Is there a point where size would influence your birth choice? - Mothering Forums
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#1 of 33 Old 05-27-2012, 05:11 PM - Thread Starter
 
Ninetales's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,068
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

I'm due with my second in August.  At this point I am planning on, and my doctors see no reason why I can't, VBAC.  But, my first was 13 lbs, 8 oz.  We had no indication she was so large - I measured pretty much on track, no sugar problems, no problems whatsoever.  I gained maybe 70 lbs, which is a lot but certainly not unheard of.  I had no ultrasounds.  Big babies run in both families (9-11 lbs), so I expected a big one, but not that big.  I'm very scared it's going to happen again.

 

So far, if things stay on the track they are on now, I'm anticipating a 35 lb total gain.  So half the weight I gained the first time around.  I had an ultrasound at 20 weeks, and at the time they said the baby was measuring at about 1 lb, which I'm to understand is large but not scarily so.  I've measured ahead at my last two appointments - I was 27 cm at 24 weeks, and 29 cm at 28 weeks.  I'm getting weekly adjustments from my chiropractor, which I'm hoping will help me avoid the back labor and malpositioning that contributed to my c-section.

 

My hangup here is while I don't want a c-section, I'm also afraid to vaginally birth a child over 12 lbs.  I'm scared of the possible damage - cervical damage, incontinence, tailbone damage, broken shoulders, broken collarbone, or dystocia.  Which I know, I know can happen with babies of any size.  And I know that fundal measurements and late ultrasounds are not really very accurate, but there's no other way of estimating the size.  I know that I will be waiting to go into labor on my own no matter what I'm told to expect for size, but I'm both afraid of vaginally birthing another LGA baby and afraid that this fear is going to lead to me somehow sabotaging my VBAC.  And I know I'd be beyond pissed off if I gave in right away and was sectioned for a 10 lb baby.

 

So I guess what I want to know, is there a point where your caregiver tells you a size number that would make you just not want to do a vaginal birth?  Or would you just stick it out, hope for the best, and see how the labor progresses?  Do some people just grow freakishly large babies for no reason?  I don't want this hanging over me anymore but I don't know how to let it go.


Mama to Elsa Louise: 2/10, 13lbs 8 oz  energy.gifand Oscar Allen: 7/12, 13lbs 8 oz  babyboy.gif

Ninetales is offline  
#2 of 33 Old 05-27-2012, 07:27 PM
 
AmandaMamma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 49
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
It sounds like you have really supportive doctors. I think a lot of doctors would be pressuring a woman into a section after a 13 pound baby. Especially for a VBAC. I hear of so many pushing for induction or section for anything over 9 pounds. So that is good to hear. smile.gif

Would you be up for another ultrasound down the line? Yes they aren't AS accurate but maybe it would help you with a decision?
AmandaMamma is offline  
#3 of 33 Old 05-27-2012, 07:30 PM - Thread Starter
 
Ninetales's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,068
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

I plan on getting another near 36 weeks, yes.


Mama to Elsa Louise: 2/10, 13lbs 8 oz  energy.gifand Oscar Allen: 7/12, 13lbs 8 oz  babyboy.gif

Ninetales is offline  
#4 of 33 Old 05-27-2012, 11:36 PM
 
Plummeting's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,383
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

There actually IS another way to estimate the size of the baby. Multiple studies have shown that a skilled practitioner (midwives are generally better at this, according to the studies) is as or more accurate at guessing the weight of babies as ultrasound. So if you're concerned, then perhaps find someone to palpate and see what they think.

 

I do have to wonder how sure you can be that you had no blood sugar problems. Were you checking it at home? The 28 week test only tells you what's happening at 28 weeks, and you can develop GD after 28 weeks. It happened to me. So I'd be checking your blood sugar at home, if you aren't already. However, if I recall correctly, excessive weight gain or maternal obesity are just as strongly correlated with birth weight as GD (I think even more so, actually), so surely maintaining a more average weight gain will help some. I understand your concern about such a large baby. I don't know what my personal comfort zone is, but I definitely would not want to birth a 12 pound baby either! Good luck, and hopefully this baby is a little smaller and your VBAC goes well.
 

Plummeting is offline  
#5 of 33 Old 05-28-2012, 02:18 PM - Thread Starter
 
Ninetales's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,068
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Thing is, I went through a freestanding birth center staffed by midwives with my first.  Four different ones and no one ever suspected a problem.  So I'm afraid my faith in palpating is pretty shaky, too.

 

I did the glucose test at 28 weeks with both pregnancies.  The first one was a postprandial, this one was with the glucola.  I asked about monitoring sugar later on, as I suspected the same as you - that some kind of issue developed later, possibly very close to the end.  I was told by two doctors at the practice I go to that if GD is going to present it will have by 28 weeks.  So I'm probably on my own if I'm going to keep tabs on it.  I wouldn't even know where to begin, either.  :(

 

It doesn't help that I am in fact obese.  I used to be so adamant that a body would only grow a baby it couldn't birth under extreme circumstances.


Mama to Elsa Louise: 2/10, 13lbs 8 oz  energy.gifand Oscar Allen: 7/12, 13lbs 8 oz  babyboy.gif

Ninetales is offline  
#6 of 33 Old 05-28-2012, 07:33 PM
 
holly6737's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,445
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

With a history of a 13 lb 8 oz baby, yes, that would affect my choice to VBAC. Now, keep in mind I'm pretty pro-VBAC. I"ve had 2 myself. But history of a 13 and a half pound baby? Honestly, the risk of shoulder dystocia, postpartum hemorrhage, etc would just be too great for me. I would choose a repeat. Obviously this is something you should discuss with your physicians/CNMs, but that's the choice that I, personally, would make.


CNM mama.

holly6737 is offline  
#7 of 33 Old 05-28-2012, 08:02 PM
 
Plummeting's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,383
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
...
Plummeting is offline  
#8 of 33 Old 05-28-2012, 09:17 PM
 
nelson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: here, probably...
Posts: 379
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Plummeting View Post

 

Perhaps your size made it more difficult to palpate the baby? (I always feel like I'm saying the wrong thing when I talk about weight, so please understand I'm just wondering on what may have happened, and not making any judgments or anything.) I don't know if that was considered in the studies I read, but I can see where it might make a difference, and having experienced that, I would also decide it didn't work for me. I've had the opposite experience (my midwives have been spot on at guessing the weight), so of course I lean more towards trusting it for myself.

 

 

I had midwives and nurses palpate the baby the day I went into labor, and they said, "Oh, I think this one will be quite small, probably only around 5.5-6 lbs."  DS actually ended up weighing 8lbs3oz.  Not that he was a huge baby, but they were off by a couple of lbs.  Any random person off the street probably could have guessed within a couple of lbs. just as easily.  Also I started off 5.5" and 120 lbs. and gained about 25lbs. with DS, so I wasn't very big. 


Happy Wifey to DH tiphat.gifand loving Momma to DS1 superhero.gif 4yrs and DS2  babyboy.gif 6 months

nelson is offline  
#9 of 33 Old 05-28-2012, 10:13 PM
 
folkgirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 365
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

I am familiar with your story. I'm in your DDC this time and coincidentally I was last time, too. :) I think your situation is pretty unusual and definitely would give me pause. I have had GD with all of my pregnancies, but I've never had a particularly large baby. Mine have always measured larger than they actually turned out to be. In my last pregnancy they were estimating a 9-10 lb baby two weeks before she was born at 8lbs11oz. Even still, I know there is a possibility that I will have a "diabetes big" baby this time and I can't say that doesn't bother me sometimes.

 

The way I feel about it for me is that there's no way that I can know if the baby is going to come out unless i have a trial of labor. Sounds like that is the approach your providers are taking so far. If we know that fetal weight estimation is frequently wrong (very wrong) then what else can we do? Yes there are risks of shoulder distocia etc, but SD can occur even with smaller babies when no one is expecting it. Sometimes it has more to do with position than size. And even when we're talking big baby, proportions can matter a lot more than the overall size of the baby. And you're just as likely to have failure to descend or another non-emergent thing come up than SD (I think, don't have stats handy). And if you get to the pushing stage again and baby is just not going to come out, then that's what c-sections are for. I know it's intimidating to think of going through labor and still having a c-section. Most modern doctors are very skilled at doing c-sections in a variety of circumstances so I would think if you really needed one it would be ready.

 

And what if the baby IS the right size and come right out? That would be great.

 

Wishing you much luck.


Blair, mom to the amazing Nora (8/06) ribboncesarean.gif, sweet Anneliese (2/10) vbac.gif, and super Henry (8/12) vbac.gif

folkgirl is offline  
#10 of 33 Old 05-29-2012, 06:29 AM - Thread Starter
 
Ninetales's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,068
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Plummeting View Post

 

Perhaps your size made it more difficult to palpate the baby? (I always feel like I'm saying the wrong thing when I talk about weight, so please understand I'm just wondering on what may have happened, and not making any judgments or anything.) I don't know if that was considered in the studies I read, but I can see where it might make a difference, and having experienced that, I would also decide it didn't work for me. I've had the opposite experience (my midwives have been spot on at guessing the weight), so of course I lean more towards trusting it for myself.

 

Your doctors were wrong to say that GD is always present by 28 weeks. It is almost always present by 28 weeks, and 28 weeks is the cut off at which it has been determined the benefits outweigh the costs of testing everyone, but you can absolutely, positively develop GD after 28 weeks. It's uncommon, but it definitely happens. If you want to test your own blood sugar at home, it's really very easy. You can get a cheap meter at WalMart for about $9. I know a lot of people don't shop there, and I generally don't either, but it was either buy the meter and strips there or pay over twice as much elsewhere, so...I just did it. Anyway, the brand is ReliOn. The one I use is called the Ultima, I think. It will come with a lancing device and ten lancets. I think maybe it comes with a few strips, but I can't remember. Just buy a pack of 25 strips for about $15 or so. Then you will need to order some testing solution from the company - there's an 800 number in the packaging and the solution is free. I live in Hawaii and I got it in under a week, so if you're on the mainland I imagine it wouldn't take long at all. Then just follow the directions for using the meter, making sure your fingers are ALWAYS clean before you do it. Don't milk the finger too much, as this can artificially lower your reading. Just prick, then wait a few seconds, then gently, gently milk (very gently) and you should get a good drop of blood. You want to test first thing when you get up in the morning, then an hour after your meals.

 

Normal blood sugar for a pregnant woman is lower than for a non-pregnant woman, due to the extra blood volume of pregnancy. This is what you're looking for:

 

Fasting (first thing in the morning, before eating): 80 or less

One hour after meals: 122 or less

Two hours after meals: 110 or less

 

One hour after a meal means one hour after the FIRST BITE, not one hour after you finish. Two hours means two hours after the first bite, of course. Here's a link discussing those numbers and where they came from: http://diabetesupdate.blogspot.com/2011/10/normal-blood-sugars-in-pregnancy.html

 

In all likelihood, you don't have GD, just because it is rare to develop it after 28 weeks, but it's still possible, so personally I'd want to find out for sure, given your enormous first baby.  I'm a totally normal size and I still got GD after 28 weeks. I was only checking because I had declined the test (and I probably would've passed it anyway) and wanted to be sure nothing crazy happened. Good thing I didn't stop at 28 weeks. :) You may not even be interested in checking your own blood sugar, and I totally understand that, but I did want to provide the information for you, just in case you did want to check it. It really isn't that difficult, once you know what to do and what you're looking for.

 

You are a lifesaver!  That is just the information I was looking for.  I don't mind buying from Walmart, and I am relieved to know there is a relatively inexpensive option for testing on my own.  I was afraid I'd have to go to a medical supply store and spend hundreds of dollars or something.  And no offense taken re: palpating and size.  I've started coming to terms with the fact that some things I've taken for granted just don't apply to me.  I think it will be worth checking myself as I go on just to be sure I don't develop something.  I'm more afraid of vaginal birth with an unnaturally large baby vs. one my body grew on its own.


Mama to Elsa Louise: 2/10, 13lbs 8 oz  energy.gifand Oscar Allen: 7/12, 13lbs 8 oz  babyboy.gif

Ninetales is offline  
#11 of 33 Old 05-29-2012, 06:32 AM - Thread Starter
 
Ninetales's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,068
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by folkgirl View Post

I am familiar with your story. I'm in your DDC this time and coincidentally I was last time, too. :) I think your situation is pretty unusual and definitely would give me pause. I have had GD with all of my pregnancies, but I've never had a particularly large baby. Mine have always measured larger than they actually turned out to be. In my last pregnancy they were estimating a 9-10 lb baby two weeks before she was born at 8lbs11oz. Even still, I know there is a possibility that I will have a "diabetes big" baby this time and I can't say that doesn't bother me sometimes.

 

The way I feel about it for me is that there's no way that I can know if the baby is going to come out unless i have a trial of labor. Sounds like that is the approach your providers are taking so far. If we know that fetal weight estimation is frequently wrong (very wrong) then what else can we do? Yes there are risks of shoulder distocia etc, but SD can occur even with smaller babies when no one is expecting it. Sometimes it has more to do with position than size. And even when we're talking big baby, proportions can matter a lot more than the overall size of the baby. And you're just as likely to have failure to descend or another non-emergent thing come up than SD (I think, don't have stats handy). And if you get to the pushing stage again and baby is just not going to come out, then that's what c-sections are for. I know it's intimidating to think of going through labor and still having a c-section. Most modern doctors are very skilled at doing c-sections in a variety of circumstances so I would think if you really needed one it would be ready.

 

And what if the baby IS the right size and come right out? That would be great.

 

Wishing you much luck.

 

Haha, I told my sister that I was planning on staying home as long as possible before going into the hospital, and she was all "ohh, be careful, you don't want to have the baby in the car!"  And I said, "um, sure I do!  My problem is more likely that it won't come out at all, so the car is just fine!"  Especially because that would be an awful lot cheaper.  ;)

 

I have been hoping that if it's too big it will just not come out again, like the first time. 

 

I feel loads better about it, either way I decide to go.  Thanks to everyone for their thoughts!


Mama to Elsa Louise: 2/10, 13lbs 8 oz  energy.gifand Oscar Allen: 7/12, 13lbs 8 oz  babyboy.gif

Ninetales is offline  
#12 of 33 Old 05-29-2012, 10:22 AM
 
hildare's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: in-the-sticks-off-a-dirt-road, GA
Posts: 2,692
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

size influenced my decision to have a RCS rather than a VBAC. 

dd was 10 pound plus at birth, no signs of GD (and the c wasn't for size, it was for water being broken 24 + hours with no dilation/effacement).  we read everything, all the recommendations and lit reviews and research.  none of it was particularly conclusive, though there is some info out there that there is an increase of rupture with a baby over 8.8 pounds. 

i was in much the same situation as you are- we knew that second baby wasn't going to end up smaller than the first, and at the end, we knew ds would be over 8.8, but i also had other issues not associated with size that made an RCS seem like the safest route for us.  i also have problems dilating in general, and it wasn't happening at 39 weeks, not at all.

if your only concern is size, there was a thread somewhere in VBAC forum where lots of people contributed that they had successfully VBAC'ed large babies. 

also, if your midwives/doctors are encouraging you to VBAC, you probably have a good chance at it working.  :) 

i wouldn't let size be the one thing that kept you from trying, though. 

some people do just have large babies, i am one of them :)  but you sound like you're really on track with monitoring. 

good luck!!!!


Is it getting lonely in the echo chamber yet?

hildare is offline  
#13 of 33 Old 05-29-2012, 04:14 PM
 
AmandaMamma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 49
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ninetales View Post

And no offense taken re: palpating and size.  I've started coming to terms with the fact that some things I've taken for granted just don't apply to me.  I think it will be worth checking myself as I go on just to be sure I don't develop something.  I'm more afraid of vaginal birth with an unnaturally large baby vs. one my body grew on its own.

Hi there. I'm obese as well and it is harder for my midwife to get a detailed palp. Also the external monitors don't work as well for me.

I was kind of close to the cutoff numbers for GD so decided to test myself. It has been extremely reassuring to see the numbers. And very educational to have the accountability and how certain food affect things. Good luck!joy.gif
AmandaMamma is offline  
#14 of 33 Old 05-29-2012, 08:01 PM
 
homebirthing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 2,732
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

I go by 90 or less for fasting, 140 1 hr pp and 120 2 hr pp


wife - mother - midwife

CIRCUMCISION

The more you know, the worse it gets.

homebirthing is offline  
#15 of 33 Old 05-30-2012, 05:18 AM
 
Youngfrankenstein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,273
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ninetales View Post

 

It doesn't help that I am in fact obese.  I used to be so adamant that a body would only grow a baby it couldn't birth under extreme circumstances.

I think many of us fell prey to this myth.  It was "shouted" over and over that a mom wouldn't grow a baby she couldn't birth vaginally.  That obviously isn't true.  I was 200# during my last pregnancy and while I didn't have sugar issues (did at home blood testing) and I lose weight while I'm pregnant (I puke a lot), I still feel my high carb intake made a larger baby for me.

 

I am a hypocrite to give this advice because I was never successful at it, but try to keep your diet in check.  I think if I could do that I'd wait for some ultrasounds towards the end and make a decision closer to that time.

 

I have never faced choosing a c/s where it was a difficult choice.  I wish you luck and keep your chin up.  Whatever you decide that keeps mom and baby healthy is a right choice.

 

HUGS!


Mama to 4. winner.jpghomebirth.jpg
Youngfrankenstein is offline  
#16 of 33 Old 05-30-2012, 11:44 AM
 
Plummeting's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,383
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by homebirthing View Post

I go by 90 or less for fasting, 140 1 hr pp and 120 2 hr pp


Those are not normal numbers. Those are targets for women who have GD. If you are hitting those numbers, you have GD. The OP wasn't asking for targets for women with GD. She was saying she had wondered if perhaps there were some blood sugar problems during her pregnancy, so I shared with her what normal numbers would be.

Plummeting is offline  
#17 of 33 Old 05-30-2012, 11:32 PM
 
AmandaMamma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 49
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Plummeting View Post


Those are not normal numbers. Those are targets for women who have GD. If you are hitting those numbers, you have GD. The OP wasn't asking for targets for women with GD. She was saying she had wondered if perhaps there were some blood sugar problems during her pregnancy, so I shared with her what normal numbers would be.

Could you point me to a resource for this? I've been shown conflicting information and have been curious about it. Thanks! smile.gif

Edited to add that I just saw the link in your first post!
AmandaMamma is offline  
#18 of 33 Old 05-30-2012, 11:57 PM
 
1stTimeMama4-4-10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 626
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Plummeting View Post


Those are not normal numbers. Those are targets for women who have GD. If you are hitting those numbers, you have GD. The OP wasn't asking for targets for women with GD. She was saying she had wondered if perhaps there were some blood sugar problems during her pregnancy, so I shared with her what normal numbers would be.

Are you sure about that?  I spoke to my midwife today about the cutoffs for the glucose screen and I don't remember the exact numbers, but the cutoff was pretty high.  I know the glucose test involves an insane amount of sugar in a short period, but I'm not so sure that the numbers cited by the PP are wrong.


Happy fly-by-nursing1.giffamilybed2.giffemalesling.GIF, delayed/selective vaxxing, WOHM to DD1 4/10 diaper.gif, DD2 8/12 babygirl.gif and partner/wife for thirteen years to SAHD DHsuperhero.gif.  

1stTimeMama4-4-10 is offline  
#19 of 33 Old 05-31-2012, 06:44 AM
 
Youngfrankenstein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,273
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1stTimeMama4-4-10 View Post

Are you sure about that?  I spoke to my midwife today about the cutoffs for the glucose screen and I don't remember the exact numbers, but the cutoff was pretty high.  I know the glucose test involves an insane amount of sugar in a short period, but I'm not so sure that the numbers cited by the PP are wrong.

Yes, I curious too.  Those were the numbers I was given when I was doing self blood testing over a 3 day period at the end of my pregnancy.


Mama to 4. winner.jpghomebirth.jpg
Youngfrankenstein is offline  
#20 of 33 Old 05-31-2012, 07:46 AM
 
AmandaMamma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 49
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I followed the link which talks about a study done last year supporting the lower numbers. There are some doctors now who have commented that the numbers should be lowered. So it seems that this info is fairly new and only has one study. But there is also a debate about how going too low on carbs causes ketosis and the affects on the baby. More info needs to be conducted before the majority of doctors and midwives change the official recommendations.

When I look up glucose levels in healthy adults it looks like the diagnostic numbers were even higher than the 120 2 hour number most of us have been taught.
AmandaMamma is offline  
#21 of 33 Old 05-31-2012, 12:50 PM
 
Plummeting's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,383
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

No, there are multiple studies showing that normal glucose levels during pregnancy are significantly lower than they are in non-pregnant individuals. The one study you're referring to, AmandaMamma, is a meta-analysis. A meta-analysis is a study that takes the results of multiple studies and draws conclusions based on those. The numbers cited by the PP are definitely wrong. No non-diabetic person's blood sugar should regularly reach 140 at the one hour postprandial mark, even when they aren't pregnant, but most especially when they are. It's not outside the norm to have the occasional 140 at one hour after a meal, but to do it regularly is a sign that there is a problem with blood sugar regulation. I can also link to information on what is normal in the non-pregnant state, and those numbers should be higher than what's normal during pregnancy, because the increased blood volume of pregnancy results in lower blood glucose numbers, but I feel like we're getting a little off topic for the OP to turn this into a GD discussion. (But over 120 at 2 hour pp is also not normal for non-pregnant people. The ADA has been roundly criticized by pretty much everyone for suggesting that 140 at 2 hours pp is even remotely normal.)

 

If you follow the link I posted, you will find the link to the article from the magazine. There you will find this quote:

 

 

Quote:

Despite the variations in methodology and settings, there was some consistency in the results. Pooling the results, the weighted average glucose values (± 1 SD) were 71 ± 8 mg/dL fasting, 109 ± 13 mg/dL at 1-h postprandial, and 99 ± 10 mg/dL at 2-h postprandial.

 

So no matter how you slice it up (where you test, how you test, when you test), these are the results they get from non-diabetic women. Here's the link for that article: http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/34/10/2331.full

 

Then you can look at the first citation, which will take you to the study. In the study, you will read this:

 

Quote:
Twelve studies met the criteria for inclusion with a total of 255 pregnant women with normal weight and glucose tolerance (Table 1)

 

That's twelve, not one. Here's the link: http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/34/7/1660.full?ijkey=fae7b0055d9b45230d6982a48f00f541a5c98037&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha

 

There's just literally no evidence at all to suggest that 140 is a normal 1 hour PP blood sugar for a pregnant woman.

 

Also, I forgot to address the whole issue of ketones on a low carb diet. If the only way a woman can maintain normal glucose levels is to eat such a low carb diet that she goes into ketosis, many providers will recommend eating more carbs and taking medication to reduce insulin resistance or using insulin. That way blood sugar is normal and ketones aren't being produced. It's not an either/or thing with GD. You don't have choose between ketones and high blood sugar. You can have neither. What each woman is comfortable with will vary (so some women will want to choose one or the other), but it is simply not true that we have to weigh the risks of high blood sugar against the risks of ketones, since you can manage GD without having either of those things.

 

I'm sorry I keep editing, but I was trying to find a way to include the information I thought was necessary and relevant without completely derailing the thread. I'm pretty sure I haven't succeeded at all, but I just think this is such an important topic that it's hard to condense it.

Plummeting is offline  
#22 of 33 Old 05-31-2012, 06:02 PM
 
AmandaMamma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 49
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Hopefully the OP won't mind the derailment. So this begs the question why the heck are we all still being told the higher numbers? Very frustrating! Thank you for all the info and the bit about ketosis. I'll be taking to my CNM about it with some printouts.
AmandaMamma is offline  
#23 of 33 Old 05-31-2012, 06:23 PM
 
Monkey Keeper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,955
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ninetales View Post

I plan on getting another near 36 weeks, yes.

I personally think the accuracy of late term ultrasound directly relates to the skill of the technician. I have had 2 late term u/s, both within 48 hours of birth. One of them estimated the baby to be 14oz larger than she actually was. The other was off by a single ounce. In comparing experiences with other women, those who had the same tech as I did for the second u/s had similar results--very, very accurate estimates in close proximity to birth. Incidentally, the tech asked me to report back when the baby was born so he could "keep score", so to speak. It was a point of pride for him.

 

To answer your initial question, is there a number? Yes. I am a VBAC mama who (very, very easily) pushed out a 9lb 5oz baby. Multiple care providers have said that I have a very roomy pelvis and could birth a baby much larger. Knowing this and knowing the potential inaccuracy of u/s, I think I am comfortable up to the mid-11lb range. 12lb is kind of my tipping point, I think.  I know with conviction that a 10lber would be no big deal for me, positioned correctly of course. I feel much, much less confident thinking about hearing an estimate near 12lb. And I think that part cannot be discounted, the visceral reaction. That seed will have been planted, and it can (and likely will) impact your birth. 

 

Good luck to you! Hopefully your lower weight gain will help you grow a smaller baby and you will have an amazing VBAC!


 hearts.gif(6), energy.gif(4.5),  diaper.gif (2) and  IT'S A babygirl.gif!!!!  ~9/24/12~ vbac.gifwaterbirth.jpg

Monkey Keeper is offline  
#24 of 33 Old 05-31-2012, 08:53 PM
 
1stTimeMama4-4-10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 626
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

To respond to your original question, I am not scared of anything below 10. Above 10 and I would be intimidated.  But no matter what I was told, I would give labor a try and if baby won't come out, only then would I consider a section.  But then, I haven't been through what you have, and so any choice you make would make sense to me.


Happy fly-by-nursing1.giffamilybed2.giffemalesling.GIF, delayed/selective vaxxing, WOHM to DD1 4/10 diaper.gif, DD2 8/12 babygirl.gif and partner/wife for thirteen years to SAHD DHsuperhero.gif.  

1stTimeMama4-4-10 is offline  
#25 of 33 Old 06-03-2012, 11:11 PM
 
phathui5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Oregon
Posts: 17,478
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Are you watching your carbs this time around?


Midwife (CPM, LDM) and homeschooling mama to:
13yo ds   10yo dd  8yo ds and 6yo ds and 1yo ds  
phathui5 is offline  
#26 of 33 Old 06-12-2012, 10:31 AM
 
Quinalla's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Ohio, USA
Posts: 2,354
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Unfortunately, there really is no accurate way to tell what the baby weighs late in the pregnancy. They estimated 7 lbs or so for mine at my last U/S (at 37w2d) and she was 5lbs4oz (born at 38w). My SIL just had a baby and they thought the baby would be 7 or 8 lbs and hers was over 10lbs.

I can definitely understand your fears though! I think if it were me, I would have a trial of labor at least before doing a c-section, but I haven't been in that position myself and don't have doctors/midwives advising me, I'd talk to your care providers about it more.

Katie trekkie.gif - Married to Mike 06/02/01, Mom to Sydney Anne born 11/21/09 and Alice Maeryn & Oliver Thomas born 04/24/13  hug.gif 

 

 

Quinalla is offline  
#27 of 33 Old 06-16-2012, 07:21 AM - Thread Starter
 
Ninetales's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,068
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

So I had another big weight gain and my doctors don't seem very concerned.  The cynic in me thinks that they have already decided I'm going to end up sectioned so they don't really care how big the baby gets.  I've got my own glucose monitor now, and I am confused about doing after meal tests.  Do I eat, then stop, then test one and two hours after I started?  Like, do I start fasting again after I eat my meal, or do I go about my day like normal?


Mama to Elsa Louise: 2/10, 13lbs 8 oz  energy.gifand Oscar Allen: 7/12, 13lbs 8 oz  babyboy.gif

Ninetales is offline  
#28 of 33 Old 06-18-2012, 11:15 PM
 
Plummeting's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,383
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Yes, you eat a meal. You wait an hour after your first bite. Then you test. Then you can test again two hours later, but if your one hour number was normal, that's not really necessary. You need to do it after several meals though. Fasting blood sugar is only taken first thing in the morning, before you eat anything at all.
 

Plummeting is offline  
#29 of 33 Old 07-10-2012, 02:11 PM
 
loveandgarbage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,620
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

This thread is a little old, but just in case Ninetales will read, here's my story! DS1 was a c-section and he was 11lbs 14oz. Not as large as yours but still up there. I didn't have GD. I was induced (first mistake) and he wasn't in a good position for labor, and never descended. I was afraid to VBAC because of DS2's possible size. But he ended up being just over 8lbs. I think you've gotten some good advice about palpating and GD and I hope you'll be able to VBAC. I am a little scared of birthing again because what if this baby is larger-- I am smaller and don't think I could physically birth a 12lbs baby. But I'm going to try and of course hope for an average size baby!


Jean, feminist mama raising three boys: W (7), E (5) and L (2.15.13)

loveandgarbage is offline  
#30 of 33 Old 07-10-2012, 07:21 PM - Thread Starter
 
Ninetales's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,068
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Thanks for sharing! 

 

A little update.  The last three appointments I think I gained two pound each.  However I have been measuring quite far ahead - 44 cm at today's appointment, when I am 36 weeks 4 days.  But I gave my records of blood sugar numbers and other than the few issues I did find - I needed to tweak my breakfasts and cut out some things, which I've done and the numbers went back down after that - they said my numbers were not something that would be concerning.

 

So essentially, there is nothing they can find that I'm doing to make this baby big, and there's probably nothing I can do at this point to stop it.  We will go ahead with the ultrasound in two weeks (being fully aware of the huge range of inaccuracy), I won't schedule a section, and we'll see how things go.

 

I've gone now from being scared of vaginal birth to being anxious about another section.  I'm afraid of having another huge baby and having to feel guilty and listen to everyone's comments and jokes and judgments.  And another section means that VBACs with future babies will likely be a battle, and maybe I'll never get to experience a natural birth.  It doesn't help when I'm dealing with my jealous feelings toward my husband's cousin who just gave birth naturally, after being induced no less, 45 minutes of pushing and a perfect 6.5 lb baby. 


Mama to Elsa Louise: 2/10, 13lbs 8 oz  energy.gifand Oscar Allen: 7/12, 13lbs 8 oz  babyboy.gif

Ninetales is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off