Better nutrition = longer gestation? - Page 2

[BelgianSheepDog]

I think activity level is a big factor, too. GooeyRN, it sounds like your job was a big contributor to when you went into labor. My mom had me at 37 weeks. She was a health food fanatic, but she was working a retail job that involved tons of lifting and standing and erratic hours. She also had a partial abruption, eek. Maybe the fact that many women now work sedentary desk jobs also contributes to longer gestations. (And malpositioning, but that's another story.)

[zoebird]

Originally Posted by Full Heart

So the thread on better nutrition = bigger babies got me thinking.

i don't think that it's 'better nutrition = bigger babies' but rather that 'excessive consumption = bigger babies.' most of the women whom i know who have very large babies are women who eat a lot of junk foods during pregnancy--empty calories that cause them, and their babies to gain excess weight. i have discovered that women who eat a balanced, nutritionally sound (no junk foods, no sugar, etc) diet have healthy babies that are an appropriate weight (which of course has many factors to determine 'appropriate.')

so, better nutrition = rightly sized and better nourished/developed babies.

Perhaps we are seeing longer gestations now, which would lead to bigger babies and more inductions because of better nutrition? Is there any truth to that theory?

i don't think there's a whole lot of working material in this theory. part one is above.

part two to this is this concept of 'late babies.' due dates are largely estimates determined not by knowledge but by guesses based on when women 'on average' are fertile inrelation to the first day of their menses, and on the interpretation of an U/S--which varies technician to technician.

on average, women who chart to know when they ovulate mention that they have gotten EDDs that are two weeks prior to their own date and some two weeks following their own date. so, a month-long window of 'estimate' seems to be at play. Thus, a woman may know her due date to be X, but the technician may give a EDD of X+2 weeks or X-2weeks. if a person is given an X-2weeks, then of course she'll be 'overdue' even though she is meeting X.

part three of this is the issue of what a big baby is and how that is determined. i have read many stories of women coming toward their EDD and getting an ultrasound at that time that estimates the baby's weight at 8 lbs and threaten that without induction, the baby may weigh 10 lbs at birth. And yet, with induction (often leading to c-section) the 8 lb baby is a 6-7 lber or normal weight. Often, women report that their babies are as much as 2 or 3 lbs lighter than the U/S estimation!

part four of this issue deals with what i consider to be 'unnecessary' inductions and c-sections based on a number of 'sketchy' estimates such as due date estimates determined by ultrasound or guessing based on first day of previous mensus and the estimate of current and potential birth weight from U/S.

part five--U/S, inductions, and C-sections earn more money for hospitals.

[audreyhorne]

interesting...

i was vegan for my first two pregnancies and while i ate very well, exercized and gained about 30 lbs each time, both babies were born "preterm" at 33w3d and 35w3d, respectively. this time around, i have been eating eggs and dairy and i went to 41w5d, and my baby was born in the bag of waters. i still only gained about 30lbs, and was probably more active this time around(i have a four- and two-year-old, after all). i wonder what, if any, the corrolation is in my instance--maybe it is protein, maybe it's vitamin c, maybe it's just coincidence, hmmm...

[Phoebe]

Originally Posted by BelgianSheepDog

Maybe the fact that many women now work sedentary desk jobs also contributes to longer gestations. (And malpositioning, but that's another story.)

Eeek, that was me with dc #1...EXACTLY me!

[boscopup]

Originally Posted by zoebird

i don't think that it's 'better nutrition = bigger babies' but rather that 'excessive consumption = bigger babies.' most of the women whom i know who have very large babies are women who eat a lot of junk foods during pregnancy--empty calories that cause them, and their babies to gain excess weight.

The one local lady I know who had a 12 lb baby (at home, in the water, no tears ) eats a VERY HEALTHY vegetarian diet. No junk food. You'll see her kids munching on sea weed as snacks - that type of thing. Very much into healthy healthy food. Her boy was a chunker, but a healthy one. Definitely not caused by eating junk or empty calories. I'm pretty sure she doesn't keep any of that stuff in the house. Period. I have never seen a healthier eating family.

And on the flip side, I've known plenty of women who ate junk and had small babies. I don't think what you eat necessarily has anything to do with how big your baby will be, honestly. I think it's more about genetics and what your body can handle.

Originally Posted by zoebird

on average, women who chart to know when they ovulate mention that they have gotten EDDs that are two weeks prior to their own date and some two weeks following their own date.

When were these u/s's done? Many women who chart don't get an early dating u/s. They just get a 20 week u/s. At that gestation, u/s shouldn't be used for dating, period. If you get a dating u/s done sometime before 10 weeks, it will usually be pretty accurate. I had one done at 7w1d by my charting, and the u/s said I was 7w3d. Not bad! By LMP, I would have been 8w3d (because I have 35 day cycles and O around day 23), which is why I went ahead with the dating u/s to have "proof" in my chart (having had a preemie, having a gestational age in my chart that doctors would believe was important to me, and most doctors know nothing about NFP).

I think many women here who go post dates do chart and know for sure that they really are 43, 44, etc. weeks. Doesn't matter what a 20 week u/s says. Mine said I was 22w1d when I was really 19w6d. But that's why you don't use a 20 week u/s for dating purposes. It's just not accurate at all past the first trimester. Some OBs will change the EDD based on an u/s if it's 2 weeks off like that, but mine won't, and I wouldn't let him if he wanted to!

[Full Heart]

[HTML]i don't think that it's 'better nutrition = bigger babies' but rather that 'excessive consumption = bigger babies.' most of the women whom i know who have very large babies are women who eat a lot of junk foods during pregnancy--empty calories that cause them, and their babies to gain excess weight. i have discovered that women who eat a balanced, nutritionally sound (no junk foods, no sugar, etc) diet have healthy babies that are an appropriate weight (which of course has many factors to determine 'appropriate.')[/HTML]

Bigger as in bigger than 30, 40 or 50 years ago. And if you read the Ina May Gaskin Books you will see Vegans who had 10+ lb babies. I doubt thier diets were full of junk foods. I think diets full of empty calories don't make bigger babies, maybe bigger mamas lol. But maternal weigh gain doesn't reflect fetal size. Diets full of good nutrious foods supplies the placenta with what it needs to work effeciently, baby gets what it needs, you get a bigger baby. Placentas that don't work all that well like because of smoking or a poor diet you see smaller babies. I would much rather have a bigger baby, they do better on the outside.

I think many women here who go post dates do chart and know for sure that they really are 43, 44, etc. weeks. Doesn't matter what a 20 week u/s says. Mine said I was 22w1d when I was really 19w6d. But that's why you don't use a 20 week u/s for dating purposes. It's just not accurate at all past the first trimester.

Yup, thats me. I knew when I conceieved 5 out or 7 pgs and I have gone post dates (2 weeks + past my edd) on...every one of those pgs! Well except this one thats still gestating lol. And I only had u/s in 3 of those 7 pgs. This one I had an early u/s for bleeding and it put me within 5 days of my edd. My lmp was may 6th but I know I didn't ovulate till june 5. The u/s confirmed that. Thank goodness I was charting or I would have freaked!

[Kidzaplenty]

I think bigger babies is mostly genetic. Healthier babies is more nutrition. But then again, that is just my opinion.

My babies were born at
36wk ~ 7.4
40wk ~ 7.7
42wk ~ 8.5
40wk ~ 7.4
39wk ~ 7.2
41wk ~ 7.8
41wk ~ 9.8

My nutrition was perhaps a bit less for the first baby (born at 36 wks) but she would have been a large ful-term baby anyways. For the others, I have excellent nutrition and excellent protien (although I did have extra protein for my third, born at 42 wks, so perhaps that increased his gestation, but not his size). I did nothing different with my seventh, but he was a "big" baby for me.

I think nutrition does equal healthy baby, but not necessary large baby. AND, I do not think that poor nutrition will equal a "fat" big baby. My "big" baby was very chubby, but he large boned and has been "big" since the day he was born; he is just built like a tank.

[Storm Bride]

Originally Posted by Kidzaplenty

I think bigger babies is mostly genetic. Healthier babies is more nutrition. But then again, that is just my opinion.

I'm inclined to agree with this, just based on my own experience. My three kids have two different fathers. My weight gain with each of them was between 21-23 pounds. I ate well with each of them (an occasional indulgence at Christmas, etc., but very healthy the rest of the time). All three were healthy.

My ex was 7lb. 10oz. at birth.
My dh was 9lb. 13oz. at birth.
I was 7lb. 12oz. at birth.

My kids:

DS1: 7lb. 12oz. 38w, 5d. He's my ex's.
DD: 10lb. 2oz. 39w, 2d. She's dh's. (scheduled section - no labour : )
DS2: 10lb. 8oz. 41w, 5d: He's dh's. (scheduled section : - but I did labour first, so basically he was ready)

Admittedly, there was a 10 year gap between my first and second, and maybe maternal age is a factor - I don't know. But, I do find it interesting that both my babies with dh were "big" babies, while ds1 was not.

[eilonwy]

When you say "past their due date," what do you mean? Back in the 40's, I don't know that women were considered to be "past their due date" until you were talking about more than 42 weeks. If that's the case, I'd have to argue that the rate is still probably around 10% for truly post-dates babies.

However, I do believe that nutrition plays a role in length of gestation. I was unable to eat for much of my second & third trimesters with Bella, and she was born at 36w6d; I'm absolutely certain that my sad nutritional status played a role.