"They" say...

[Honey693]

I always hear "they" say second labors are shorter and second babies come earlier. Who is "they" in this case? And are there any studies that prove the truth behind the statements or is this just something everyone says once you have one kid so you'll have a second?

[homemademom]

I personally haven't heard that second babies have shorter labors and come earlier, but I have heard numerous times and experienced myself that pushing is usually easier and quicker with the second.

[hjdmom24]

I have heard that many times also but my personal experience has been the opposite..my labors have gotten longer with each child and I have gone farther past my EDD each time too now that i think about it!

[babycatcher12]

I think "they" is the proverbial "they". Speaking anecdotally... as an L&D nurse, *most* of the time you can expect shorter pushing with a second or third etc time mom and their labors are *usually* shorter, but certainly not always. Pushing is usually shorter I think just because you do a lot of work the first time you don't have to do the second time.
I haven't heard that they come earlier.

I haven't labored (yet) other than to be induced with my first, so I have no point of reference for myself. However, my mom said her first labor (with me) started with her water breaking about midnight or so with no contractions until 4pm that afternoon. I was born at 8:30pm. So a total of about 4.5 hours. With my brother (her only other labor), she started mild contractions around noon, she walked to the hospital and started what she calls "hard labor" around 4:00. He was born by 7pm.
So who knows?

I really think each labor is different just like each baby is different.

[EMAID]

So my MW said that her experience has been that first labors are the longest, second labors are the shortest, and third labors are somewhere in between. She was not implying that this happened all the time of course, just often. And we were only discussing length of labor, not ease/pain level/timing.

I'm hopefully almost done with pregnancy #3 now, but this was my experience. Unfortunately I did a black and blue cohash home induction with #2, so I can't say when my labor would have happened or how it would have been if it had been *truly* natural. As it is, I did the induction at 3 days past my due date. My first labor was about twelve hours long, if you count from when the contractions got regular (I'd had irregular mild contractions all the previous afternoon). Pushing took me a full 3 1/2 hours with #1, but there were complications (she was not engaged). I was 5 days past my due date when #1 was born. With #2, my entire labor was literally 5 hours, from the first contraction to birth, and I only pushed 3 times. My last push was to birth the head, the baby actually kicked his little legs and almost swam out of me, and fell on the bed, it happened so fast.

I think the whole idea is based on anecdotal evidence, but a lot of it. And I think it kind of makes sense too- your body has done it before, your muscles are more relaxed, etc.

[owlgirl]

As an L&D RN the general consensus is that any births after the first are shorter. This is contingent on many factors: Labor begins spontaneously, same FOB (same genetics), no other unusual complications like GDM or massive weight gain. My personal theory is that once a cervix dilates to 10 it doesn't forget. I have seen this countless times even when there are huge time gaps between kids, like 20!! I have never heard or experienced the shorter gestational period though.

[AutumnAir]

Well, I don't know about labour length, but I believe that the same study which found that the average length of gestation for a white first time mom was 41+1 weeks, also found that the average length for multips (presumably also white!) was 40+3 weeks. So apparently, yes, there is evidence that second/subsequent babies do come earlier. (Don't have the links to hand - though someone else must have them!?)