obsessing over random comments from strangers - Page 2 « Back to Group Discussions

[guen]

Originally Posted by Thyme Mama 

Good grief! 6 pounds is a TINY baby! My dd was 6 lb 6 oz and she was in preemie clothes for weeks.

In fact, I recently reviewed the section in one of my midwifery textbooks that discusses birth weight and health of the baby, as related to maternal nutrition. From Varney's:

"If a baby does not grow adequately, it is subject to many problems which a larger baby is less likely to have. Some of these include:

*perinatal mortality (stillbirth or infant death)

*small head circumference (indicating poor brain development)

*mental retardation

*cerebral palsy

*learning problems

*visual and hearing defects

*poor growth and development

Category 1: 5 lb 8 oz and less: Many problems as listed above

Category 2: 5 lb 8 oz to 6 lb 10 oz: 3X higher incidence of the same problems than #3

Category 3: 6 lb 10 oz to 7 lb 12 oz: Improved health over #2

Category 4: 7 lb 12 oz to 8 lb 14 oz: Higher intelligence and less disability"

Thia is not to say that having a small baby means certain problems, but I will say from personal experience that my largest baby (8 lb 6 oz) is my healthiest child in every way, with the least amount of "learning disabilities". My smallest baby, DD at 6 lb 6 oz, has Aspergers. She is also still very small: 40 pounds at nearly 7 years old.

Unfortunately, due to the cultural shift in birth, which is not limited to early induction and poor maternal nutrition from dieting during pregnancy, people believe that anything over 8 lb is a HUGE, HUMUNGOUS, WHOPPER of a baby.   Which is simply *not* true.

ETA: Frye's Midwifery also states that well nourished women will usually have babies that weigh 6 lb 8 oz or more, although factors such as genetics must be taken into account. Also, as little as 4 oz in birth weight can make a difference in the overall health of a newborn, as those who have had preemies can attest to, The same goes for full-term babies.

Interesting. My first and fourth babies were a little over 5 lbs. each, born at 37 weeks and 35 weeks respectively, first induced (pre-e) and fourth PPROM.  My second and third were born spontaneously between 38 and 39 weeks and were a little over 6 lbs. and 7 lbs. respectively.  My first and fourth have no apparent learning disabilities and are sharp as tacks (true, the youngest is only 3, but she's very much like her 15 y.o. sister at this age and ahead of schedule on milestones).  My second has ADHD and was chronically ill with lung infections his first three years of life (once even hospitalized) and third has learning disabilities. 

I guess my kids aren't too interested in probabilities, LOL.  In addition to that, babies 1 and 4 were interventive births with seperation after birth and NICU time and both had to be supplemented with formula to one extent or other.  Babies 2 and 3 were born completely spontaneously and naturally (3 was a home water birth), no separation after birth and both were exclusively breastfed.  (All were breastfed into toddlerhood.)

So, based on my tiny sample, I should be aiming for an induced and/or premature interventive birth of a small baby with separation and formula supplementation after birth, right?  NOT.  ;-)

 

[Thyme Mama]

Originally Posted by guen 

Interesting. My first and fourth babies were a little over 5 lbs. each, born at 37 weeks and 35 weeks respectively, first induced (pre-e) and fourth PPROM.  My second and third were born spontaneously between 38 and 39 weeks and were a little over 6 lbs. and 7 lbs. respectively.  My first and fourth have no apparent learning disabilities and are sharp as tacks (true, the youngest is only 3, but she's very much like her 15 y.o. sister at this age and ahead of schedule on milestones).  My second has ADHD and was chronically ill with lung infections his first three years of life (once even hospitalized) and third has learning disabilities. 

I guess my kids aren't too interested in probabilities, LOL.  In addition to that, babies 1 and 4 were interventive births with seperation after birth and NICU time and both had to be supplemented with formula to one extent or other.  Babies 2 and 3 were born completely spontaneously and naturally (3 was a home water birth), no separation after birth and both were exclusively breastfed.  (All were breastfed into toddlerhood.)

So, based on my tiny sample, I should be aiming for an induced and/or premature interventive birth of a small baby with separation and formula supplementation after birth, right?  NOT.  ;-)

 

Your experiences are interesting! One thought that I had about your story is that babies gain 1/2 lb per week on average from 36 weeks or so on. So it seems like maybe your first and fourth *would* have been bigger babies than their siblings at birth, had they been full-term? Maybe even though they were early, they have stronger constitutions than the middles? Another thought I had too was that, as mothers, we are very instinctive. Maybe #'s 2 & 3 had the best birth for them you know? Maybe your thirds' learning disabilities would be more severe had they been born in a hospital, for whatever reason. And again, a little over 6 pounds does still put a baby in the "risk" category. My 6 pounder has Aspergers and all sorts of issues. Born at home, breastfed till 3, never vaxed, we eat very clean, no household pollutants etc etc blah blah. Go figure. Sometimes there is just no rhyme or reason that we can find.

Okay, I will stop rambling now.

[kparker]

Interesting info on birth weights, etc.

I was born at 34 weeks and was 6lbs 10oz. I have a feeling I'd've been a monster if I'd made it to my due date! Maybe that's why I did so well, myself, like Thyme Mama suggested ("Maybe even though they were early, they have stronger constitutions").

[guen]

Originally Posted by Thyme Mama 

Your experiences are interesting! One thought that I had about your story is that babies gain 1/2 lb per week on average from 36 weeks or so on. So it seems like maybe your first and fourth *would* have been bigger babies than their siblings at birth, had they been full-term? Maybe even though they were early, they have stronger constitutions than the middles? Another thought I had too was that, as mothers, we are very instinctive. Maybe #'s 2 & 3 had the best birth for them you know? Maybe your thirds' learning disabilities would be more severe had they been born in a hospital, for whatever reason. And again, a little over 6 pounds does still put a baby in the "risk" category. My 6 pounder has Aspergers and all sorts of issues. Born at home, breastfed till 3, never vaxed, we eat very clean, no household pollutants etc etc blah blah. Go figure. Sometimes there is just no rhyme or reason that we can find.

Okay, I will stop rambling now.

I hadn't thought about the weight differences.  Interesting point!  At a rate of a half pound a week, my first probably wouldn't have been any bigger than my second and third babies, but my fourth might well have been.  She's tiny now though, the size of an 18 month old at age 3 but very healthy and quite on the mark developmentally, so I'm not too concerned with her size! 

As to giving our babies the best start in life, I think a lot of the time, information is presented in such a way that we are given to believe that if we do this, that or the other thing, our children will have no issues.  It just doesn't work that way.  I believe a lot of  it is down to good old fashioned genetics and there's not much we can do to actually change that.  However, by making the best choices we can for our children, we can help them meet their full potential.  As you pointed out, my DD's learning disabilities might have been worse if she hadn't had the gentle, natural homebirth that she had. Likewise, my second child, who suffered from chronic lung infections the first three years of his life might have been a great deal sicker and not come through it nearly as well as he did if he hadn't been exclusively breastfed and breastfed for his first 3 1/2 years (there was a concern he'd develop asthma from the chronic infections, which he didn't, and he's a very healthy 12 y.o. now, rarely ever sick).  Likewise for DD and her learning disabities.  She's had some speech impediments as well as other issues.  I don't believe exclusive and extended breastfeeding "failed to protect" her but rather, helped minimize her problems as much as could be.  It sounds like you've given your little Aspie the best possible start in life and maximized his chances to develop to his full potential! 

[MrsKoehn]

"If a baby does not grow adequately, it is subject to many problems which a larger baby is less likely to have. Some of these include:

*perinatal mortality (stillbirth or infant death)

*small head circumference (indicating poor brain development)

*mental retardation

*cerebral palsy

*learning problems

*visual and hearing defects

*poor growth and development

Category 1: 5 lb 8 oz and less: Many problems as listed above

I was only 9 days early and 5 lbs 3 oz. I dropped in the hospital to 4 lbs 10 oz.  Obviously I wasn't stillborn, I've got a higher than average though certainly not through the roof IQ and developed fine, just small. No palsy. I AM a little bit dyslexic, but not severe at all. In fact, all 6 of us (ranging in weight from me up to 9 1/2 lbs) have it to some degree. I was the only one to need glasses, though my eyes at almost 33 are still not as bad as Mom's first pair (age 8). I am still only 5' tall, but short, chesty women are in both sides of the family so it *could* be partly genetic.

Mom said she knows she didn't eat right or even know anything about health and babies when she was carrying me. I do have health issues and I guess they started at the age of 2 with hives from a blue raspberry frozen slushie thing. (Remember the ones in the thing with the blue and red dog? Yes, one of those). Then I was fine till I got overly stressed in college and got Crohns which has led to a bunch of stuff.

I have done my best to keep my health up this pregnancy but the baby is still pretty small. I wasn't too noticeably pregnant till 8 1/2 months. At 39 weeks tomorrow, I'm still only 11 lbs over pre pregnancy weight (so I'm 124) and measuring 34 weeks as of Friday. My largest part of my belly is 39".... I'm doing all I can and since baby's still put and quite active, I think baby's fine. Just probably small. And I don't think I'm carrying a lot of water either.

[wendelberry]

Originally Posted by MrsKoehn 

I was only 9 days early and 5 lbs 3 oz. I dropped in the hospital to 4 lbs 10 oz.  Obviously I wasn't stillborn, I've got a higher than average though certainly not through the roof IQ and developed fine, just small. No palsy. I AM a little bit dyslexic, but not severe at all. In fact, all 6 of us (ranging in weight from me up to 9 1/2 lbs) have it to some degree. I was the only one to need glasses, though my eyes at almost 33 are still not as bad as Mom's first pair (age 8). I am still only 5' tall, but short, chesty women are in both sides of the family so it *could* be partly genetic.

Mom said she knows she didn't eat right or even know anything about health and babies when she was carrying me. I do have health issues and I guess they started at the age of 2 with hives from a blue raspberry frozen slushie thing. (Remember the ones in the thing with the blue and red dog? Yes, one of those). Then I was fine till I got overly stressed in college and got Crohns which has led to a bunch of stuff.

I have done my best to keep my health up this pregnancy but the baby is still pretty small. I wasn't too noticeably pregnant till 8 1/2 months. At 39 weeks tomorrow, I'm still only 11 lbs over pre pregnancy weight (so I'm 124) and measuring 34 weeks as of Friday. My largest part of my belly is 39".... I'm doing all I can and since baby's still put and quite active, I think baby's fine. Just probably small. And I don't think I'm carrying a lot of water either.

Yeah, the important thing to remember about those weight/problems statistics is that they're only likelihoods, not guarantees.  There might be a bunch of stuff involved with a lot of low-birthweight babies like smoking or alcohol use that increase the risk of trouble for that group, even though there are also a lot of healthy babies in that group.  I am the healthiest of four siblings and my mom says she took the best care of herself during her pregnancy with me-- more anectodal evidence, but sometimes anectodal evidence makes the most sense to look at.  Why should it be more accurate for you to include yourself in a large group of mamas, some of whom have definite risk factors you don't share?  It sounds like you're taking great care of yourself and your baby, and that eliminates a lot of the risk of a potentially small baby right there.  

I'm having the opposite problem-- I don't want another 11+ pounder like my second (though DH and I laughed about how smart that kid should be according to the above list of birthweight issues!), but when I deliberately tried to keep my third's weight down, she ended up smaller (8-13) but with a nuchal arm.  I thought maybe it was just too roomy in there for her to get into a perfect position.  So with this one I'm not sure which way to go-- just trying to eat as healthy as I can and hope for the best!