Those with big babies - how was your birth?

Hi, I'm more of a lurker than a poster nowadays sorry, but have a quick question. I'm 36 weeks with no.2 and have just been for a growth scan as my midwife thought the baby felt big. The scan indicated it is about 8lb9oz already. My son was pretty big born at 37+5 weighing 8lb5oz but the though of another 4 weeks growth on top of this baby scares me to death!

Did anyone else have similar? How big were your babies and were they born naturally? I'm going to see my consultant on 15th and am concerned that he'll say I have to have a caesarean which I really don't want if I can avoid it. Thanks in advance,

Torieyes 36+0

they never seemed fussed about the size of mine - 9.5lb and just over (very marginally) 10lb. Charlotte went 15 days over but Louisa (the 10lb one) was born only 5 days late (actually on the date they half adjusted me to from my 12 week scan)

I was told though that once you get to 37 weeks they AREN'T putting on half a pound a week or whatever people say but that they slow down then. not sure how true that is though.

I had both girls naturally but had pethidene (which was rubbish) with Charlotte and an episiotomy and then with Louisa I demanded an epidural when I got to 7cm.

I had a scan at 40+6 that estimated Abigail would be 9lb 12oz. I was expecting a big baby as I was 10lb 5oz at birth and H was around 8lb something. As it was, A was born at 40+10 weighing 9lb 6oz. I delivered naturally, no forceps or anything. I had 2nd degree tears but a lot of people with much smaller babies tear too!

I knew my son would be big - I had lots of extra growth scans due to type 1 diabetes. A bit skewed, as I was induced, but I ended up with an emerg c-section - mainly due to his position meaning that forceps weren';t an option. He was 10lb 11oz tho, ans I've since been told that the risks to us both of damage would have been high.

I was given the option of a elective cs as they suspected he was large, but declined. HTH.

O was 9lb3oz but she wasn't expected to be so big - was told by midwife she would be 8lb at the most! I had her naturally withgas and air and pethidene - only needed a couple of stitches

william was 8lbs13 , i delivered vaginally with epidural but this had nothing to do with the size and only had a couple of stiches

I wonder what difference the weight of a baby makes to their head circumference.  Is the weight just distributed around the body or are they actually much larger babies bone wise and therefore harder/more painful to give birth to.

Just pondering...

C was 9lb 6oz and back to back but I managed to deliver naturally with just gas and air, I had quite a few internal stitches but it wasn't so bad. I know lots of people whos babies were far smaller and they had a much worse birth experience than me so I'm not sure how much of a factor it is really?

I was told bigger babies were oten easier to deliver!

My daughter was 9lb 5oz, but we didn't know that til she was born and that was by c-section. I had a c-section because of a failure to progress and never got beyond 5cm and it was clear it was never going to happen naturally, despite being on a drip, she was back to back as well.  When she was born she had bruises on her face and they think it may have been due to her trying to find the exit but was too big.  She was only 4 days late as well.

A friend of mine had a scan towards the end of her pregnancy and was told to expect a 10lber and in the end, she had a baby that was about 8lb, she only had him a week early.

I think it depend on the person themselves really.  Another friend of mine had her son who was 9lb 6oz naturally (I think in water) and she is about 6ft and I'm 5ft 3.

I hope your consultant appointment goes ok

B was 9lb 2oz, when I had a scan with her at 34wks to look at her size I had a naval sonographer who was very rude, he said he couldnt get a good picture of the baby because I was overweight but he thought the baby would be 7lb - 8lb, idiot. I had an all the pain relief going as she was back to back and had a vantose delivery but that was due to the fact I couldnt feel anything. I had to be cut but alot of woman have to have that done even with smaller babies.

This time around im having another scan at 34 wks roughly to look at the size, dont know what they are going to do if it im having another big baby.

Good luck, im sure you will be fine

I think you might find this website useful: http://www.bigbaby.org.uk/  (started by a fantastic mum of big babies/ Hypnobirth practitioner/ Doula)

loulout:

I wonder what difference the weight of a baby makes to their head circumference.  Is the weight just distributed around the body or are they actually much larger babies bone wise and therefore harder/more painful to give birth to.

Just pondering...

interestingly my 9 1/2lber Charlotte had a 37cm head whilst my 10lber Louisa had a 36cm head. Charlotte was taller than Louisa as well but Louisa was definitely fatter. Charlotte got stuck hence the episiotomy and discussions about forceps but with Louisa I only had a tear which didn't need stitches

O was 9lb 13oz, 1 hr 38 min active labour, and H was 11lb 11oz, 2 hour 15 min labour. Both were straightforward and just had gas and air for each. However I did tear with both. H was induced, but only by breaking my waters, as when I went in to be induced I was beyond the stage where the pessaries would have done anything. Both were overdue.

The weight of the second was a bit of a suprise, I was expecting him to be just over 10lb. I am not going for a third as I am too scared of what weight it could be, and also that I would probably be under consultant led care (was midwife led and had both in birthing centre part of hospital) maybe with pressure to have a section if it looked like the baby was big.

Both times I was in hospital is was the mums around me who had 6lb babies who had had forceps etc.

Edited to add that O had a small head circ in proportion to his weight, but boy H's head was in proportion to his weight.

The main downside to having such a big baby was that he had to go down to neonatal to have his blood sugar measured (which was fine throughout) and they wanted to give him formula straight away in case his blood sugar dropped, but we didn't want this as his blood sugar wasn't low, so we agreed to breastfeeding, and to suplement with formula IF his blood sugar showed signs of dropping. They were also keen for me to express all his feeds and wanted him to have 3oz per feed on day 1 and 4oz per feed on day 2 etc. There was no way this would have worked with expressing, so I just ignored them and breastfed on demand exactly as with boy 1. Had I previously not BF a large baby I probably would have followed their advice and I expect BF wouldn't have lasted very long.

loulout:

I wonder what difference the weight of a baby makes to their head circumference.  Is the weight just distributed around the body or are they actually much larger babies bone wise and therefore harder/more painful to give birth to.

Just pondering...

During our NCT course the teacher bought in a couple of 'cut outs' of real size babies to demonstrate this - one was 6lb and the other was 9lb.  Honestly, the difference in actual size was minimal.  (She did it as one of the other girls in the group was told to expect a big baby and was petrified).  It was very surprising.