or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Pregnancy and Birth › Birth and Beyond › If you have a baby over 9lbs, you are diabetic
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

If you have a baby over 9lbs, you are diabetic - Page 3

post #41 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mommal View Post
If I remember correctly, 75% of macrosomic babies are born to normoglycemic women (a.k.a. women without diabetes).
This. My first was 7lbs 10oz, my second was 9lbs 8oz. I passed the GTT easily both times. This time I declined the test.
post #42 of 83
That's hooey. No diabetes here. DS2 was 9,1. DS1 and DD were both in the mid-8s.
post #43 of 83
I haven't had big babies but does anyone wonder if some of the statistics on baby sizes are skewed by all the early inductions and c/s done nowadays. These babies who come earlier than they would if not induced or sectioned would definitely be bigger if they went "full term". Just a thought.
post #44 of 83
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ruthmg View Post
I'm not presuming to know what anyone's diet on here is, but many American women nowadays eat high fructose corn syrup, transfats, meat with growth hormones, very concentrated calories, lots of sugar, etc. Maybe this has to do with some, but not all big babies? Maybe some of the ones who don't have a family history of big babies? Just a thought and pure speculation... (Again, not saying that anyone on here eats this...I wouldn't know your diets!)
Well, I was thinking on how the statistics are 10% of the babies in the US, so maybe it is reversed....And those who don't have the regular American diet have bigger babies?

And that's when I recalled a story my GP told me of seeing a woman who gave birth to a 15lb baby. She was a native American and she claimed 15lbs was normal in her thinking.

Just food for thought!
post #45 of 83
I'll add mine
dd 8lbs 12 oz
ds 10lbs 2 oz
ds 9lbs 2 oz.
Never tested positive for gd. I did eat more sugary desserts with number 2 but ate much better with number 3. I'm not that tall either, maybe 5' 3''
post #46 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by L&K'smommie View Post
I haven't had big babies but does anyone wonder if some of the statistics on baby sizes are skewed by all the early inductions and c/s done nowadays. These babies who come earlier than they would if not induced or sectioned would definitely be bigger if they went "full term". Just a thought.
I think you have picked up on something very real! 8 lbs is becoming a "big baby" and that perception is leading to a lot of early inductions, which is only making the problem worse, because when an induction fails the thinking that larger babies are too big to birth naturally is reinforced.
post #47 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by claddaghmom View Post
So what happened??
What "happened" is that your body did a lovely job of growing a beautiful, perfect, healthy baby. :

#1 9 lb 14.25 oz
#2 9 lb 1.5 oz
#3 11 lb 1.0 oz

For #1 and #2, I dutifully did the first-level GD screening. For #3 I dutifully did both the first and second level of screening. Even though I passed the first test, they just couldn't believe it was OK and wanted "assurance". :

My last pregnancy was twins. I found out it was twins at an ultrasound performed at the office of an OB I do not like and did not see beyond that. He pronounced very certainly that given the previous birthweights, coupled with carrying twins, it was a certainty I would develop GD in my twin pregnancy.

I didn't. :nana:
post #48 of 83
Baby #1 - 8lbs 8oz
Baby #2 - 9lbs 1oz

Both born the day after their due date. Took the 1 hour test with both and no GD with either. No family history of diabetes. No risk factors for diabetes. No one ever told me I should be concerned about diabetes.

I was actually quite pleased that my babies were the size they were. They seemed so healthy and strong. Not that smaller babies can't be too, but that is just how I felt about mine.
post #49 of 83
I'm a Type 1 diabetic... Have been since I was a teen. The biggest of my 5 children was 7#5oz. at birth.

Can I pretend I'm not diabetic now? I'd really like to...!

ETA: All of my children were natural, vaginal births. Though the last one was evicted early due to PIH.
post #50 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by mommajb View Post
Being diabetic can cause the baby to be large but the causality doesn't work in the other direction. There are other reasons to have a big baby. Two that I can think of are 'superior' nutrition and genetics.
Exactly! I've had two big babies too (9#6oz and 10#3oz.) I didn't have GD with either of them. My MW hasn't even asked me to take the test this time because my weight gain has been less than half a pound a week toward the end here.

My babies were long and skinny too like their dad.
post #51 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by Novella View Post
What "happened" is that your body did a lovely job of growing a beautiful, perfect, healthy baby. :

#1 9 lb 14.25 oz
#2 9 lb 1.5 oz
#3 11 lb 1.0 oz

For #1 and #2, I dutifully did the first-level GD screening. For #3 I dutifully did both the first and second level of screening. Even though I passed the first test, they just couldn't believe it was OK and wanted "assurance". :

My last pregnancy was twins. I found out it was twins at an ultrasound performed at the office of an OB I do not like and did not see beyond that. He pronounced very certainly that given the previous birthweights, coupled with carrying twins, it was a certainty I would develop GD in my twin pregnancy.

I didn't. :nana:
Awesome! Just wondering...what did the twins weigh?
post #52 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by jr'smom View Post
My babies were long and skinny too like their dad.
This - My first 9 lber everyone guessed was going to be around 7 when he was born. He was so skiny. Shocked wouldn't even describe it when we weighed him. They actually recalibrated the scale and weighed him 3 more times just to be sure lol. Everyone assumes a big baby is fat, but muscles weighs twice as much as fat. My babies are pretty lean generally. I can say I had 1 "fat" one. Roly poly squishy baby, she was lots of fun to snuggle with. But she was only 8.5 lbs, not even one of the 9 lbers.


That study was a little silly. Almost like they were saying we have no idea why babies get big.
Quote:
Despite these so-called risk factors for macrosomia, much of the variation in birth weights remains unexplained. Most infants who weigh more than 4500 g have no identifiable risk factors.
post #53 of 83
We've only had one baby under 9 pounds in three generations in my family - my brother born at 38 weeks by planned c-section. And he was 8 lb 13 oz at 38 weeks. I really think we just grow "larger" babies - but for us, these are normal babies!
post #54 of 83
Absurd. I wouldn't even consider a baby big until it's at least 10 pounds, personally. :P

I was 9 lbs 12 oz, and my mom is DEFINITELY not diabetic in any way. She's never even been overweight.
post #55 of 83
I was 9lbs. 6oz. My mom was not diabetic. My sil had two babies. Both were 3 weeks early, both were well over 8lbs (so had they been full term they most likely would have reached teh 9lb mark). She is not diabetic. There are plenty of stories in Ina May's spiritual midwifery of healthy women having huge babies and not being diabeitc. Some women just have big babies.
post #56 of 83
My first was 9 lbs 5 oz and I passed the glucose tolerance test twice (17 weeks and again at 26ish weeks).
post #57 of 83
I passed the glucose tolerance test with my first, then switched to a free standing birthcenter with midwives instead of the hospital birth I was planning. It was a good thing I did, because DD#1 was 9lbs, 5oz. At the time I had no idea that in the hospital they might freak out and want to do heel sticks for blood sugar and all that. DD was fine, btw. By the time my insurance kicked in for the next pregnancy, I was already past the time to test for GD, so I didn't have that test. DD#2 was 7lbs 6oz, with no problems either.
post #58 of 83
my older brother was 9lb 14oz i was 8lb 14 oz and little brother was 9lb 10oz and my mom (or anyone else in my fam) doesn't have diabetes
post #59 of 83
Here's another anecdote for ya: my grandmother was a staggering TWELVE POUNDS when she was born. My great-grandmother? Not diabetic. She was just very tall, as was my grandmother (over 6 ft.) All her babies were 10 lbs. and over. Parental body type plays a big role in it.

DS2 was 8 lb. 4 oz., but he was postdates, so if he'd come "on time" he probably would have been closer to the 7 lb. birthweight of his brother. I don't consider that big, though. To me a baby is "huge" when they cross 10 lbs. IMO 8 is the median, 9 and up is just the bigger side of normal.
post #60 of 83
DD was 9lbs 8oz (not diabetic) and me and my 3 sibs were all 9.5 lbs (mom not diabetic). My midwife guessed immediately after birth that DD was 8 pounds but no.

Having tall, skinny babies runs in my family and diabetes does not. I asked my MW about her weight and she said that birth weight is a measure of placental health and weight gain after birth has to do with genetics.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Birth and Beyond
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Pregnancy and Birth › Birth and Beyond › If you have a baby over 9lbs, you are diabetic