30's?, was 13 pounds at birth, and about 5'7" full grown. But in my own family so far, larger babies mean taller kids. My son is on track to be over 6'3", says the doc, from his trajectory, and he was 10 pounds, 8 ounces at birth. Daughter tall as well, and 8 pounds, 10 ounces. Both slender. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
klmama Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 All of my nephews weighed over 10 lbs at birth. The oldest was 95% for height several years, but now is only 65%. One is at 3%, and one at 25%. I don't know what my sil was eating while pregnant that made her babies so big, but genes are overriding nutrition now that they are here. There are very short people on both sides of their family. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pamela H in Texas Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 My bio kids were big at birth, thin as little kids, but overweight as teens (with both, the initial weight gain was due to medication - not the same kinds - and then just went up from there which is no doubt part genetics and part lifestyle). OH, my brother and I were pretty big babies. He is average size and I'm overweight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wabi Sabi Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 Both of my kids were tiny full-term babies (6# and 5#) and they're still tiny (29# 4.5 y/o girl and 40# 8 y/o boy.) They're both quite short too. Ironically, I am NOT a tiny person, lol, but they have very petite grandparents on both sides. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LizzyBee Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 All 3 of my kids were long and thin when born, and all 3 are still tall-ish and thin. I don't remember their lengths at birth, but... oldest was 5 lb, 8 oz, is now 5'6" and weighs 102 (dr predicted 5'8" and 125) middle was 6 lb, is now 5'4" and weighs 95 youngest was 7 lb, is now about 4' 8" and 58 lbs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sara in AZ Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 Yeah, I don't think birthweight indicates future anything. My skinniest child was one of my nine pounders. My "husky" (and that's putting it mildly: he's 7 1/2, 54", and 113 pounds) was only 8 pounds at birth. BUT he was born four weeks early and immediately began gaining a pound a week until he was a 30 pound one year old. You know, though, my youngest sister was a tiny 5 lbs. at birth and has always been tiny and petite. Fully grown she weighs the same as my 7 year old. Hmmmmm. Who knows. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TravelingChris Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 My kids were long and skinny when they came out. None of them grew to be as tall as their respective gender parent. I think that it could be that they reverted to the genes of the grandmothers ( both 5'4) or, more likely, in my view, is that my underlying chronic illnesses made them all too little. They aren't midgets, just the girls are not as tall as me and our son is not as tall as his dad. All are around two inches shorter than the respective parent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
courtney.byrum Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 My 6 lb 13 oz ds gained weight fairly quickly and was a big baby/toddler but leveled out at about 3 and at 8 is just 4 ft 1 in. and 50-52 lbs. On the flip side - my 3 lb 1 oz 29 weeker is 4 ft and 50-52 lbs at 7. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kathryn Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 My kids were both low percentage-wise for weight and head circumference at birth and quickly shot up to above average. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twoxcell Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 Well my kids have pretty much stayed true to their birth weights. ds1 was 9lbs 7oz and 20.5 inches long at birth he is now 9 and 4' 7" and about 100lbs dd1 was 10lbs 7oz and 21 inches at birth and she is 4' 4" and 60lbs now. dd2 was 8lbs 10oz and 22in long at birth, she is now 3' 8" and 35lbs. ds2 was 7lbs 9oz and is now 35" and 25lbs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawn in Ohio Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 My biggest baby was 11 lb 8 oz and he is still very big for his age. But for my other kids their birth weight was not an indicator of future weight. The 7 pounder and 10 pounder are quite skinny now. The two 8 pounders are of average weight. I see more of a relationship between my poor eating habits while pregnant and higher birth weight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Night Elf Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 Well, they aren't full grown, but so far my smallest baby is not exactly thin, while my biggest baby looks like a stick now. It's hard to measure because weight fluxuates. I mean, I was a 6 lb. baby but spent several years considered overweight and it took me almost a year to lose 40 lbs. so I'm in the healthy range. But I also attribute my age, 44, to my weight as well. 8 years ago, I was the same weight as now but it was distributed differently. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chelli Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 The old wives tale my mother told me is to double a girl's height at 18 months and that is how tall she will be when finished growing. Double a boy's height at 2 years since boy grow slower than girls. This only works for healthy, full term babies, but it was on the nose for me. I was supposed to be 5'10" using this formula and I am. My kids are supposed to be dd8: 5'9", dd5: 5'5" and ds: 6'0" Birth weight never enters into the equation, though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twoxcell Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 I see more of a relationship between my poor eating habits while pregnant and higher birth weight. That was not true for me at all. I ate very healthy during all of my pregnancies and I have never had GD. My largest baby I gained the least weight with and she was and has always been super healthy. You should have seen the umbilical cord and placenta with her they were huge and very healthy looking. Woops I see you were talking about yourself.;) Just wanted to say that big babies doesn't mean unhealthy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeacefulChaos Posted September 22, 2012 Author Share Posted September 22, 2012 The old wives tale my mother told me is to double a girl's height at 18 months and that is how tall she will be when finished growing. Double a boy's height at 2 years since boy grow slower than girls. This only works for healthy, full term babies, but it was on the nose for me. I was supposed to be 5'10" using this formula and I am. My kids are supposed to be dd8: 5'9", dd5: 5'5" and ds: 6'0" Birth weight never enters into the equation, though. I wish I knew what DH or I were at that age! Hmmm.... Link and Astro would both be 5'8" and Pink would be 5'3". I could see that, since DH and all 3 of his brothers are 5'8"-5'9" (though my brother and uncle are both over 6', so I had wondered if they would inherit any height from my side). My grandma and I are the shortest in the family at 5'6", but she has sisters who are petite and DH's mom is 5'4" I think? Or something like that. His whole family isn't particularly tall (off the top of my head, anyway - I guess he does have uncles that are taller, but most of the cousins and stuff aren't really.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gingersmom Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 My daughter was 7 pounds 10 oz and 2 weeks early. She was long and skinny at birth and at 16 is still tall and skinny. My son was 8 pounds 1 oz and also 2 weeks early. He looked like a linebacker at birth and still looks the same. He is well on his way to being over 6 feet, wears a size 11 shoe and weighs 170 (but he's not even fat). 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.