Some of you might remember this thread about how there was a suspicion that I was pregnant with a baby that was a bit big for her gestational age. Well, as it turns out it was true. My baby was born at 38 weeks a week and a half ago by emergency c-section because of rapidly advancing pre-eclampsia. Baby Nadia, an otherwise healthy baby was born at 11.5 lb (5.3 kg) and 23.62 inches (60 cm), the length and weight of a 3-month baby.
Why our baby was so big has baffled us. My husband was a big baby, and he is at 6’ your stereotypical Scandinavian, while at 5’1" I wasn’t expecting a baby this big. The baby was put on watch the first two days to check her glucose levels, they were normal. She is in all respects - but her size - a normal baby born, she score 9 in the APGAR scale at birth and has since been nothing but perfect. The baby’s pediatrician has warned us to keep an eye on her weight as big babies are supposedly in danger of becoming overweight later in life, but has not told us, and we asked, that anything else is wrong with her.
Has any of you have had a baby this big? Why is my baby so big? I was really hoping for an average child, and although everybody seems to think this is somewhat a blessing it does scare me a bit. My only comfort is that she’s doing so well that it makes me hope that she’s just well… a viking kid born to a short mom.
I haven’t (my babies are teeny), but my best friend has huge babies, every time. Our girls look ridiculous next to each other. Her first was 10 lbs. second 11 lbs 3 and third, 12 lbs 13. All vaginal births with no pain meds! Like yous, no glucose problems or other health problems.
Her babies are all exclusively breast fed for six months and stay huge. Fat rolls like you wouldn’t believe. They look like cherubs with blond curls and extra elbows because of fat creases.
Then they hit preschool age, slim down, and are the smallest in their class for a few years! Weird, I know. But perfectly healthy and normal for them. Her oldest is 8, and at his ideal weight and roughly average in height.
So don’t despair. I can’t say enough good things about breastfeeding for preventing childhood obesity, though. Talk to your doctor about the studies, and really consider it, if you aren’t already doing it.
My second child was 22 inches long and close to 10 lbs (not the same, I know, but still big), and we had some of the same concerns. She’s 12 now, and she’s just fine, although she does tend a little to overweight. As long as she stays active and eats a healthy diet, though, she stays a healthy size, so it’s nothing we feel the need to get excited about. She’s also as tall as her almost-16-year-old sister, and she’s looking like she’ll end up at least 6 feet, which I think isn’t a bad thing.
So I’d say that as long as the doctor says she’s healthy, the only thing your daughter’s size means is that she’s going to be smarter and prettier and kinder and all-around better than any other child. At least, to you she is. Congratulations!
No, I didn’t. Since other tests came back normal for glucose my doctor never ordered one. Once the baby was born they took the precaucion of checking hers very closely: there were no signs of hypoglycemia. In short: we don’t know if I had gestational diabetes, there was never any sign of it and the baby doesn’t show any of its symptoms (other than the fact that she’s big).
But what about her lenght? She’s more “far out” on the charts when it comes to lenght than when it comes to weight.
By the way, she’s mostly breastfed and we are moving towards “totally breastfed”.
My mom swears I was born 6’4" and 180 lbs. If true, I haven’t grown at all except to put on about 20 lbs. And whenever I look at my elementary school pictures, I do stand out…
Congrats on welcoming Miss Nadia to the planet. I hope she has as much fun here as I do. More fun, even.
The glucose tolerance test would have been done at 24 weeks or so. You’d remember it because it involves drinking a sugar solution and getting your blood tested in an hour. Where I live, it is offered to all pregnant women, although many decline the test in the absence of other risk factors. Some people have great, efficient placentas that just delivery lots of nutrients to the baby. Some babies have genes that allow them to use everything mom can give them. It’s not neccesarily pathological, and it wouldn’t preclude a vaginal birth (except that your health was in danger from other conditions).
Have you measured her lately? The art of measuring babies is not a science. It’s really hard to measure a baby that has a molded head. After all, tomorrow the cone head is gone, so do you measure it today? While your c-section delivery may have prevented a conehead, it didn’t make her legs want to straighten out and make measuring easy.
I would be concerned about two things, if I were you. You may be given the suggestion that your big baby will need solids sooner than a smaller baby - that you couldn’t possible fill her up. Any solid food that you feed her will have less available calories per ounce than your milk. A decision about solids should not be based on her size alone. Current recommendations are to wait 6 months - although, anecdotally, I know many people find that waiting less or more works for them and their babies.
In addition, some very large babies seem to plummet through the percentiles, born at 99%, but becoming a 50% 6 month old that then grows steadily at that rate. It is very important for your baby to have lots of wet and poopy diapers and to meet her developmental milestones. She shouldn’t get skinnier than her height percentile (90% height, 20% weight, for example). But it is not neccesary for her to grow on the same percentile line that she was born on.
I second what Apricot reminds you about feeding milk. Milk provides fat for the brain in the first year, very important.
Anectdotally, my hubby weighed almost 13 lbs at birth. When he was age twelve he stood 6 feet. As he has advanced to the ripe old age of 46, he is not plagued with too many physical maladies. He has had some problems with his knees, from football and carrying around that much weight. Older tall people suffer from circulation problems (we’re watching out for that).
I don’t think your daughter’s inital birth weight will have much to do with her physical growth. Both my kids were born in the middle of the spectrum, 8 lbs average. My daughter never was fat or thin; she pegged the middle of the scale all the way (now 20 yrs old, 5’-6", about 120 lbs). My son was a very hefty kid but has now stretched out (6- 2", about 140 lbs). The main thing is to give her good nutrition.
And please remember in the first year, no matter what Granny tells ya, she needs MILK.
The baby’s pediatrician agrees with you. In her words “just because she looks like a 3-month old doesn’t mean she is.”
She warned us that we shouldn’t expect, or be pressured into believing that our baby will be anything but average in every respect but size. And that she’ll probably grow slower than other babies until she’s closer to her age in size. Since she’s our first child we don’t have any expectations, every thing she does is normal to us.
We hope to breastfeed her until she’s at least 6 month old when we’ll start introducting solids. Or we might breastfeed her a bit longer even.
I think it’s too soon to tell. I am not sure what the relationship between birthweight and later body mass is, but it’s not a perfect correlation.
More data points, for what they are worth. My scrawny aunt had six kids, the smallest of them born at just under 9 lbs and the rest over 10 lbs. All are normal sized adults, none of them were heavy as kids. My son was born at over 9 lbs but after about 6 months of age has generally tracked below the 25th percentile for weight and height. Six years later he’s still a very small kid. Head size has always been about 90th percentile; he looked like a lollipop for years.
Did you have an IV put in before the c-section? If you were bloated with fluids, perhaps your daughter was a bit, too. That wouldn’t account for pounds of weight (or explain why she was always ahead on gestational weight), but may have contributed a bit.
I highly recommend nutrition books by Ellyn Satter. They discuss a lot of issues pertaining to child nutrition and eating, and can provide some reassuring information for you. She has several titles and I can’t recall which covered which sort of issue; I’m not sure which one would best meet your needs.
I had a big baby–she arrived on her due date, at 10 lbs. 2 oz, so not as big as yours but still pretty large. They did make wondering noises about gestational diabetes with me, but there was no sign of it and my next pregnancy was normal too (9 lbs 1 oz, 10 days early). They did say that I had a quite large placenta, both times, so I suppose that might have something to do with it.
My 10 lb. daughter grew very slowly and only doubled her birth weight around her first birthday. She’s a tall skinny kid now (age 5), who looks more like she needs a little feeding up than otherwise. Second daughter, now 2, is also on the thin side.
I did know a woman around here who gave birth to an absolutely normal 11 lb. baby–vaginally, too! :eek: It was her first, but I don’t know what happened afterwards. Come to think of it, an elderly lady I know says her first was 11 lbs too, back in the 50’s, and she’s a tiny little thing. She had 6 or 7 kids in all, and all the ones I’ve seen are slim.
Anyway, I guess it just happens sometimes. Have fun with your big baby!
An aunt of mine (who’s a bit petite) had an 11 and a half pound baby, naturally (knowing her, she probably didn’t even take any pain meds). The kid’s about 18 now, and has been built like a bulldozer his whole life, right from the start. My grampap was also very big at birth (though how big exactly is up for some debate… He got bigger with every telling), and he wasn’t exactly a bulldozer, but sizable, and strong as an ox right up to his death at 88.
Then again, another of my aunts had triplets on her first pregnancy, and the smallest of them was six pounds one ounce, so big babies seem to run in my family.
I seem to recall from med school lectures that while baby’s head size correlates with dad’s head size, baby’s birth weight (assuming no gestational diabetes etc) correlates better with mom’s birth weight. Might you have been a heavy baby at birth, even though you are now a petite 5’1" lady? Or this may just be your baby’s genes from dad that have helped her get this early head start.
In my case, I was a teeny preemie baby and grew to be about your height. My husband was a big postterm baby and has grown to be about your husband’s height. Our son was born just shy of 38 weeks gestational age at 50th percentile height and 25% percentile weight but rapidly grew over the next 6 months to remain ever since at > 95th percentile height and 90th percentile weight. I believe his dad’s genetics have been fueling his growth, while me being the incubator affected his initial height & weight.
Another data point. I was 8 lbs. 4 oz and have been tall for my age and gender for as long as I can remember. Makes me somewhat different from other posters whose subjects started out long but then dropped into average height. Was the same height and weight as my mom for about 3 months in the 6th grade, then I outstripped her. Currently 5’10" and 210 pounds, but the weight totally behavioral.
Short answer (like everyone else has said): don’t put too much thought into these early measurements. There are just too many other factors that have yet to weight in. Oo! Pun! Have fun with your new baby!
