Printable View
Hi All,
I have my 28 week check up on Wednesday at the birthing centre and they are going to arrange for me to have the glucose drink to check for GD.
The thing is I have no symptoms at all, no extreme thirst or hunger, no huge frequency of weeing etc and although I am pretty tired I wouldn't call myself extremely lethargic.
Is it just normal routine to have the test, do I have to have it?
It's a routine test. There are no symptoms for GD so the only way to detect it is by having the test. Don't stress if you fail the first one. I did & then had the longer test & all was fine.
No, you don't have to do the test at all if you don't want to. THe results of the test can be inconsequential and no cause for alarm. Many women don't have the test and it is completely up to you if you choose to do so or not. So while it may be seen as *routine* they cannot force you to have it.
No you dont have to have it if you don't want to. I'm not having it done this pregnancy.
I wasn't going to have it done, as I was fine with my 5 previous pregnancies...
But they sent me anyway, and I didn't fight it.
It was high the first time, so had to go for the 2 hr one.... which was 3 blood tests!! (one before, during and after the 2 hrs)
I wish I hadn't of, I was fine..... But both my arms are sore and very bruised...
Thanks everyone....
it's not that I have anything against the test I am just trying to avoid absolutely anything that is unnecessary :)
not only that it's a time factor ..... I don't have a spare 3 hours during the week ... work isn't that plesant :(
That's OK. I don't think they will put on a song and a dance that you didn't do it.
Yeah im not against it either but i do find it unnecessary for me to have it since i have gone through 2 pregnancies without having GD and have no family history of it. My care providers respect my choice too which they all should.
I had it done all three times now...i had to do 2 tests this pregnancy as my first reading came back high. ive never had GD...and the 2nd test proved i dont have it this time round either.
Think i was sent purely cos i am very overweight and they want to be careful...who knows. I hate BT's...so this wasnt fun!
According to one of the midwives at my birth centre I am "obese" and therefore at risk.
I am 5'3 and was 74kg before falling pg and am now 84kg :redface:
I know I am a little heavier than my idea weight - mind you i think that is some scary figure like 56kg and I've been that weight and it's not a good look!!!!
I have a real issue with the BMI - my DF is an x amatuer body builder and according to the BMI index he is overweight .... even though he has about 10% body fat due to his weight / height ratio ..... GRRRR!!!!
I hate the BMI. They arent going to tell a football player who has a BMI of over 30 that he is obese are they? But muscle is heavier than fat! it doesnt make sense.
:
Antheia you should have seen the look on the midwive's face when i pointed that out to her!!! PMSL
I am all for being a healthy weight in relation to our height as i think it is really important for well being but I don't think that the generic figures are right.
I've been 56 kilos and I look ill yet according to BMI thats my healthy weight
Yeah my BMI says my ideal weight is 50kg. The lowest i have ever been is 65kg and i looked healthy and normal. No way would i have been able to get any lower unless i stopped eating!
If you are using a birth centre it is usually a requirement because it rules out any high risk of GDM. Thats how they get their funding. They cannot force you to, its just encouraged because of the possible complications post birth for bub. But find out the info for it and make your own decision. Cheers,
Leanne
I felt pushed into having this test in my first pregnancy - I have NO family history of Type 2 diabetes, I am very lean at 58kgs and 174cms tall, and very athletic - keeping up running through all of my first pregnancy.
So.......this pregnancy I said NO I am not taking the test. Again, I am feeling just wonderful, no symptons, keeping up my running and swimming - now at 31 weeks and I eat well.
So good on ya for questioning it - if you are imformed about the risks and know what to look out for and understand that the test itself is NOT very reliable anyway, then good for you.
I didn't have it. Both my MW and I agreed that there was no reason to suspect I had it. And I was in a birth centre, so no, it's not neccesarily a requirement in a BC.
I am also Obese according to BMI, but according to my MW, I looked healthy and fit and was eating very well, so she completely ignored the BMI.
It's good to see there are still people out there that actually use their brains to think idependently and intelligently rather than jsut following protocol blindly.
Good on you for wanting to avoid unneccesary tests. I did, too and will with this pregnancy. I do understand that tests can be valuable, but I do think we are being poked and prodded to no end just because it's "routine". And just because we can.
So many women are being worried for no reason because tests come back inconclusive or as false positives. Health professionals commonly vastly underestimate the effect this can have on a woman's psyche and her attitude towards her body, her ability to birth and mother a baby and her attitude towards er unborn baby. Fear is such a destructive emotion. Yet, most people think that just by doing another test which "prooves" that everything is alright, the worries of the first test are being completely undone. Unfortunately, human emotions don't work that way...
Sorry for the rant...
Saša
They said I had it the first time, I was 175cm tall and 70 kilos, so still right in the middle of healthy weight range when not pregnant. Anyway, I had to ***** my finger 4 times a day and monitor what I ate. I dont' believe I had it at all, as not once when I did the ***** test, was I even slightly above AVERAGE let alone high.
Second time they said the first test was high, so I went for second test and they poked and prodded me (think I had three needles in one hand, 2 in other, and both arms as they couldn't get a good vein.......) and I was fine.
I have been debating whether to have it this time. Both my babies were full term and weighed 3.3 kilos so absolutely no risk of being big (which is one of main concerns of GD). So not sure if I will. Good to hear people's opinions, I think I might avoid it this time. xoxo
I'm not sure how much family history or, 'how you feel' plays into the GD equation........ a lean, fit girlfriend of mine, with a good diet and no prior history family history of any type of diabetes, ended up getting GD with her second pregnancy. She modified her diet and gave birth to a beautiful 10lb baby boy.
But as people have pointed out, you don't have to have the test at all. ;) When i had it first time i had the drink, went away, then went back an hour later foor the blood sample. I know there is a GTT and a GCT which take different amounts of time. But i am pretty sure the basic one only takes an hour. Although different pathology places prob have different protocols. If you wanted to have it done and time was an issue, you could ring around a few pathology places and find someone that does the hour test. ;)
Totally up to you.
Risk factors for GD:
- have a family history of gestational diabetes (ie mother, grandmother or sister had it)
- you have previously given birth to a large baby (weighing over 4.5kg/9lb 14)
- you have previously had a stillbirth
- are overweight or obese
- have polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS)
Symptoms of GD:
- increased thirst
- needing to urinate frequently
- tiredness
but these are all common in pregnancy anyway.
GD isn't an immediate threat to your or your baby but if not managed it incresaes the risk of things like:
- Pre-eclampsia
- Premature Delivery
- Having too much amniotic fluid
- a big baby
- c/s delivery
- low blood sugar in the baby after birth
- jaundice in the newborn
- congenital problems of the baby like heart defect
- slightly increased risk of stillbirth or neonatal death
My friend had a 9lb baby girl. when she later talked to an OB (not the one she saw for her birth) and he found out she didn't have the GD test and gave birth to a 9lber, he said: "Such a huge baby, I'm sure you actually had GD, you should have had the test,..."
WTH??? 9lb isn't that huuuge? She's tall, so is her husband. What a strange thing to say.
Saša
my DF was 12lbs...... no GD there.....
OMG 12lbs - can I book in for the stork now?????
12 lb????? That's amazing!
MIL is 6'1, FI; 6ft and DF is nearly 6'5'
poor little dee = 5'3 ...:ROFL:
I think you should consider renaming peanut and calling him/her coconut...
My SIL is TINY. She's Phillipino. My brother is 1.95m (sorry, not up with feet and inches). My mum is 1.72m, Dad is 1.83m, but SIL is 1.50m. Even with high heels she barely reaches his shoulder. Her son was 3.2kg, so quite big for her size. Unfortunately I can't report about a trouble free natural birth here, he ended up pushing onto her kidneys and they were impaired. The noticed at 38 weeks. She had a healthy baby boy a couple of day later, born through the sunroof (they were worried she wasn't strong enough for an induced labour, due to the impaired kidney function).
But, her mother had 4 children, all over 3kg, all born naturally, no drugs or intervention. Her father was just as tiny as the rest of them, so it seems that big babies run in her family and are not necessarily caused by my family's size.
Nt sure why I'm telling, you... just found it interesting.
Good luck with your birth DD!
Saša
Just wanted to say that although the risk factors outline who may be more prone to GD, these are not always the case. I fit absolutely none of the risk factors and I got GD. I've always been active and a healthy eater, and within my recommended BMI, if not on the low side and I still got GD. Alot of it has to do with how your body and placenta deals with the extra work load from baby.
I considered not having the GD test as I was sick of tests (and had been through CVS) and because I didn't fit any of the risk factors, but as it goes I had GD so I was glad it was picked up..
It's an easy test and takes an hour to do so I would say best to rule it out...
Independent research has never managed to prove that screening for all women for GD is helpful. An Australian collaboration of researchers have recently produced this guideline for the GD test:
http://www.3centres.com.au/guideline..._screening.pdf
The first signs of GD are apparent in urine, anyway, so routine urine screening will pick up women at risk of GD anyway.
And no, I don't think a 9lb baby is a definitive sign of GD... LOL
That really gets under my nose. I have never had GD and have birthed a 9.5lb and a 9lb baby. Yet doctors still ask me if i am sure i didn't have GD. Grr! I was born 9lb myself and back then they thought something was really wrong with me. Repeat sugar tests every few hours and my mum never got to see me until i was 2 days old! Oh but they never took it into account that i was 3 weeks late.:
I *passed* the GD test (GTT - the long one) and yet I still have GD. My fasting sugars are still high and my levels through the day can be up depending on what I eat. My endocrinologist said she wouldn't have tested me (and saved me two lots of 3 hour torture sessions!!) as I fit many of the risk factors and instead would have had me monitor my BSL's as the pregnancy progressed. She believes that the stress test aspect of the GTT does not identify all women with GD and regular monitoring would provide a better level of evaluation for those with the risk factors. She doesn't care what your body can do when loaded and stressed with a slog of sugar, she wants to know what you are doing on a day to day basis which is what the baby is getting.
Michelle, it makes a lot of sense what your endocrinologist says about being concerned what the body does in a normal situation rather than in an extreme one.
And about the weight issue: I have mentioned this a few times in various threads on BB: My nan gave birth to 6 babies. All over 5kg (over 11lb). All were born at home with only a midwife present. They were all healthy and 5 of them still are (now in their 50s and 70s). Her first born unfortunately died when he was around 12 months of pneumonia.
Did she have GD? Who knows, they didn't check for these things. I doubt it as she had easy pregnancies and births. Some babies are just big.
Thanks for the link Michael.
Saša
You don't have to. When I was pg with DD they weren't going to send me for one but I said may as well. The test isn't THAT bad. I ended up being diagnosed with GD, even though I have no strong risk factors AT ALL and didn't have any symptoms either. After I had Amy (3.5 weeks early weighing 7pound4), I was diagnosed with Impaired Glucose Tolerance. I have GD with this pregnancy too. The reason for the test is to check that your baby isn't being exposed to higher than normal sugar levels throughout your pregnancy. Even though it's not a really serious problem it can be in some instances. GD isn't that bad if you can control with diet (in my case) and in my opinion, it doesn't hurt to get yourself checked out. Everyone's got their own opinion but in the end it's definitely your decision. Go with your gut feeling.
Michael - I have never had sugar detected an ANY of my urine samples so that's not a fail safe unfortunately.