or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Archives › Pregnancy and Birth Archives › Due Date Clubs 2004 - 2008  › December 2005 › DDDC - My babies are really tiny
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

DDDC - My babies are really tiny

post #1 of 14
Thread Starter 
Tonight DH and I were out with some people for dinner, and afterwards we were walking around and this woman came up and was like, "Are they twins?" And I said yes, and she said, "I have twins too!" And she did...these ENORMOUS "babies" that she and her husband were carrying around. They were both boys, about twice the size of Kalpana and Amrita. I'm not kidding. I asked how old they are, and she said they are....8 MONTHS OLD1!!! My girls are almost 7 months!

What is going on?

I know they are in a low percentile for weight, and I know that a completely ridiculous number of middle class moms here formula feed--even more when it's twin moms. Heck, people think I'm nuts for continuing to b-feed still. So I shouldn't be shocked seeing big round babies.

But Kalpana and Amrita are really kinda thin. Like, when they stretch out, sometimes their ribs poke out. Not a lot, but a little. They have rolls of fat on their legs though, and around their tummy too.

Plus, they are both crawling. They are active every second they are awake. They crawl and climb and sit up and pull up on anything they can find--mostly on my body or on each others' bodies. Plus, they are very alert and social,and they interact and communicate in very definite, recognizable ways.

Should I be worried?

Or, more to the point: help me not be worried. I know these girls are fine, but DH and I are both terrified of those big round 8-month-olds appearing in our nightmares tonight.

Kiran
post #2 of 14
They sound just fine. You have no clue what the mama is doing with those babies. At 8 months my ff sis was feeding my nephew 52oz of formula a day. Way to much. Anyway, your girls sound healthy, they are active and definately not ftt. She could also be keeping them in swings and bouncers all day and not letting them exercise. Or she could just have chunky-munchkins. At 8 months my dd was arollie pollie. Don't worry.
post #3 of 14
Aw, Kir, you're doing all the right things. Remember that all babies are different from the first meeting of sperm and egg. It sounds like they just had amazingly huge babies, not that yours are unusually thin. I think just about every set of FF twins I've seen have been little bean poles, but they were jsut the size they ought to be.

It sounds like your babies are doing quite well... and crawling already, wow!

s
post #4 of 14
I can't really say much from experience b/c I've always had high percentile babies (yes they were/are bf) , but that you can't compare your babies - expecially to FF babies.

I think it is wonderful that your are bfing your twins! I have so much respect for mothers of multiples who go beyond what "they" say can be done (bf, vaginal birth...)! They seem like they are growing & developing like pros!
post #5 of 14
Not in your DDC, but every baby is different! My son was born at 29w4d, and he never gained fat rolls at all. He finaly got a milk belly, but only got like barely one thigh roll on each leg, if you can even call it a roll. It took him until 12 months old before he even got onto the growth chart for his actual age (most babies on it by 6 months, from what I was told), and he was always 20-25% for weight adjusted age during that time. I had a friend who also had a 29 weeker, and that baby chunked out big time!!!

Now, my DS will be 2 years old next week, and he's actually 30 lbs, which is a pretty good weight for actual age. He's been at 50% weight actual age since 15 months. At that point, he just jumped way onto the chart and really packed it on! But he's still not chubby like alot of kids. He seems to be all bone and muscle (he's a BRICK when you pick him up).

Looking at my own weight at various ages prior to 1 year, I found that he was following my EXACT weight patterns in the first year! Amazing! What I was at 9 months (when they said I was "underweight", btw), he was at 9 months adjusted age. Pretty neat. So obviously, his low weight in the first year was due to my genes. And now he has gained his father's weight genes, being a baby brick in the toddler years.

So don't worry about other people's babies being bigger than your own. The bf'ing may or may not have contributed to the difference... I've seen chunky formula babies, but I've also seen some pretty chunky bf babies! I really think it's more genetics than anything else. And being low on the weight chart doesn't mean much. Someone has to be down there, right? As long as your kids are obviously developing and growing and hitting major milestones, I wouldn't worry AT ALL. And active babies tend to burn up the baby chub sooner too. Another friend of mine had a son who started walking at *6.5 months*. I kid you not. And yes, he was very low on the growth chart for weight because he was SO active at such a young age. But he was very obviously thriving if he was meeting such a big milestone that early!!!
post #6 of 14


just chiming in agreeing with the other posters.

ii think it's individual. Jude wAS gigantic as a baby. jst huge and rolly. then cicely was soooo skinny. treeated them both the samee. nursed on demand. they just need and grow dif. joie s somewhere in between.

nSK nak like you can't tell
post #7 of 14
Kir, it sounds like you're getting a lot of negative messages about your ability to breastfeed your babies. It sounds your babies are thriving.

FWIW, DS is >18 pounds (8.2 kg) and his ribs show and he doesn't have much in the way of fat rolls. DD was at least 4 pounds lighter at the same age and somehow managed to look quite rolly poly.

Growth rate is just one factor to consider when looking at the health of your kids. Sounds like they are developing beautifully on mommy milk.
post #8 of 14
Your babies are your babies...and babes come in all different shapes and sizes. You are doing a great job with them--don't worry! My boys all had big ol' heads when they were born. Did I do something wrong? Nope!
post #9 of 14
What they all said...


All of my babies have been little skinnies; their ribs show just like you described, and they are all healthy, delightfully bright little cuties. Of course, I'm a little biased, but my point is, they don't need to be sumo-babies to be healthy. You're doing great, mama, and your precious little K&A are growing and developing beautifully.
post #10 of 14
It is so hard not to compare your babies with other babies. I have had one of each. I am lucky that my skinny baby was my first. If the birth order had been reversed I really would have worried about Kearnan. He was so scrawny. He never really had fat rolls at all. He got a bit of a round tummy around 1yr, but it wasn't much of one. He was such a skinny thing. And he still is. He is below the chart for weight and just barely on it for height. It's just the way he is. His baby brother is a whole other story. Tharen has been a chunka since birth. I don't know if even crawling will thin him out.

Your girls sound happy and thriving. I wouldn't worry about their size, they are just petite. That's nothing to be ashamed of. I think my petite ds has all the spunk in the family.
post #11 of 14
Thread Starter 
This is exactly what I needed to hear.

You're right, Geofizz, that I'm getting a lot of negative messages. But my bigger prob is that I can't tune them out and only hear the positive ones. My DH has majorly come around, and my parents and sisters are great too. And Kalpana and Amrita! They're hugely supportive of breastfeeding! :LOL. But still it's hard b/c people just don't think and they say weird things.

Those babies yesterday were just huge, and it's a separate issue from my girls.
post #12 of 14
Kir,

It sounds like your babies are thriving! I go to a local mom's group with lots of babies, and I get reminded every time that there are all shapes and sizes of normal.

Good job on breastfeeding them, and yay that your husband has gotten so supportive.
post #13 of 14
Kir, Bethany (now a tall, thin almost 5yo!) was 7lbs, 10oz (about 25%ile) at birth, plummeted to the 3rd percentile by two months (9lbs, 3oz) and stayed there until she was 18mo! At her 1yr appt she was only 17lbs, 15oz!

Beth also crawled at 6mo, walked w/ push toys at 8.5mo and sprinted at 9.5mo! She was nursed 100% until 6.5mo (refused solids for 1.5 of them) and then really enjoyed finger foods after tolerating pureed stuff for a sort time.

Your posts sound like your girls are doing great.

Bethany was also ALWAYS long and thin. For the past few years she has been in shirts 2-3 sized bigger than her pants because her torso is so long!

Hang in there...as long as they are healthy and developing well... don't worry about the scale !

BTW.. Beth is one of the tallest in her class now...even taller than the boys!
post #14 of 14
Just more of the same to add here, but here goes. My DS was in the 5th percentile when he was born and always really skinny. I don't follow charts or anything for the most part but he is really healthy and tall now at 3 years. DD is just the opposite - she used to be in the 95th percentile whenever it was I weighed her a long time ago. Now at 6.5 months people think she is 9 or 12 months. Whatever! They were/are both healthy nursing babies. That's all that counts.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: December 2005
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Archives › Pregnancy and Birth Archives › Due Date Clubs 2004 - 2008  › December 2005 › DDDC - My babies are really tiny