I was told from about 32 weeks "hmm bigger than average" at each visit. On the arrival of my 6lb7oz (2.9kg) 46cm DD the OB exclaimed "More petite than I anticipated!" Then said "it's all just guesswork really" so from the mouth of my very experienced OB they basically have no idea!
...my 7 pounder was also "very painful" LOL so much so I thought I was going to pass out... but I'd rather a few hours pain as opposed to a few days pain recovering from a c/s. I guess at the end of the day you have to have faith in your body to get you through that because it's designed to!
I think there's lots of guess work in size guesstimation- my obs called DS at 6-7lb several times (and at 32 weeks he was saying "around 6- healthy but a bit smaller than average") and DS came out (the usual exit) at exactly 8lb. Incidentally, for boys 8lb is right on 50th centile, so actually not that big! In my case my fundal height was always a bit less than gestational weeks so that's where I'm guessing the discrepancy came from. This time round it's the same (and now obs is saying 7-8lb, whatever that means), so I suspect my uterus just has room to expand out rather than up making my fundal height a bit less.
I recall reading about research analysing methods like CT scans and other "accurate" measurement that predicted baby size and pelvis size, and they were remarkably inaccurate in predicting anything- during labour there isn't any way to tell how much the pelvis can stretch, and a lot depends on how the baby is positioned.
I would just let trust in nature taking its course and be confident that if things aren't going right your obs will intervene appropriately.
my girlfriend who is quiet small in stature gave birth to her son on Thursday just gone, she was induced at 39weeks. She was told for most of the way along that her baby was going to be big and even tried talking her into a c/s which she said no too.At around 32wks they estimated he was already 5lb's. Anyway he was only 7lb 12oz of 3505grams so not big at all.
She is so glad that she said no to the c/s (she also has 3yr old so would be a lot harder recovery) and she would have felt pretty ripped off if she did opt for c/s based on that information and he was actually smaller than his older siser was born vaginally (she was about 8lb 6oz)
My Ob for my first pregnancy always told me i was bigger than average and my son was born at 33wks weighing 5lb 1oz, so maybe he was right, who knows if he would have been 9lb+ Full term or maybe he would have slowed down toward the end. My second (diff OB) I was also told bub was bigger than average but a scan at 27wks estimated him to be 2lb 2oz which was spot on for gestation then he came at 38wks weighing 7lb 10oz
Thank you again for all your advice again
Guesstimation - that is a good term to describe what they are doing - sometimes I think all this technology is great - but it is a double edged sword - too much information = too much worry - well for some types like mwoa !!
Bathsheba - thanks for the article
I guess weight is not the be all and end all - you only have to consider nappies and how they fit on different bubs etc.. tthere is more to size than weight.
Head circumference on my bub was around 50th percentile - but that could be a guesstimate too
sunshine_sieben - umm my cycles on average would be about 26 days give or take - - I was charting at the time of TTC and reckon we conceived day 13-16 of cycle.
I am a bit neurotic about what my OB said cause I am 160cm tall and pre pregnancy weight of 50kg ...people actually get a surprise when I tell them how much I was at birth - I get a bit of a giggle out of it.
csab - hey thanks I keep up with how you are too xx
Overall I am glad I posted this thread cause I certainly feel more at ease and dont take it to heart...as it looks to me they can get it right or wrong in either direction so guesstimations ...well take them with a grain of salt!!
Anna, if you're a small-ish woman, then you definitely need to have a look at the links I posted earlier. He's a male midwife who worked with Tijuana (Mexican women) who are very very tiny. However, they delivered healthy average sized babies at home. One of the girls on his site was only 12!!!
Even head circumference is not much to go by. Baby's heads are soft. Your pelvis is soft. There is no way to tell how much the head will be able to be molded during birth and how much your pelvis will be able to stretch.
This article on Belly Belly is also really really interesting: https://www.bellybelly.com.au/birth/...nown-and-loved.
Seeing that you have a fair idea of when you ovulated, there is probably a considerate accuracy in your dates, rather than the u/s dates. I would definitely go by your dates rather than by theirs.
I had long irregular cycles (45 days+) but I also knew when I conceived. Originally, with my GP, she thought I was 2 weeks further along and wouldn't believe me. When I went to see my MW, I mentioned the charting/long cylces. She just asked me: So, what due date do you want me to write down? I loved her for this. It is so great if they believe your instincts. I did end up having a dating u/s at 6 weeks and that confirmed my estimate to the day.
Registered User
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks