# What are the chances I'll have another big baby?



## Keeper at Home (Oct 8, 2007)

I'm 7 months into my third pregnancy and wondering if I can expect another large baby or if weight is just totally random.

Background: my first (girl) was 7 lbs 11 oz and my second (boy) was 9 lbs 4 oz -- they were both born at almost exactly 40 w and we were absolutely certain of the dates both times. I'm still not sure why he was so much bigger than my first (I actually gained a lot less weight with him) other than we suspect he may have had a twin that died somewhere in the late first trimester/early second trimester -- his placenta was very large and had an extra lobe to it (and my midwife found what looked like an encapsulated fetus in the placenta). My midwife suggested that due to the extra large placenta he may be have been receiving more nutrition, thus resulting in him being such a big baby. Has anyone heard/experienced something similar?

Anyhow, while his birth was fast it was also extremely painful pushing him out. I am fairly small in stature and my pelvic bones separated so much in order to make room for him to come through that I literally could not walk at all for 6+ hours following the birth -- and had great difficulty walking or even taking stairs for at least one week.

Understandably I am a bit concerned as to whether I'm going to have a similar experience with #3! It seems all I keep hearing from friends is about how subsequent babies usually just keep getting bigger. Yikes!


----------



## camprunner (Oct 31, 2003)

My first was 7 lbs 10 oz and the second was 7 lbs 6 oz at the same gestation so it might just depend a little on genetics too.

ETA: Had the weight of the second baby wrong in original post.


----------



## greencarnation (Oct 1, 2010)

That's a small baby! I was 8.8, my siblings were 10.0, 9.4, and 8.4!

I am afraid this sucker is going to be at least 9lbs!


----------



## littlest birds (Jul 18, 2004)

I won't include our twins... My first was 10 lbs, and our fourth was 8 lbs. 14 oz. I don't know about the twin theory for your son's size, but think there is no special reason that your next child would be the largest or anything.


----------



## lawmama1984 (Mar 17, 2009)

I have heard that boys following boys tend to get larger. My first son was 9.2# just shy of 39 weeks. My second son, born at 41+4 (labor started at 41+2), was 10.8#. I am definitely hoping for a girl next time, as I expect she would be smaller!


----------



## Monkey Keeper (Nov 20, 2009)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lawmama1984*
> 
> I am definitely hoping for a girl next time, as I expect she would be smaller!


The biggest of my 3 is a girl 

DD1 was under 8lbs, but I had pre-e and her growth obviously stalled once my BP went up. DD2 was 9lb, 8oz at 41w. DS was 9lb, 5oz at 41w2d. I figured DS would be 10lbs, but he surprised me, pleasantly


----------



## lawmama1984 (Mar 17, 2009)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PinkBunch*
> 
> The biggest of my 3 is a girl
> 
> DD1 was under 8lbs, but I had pre-e and her growth obviously stalled once my BP went up. DD2 was 9lb, 8oz at 41w. DS was 9lb, 5oz at 41w2d. I figured DS would be 10lbs, but he surprised me, pleasantly


No, no don't tell me that!!!  I want a nice, petite baby girl. Ha!!! Oh well, one can hope, right? If it's a boy, I'm pretty sure he will weigh 17 pounds. LOL just kidding! I plan to do whatever I can to avoid that


----------



## honeybunmom (Jan 11, 2007)

My first was a 9lb girl, 4 days early. When I asked my midwife how I grew such a big baby (I am 5' 6 1/2" and was a size 4/6 when I got pregnant with her) and, more importantly, how do I not do it again,her response was, "Aside from taking up drinking and smoking, there's not much I can tell you". I ate very well with her pregnancy, drank no caffeine and worked out 5 days a week. With number 2, I drank my 1 cup of coffee a day and was not working out at all. He was 7 lbs 13 oz and 10 days early. And I think I somehow managed to gain 5 lbs less with him (33 vs 38 lbs). All that to say, I don't think there is any way to know/manage it.


----------



## Monkey Keeper (Nov 20, 2009)

*lawmama--*When we found out DS was a boy, I had a similar reaction: "He's going to be HUUUUGE!" Luckily, he wasn't *that* huge. And I did VBAC him 

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *honeybunmom*
> All that to say, I don't think there is any way to know/manage it.


Yes, this!!

I really think genetics has SO much to do with it. Both my mom and MIL had big babies--all those that gestated to 40w or more were 9+lbs. I don't even hold the big baby record among the three of us...MIL's 3rd was 9lb 11oz. My diet, activity level and lifestyle were radically different with DD2 and DS, and so was my weight gain--nearly 50lbs with her, not even 30lbs with him. Yet, they were nearly identical in size. (FTR, I'm 5'6" and a 6/8 not pregnant.)

IIRC, there are a couple dietary things that are correlated with fetal weight, at least loosely: dairy consumption and refined carb/sugar consumption. I don't have any research on it, just remember reading it somewhere along the way


----------



## lawmama1984 (Mar 17, 2009)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PinkBunch*
> 
> *lawmama--*When we found out DS was a boy, I had a similar reaction: "He's going to be HUUUUGE!" Luckily, he wasn't *that* huge. And I did VBAC him
> 
> ...


There's hope!! 

I read the same dietary considerations, PinkBunch. Navelgazing Midwife actually has a theory (which I think a few others share) abotu the Brewer diet and high protein causing big babies. I loosely followed that diet to manage my BP and my BP did stay in check, but I grew a big baby. I have been toying with watching dairy next time and I have already eliminated sodas from my diet...working on other sugars. Slowly but surely


----------



## echospiritwarrior (Jun 1, 2006)

well I can tell you that from my experience your friends are WRONG!

Our first was a 40 weeker and she weighed in at 7lbs 11oz

Our second was 42 weeks and she weighed in at 9lbs 12 oz

Our last son, who was also a solid 42 weeks was 9lbs 4 oz so he was smaller than his sister!

I would honestly have to say that the labor with my biggest baby was my most "comfortable" labor of all, I felt a clear transition and everything seemed so manageable. Her brother shot out in just over an hour and I don't think the endorphins got a chance to kick in!

Now I just have to figure out why my uterus got so hospitable after our first born


----------



## 34me (Oct 2, 2006)

Well my dd was born at exactly 40 weeks and she was 8 even and after 2 years of TTC if it didn't move I ate it and gained 50 lbs. Ds1 was 41 + 4 and he was 9lbs 3 oz and I only gained 16 lbs. And my ds2 at 40 +3 was 10 lbs even. I gained about 20 lbs with him. Honestly, it's the reason I don't have 4 kids.


----------



## Liv89 (May 16, 2011)

Hi

I just wanted to post that not all 'big baby births' are horrible and painful.

On new years day 2011, at 6.10am, after four hours of labour, I gave birth to my son (my first), who weighed 11lb 15oz. The birth was lovely and not too painful, and although I tore the pain wasn't that bad afterwards.

Good luck xxx


----------



## Celticqueen (Feb 17, 2007)

Birthing big babies does not have to be bad at all. In fact, not pregnant, I am a petite, tiny boned 95 pound, 5'1 girl and I have pushed out a 7 pound baby and a 9 pound baby without any tearing at all, the 2nd labor being only an hour and a half! POST PARDUM, though is a completely different story, and I do believe having big babies can influence that, and absolutely in my case. Not only did the 9 pounder hefty one cause a massive hernia in my stomach that you could fit a head through, I am currently having to go through intense physical therapy because he caused bad organ prolapse, and skin issues that are so embarassing, I refuse to wear bathing suits anymore.

Not to discourage you though or make you think that having big babies is a bad thing, just pointing out that for ME anyway, birthing a big baby was 100x easier than having a body AFTER big baby was born.

Just my two cents!


----------



## mammamo (Nov 15, 2007)

My 9#9oz'er practically flew out and I didn't have 1/2 as much pain as with my 8#6oz'er. But my smaller was delivered in the classic lithotomy pos. and my bigger was born while I was on my hands and knees. I think that had something to do with it. What am I doing to avoid another large baby this time? It is not necessary to eat the ENTIRE 9x13 pan of brownies


----------



## wombatclay (Sep 4, 2005)

What do the babies look like in your extended family/past?

My own kiddos have been 9lbs6oz, 9lbs even, and 9lbs8oz. I was over 10lbs, my brother over 11lbs, and the smallest baby on my mother's side was the four week preemie... and he was 7lbs even. Although babies are a good deal smaller in my husband's family (ranging from 6.5 to just under 8lbs in the last few generations) I'm not expecting a baby to be under 9lbs at 40 weeks. LOL

That said, my hours of pushing, shoulder dystocia, and 4th degree tear were with my 9lb babe. My 9lb8oz babe literally shot out (though that birth was probably the most painful it was also the fastest). I have no clue what to expect this time in terms of labor (one babe was 24+ hours, one was 12 hours, one was 4 hours) but I'm pretty sure the size/length of the babe will be roughly 9lbs and 21 inches!

Hope you have a gentle birth no matter the babe's size!


----------



## Celticqueen (Feb 17, 2007)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mammamo*
> 
> What am I doing to avoid another large baby this time? It is not necessary to eat the ENTIRE 9x13 pan of brownies










I need to refer back to this post when I'm in my last few weeks of pregnancy


----------



## C.Arden (Sep 9, 2007)

My first (boy) was 9lbs 4oz and I was in labor for 23 1/2 hours. It was a very very intense and painful labor. My second (girl) was 9lbs 14oz. Delivering her was NOTHING compared to my first. I was only in labor for about 8 hours and only the last 1 1/2 or so was very painful. I pushed for about 20 minutes with her and I was pushing for close to 2 hours with my first. My 3rd (another girl) was 9lbs 7oz and the labor was somewhere in the middle of the other two. More difficult than my second but nothing like my first. So I don't know, I guess I just grow big babies. They were all born right at 40 weeks and my pregnancies with all three were about the same. I had terrible morning sickness and lost a fair amount of weigh each time and they still came out big and healthy. I'm curious to see how big this one will be.


----------



## 4C-mom (Jul 1, 2007)

My four got bigger and bigger.

1. BOY, 41w2d, 8#2oz

2. GIRL, 41w0d, 8#8oz

3. GIRL, 40w2d, 8#11oz

4. BOY, 41w2d, 10#7oz

so, the boy babies were both 41w2d, the longest gestation, but one was the smallest baby and one was the biggest baby. What was different? I was normal weight with the first two, gained 40 and 49 pounds respectively. Third, I was overweight, and gained 21 pounds. Fourth, I was overweght, but 6 pounds less than when got pregnant with 3. Gained the least amount of weight--17 pounds

I joke that next time I get pregnant, I am going to smoke to have a smaller baby.(not serious, i hate smoke) The only reason I want a smaller one is that my big fatty had a shoulder dystocia, fractured clavicle.

What will I do different? exercise more, and eat healthier! alhtough i only gained 17 pounds, which is within the recommended weight gain of 15-25 pounds for an overweight woman, i didn't eat as healthy as I could have. No soda, decreased carbs ( I do love the salty chips adn such.....).


----------



## lsmama (May 27, 2009)

1st DD 8 lbs 10 oz at 39 weeks - natural birth w/ shoulder dystocia but turned out ok - i gained 35 lbs

2nd DD 9 lbs 15 oz at 40 weeks 5 days - c-section - i gained 26 lbs and restricted dairy and sugar, worked out until 36 weeks etc. not sure there was anything i could have done about it.

i do think genetics plays a role. DH and i were both 9 lbs. our moms are both petite women who grow big babies. i am 5'4, 125 lbs not pregnant.


----------

