How Big is Too Big, Really?

[Ninetales]

I was always very adamant that our bodies won't grow a baby too big to birth. It just didn't make sense otherwise. But then I had Elsa and ended up with a c-section after 36 hours of active labor in which she didn't descend and I never felt an urge to push, even after being at 10 for hours.

I've come to terms with what happened to me, but knowing how much I wanted to have a natural birth center experience, people try to make me feel better by telling me that no one could have birthed a baby so big naturally, especially given her head size (15.2). And I wonder, is that really true? Could I really have done it?

Is there a point where a baby really is just "too big?" Or even if the baby could be birthed naturally, is there a line you draw because of possible damage, re: tailbone or cervical damage, or broken collarbone on the baby, things like that. Or is it situational, where you just know things aren't right during the labor?

As much as I have accepted the situation, I do still wonder if I took the "easy" way out (I know c-sections aren't easy, believe me, but you know what I mean).

Thoughts?

[Burnindinner]

I have no idea, but I wanted to say - 13 pounds? That IS a big baby! As I am sure you know. I hope someone else has answers for you.

[Lineymom]

Interesting, there has to be some upper limit and it would of course very by the mom's body type. Also you can't know the weight prior to birth!
I had big babies #1 10lb4
#2 11lb1
#3 9lb10
The biggest ones (my boys) had 15in heads I believe. The smallest, my 3rd was 14.5in. She was the one with shoulder dystosia, though. So much of it has to do with presentation, I think, like a key in a lock, I've heard. Also, probably head molding, if the head molds it would probably descend better??? But that doesn't help with birthing the shoulders!!!!

And you can't go by weight alone, as you mentioned the head circumference. A 23in 11lber (as mine was) is a lot different than a 19in one!

I am slender built and people are shocked about the size of my babies, but I literally felt my pelvic bones expanding as they descended, yet I still had a dyscosia last time, so it *almost* wasn't enough.

[billikengirl]

I doubt there's any hard and fast rule, barring skeletal deformity or uncontrolled diabetes or some other rare situation.

I imagine positioning has something to do with it as well--you hear so many stories of the posterior or asynclitic (or other not quite ideal presentation) 7ish pounder that wouldn't come vaginally no matter how hard mom and HCP(s) worked and then that same mama VBACs a 9 or 10+lber.

I wouldn't say you gave up or took an easy way out. In your situation with the long labor and no descent laboring and/or pushing in all kinds of positions and no pushing urge, I probably would have considered how an instrumental delivery could increase the risk of SD or other problems for a baby who already didn't seem to want to come that way and reached the same conclusion.

[honeybee]

My father was 12+ pounds when he was born. He was my grandmother's 6th child in 6 years. I don't know the details, but my grandmother did not come home from the hospital with my dad... she was there for weeks later, and after having 6 children in a row, she did not have another child after that, and she had supposedly wanted 12. She did birth him vaginally, and they both survived... but the cost was high. But then again, this was the era of twilight sleep... so I have no idea what her birthing situation was like.

I don't think there's an upper weight limit. I agree it is very situational in terms of baby's position and mother's ability to move into different positions in labor. I think a majority of babies that are labeled "too big" by the doctors are only too big because moms are flat on their backs, hooked up to monitors, and unable to birth upright or change positions very well.... not to mention the babies are being prematurely pushed out before they're ready by induction or augmentation. Head circumference and positioning are probably more important than weight.

It sounds like you did everything you could, and made the best decision you could at the time. Some c-sections are certainly necessary and beneficial, even if they aren't what we'd prefer.

[MujerMamaMismo]

Honestly, unless there's something wrong with the baby, your pelvis can cope with the size of the baby you grow. The pelvis is incredibly maneuverable and stretchy during labour and is designed to pop babies out.

I imagine though, that a baby with a large head would have less margin for error in terms of poor positioning if it wants to be born vaginally.

Really, it's all about optimal fetal positioning, firstly to dilate well and then as the babe wriggles through the birth canal.

In your case, it sounds like your beautiful big baby wasn't especially well positioned - perhaps her head was slightly tilted - and that's what caused the need for a ceaserean birth. Did you dilate to 10, do you know?

[MujerMamaMismo]

Also, I just wanted to add that it's really normal to have disappointment around your labour and birth and it certainly doesn't take an unwanted surgical birth for that to happen. I had a wonderful, unmedicated birth that went suddenly pear shaped after 4.5hrs of pushing and ended up with an episiotomy. I spent 18 months asking questions until I felt truly comfortable in the belief that my episiotomy was essential. Prior to that, I carried a lot of sadness and disappointment around what was, ostensibly, a beautiful and easy labour. I really needed that validation though, that i'd done the right thing by my babe and myself and wasn't just caught in the cascade!

It's good that you're asking questions. Keep asking them - they will really help you resolve the way you're feeling now.

[ledzepplon]

I have no idea as far as the technicalities of your question. I would imagine that the vast majority of women would not "grow" a baby their bodies could not deliver. That being said, aren't there always exceptions? I know that I certainly could feel the difference between 8.5 lbs (my first two kids) and almost 9.5 lbs (my #3), so I can't imagine 13.5 lbs!

36 hours of active labor, a c-section, and a baby weighing nearly twice what the average mom carries doesn't sound remotely like "the easy way out." You did an amazing thing to give birth to a healthy human being, and I hope that getting more answers to your questions will silence the voices of doubt that you're currently hearing within yourself.

[Ninetales]

I definitely got to 10. It just took a long time.

The part about positioning makes a lot of sense. I hadn't even really considered that as a factor, but she went head down and pretty much stayed in the same spot starting at 26 weeks. She wasn't straight up and down, she was kind of sideways. And when I think back, I remember my midwives talking about how they could feel her head being kind of tilted, or something like that. Definitely they mentioned her positioning.

I tried every position known to man, but I had pain in my back that never stopped, so most things hurt me. I wonder if my back hadn't hurt so badly I might have been able to get into a position that helped her move?

[BetsyS]

With my first, he was stubbornly, persistently OP, and he just wouldn't fit. I was 9.5 cm for about 10.5 hours with him, with a rim of cervix that just wouldn't go away.

I had a c-section with him. He was 11 lb, 14oz.

My third was persistently transverse lie, and he never got into a position that let his head put enough pressure on my cervix to really make a difference. He was "only" 11 lb, 1oz, though.

I used to (before babies) strongly believe that your body wouldn't grow a baby too, but after a couple of really large babies, I just don't know anymore.

[VillageMom6]

Honey, I think most women would kneel down in awe at your feet at hearing you were carrying a 13 1/2 pound baby!

You did everything you could! You labored for 36 hours... you were at a 10 for hours... baby wasn't positioned ideally... you were in an enormous amount of pain.

It sounds to me like yours is the kind of situation for which cesareans were invented. Had this been 1810 instead of 2010, you and darling Elsa might not have fared so well.

Congratulations on the arrival of your precious baby!

[Galatea]

That is a giant baby and I would not feel bad at all!!!!!!!!!

I think people can and do grow babies that are too large for them... but it is not very common. I think the reason why you might hear the saying on MDC that bodies don't grow babies that are too big to birth is b/c we are reacting against all the stories out there where the woman "had" to go right to a c-section or whatever b/c her baby was 9 lbs or something. Just a reaction against those stories.

[terra-pip]

Originally Posted by Galatea

That is a giant baby and I would not feel bad at all!!!!!!!!!

I think people can and do grow babies that are too large for them... but it is not very common. I think the reason why you might hear the saying on MDC that bodies don't grow babies that are too big to birth is b/c we are reacting against all the stories out there where the woman "had" to go right to a c-section or whatever b/c her baby was 9 lbs or something. Just a reaction against those stories.

I had two 9 pounders naturally no tearing etc. It always amazes me when people are wowed by that. (9 pounds is a good healthy babe....no issue at all.

I have a friend who is itty bitty and short and a Husband who is very tall...with both her babies they seemed to be a bit too big for her. Very long and uncomfortable births that didn't progress well. Not sure really how much genectics between the partners plays in this at all. <shrug>

[Ninetales]

Haha, I worked until two weeks before she was born, too. My co-workers came to visit and were just like, "how were you walking around?!" It really wasn't that bad. I felt fine.

Thank you all for the kind words - they are very reassuring.