Bigger than average? - Mothering Forums
View Poll Results: How big was your first full term baby?
Less than 6 lbs 4 2.74%
6 lbs and oz 17 11.64%
7lbs and oz 39 26.71%
8 lbs and oz 45 30.82%
9 lbs and oz 30 20.55%
10 lbs and oz 11 7.53%
11 lbs and up 0 0%
Voters: 146. You may not vote on this poll

1 2 
Birth and Beyond > Bigger than average?
WifeofAnt's Avatar WifeofAnt 06:07 PM 10-22-2010
Is it just me or do the 'crunchier' moms have bigger babies? One of my facebook friends just had a baby a little over 10 lbs and I realized I haven't heard of many small (but full term) babies besides in the 'mainstream'. I think I'll make a survey just for fun.

Youngfrankenstein's Avatar Youngfrankenstein 06:10 PM 10-22-2010
I hear you! So often around here women are having 9+ pound babies! In the "real world" you hear 6 1/2... I know that some women are going to have small babies, no problem, but I wonder if others just "get" to go full term.
AutumnAir's Avatar AutumnAir 06:28 PM 10-22-2010
Interesting question.

DD1 was born at 43+1 weeks and was only 8lb 13oz - which is pretty small for my family. Most babies are a minimum of 9lb in our family.

She was born in the Czech Republic, and while I was pregnant I was advised (by a few different HCPs) not to take prenatal vitamins, and to watch what I ate because I didn't want to have a 'big baby'. When DD was born they totally freaked out about her size - apparently they'd never seen such a big baby before. Assumed she/I had GD, even though I'd done the tests and passed with flying colours, so we had to undergo a whole heap of blood sticks. Most of the babies born there (to normal, healthy-sized women) were in the 5-6 lb range, which to me looks sickly-small for term babies. I have no idea why they were all so small though...
Banana731's Avatar Banana731 06:29 PM 10-22-2010
possibly more natural minded moms are doing things like the Brewer diet. Higher protein intake=bigger baby? Not for me, we're average sized folk around here no matter how much protein I stuff in my face...
~PurityLake~'s Avatar ~PurityLake~ 06:34 PM 10-22-2010
Both of my daughters were 19.5 inches long. My first one was 9 pounds 9 ounces and my second one was a mere 5 pounds 6 ounces.

The difference: 1st pregnancy I consumed large quantities of protein by way of soy protein shakes and ate lots of healthy vegetables. I was also working and working out nearly every day up until 3 days before she was born. Diet and exercise
2nd pregnancy: No exercise. Not as much protein. Breastfed first baby up until I was 3 months pregnant when the pregnancy hormones put a stop to my normally abundant milk supply Conception was only 20 weeks after the birth of my first child, so my body was nowhere near recovered.

1st, bigger baby, was born a mere 3 days past the EDD.
2nd, tiny baby, was born a week or so past the EDD and wasn't getting any bigger.
WifeofAnt's Avatar WifeofAnt 06:51 PM 10-22-2010
I was 8lbs 6oz and the largest baby born in that hospital all day. I used to think that was huge. Now I'm not quite so sure...
HeatherB's Avatar HeatherB 06:58 PM 10-22-2010
I think you're more likely to hear of naturally born larger babies because they're left alone and allowed to be born when they're ready.

For me, my first was 7lb14oz and my 2nd and 3rd were 7-2 and 7-4. So not big! All were born in their own time. With the younger ones, I had a MW who encouraged me to avoid sugars, especially in the 3rd trimester. I did very well with that with #2 (7-2), mostly well with that with #3 (7-4). This time, I'm not doing so well... Trying, but not always succeeding (I say as I eat white-flour-wrapped kolaches). So I'm guessing this one might be about 7-8. But even my first, no-special-diet baby was under 8lbs so I just don't grow them very big!
JamieCatheryn's Avatar JamieCatheryn 07:00 PM 10-22-2010
8lbs 11oz, a bit on the large side but not huge. Growing up I heard a lot of 7 or 8 lb and change babes. Surely the doctors terrified of big babies, warning against weight gain, inducing at 40 weeks (earlier if the u/s looks big!) make for a lot of small babies. My doctor was scared of big babies, repeatedly said things about it, but DH and I laughed it off. I think her grandchild's birth had a shoulder discotia and that's what really skewed her thinking about baby size.
eclipse's Avatar eclipse 07:14 PM 10-22-2010
I had smaller babies. My first was 7lbs8oz. 2nd was 7lbs3oz, and third was 6lbs2oz (but he was a month early, so he was pretty good sized for gestation).
lizzylou's Avatar lizzylou 07:15 PM 10-22-2010
9lbs14oz but I don't feel that pregnancy was very "crunchy," I did not eat so well!

He was however born at 42 weeks.
MyFullHouse's Avatar MyFullHouse 07:19 PM 10-22-2010
I don't fit the profile!

I was nowhere near crunchy with my first two, who were 7lb9oz, then 9lb2oz. I got progressively crunchier along the way, while the next two birth weights were 8lb10oz and 7lb15oz. All 4 were born between 40w1d and 42w.
fruitfulmomma's Avatar fruitfulmomma 07:25 PM 10-22-2010
My midwife says she does tend to see bigger babies at home than would be normal for the hospital. Could be not pushing for an induction or automatically assuming GD and pushing for a section or actually allowing women to eat what they need to and not worry about weight gain.

My oldest is 7 1/2lbs. I've had them up to 9lbs. 12oz.
GoBecGo's Avatar GoBecGo 07:34 PM 10-22-2010
Mine were 7lbs14.5oz and 8lbs8oz. I was crunchier the 2nd time, and ate with Brewer in mind (but not strictly Brewers diet). My main difference was that i was hypothyroid the first time (untreated).

I have a really not-very-crunchy friend who had #1 7lbs even and #2 10lbs4oz and there was nothing different about the 2nd pregnancy, he just grew bigger than his sister.

I was a c-section at 37+4 and 8lbs6oz, so i can only imagine i would have been a 10lber if i'd stayed and cooked to 42weeks. My mother and i are both very tall though (her 6', me 5'11") with large frames, so an 8 or 9lb baby is not at ALL large for us.
MO_Bookwyrm's Avatar MO_Bookwyrm 08:46 PM 10-22-2010
My only so far came at 37w, so term, but just barely. he was 6lbs 7 oz.
ALittleBitCrunchy's Avatar ALittleBitCrunchy 08:56 PM 10-22-2010
I had a completely uncrunchy pregnancy and delivery that ended with an induction and subsequent CS at 39 weeks. He was over 10#. My next was born at 38 weeks and was just under 10 pounds. My vote helps the average for this board get a little higher but I was completely mainstream My family has a lot of 10 pound babies in it so for us it's just the 'average' size.
Marissamom's Avatar Marissamom 09:04 PM 10-22-2010
I really think "crunchy" mamas tend to make sure their babies get to cook as long as they need, rather than letting themselves get induced at 40 weeks, and probably worry about weight gain less than some mainstream moms. Though my LO was only 6lb10oz, but I think if I hadn't been as stressed at the time she would have waited a little longer (she was 39 weeks exactly)
erin_brycesmom's Avatar erin_brycesmom 09:56 PM 10-22-2010
all three of mine were between 9 and 10 lbs but they were all "late".
gemasita's Avatar gemasita 10:36 PM 10-22-2010
Quote:
I think you're more likely to hear of naturally born larger babies because they're left alone and allowed to be born when they're ready.
I agree. I think the crunchier moms are the ones who are more likely to be seeing midwives and going to 42 and 43 weeks! Not as common with a lot of the OB practices. I think even if some moms intend to leave things alone, they get pressured to induce, etc.
yeahwhat's Avatar yeahwhat 10:53 PM 10-22-2010
Mine, in birth order, were 7lbs 15oz, 8lbs, 7lbs 14oz, 9lbs 4oz (no idea what happened there!), and 7lbs 14oz. All born within a day of their edd, all came in their own time.
MidwifeErika's Avatar MidwifeErika 11:08 PM 10-22-2010
My first was born at 34 weeks and was 5lb 10oz
My second was born at 39 weeks and was 6lb 8oz
My third was born at 43 weeks and was 8lb 8oz

I don't grow very huge babies at all.
tireesix's Avatar tireesix 07:30 AM 10-23-2010
My first and third were in the 7lb range and second was in the 9lb area.

First was an unnecessary induction, they said I was 42 weeks but I knew I was 40 weeks tops. Second babe was 43 weeks (natural) and third baby came naturally at 40 weeks exactly.
cappuccinosmom's Avatar cappuccinosmom 12:02 PM 10-23-2010
My first was under 7 lb. But the next two were 9.15 and 10.8 respectively.

I think one reason may be that 'crunchier' moms don't submit to induction just because a doctor suggests it. Between the increases in multiples births, and the tendancy to induce or cut at 38-39-40 weeks, I think the average baby size must have gone done. Whenever people have an 8 lb baby, everybody goes nuts over how big that is, in the mainstream at least. And they think I'm just flat out insane to have had natural births with babies as big as mine.
Turquesa's Avatar Turquesa 12:34 PM 10-23-2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banana731 View Post
possibly more natural minded moms are doing things like the Brewer diet. Higher protein intake=bigger baby? Not for me, we're average sized folk around here no matter how much protein I stuff in my face...
Opposite issue with me. I birthed two 10-pounders. I hadn't heard of the Brewer Diet with the first and deliberately avoided it with the second! (Avoiding it obviously didn't work. He's still big. )
hildare's Avatar hildare 02:28 PM 10-25-2010
by crunchy, do you mean did i chase milkshakes with red raspberry leaf tea?
my first (so far) dd was over 10 lbs at birth. i usually tend towards the crunch, but found my willpower greatly diminished compared to the raving hunger i had throughout the pregnancy (and lack of lunchtime proximity to anything resembling healthy)..
so, in my mind, i am of crunchiness, not necessarily in deed with that pregnancy.
~Demeter~'s Avatar ~Demeter~ 02:35 PM 10-25-2010
My first was born a few days shy of 42 weeks he was 8lbs 4oz. I was induced with him.

My second was born 10 days past his 'due date' and he was 8lbs 3oz. My smallest baby and coincidentally the hardest to birth thus far. Also an induction but no pitocin.

My third was my earliest baby, he was born a week past his due date. He was 8lbs 12oz, also an induction.

My fourth, induced at exactly 42 weeks (by my calculations, 44 weeks by standard LMP calculations) was 9lbs even. I was probably the 'most' crunchy with her. lol

Kinda curious how #5 will fit into things.
secondimpression's Avatar secondimpression 12:18 AM 10-26-2010
I'm a crunchy mama who made smallish-average babies.

DS was born at 38+6 and 6lbs5ozs
DD was born at 39+6 and 6lbs14ozs

At 2 months and EBF, DS was in the 30th percentile for weight...DD is in the 90th

It's an interesting trend though!
Smokering's Avatar Smokering 12:44 AM 10-26-2010
Meh, dunno. DD was 8 pounds 7, which I thought was average, so I was surprised to get a lot of "Wow, what a whopper!" comments.

Mum had some biggish babies - I was the biggest at 9 pounds 4 - but she had GD. Most of us were induced, so would have been bigger if left to cook. She's plenty crunchy in most areas, but she did have medicalised births.

Of the two other crunchiest families I know, one always has long gestations and big babies (10 and 11-pounders), and the other tends to have small, scrawny babies who so far are all small, scrawny kids. So I don't think I know of a clear pattern within my acquaintance. But I have noticed crunchy mamas are less likely to think an 8 pound 7 baby is "huge", so maybe there's a greater acceptance of biggish as normal?
MujerMamaMismo's Avatar MujerMamaMismo 01:45 AM 10-26-2010
My first, and so far only, babe was 9.4lbs at birth. He was also 22 inches when born. I was 90% conscious of my diet while pregnant and actually lost weight while pregnant. Apparently the personal weight loss didn't impact DS though!

I'm average size, and my mother is tiny, but I was born at 8.6lbs and 20.5 inches long which was pretty big for a first born babe, 31 years ago.

My monster DS is 22mths now and still sits on the 97th centile. I'm sure he'll average out soon - he doesn't have big genes.

Some people just grow big babies.
mmaramba's Avatar mmaramba 02:05 PM 10-26-2010
Yep, it's induction and "elective" C/S, no doubt.

Most of the babies born there (to normal, healthy-sized women) were in the 5-6 lb range, which to me looks sickly-small for term babies. I have no idea why they were all so small though...

I think you answered your own question when you said the Czech doctors encouraged you not to take vitamins and to eat less. I also wonder if there isn't a higher rate of smoking in the CR.
Peachthief's Avatar Peachthief 04:16 PM 10-26-2010
I enjoy looking through the birth announcements in the Sunday paper (the paid ones with the picture and everything) and after doing this for about the first year of DD's life I realized that I could probably count on one hand the ones that were as big or bigger than she was at 9lb 4oz. I realized that many of those who would have been that big (or possibly not quite that big!) were probably induced early due to "big baby". We had a BPP 2 days before she was born which pegged her at 9lbs 3oz- I had heard so much about the inaccuracies of ultrasound that I literally did not give it a second thought (assumed she'd be more like 8lb) until they actually weighed her! Big or not, she had no problem making her way into the world, and no GD either!
1 2 

Up