Moms that have had fast labors, come on in please!

[Lauren82]

So I have had 3 children so far and my labor times from start to finish have went like this:

DS (baby #1): 8 hours natural labor
DD (baby #2): 10 hours (induced so I don't know how long I would have went naturally)
DD2 (baby #3) 2.5 hours natural labor

Is it likely that I will have this baby really fast too, or could it go either way? I'd like to hear your thoughts and experiences. Thanks mamas!

[lynsage]

I asked my midwife about this because I had a 4-hour labor with my first, at home with no medications, etc. and I have heard that if you have a fast labor with your first, it's REALLY fast with your second.

She said it could go either way, it really depends on a lot of factors, and she's seen some moms with fast labors have slower labors with consecutive babies.

[buckeye_mama]

I'd be interested to hear others' experiences, too!

DS1: 44 hours total, 4 cm for a week or two, small leak of amniotic fluid, freaked out and went straight to the hospital...no regular pattern of contractions so I ended up with pitocin, epidural, pushing 2 1/2 hours (he was posterior)

DS2: 2 1/2 hours from start to finish, fingertip dialted (as far as I know) right up until I went into labor, completely natural, barely made it to the hospital in time

Obviously birth #2 was a LOT shorter, but DS2 was also over a full pound smaller than his big brother, even with showing signs of being "overcooked" at 39 weeks! Built more like his mama

I had complete opposite experiences, so I'm really, really wondering how this one will go

[ibusymomto5]

I think there may be a tendency to have fast or short labors, but so many things can play into it too(external factors that could slow down labor, short cord that makes it hard for baby to descend, posterior or asynclitic presentation, etc.)

My first natural labor(3rd baby) was 20hrs, but each one since has been much shorter only lasting from less than 3hrs to 6hrs from start to finish. The 6hr labor was my 8th baby. It was longer because he was posterior, but I suppose that would still be considered a fairly short labor by most. I think it's interesting that my mom also had short natural labors. Her 1st was 6hrs(me), and her 2nd(my brother) was frank breech and only 3hrs start to finish.

I wish it was a for sure thing to always have fast labors if you've had them previously, but I've known too many people who have had longer subsequent labors for various reasons. Two of my good friends each had 20hr+ natural labors with their last babies when most of their other natural labors were much shorter. With one friend her baby was presenting asynclitic(head wedged in pelvis crooked), and that's what slowed it down. Not sure why the other friends labor was so much longer. I only know it totally caught her off guard, because she was expecting it to be another fast birth like her others. I know even for me with my last one being 6hrs instead of 3hrs, it seemed like it lasted so long just because I'd been used to 1/2 that amount of time for my last several babies. I'm praying for a short labor this time!!

[rparker]

Labor #1: 6 hours

Labor #2: I'm going with 3 hours 45 minutes (when my water broke and I couldn't "ignore" my labor), but I could also throw out a time of 30 hours and/or several days/weeks of labor stopping/starting. 95% of my "labor contractions" (i.e. during those 3 hours 45 minutes) were painless/a feeling of pressure that was identical to the prodromal labor I had for several weeks beforehand. I didn't believe that they were "actual contractions" until I saw one on the EFM.

Point of the story: prodromal labor and/or braxton-hicks contractions seem to increase a lot with subsequent pregnancies. My friend just had the same experience of prodromal labor for weeks and then a very fast (under 3 hours), painful labor. Her first baby took a lot longer, but she had an epidural and pitocin augmentation with that birth.

Um, so it seems like subsequent births DO go faster, but maybe that's because the uterus gets a lot more practice in first? I probably wouldn't have made it to the hospital in time if I hadn't been clued in by my water breaking.

[nova22]

DC#1: 12hr labor, 1 day after EDD
DC#2: 3hr labor, 2 weeks before EDD
DC#3: 12hr labor, 2 weeks after EDD
DC#4: 8hr labor, 3 weeks after EDD
DC#5: emergency c/s (no active labor), 7 weeks before EDD

As you can see my labors are generally 8-12hrs but there are so many other factors that I'm beginning to think none of my labors will actually turn out as I expected. Who knows if they'll be early or late, or if my water will break (it did three times), or if there will be something to delay the labor (for #3, she was heading towards my hip instead of engaging).

[an_aurora]

I believe that once you have one fast labor, you are far more likely to have fast labors for subsequent children. My labors were 7, 2, and 2 hours, respectively. My mom's longest labor was 2.5 hours, and that was an induction.

[Buddhamom]

Hmmm, I was in the hospital for 10 hours before ,y first was born naturally with no meds, IV's or anything with a midwife. Born on due date.

second I was in the hospital for 20 min. before she born naturally with no meds, IV's or anything with a midwife. Born 10 days late.

So I am interested to see how fast this one comes for me.

[~Katie~]

DS - 11.5 hour labor started at 40 weeks, born at 40/1 weeks. No interventions.

DD - 3-4 hour labor, prodromal contractions for 2 or 3 weeks prior so I started "real" labor at 5cm. Born at 39.4 weeks. No interventions.

This time around I'm expecting another quick one but I've heard #3 is the wild card.

[Annemarie42]

#1: 30 hours (heavily augmented labor d/t HBP), 37 weeks
#2: 4 hours (delivered 10 min. after walking into the hospital), 40 weeks exactly. Prodromal labor for about 2 weeks.
#3: ask me tomorrow. ;-) Prodromal labor from 36-41 weeks. Hoping for a quick one, but not counting on it; as the pp said, #3 is supposed to be a wild card and so far this pregnancy has been.

[soccerchic21]

I am also curious how fast I will go.

#1 - 24 hours almost to the minute induced

#2 - 12 hours to pushing (I did take a ton of RRLT the days leading up to labor)

So with this one if I cut in half again 6 hours sounds good to me.

[Beverly]

All of my labors have started and proceeded naturally. I did have and epidural the first two times. Here's how they went, from start to finish:

#1 -- 8 hours
#2 -- 17 hours
#3 -- 5 hours
#4 -- 9 hours

So yeah, they're kind of all over the place. I don't know what'll happen this time, but obviously I'm hoping it'll be on the shorter side.

[Mamatoabunch]

Most of mine have been fast, around 4 hours or under.

#1 and #2 no labor, c/s
#3 25 hours
#4 3 hours 45 min
#5 3 hours 45 min
#6 3 hours 45 min
#7 15 hours
#8 2 45 min
#9 4 hours
#10 4 hours or so

You just never know.

[Hedgehog Mtn]

#1 - 5 hours from water breaking (3.5 hours from first contraction) posterior baby with 2 hours pushing
#2 - precipitous <5 min and before midwife arrived
#3 - 8 hours and I took a 4 year break after that
#4 - <1 hour barely waited for midwife
#5 - <1 hour

ask me in March about #6

[germin8]

I've only had one and she came quickly. I also had a cervix that was effacing at week ~30. Midwife thinks that is why I had a fast labor. We're thinking the next one will be faster...oh my, may as well have a homebirth!

DS#1: 4.5 hrs (2 hours of which were pushing) @ 40 weeks and 1 day; natural, no meds

[butterflies]

#1: 20 hrs, a little over an hour pushing
#2: 3 hrs, pushed 15 min?

Both are counting from the first "real" contraction-- my water didn't break until I was ready to push. I had lots of prodromal stuff with #1 but only BH with #2.

I seriously hope these babies just fall right out.

[KindRedSpirit]

#1-2 hrs.20 min.
#2-8 hrs
#3-13 hrs (stuck,did some yoga, birthed 20 min later.)
#4-6 hrs
#5-5 hrs

All at home, the last 3 in water.

The best advice I have,is if you are having a fast labor,get in water!It sooths, can slow(#5 would have been 3 hr labor, but I got in the pool)and best of all, the tearing is so much less!(from my experience.)

[donutmolly]

I'd agree with #3 being the wildcard!

DD1 -- (48 hours prodromal labor) 6 hours active labor
DD2 -- 3 hours labor (from first ctx!)
DD3 -- 7 hours (so, my longest labor, helped along with castor oil at 42 weeks!)

I sort of expected DD3 to be a super-fast birth, but was surprised by a baby who took her time, both my ealier births were very near their EDD's -- my guess is that she was not ideally positioned at first, but really who knows? I'd prefer another very quick birth this time around, although I know that I've been pretty fortunate in having even my "long" labors be awfully short...

[swell_mel]

#1 was 7.5 hours. #2 was 4.5 hours. I'm expecting #3 to be fast as well but you never know. One of my friends has 4 children and her first 2 were under 6 hours, #3 was nearly a whole day and #4 was about 12 hours.

[starbyfar7]

im interested in this too..

my first was 6 hours natural labor in a hospital setting.

im hoping my second will be quicker and the "general" rule is that subsequent babies are bigger with shorter labours.. but as it is with everything else in medicine.. nothing is 100% certain except for the fact that nothing is 100% certain lol.. i've known women that have had ridiculously slow labours the first time around and lightening fast labours second time around and women with lots of kids that seem to toggle back and forth between short and long.. but never as long as the first. the first from what i've seen, is the longest/worst.

but i had my baby 7 years ago! i wonder how this rule applies to women with kids faaar apart in age? i can see why a mama popping kids out year after year would have a body that has grown acclimated to the labour process.. but i hope mine isnt rusty!