If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Baby size/difficulty of delivery
Hi folks,
I was just reading the thread from last week about u/s predicting weight (and how inaccurate they are), and I wanted to ask a question. I'd been under the impression that the baby's weight isn't really a huge factor in how hard or easy the delivery is. My doula for #1 said that the later one goes the less a baby's head can mold, and so the harder it is to fit. That seemed to make sense to me (#1 was born at 39 weeks, and things went pretty well). But it would also seem to imply that weight is only a correlate and not a cause of more difficult deliveries, since later babies tend to weigh more, too. In sum, the hardest part is getting the head out, and heavier babies don't necessarily have bigger heads, just more fat on them, right? (In my one experience, the actual pushing wasn't the hard part at all, but rather all the rest of labor getting the cervix open enough. But I understand that YMMV, and I was blessed with a short pushing stage.) Emily mom to Toby 5/1/02 #2 EDD 7/19/04 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Baby size/difficulty of delivery
Emily wrote:
Hi folks, I was just reading the thread from last week about u/s predicting weight (and how inaccurate they are), and I wanted to ask a question. I'd been under the impression that the baby's weight isn't really a huge factor in how hard or easy the delivery is. My doula for #1 said that the later one goes the less a baby's head can mold, and so the harder it is to fit. That seemed to make sense to me (#1 was born at 39 weeks, and things went pretty well). But it would also seem to imply that weight is only a correlate and not a cause of more difficult deliveries, since later babies tend to weigh more, too. In sum, the hardest part is getting the head out, and heavier babies don't necessarily have bigger heads, just more fat on them, right? And fat squishes ;-) Frankly, while studies do suggest that macrosomic babies have a higher incidence of shoulder dystocia, I always take that with a grain of salt. Position makes a huge difference--probably even more so than size. And really, I had one baby who was both big *and* big-headed, and he was no trouble to push out either. That's not to say some women don't have a hard time with larger babies, but I think it's far from a given. (In my one experience, the actual pushing wasn't the hard part at all, but rather all the rest of labor getting the cervix open enough. But I understand that YMMV, and I was blessed with a short pushing stage.) Same happened for me--for the smaller headed babies as well as the large headed baby. Best wishes, Ericka |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Baby size/difficulty of delivery
My biggest baby was 10 lb 4 ounces, but she had the smallest head of
my three, so there you go. And for pities sake, an extra week or two in the womb isn't going to make their heads like concrete. Their heads are made to squish, but also to grow. If they couldn't do the squishing, the plates would have fused, and then they would be in major big trouble for a whole other set of problems related to brain and head expansion later. Position is everything - both baby and mother. It is very important for larger babies that mom can be mobile. I think a lot of babies get "stuck" due to mom being pretty much immobilized by tubes and gadgets, and drugs, sitting on her rear end with her knees in the air - the worst possible position for larger babies. Mary G. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Baby size/difficulty of delivery
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 00:14:40 +0000, Emily wrote:
In sum, the hardest part is getting the head out, and heavier babies don't necessarily have bigger heads, just more fat on them, right? Babies are quite different, e.g. DS had a relatively big head, but weighed the average 8lb. Getting the head out was indeed hard, I didn't manage without having a cut, but didn't suffer from that at all afterwards. In general what I read here is that the heavier babies are actually easier to deliver. -- -- I mommy to DS (19m) mommy to a tiny angel (Oct 2003) EDD October 1 guardian of DH (33) War doesn't decide who's right, only who's left |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Baby size/difficulty of delivery
This thread makes me feel better. I think this baby is going to be really
big and I'm kind of scared of that. The father, Matt was 5 pounds and something and he was born at 7-7.5 months gestation. He would have been huge at full term I think! He's also quite big now. I on the other hand was 6lbs and half an ounce when I was born. Anyways the ultrasound showed the baby is right now 12 inches long. Two inches bigger then average from everywhere I read. o_O If it keeps up the growth, it's going to be huge. "Joybelle" wrote in message ... "Emily" wrote in message news:QFUWb.165761$U%5.738908@attbi_s03... Hi folks, I was just reading the thread from last week about u/s predicting weight (and how inaccurate they are), and I wanted to ask a question. I'd been under the impression that the baby's weight isn't really a huge factor in how hard or easy the delivery is. My doula for #1 said that the later one goes the less a baby's head can mold, and so the harder it is to fit. That seemed to make sense to me (#1 was born at 39 weeks, and things went pretty well). But it would also seem to imply that weight is only a correlate and not a cause of more difficult deliveries, since later babies tend to weigh more, too. In sum, the hardest part is getting the head out, and heavier babies don't necessarily have bigger heads, just more fat on them, right? Well, for me, the 8 lb 3 oz baby was tougher to push out than the 10 lb 3 oz baby. They were the same gestational age at a little over 41 weeks. People are positively shocked when they hear I had a 10-pounder at home, and so far it has been no use explaining that it wasn't much different from the 8-pounder, and maybe even a little easier. (In my one experience, the actual pushing wasn't the hard part at all, but rather all the rest of labor getting the cervix open enough. But I understand that YMMV, and I was blessed with a short pushing stage.) With my first baby, I had an epidural, and pushing ended up being a breeze. My second and third were born at home, and the pushing stage was so very, very difficult. I had to push against a cervical lip both times, though. Joy Rose 1/99 Iris 2/01 Spencer 3/03 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Baby size/difficulty of delivery
Jody Pellerin wrote:
This thread makes me feel better. I think this baby is going to be really big and I'm kind of scared of that. The father, Matt was 5 pounds and something and he was born at 7-7.5 months gestation. He would have been huge at full term I think! He's also quite big now. I on the other hand was 6lbs and half an ounce when I was born. As a general rule, babies' birthweight is controlled by maternal factors. This means that the mother's *own* birthweight is more likely to be predictive of her baby's birthweight than the father's birthweight. Also, birthweight isn't very predictive of future size. All of my babies were around the 50th percentile for weight and height at birth. The boys put on weight and height very quickly immediately after birth, and both hover at the top of the charts now. My daughter, by comparison, grew at a much more standard rate and is now around the 40th percentile for weight and height. IOW, *your* body is more likely to be controlling the size of your baby at birth than genetic factors like future size or your husband's birthweight. Generally speaking, your body won't let you grow a baby bigger than you can birth. Naturally, there are exceptions to this rule, but by and large, it's true. So even if your baby is bigger than average, it's pretty likely that he/she won't be bigger than you can birth. -- Be well, Barbara (Julian [6], Aurora [4], and Vernon's [23 mos.] mom) This week's special at the English Language Butcher Shop: Financing for "5" years -- car dealership sign Mommy: I call you "baby" because I love you. Julian (age 4): Oh! All right, Mommy baby. All opinions expressed in this post are well-reasoned and insightful. Needless to say, they are not those of my Internet Service Provider, its other subscribers or lackeys. Anyone who says otherwise is itchin' for a fight. -- with apologies to Michael Feldman |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Baby size/difficulty of delivery
Circe wrote:
Jody Pellerin wrote: This thread makes me feel better. I think this baby is going to be really big and I'm kind of scared of that. The father, Matt was 5 pounds and something and he was born at 7-7.5 months gestation. He would have been huge at full term I think! He's also quite big now. I on the other hand was 6lbs and half an ounce when I was born. As a general rule, babies' birthweight is controlled by maternal factors. This means that the mother's *own* birthweight is more likely to be predictive of her baby's birthweight than the father's birthweight. Also, birthweight isn't very predictive of future size. All of my babies were around the 50th percentile for weight and height at birth. The boys put on weight and height very quickly immediately after birth, and both hover at the top of the charts now. My daughter, by comparison, grew at a much more standard rate and is now around the 40th percentile for weight and height. IOW, *your* body is more likely to be controlling the size of your baby at birth than genetic factors like future size or your husband's birthweight. Generally speaking, your body won't let you grow a baby bigger than you can birth. Naturally, there are exceptions to this rule, but by and large, it's true. So even if your baby is bigger than average, it's pretty likely that he/she won't be bigger than you can birth. This reminds me of a theory I learned about a couple of years ago. It comes from evolutionary biology. It states, essentially, that babies are always trying to grow as big as they can get, and the mothers are always fighting it. There was a bit more to it than this, but this was the basic idea. It was pretty interesting. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Baby size/difficulty of delivery
Sorry to branch this post out into another one but after reading all
of the stuff about the mother's birthweight being a factor, I got really scared. I was a really big baby (almost 10 lbs!) but I was carried 30 days past my due date (in 1972). My OB assures me that no one would be allowed to go that long today. So to me, I would have been relatively normal size had I not been a month old! Does that seem right or am I destined to have a 10 lb baby even if I deliver before or on my due date? yikes! |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Baby size/difficulty of delivery
Sorry to branch this post out into another one but after reading all
of the stuff about the mother's birthweight being a factor, I got really scared. I was a really big baby (almost 10 lbs!) but I was carried 30 days past my due date (in 1972). My OB assures me that no one would be allowed to go that long today. So to me, I would have been relatively normal size had I not been a month old! Does that seem right or am I destined to have a 10 lb baby even if I deliver before or on my due date? there is a possibility the due date was wrong, drs tend to insist that the due date is 40 weeks after LMP regardless of cycle length. There seems to be a correlation between the babies birth weight and the birth weight of the parents, but it's still very unpredictable, our baby was 2lb less than either of us were at birth |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Baby size/difficulty of delivery
"Emily" wrote in message news:QFUWb.165761$U%5.738908@attbi_s03... Hi folks, I was just reading the thread from last week about u/s predicting weight (and how inaccurate they are), and I wanted to ask a question. I'd been under the impression that the baby's weight isn't really a huge factor in how hard or easy the delivery is. My doula for #1 said that the later one goes the less a baby's head can mold, and so the harder it is to fit. That seemed to make sense to me (#1 was born at 39 weeks, and things went pretty well). But it would also seem to imply that weight is only a correlate and not a cause of more difficult deliveries, since later babies tend to weigh more, too. In sum, the hardest part is getting the head out, and heavier babies don't necessarily have bigger heads, just more fat on them, right? Well, for me, the 8 lb 3 oz baby was tougher to push out than the 10 lb 3 oz baby. They were the same gestational age at a little over 41 weeks. People are positively shocked when they hear I had a 10-pounder at home, and so far it has been no use explaining that it wasn't much different from the 8-pounder, and maybe even a little easier. (In my one experience, the actual pushing wasn't the hard part at all, but rather all the rest of labor getting the cervix open enough. But I understand that YMMV, and I was blessed with a short pushing stage.) With my first baby, I had an epidural, and pushing ended up being a breeze. My second and third were born at home, and the pushing stage was so very, very difficult. I had to push against a cervical lip both times, though. Joy Rose 1/99 Iris 2/01 Spencer 3/03 |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
misc.kids FAQ on the Pregnancy AFP Screen and the Triple Screen | [email protected] | Pregnancy | 0 | January 16th 04 10:15 AM |
misc.kids FAQ on the Pregnancy AFP Screen and the Triple Screen | [email protected] | Pregnancy | 0 | December 15th 03 10:42 AM |
Lydia's Birthstory (long) | Andrea | Pregnancy | 29 | September 7th 03 07:23 AM |