HELP!!! OB Says bub will be a "fair size" - do OBs get it right???

I saw my OB yesterday and during the visit he said to me (after feeling baby's position) "Oh I think this baby will be a fair size...it wont be a 6 to 7 pounder..probably an 8 something!!!"
Now how can he tell just by feeling the baby??? He didnt measure me or anything??

We had a chat and then we looked back at my 34 week scan (4d) which measured bub at 2383 grams or 5lbs & 4 oz...according to the scan bub is right on the 50th percentile for weight at 34 weeks. The scan report said that at 40 weeks estimated weight would be about 3500 grams if weight steadily went on in a linear fashion.
I know that this is an estimate.

Anyway my scans have always shown bub to be ahead of my LMP dates.
My scans estimate a due date of 20/11/08
My LMP estimates 26/11/08

So yesterday my OB was ??? looking at me as 38 weeks +1 day according to LMP
while my scan dates have me at 39 weeks exactly yesterday.

Furthermore I have not put on any weight in the last 5 weeks???

Its probably all academic and I am probably getting all excited for nothing but :o
this is my first bub!!

Just wondering really how much attention should I give to estimated size before bub is born and how accurate are these estimates?
I mean he didnt measure me or anything??

TIA
Anna :D

p.s. Thanks for your great advice and supportive answers on this subject - I just thought I would add that my 12 week scan & 20 week scan both said EDD
to be 20/11/08 so measuring 6 days ahead of EDD according LMP. I dont think I am all that big at all - just all baby and the fact that I have not put on any weight in the last 4 to 5 weeks must say something. Anyway 8 pounds is not all that big and with all your support I know I can do it!!!
I was 8 ld 9 oz myself & DH was just over 7 pounds if that counts for anything!!! I have not really dropped and not having any pre- labour pains in any major way so I dont feel that bub will come before the 26th anyway - so I guess as each weeks goes by I worry myself that bub is getting bigger and bigger - oh stop it i am driving myself nuts!!!!!!!!!!

I would not worry yourself too much. I was told at my 20 week scan that my DD was 2 weeks behind in growth and that I would need to be monitered to ensure she was growing ok, I had another scan at 26 weeks and she was still 2 weeks behind. I went in for a scan at 28 weeks and was told that my baby was so small that it would not survive unless I delived her that day. I demanded another scan as although my belly was small I did not believe them, they kept me in all day and at the end of the day I had another scan and was told my baby was in the 'normal' size range for my date :o, so they could have delivered my baby that day for absolutly no reason and risked her life. I was told DD would be a 5 - 5.5 pound baby at 40 weeks, she was delivered 6.6 pounds or 2987 grams at 38.2 weeks.

Next time around I personally will not be getting sizing scan.

Don't stress about it too much, the further along in pregnancy you are the less accurate the scan is for measurements, the earliest scan is the most honest in size/date.

Deanne.

I had a late scan with DS and was told byt he scan dates he was due the previous day - my EDD was 4 weeks away and he was born another 10 days after that.
He wasnt a small baby, but i still felt there was no reason for them to scare me the way they did.
A friend of my had gestational diabeties, was told by "feel" she was having a big baby, they banied about words like caesarian etc, and she ended up giving birth naturally to a 7 and ahalf pound baby.
Theres overwhelmng evidence that we make babies the right size for our bodies to birth, so you be fine.

i dont think u have anything to worry about. 8 pound something isnt that big. 3500 grams is 7lb 11oz. just relax and enjoy the last little bit of your pregnancy.

Good luck

I would let him talk and not give it any thought at all. They are sooooo inaccurate.
I was told I was gonna have a small bub based on fundal height and just the fact that I wasn't huge and had only put on 12 kg. DD was 3.9kg (8lb 9oz) a week beforeher due date. My friend was told at her 36 week growth scan tha her bub was gonna be a "whopper" and already measured 4kg (somewhere around 9lb) and had her son via c/s (due to his "enormous size" at 41 weeks and he weighed 3.9kg (like my DD). So my daughter wasn't small as they thought and her son, although a good size, was by no means enormous.

An 8 lb baby sounds like a great, healthy size. Slightly above average, but not by much. Definitely nothing to worry about.
My nan had 6 babies all just over 5kg (11lb) all homebirths.

Size and date estimates get more and more inaccurate as you go along. Go by the earliest measurements.

Sometimes I wonder why health professionals even feel the need to make comments like that...

Saša

I wouldn't give it any thought either... with Izzy I was told she would be a "good size" and at 11 days OVER she was 8lb 13oz, big not huge! This time around at 41 weeks I was told that bub was "average" going off a scan and he was 10 pounds with a massive head!! :rofl: Not soemthing you can control and our bodies know how to make babies perfectly sized for us so enjoy and good luck!!!

Don't stress to much, like MatildasMummy I was told by my Ob that DD was very small and eventually he said I would need to probably stop working and rest so she could grow. He gave me a two week grace period, I went into premature labour at 34 weeks. DD was a 3.75kgs, she was one of the heavier prems in the nursery.

This time around he is saying the same kind of things but am I not so concerned this time.

At my 34 week scan the lady told me I must have mydates wrong and I was actually 36 weeks - and I would have a huge baby! But my OB did a scan in her rooms 2 weeks ago and it all measure perfectly! I think that the scans should be taken with a greain of salt! And I really dont htink they know how scraed it makes a mum to be when they say things like that!
I know you will have a perfect size baby!!!
Enjoy and relax!
Kate

I would ignore him to be honest. He cannot know, no-one can know, how big a baby is until after it is born. DP has a colleague who is just back from 3weeks leave after the birth of his second child, a 10lber, born at home, over an intact perineum.

8lb-something ISN'T a big baby, it's normal-sized baby, and teeny women give birth to big babies all the time. My scan estimate was almost spot on except that i was told DD was 7lbs 14 and she was 7lbs 14.5 nearly 2 weeks later... One of my midwives said she was "near 11lbs" based on "feel". Yeah right! FEAR is far more likely to make labour hard and birth difficult or impossible than a big baby.

Do not pay him heed and DO NOT doubt yourself - your body has grown a perfect bub and it will push it down out of your perfect vagina just fine.

Bx

It'll probably be okay!

Firstly, as others have said, it's a prediction, a guess, and as you can hear from plenty of stories, they're often wrong.

Secondly, my first bub was 9lb4oz, and it was fine. I did it drug free - not saying that to show off or anything, but to point out that at no stage did I even contemplate asking for drugs, and I thought I'd at least be tempted! The hormones my body produced at that time were so effective, they were all I needed! And really, the main part is head circ and position.

All the best, and have faith in your body's ability to birth - we're more capable than we realise! :D

I thought I'd weigh in to let you know that at 41+4 weeks I had 3 midwives and an ob have a feel and tell me that they would be surprised if my baby was bigger then 8 pounds. He was born 9 pounds 9! It is truly, truly inaccurate as it can be very dependent on positioning etc. It easily goes both ways. My good friend was told she was having an above average baby and she had a 6 pound 12!

As for big babies, I found my large son very easy to look after because he didn't seem so fragile! :D

Good luck!

Thank you everyone for telling me your experiences it is much appreciated and has put my mind at ease quite a bit. I editied my initial post and added a few more detailsthat may be of relevance. But as most of you girls have said relax and have confidence in your own ability to bring this baby into the world.

Anna:D

Based on your edited first post:
How regular were your cycles and how long were they?
Also, seeing that you had your first scan at 12 weeks and that measured 6 days ahead of your LMP, I would probably guess (and it really is only a guess) that your due date based on ovulation lies somewhere between the ones from the scan and the one from your LMP. So that means, yes, your baby measures a little bigger, but your LMP isn't 100% accurate either.
So no reason to worry at all, but if you go over your due date, you might have a few struggles on hand to convince them to hold off on inducing you, IYKWIM.
A scan at 12 weeks is at the top end of the time frame where scans are "reliable", so there could be a fair margin of error in there.
You were are "good sized" baby and DH was not tiny either. I bet you both aren't tiny now... So it would be only natural to expect your bub to be a "fair size" - whatever that means.

Saša

Sometimes they are right, sometimes they are wrong. It doesn't really matter anyway though - there is no reason that you can't birth the baby even if it's big. Nature rarely makes a baby bigger than you can deliver. People don't give nature enough credit LOL!

*pft* I wouldn't give what your ob says too much 'weight' (:ROFL: at her own joke). My ob never brought up size concerns with me and my DD came out at 9 pounds 7 ounces (or 4.27kg) and was very surprised!
Just do this :tmi:

I was sent for a 34wk scan with dd because my fundal height was not increasing, they told me that bub was not growing!!! When I had the scan done the sonographer told me that she was perfect size and I had nothing to worry about. Then the ob told me that going by the scan that bub was going to be short and chubby...pfttt. She was long and skinny and 3.4kgs.

BTW my SIL was told that her boy would be 4kgs, he was born 2.8kgs...go figure

Don't worry about size hon as long as bub is healthy and a "big" baby does not mean that labour will be more painful at all..all the best

Not long now Annabelle, I am so excited for you. You are going to do wonderfully bringing your little bubba into this world. Take it easy hun, and have in your mind that you are going to be a mummy soon and that is the most precious thing in the world. I know as time is getting closer for you to meet you little one all the nerves amd anxiety start surfacing, I was the same even with my last. Take Care hun, and I cant wait to hear your BA. hugs

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!

No, they are frequently wrong.

And even if your OB is right, 8lb is not exactly enormous! Overall size isn't an indication of much - it's more the head circumference that's an issue. Babies can be long and skinny, short and fat, skinny with a boof head... :)

I'm sure things will go just fine for you. I'm sorry your OB has worried you.

What a shame you have been made to worry over mere size... 8 pounds at that (which is not a big baby). When I think back over all the births I have heard and read about it seems to me that births to bigger babies on the whole seem to have been less painful and traumatic. I've heard of quite a few challenging births involving small babies... nowhere near as many big baby births (I'm talking of above 9 pounds). I've had 3 babies: 7, 8, 9 pounds in that order. My 7 pounder was the most painful. There are often stories in the newspaper about very petite asian women giving birth to very large babies... I think the largest was 14 pounds to a Chinese woman... and she birthed vaginally, no problems. There's a thread in the General News forum area... i'll give it a bump for you... go have a read.

If you look on the growth charts for babies, 8 pounds is actually the 75th percentile.

Meaning that 8lb babies are still well within the realms of "normal" for a newborn.

An 8, or even 9lb baby is not a "huge baby". It is a normal sized baby.

OB's frequently do get this wrong and trying to guess just by looking at you...well I don't think I really need to point out the accuracy of that method ;)

Annabelle, Just incase you can't find the thread i bumped... here's the newspaper article that it contained:

The Herald


Fiona Hudson in London

August 12, 2007 12:00am

It was a natural birth with quite unnatural results.

With the help of four midwives and some gas, British mother Amanda Ellerton calmly delivered a 6.5kg (14lb 7oz) boy.

As a mother of two other children, she had no idea her newborn would be almost as big as a six-month old.

"The other two were both average weights and I didn't expect Shaune would be any different," she said.

"Once his head appeared I could see the surprise on everyone's faces. It was very painful, but it was all worth it for our big bundle of joy.

"We had bought some baby clothes, but they were no use. (Husband) Robert had to rush out and buy clothes for a six-month old instead."

Robert Nicholson said Shaune took after his grandmother, who weighed 5.9kg (13lb) at birth.

Britain's heaviest newborn weighed 7.1kg (15lb 8oz).

The world's heaviest, surviving baby was born in Italy in 1955. He tipped the scales at 10.25kg (22lb 8oz).

...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!

You might find this interesting:
Too Small?
Elvira's First Home Birth
Warning, the pictures are graphic.

Saša

My OB said I would have a big baby and definately wouldn't go past 39 weeks. I had a 9lb'er at 38.5 weeks XD

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

Ob told me the same thing and DS was nearly 9 pounds at 38 1/2 weeks.

Thank you again for all your advice again :D
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 :o
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 :lol::lol:

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 :D

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.

All the best and try not to worry.
Saša

Your baby will be the perfect size for you :)