Fat baby = lifetime of weight struggles?

[nextcommercial]

Is this true?

I just read (on another message board) that a very fat baby (not chubby) will be destined to a lifetime of fighting his or her weight because of the fat cells that are built up as a baby.

[thismama]

I vote an emphatic no.

[dillonandmarasmom]

Not sure what you mean by fat and not chubby, but I had rolls inside of rolls as a baby. I was only 8 1/2 pounds at birth, but I was a huge baby. As soon as I could crawl, it all disappeared. I was a stringbean child and a very thin, but muscular, teen and 20-something. I am now 5'4" and about 135lbs.

[elspethshimon]

no.

[beautyful]

EBF dd1 was almost 25lbs at 9 months. She had rolls on top of rolls. She'll be four in 2 months and weighs 33lbs (and is really tall.)

So far, I'd have to answer that with a no. (Granted, DH's family and my dad's family are mostly overweight, so she may have the genetics stacked against her.)

[nextcommercial]

Originally Posted by dillonandmarasmom

Not sure what you mean by fat and not chubby,

I think it means rolls upon rolls. The post said that babies are born a normal weight, but parents feed, and feed, and feed, because it's easier to do that than deal with them. Then, once the fat cells are there, they are there forever, and those kids can't ever be thin unless they are extremely active, but the fat cells are still there. SO, as soon as an active kid stops being active, the fat cells grow again.

I was wondering "Why have I never heard of this?" But everybody over there acts like it's old news.

[attachedmamaof3]

There's a difference between fat from formula/empty calories and fat from breastmilk.

Mine have all been HUGE (as in at least 30 lbs by one year). My 9 yr old is completely normal weight, my 3 yr old is 34 lbs and my one year old is 32 lbs.

Every baby grows differently and changes differently. Mine tend to get HUGE in their first year and then stay about the same weight for their entire second year.

So, NO, imo. It's ridiculous.

[theatermom]

No, a "fat" baby who has a healthy, age appropriate diet is not destined to be fat as an adult.

A baby or child fed inappropriate foods for their age or for people in general, or in amounts beyond what their body naturally and normally signals that they need, could well be headed down that path.

Any child who is not encouraged to be a child and who does not experience and internalize healthy habits from an early age will have to work very hard later to stay healthy and at an appropriate weight.

[MiaMama]

My younger brother was a round BF baby. He was almost as wide as he was long at 3 months, looked like a beach ball. He is 11 years old now, tall and very slim, not any extra fat anywhere on him.

However, I have read that if a mom has uncontrolled gestational diabetes and the baby is BORN extra big, that puts the child at higher risk of weight problems later in life. But I under the impression that that has more to do with insulin issues vs. "extra" fat cells.

I think those women are thinking of the studies that say that if an adult gains weight, they "recruit" new fat calls that can later become smaller when they lose weight, but they never get rid of them. It does not seem like that would apply to babies because even if they DO gain more fat cells, as they grow up, they will be widely distributed across a much larger body. Also, humans need some fat cells to survive. So I would think that no baby could gain enough fat cells at <1yr to make that much of a difference when it is hanging on their adult frame. However, an overweight child or teen is much closer to their adult size, so the older the kid is, the more likely it is that any extra weight they are carrying will follow them into adulthood.

Does that make sense?

[leewd]

Yes, I've heard this. There IS a correlation for Formula Fed babies, but not for Breastfed babies. This is one of the reasons that those growth charts are so infuriating for BF moms/babies.

I don't know about the "fat cell growth" theory though. That seems a little far-fetched. . .

[dimibella]

I don't think a fat baby is an idicator of anything, now an overweight toddler or child, might be a different story, but I don't know.

My DS was 19lbs at 4mo, but started to thin out at about 18mo. He's 5, almost 6 and weighs 40lbs.

[nextcommercial]

Originally Posted by dimibella

My DS was 19lbs at 4mo, but started to thin out at about 18mo. He's 5, almost 6 and weighs 40lbs.

My dd was built just like that. She's 15, but was a chubby baby. Not what I would consider a fat baby though.

I just read that and then went back, and read it over again, and it almost made sense. But, then I thought "If this is true, wouldn't we all know this?"

They are talking about formula fed babies over there. They are saying that parents give their baby a bottle every time they make a fuss, even if it isn't what the baby wanted.

I would have thought that meant you are teaching your child bad habits, not making a fat adult.

It's actually an intersting theory though.

[wendy1221]

My 4 year old weighed 23lbs at 4 mos and has always been very short for his age. He's still short, but he's also skinny now. Fat baby does not equal fat child or adult.

[maplesugar]

Ds was an extremely chubby breastfed baby. People would comment, "What a fat baby".
It was a good, healthy fat, though. The little guy loved to nurse and I never worried about him being fat as baby.

Now at nine, he is just the opposite! Very skinny, even slender pants are too big for him.. He started to thin out around age two. By four he was decidedly thin.

[Redifer]

I honestly think it has more to do with eating habits and activity level then anything else.

Since moms who BF are more likely to be better educated about nutrition, they are also more likely to eat healthier, nutrient-rich food instead of empty-calorie food.

But, as well, I was formula fed, and I'm very thin. I was a HUGE chubby baby. My first daughter was a chubby baby, formula fed, and at 3.5 years she has 8-pack abs. My second is a FAT baby, half boob/half formula, and she's a whopping 30 lbs at 6 months.

But I grew up in a household of fresh, natural, organic foods and high activity levels, as are my kids. I don't think it comes down to just one factor, like formula vs. breastmilk. I also don't think fat babies have much at all to do with anything. I've known people who were very lean babies who are now very large. I've know people who were very fat babies that now look like string beans.

[marybethorama]

No

I know that the curve of weight gain for breastfed babies is different and it's normal for an exclusively breastfed baby to be chubby

My nephew was a butterball. He had rolls upon rolls of fat and he was skinny by 1 yo and has been ever since.

[KBecks]

I don't think so. I would not worry about weight until a child is 3 years old, and then I'd concentrate on healthy balanced meals and snacks, appropriate portion sizes and exercise/movement..

[savithny]

First of all -- even if teh baby is covered with fat cells, so what?

Picture the number of fat cells on a 6 month old, spread out over an adult. Doesn't spread veyr far, does it? Adults have far, far more fat cells than even the fattest baby around. The "number of cells' argument is just silly.

There were some studies that showed that babies above the 95th percentile for length/weight had an increased chance of being "obese" later on.

That sounds scary, except that the vast majority (well, 95% of babies), even if they look chubby, are nowhere near that threshhold. My DD looked like the Buddha until she was 10 months old - but at her very roly-poliest, she never was more than 75th percentile for length/weight../

(by length/weight i mean not length and weight separately - DD was 99.9th percent for length and 98th percent for weight at one point - she hit 20 pounds by 4 months - but its the length-for-weight number).

And even then, its an "increased risk," not some kind of Ticket to Doom. Sheesh.

[theatermom]

Originally Posted by savithny

First of all -- even if teh baby is covered with fat cells, so what?

Picture the number of fat cells on a 6 month old, spread out over an adult. Doesn't spread veyr far, does it? Adults have far, far more fat cells than even the fattest baby around. The "number of cells' argument is just silly.

There were some studies that showed that babies above the 95th percentile for length/weight had an increased chance of being "obese" later on.

That sounds scary, except that the vast majority (well, 95% of babies), even if they look chubby, are nowhere near that threshhold. My DD looked like the Buddha until she was 10 months old - but at her very roly-poliest, she never was more than 75th percentile for length/weight../

(by length/weight i mean not length and weight separately - DD was 99.9th percent for length and 98th percent for weight at one point - she hit 20 pounds by 4 months - but its the length-for-weight number).

And even then, its an "increased risk," not some kind of Ticket to Doom. Sheesh.

Yup! And my oldest ds was in the 95th-98th percentile for height AND weight until he was 6-7 months old -- from that point on, he has remained in the 97th percentile for height, but only the 50th-70th for weight. He's my "skinny" guy -- Dh and I were this way as children, too.

[JBaxter]

No DS2 was almost 23 lbs at 6 months and in the 50-60% for height Now at 13 he is 5ft4 and wears a 14slim pants.