[Vent]Why is it...

Why is it that babies weighing 4kgs and over at birth are considered large?

My first child weighed 4.2kgs and my DD2 weighed 4kgs.

Because my first child weighed 'so much' I have to have stupid tests done like GTT and growth scans. Yes I know I have the right to refuse them, but that just makes me have to fight more to get the birth I want.

I guess I am just venting. I am about to go and have a growth scan done that I am not happy about. My 4kg daughter was by far my easiest labour & birth and it was also my fastest (longest was DS1 - 7.5hrs, shortest DD2 - 4hrs)

Medical professionals don't care that I enjoyed the birth of my last child, nor the fact that it was 100% drug free and I was home 4hrs later. All they care about is how much she weighed and the fact they think this baby might weigh more.

:hug:

When I had DD, (I needed a c-section) and when the Ob pulled her out everyone in the theatre said "oh my goodness, that's a big baby" and when she was weighed she was only 3910g. Ugh.

I hear ya honey!
Sue xxxxx

Probably because the average baby weighs 3.5kg. So anything over that is considered big.

Pffft I hear ya. I get told that I'm at high risk of having GD because my babies are "close" to 4kg. I haven't even cracked the 4kg mark yet and I'm being told they are big babies!!

Ridiculous.

Frustrating that it is seen as something that needs extra medical attention isn't it. Silly thing is too, with DS I was having scans every 2 days for my vbac attempt and kept asking if he was big, because DD was 4kgs, and they kept saying no no he is average and he was 4.5kgs. 1kg off the average so go figure, the scans are clearly not very accurate. Sorry OT rant but I feel for you hun. :hug:

I haven't been told anything, and DS was 3.8kg

I've never had to fight about this strangely, even though I have 'big' babies. But I know of so many people where it has been a reason for more scans, or interventions.
I hope you don't have to fight too hard to get the birth you want :hug:

my friend had a 5kg baby so 4kg doesnt seem too bad does it! they dont seem to care about length though, my son was 58cm, 2cm off the guinness world record and didnt even get a mention!

Ya know Lisa I am a bit worried about this if we decide to have #3... DD was 3.83kg followed by DS at 4.84kg :o

I think if I go through the birth centre I should be ok... But even the MWs at the birth centre might be worried! Hmm!!

Good luck to you...

I know exactly what you mean!!! My first two weighed 3.8kg but I had GD with my second and even while I was pregnant with DD2, I constantly got told by medical staff that I have excessively large babies. DD2 was just over 4kg (though she was born by c/section and only weighed 3.8kg 24 hours after her birth so I suspect she wasn't as large as she measured because she didn't have all the fluid pushed out by being born naturally) so now I am really hearing about how enormous my babies are even more - as if having a baby over 4kg just seals the deal.

The other thing that gets me is that length is never taken into account when they tell me how huge my babies are - they have all been around 54cm. I don't understand why this is completely ignored and birth weight is the only thing that they ever look at. If you are a tall person, I think it would be naturally expected that you would weigh more than a shorter person, so why is this overlooked? Not to mention also that my 4kg baby had a head circumfrence of 37cm so she was larger all over (average hc is 35cm).

The 'average' sized baby is 3.5kg (7 pounds) and 50cm long but I don't know how 'average' this figure really is. It doesn't seem to have changed at all in the last few years at all. I don't think they keep up with statistics. Populations naturally grow taller over time which may account for larger babies but no adjustments are made to averages to reflect this and I think that medical professionals cause a lot of stress for parents of unborn babies because they don't know what to do with babies that are any different from 'average'.

Grrr ... the whole thing gives me the irrates!

I'm glad I'm not alone in feeling this way.

My babies have been pretty average in length (I hate the word average though!) with my longest being 51cms. 2 of my babies are labelled as being big, yet I don't consider them to be big at all. None of my babies have had shoulder dyscotia,I have never had a PPH and I have never had GD and yet I am expected to go through all their stupid tests.

No surprises that my bub is in the 95 centile for weight right now. Sigh.

Hopefully this is the last test they can put me through. I'll just turn up to the hospital to delivery my baby right before it comes out, like last time and hopefully they have no time to give me anything other than the birth I want :)

I was saying to DH that under 7lb 5oz is "oh thats such a small baby!" and anything over like 8lb 5oz is "that's a BIG baby!!!"
I mean come one people! If the baby was 5kgs you'd say ok that is a big baby but 4kgs is fine!!!

Hopefully they just shut up and let you birth the way you want!!! :hug:

Oh and just me: 3.5kgs is 7lb 11oz

hehehe MrsB - I was just checking to see what DS was when born, 8lb4oz - I didn't think he was big at all, my body carried and birthed him beautifully.

Small mum + big baby is something to be worried about, but average/average .. gosh, my birth centre midwives don't weigh me, they do the belly measurement and that's it. So much more relaxed!