or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Pregnancy and Birth › Birth and Beyond › Bigger than average?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Bigger than average?

Poll Results: How big was your first full term baby?

  • 2% (4)
    Less than 6 lbs
  • 11% (17)
    6 lbs and oz
  • 26% (39)
    7lbs and oz
  • 30% (45)
    8 lbs and oz
  • 20% (30)
    9 lbs and oz
  • 7% (11)
    10 lbs and oz
  • 0% (0)
    11 lbs and up
146 Total Votes  
post #1 of 44
Thread Starter 
Is it just me or do the 'crunchier' moms have bigger babies? One of my facebook friends just had a baby a little over 10 lbs and I realized I haven't heard of many small (but full term) babies besides in the 'mainstream'. I think I'll make a survey just for fun.
post #2 of 44
I hear you! So often around here women are having 9+ pound babies! In the "real world" you hear 6 1/2... I know that some women are going to have small babies, no problem, but I wonder if others just "get" to go full term.
post #3 of 44
Interesting question.

DD1 was born at 43+1 weeks and was only 8lb 13oz - which is pretty small for my family. Most babies are a minimum of 9lb in our family.

She was born in the Czech Republic, and while I was pregnant I was advised (by a few different HCPs) not to take prenatal vitamins, and to watch what I ate because I didn't want to have a 'big baby'. When DD was born they totally freaked out about her size - apparently they'd never seen such a big baby before. Assumed she/I had GD, even though I'd done the tests and passed with flying colours, so we had to undergo a whole heap of blood sticks. Most of the babies born there (to normal, healthy-sized women) were in the 5-6 lb range, which to me looks sickly-small for term babies. I have no idea why they were all so small though...
post #4 of 44
possibly more natural minded moms are doing things like the Brewer diet. Higher protein intake=bigger baby? Not for me, we're average sized folk around here no matter how much protein I stuff in my face...
post #5 of 44
Both of my daughters were 19.5 inches long. My first one was 9 pounds 9 ounces and my second one was a mere 5 pounds 6 ounces.

The difference: 1st pregnancy I consumed large quantities of protein by way of soy protein shakes and ate lots of healthy vegetables. I was also working and working out nearly every day up until 3 days before she was born. Diet and exercise
2nd pregnancy: No exercise. Not as much protein. Breastfed first baby up until I was 3 months pregnant when the pregnancy hormones put a stop to my normally abundant milk supply Conception was only 20 weeks after the birth of my first child, so my body was nowhere near recovered.

1st, bigger baby, was born a mere 3 days past the EDD.
2nd, tiny baby, was born a week or so past the EDD and wasn't getting any bigger.
post #6 of 44
Thread Starter 
I was 8lbs 6oz and the largest baby born in that hospital all day. I used to think that was huge. Now I'm not quite so sure...
post #7 of 44
I think you're more likely to hear of naturally born larger babies because they're left alone and allowed to be born when they're ready.

For me, my first was 7lb14oz and my 2nd and 3rd were 7-2 and 7-4. So not big! All were born in their own time. With the younger ones, I had a MW who encouraged me to avoid sugars, especially in the 3rd trimester. I did very well with that with #2 (7-2), mostly well with that with #3 (7-4). This time, I'm not doing so well... Trying, but not always succeeding (I say as I eat white-flour-wrapped kolaches). So I'm guessing this one might be about 7-8. But even my first, no-special-diet baby was under 8lbs so I just don't grow them very big!
post #8 of 44
8lbs 11oz, a bit on the large side but not huge. Growing up I heard a lot of 7 or 8 lb and change babes. Surely the doctors terrified of big babies, warning against weight gain, inducing at 40 weeks (earlier if the u/s looks big!) make for a lot of small babies. My doctor was scared of big babies, repeatedly said things about it, but DH and I laughed it off. I think her grandchild's birth had a shoulder discotia and that's what really skewed her thinking about baby size.
post #9 of 44
I had smaller babies. My first was 7lbs8oz. 2nd was 7lbs3oz, and third was 6lbs2oz (but he was a month early, so he was pretty good sized for gestation).
post #10 of 44
9lbs14oz but I don't feel that pregnancy was very "crunchy," I did not eat so well!

He was however born at 42 weeks.
post #11 of 44
I don't fit the profile!

I was nowhere near crunchy with my first two, who were 7lb9oz, then 9lb2oz. I got progressively crunchier along the way, while the next two birth weights were 8lb10oz and 7lb15oz. All 4 were born between 40w1d and 42w.
post #12 of 44
My midwife says she does tend to see bigger babies at home than would be normal for the hospital. Could be not pushing for an induction or automatically assuming GD and pushing for a section or actually allowing women to eat what they need to and not worry about weight gain.

My oldest is 7 1/2lbs. I've had them up to 9lbs. 12oz.
post #13 of 44
Mine were 7lbs14.5oz and 8lbs8oz. I was crunchier the 2nd time, and ate with Brewer in mind (but not strictly Brewers diet). My main difference was that i was hypothyroid the first time (untreated).

I have a really not-very-crunchy friend who had #1 7lbs even and #2 10lbs4oz and there was nothing different about the 2nd pregnancy, he just grew bigger than his sister.

I was a c-section at 37+4 and 8lbs6oz, so i can only imagine i would have been a 10lber if i'd stayed and cooked to 42weeks. My mother and i are both very tall though (her 6', me 5'11") with large frames, so an 8 or 9lb baby is not at ALL large for us.
post #14 of 44
My only so far came at 37w, so term, but just barely. he was 6lbs 7 oz.
post #15 of 44
I had a completely uncrunchy pregnancy and delivery that ended with an induction and subsequent CS at 39 weeks. He was over 10#. My next was born at 38 weeks and was just under 10 pounds. My vote helps the average for this board get a little higher but I was completely mainstream My family has a lot of 10 pound babies in it so for us it's just the 'average' size.
post #16 of 44
I really think "crunchy" mamas tend to make sure their babies get to cook as long as they need, rather than letting themselves get induced at 40 weeks, and probably worry about weight gain less than some mainstream moms. Though my LO was only 6lb10oz, but I think if I hadn't been as stressed at the time she would have waited a little longer (she was 39 weeks exactly)
post #17 of 44
all three of mine were between 9 and 10 lbs but they were all "late".
post #18 of 44
I think you're more likely to hear of naturally born larger babies because they're left alone and allowed to be born when they're ready.
I agree. I think the crunchier moms are the ones who are more likely to be seeing midwives and going to 42 and 43 weeks! Not as common with a lot of the OB practices. I think even if some moms intend to leave things alone, they get pressured to induce, etc.
post #19 of 44
Mine, in birth order, were 7lbs 15oz, 8lbs, 7lbs 14oz, 9lbs 4oz (no idea what happened there!), and 7lbs 14oz. All born within a day of their edd, all came in their own time.
post #20 of 44
My first was born at 34 weeks and was 5lb 10oz
My second was born at 39 weeks and was 6lb 8oz
My third was born at 43 weeks and was 8lb 8oz

I don't grow very huge babies at all.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Birth and Beyond
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Pregnancy and Birth › Birth and Beyond › Bigger than average?