# If you have a baby over 9lbs, you are diabetic



## claddaghmom (May 30, 2008)

So can we have a discussion on large babies and diabetes during pregnancy?

A nurse told me that since my baby was over 9lbs, I'm definitely diabetic. Now, I've heard of the diabetes connection. I've got a general understanding of it. I never thought to disagree with it. But I'm pretty confused.

My kid was big. But I didn't get diagnosed with diabetes during pregnancy. I never had any related symptoms. Nothing in my lifestyle puts me at risk. Post-partum I have no problems.

So what happened??

And if it really wasn't diabetes, anemia, sugar problems or anything of the sort, then why was my baby huge?

My MW told me it was due to the amount of protein I ate during the 2nd trimester. But so far she is the only person who is not telling me I am diabetic.


----------



## dogmom327 (Apr 19, 2007)

I've known quite a few people who had babies over 9 lbs. and none of them were diabetic. That's a bunch of BS.


----------



## glendora (Jan 24, 2005)

Mine was over 9lbs, and I didn't have GD. I was tested for it, even. Twice.


----------



## 4Blessings (Feb 27, 2008)

I was borderline on the GD test with my second so I tested my bloodsugar multiple times daily and was within normal range throughout my third trimester. DS was 9lbs. 7oz. I tested throughout my third pregnancy and was always within normal range. DD was 9 lbs. 3oz.

My first child was 10 lbs. Never tested with that one but did pass the GD test.

I think some people just make big babies


----------



## Maluhia (Jun 24, 2007)

9 pounds 10.5 ounces
NOT diabetic at any point before, during or after.


----------



## Limabean1975 (Jan 4, 2008)

9lbs is not huge. It's well within the range of normal. My first was 9lbs14oz, nothing diabetic about either of us - NOTHING.


----------



## DreamsInDigital (Sep 18, 2003)

DS1 was 8 lbs. 12 oz. Tested neg. for GD.
DS2 was 9 lbs. 1 oz. Declined GD test.
DS3 was 10 lbs. 2 oz. Declined GD test. Random blood sugar testing showed absolutely normal results.
DD was 8 lbs. 4 oz. Declined GD test.
DS4 is measuring at 75%ile at 28 weeks and I tested neg. for GD.

I just make big babies.


----------



## Baby Makes 4 (Feb 18, 2005)

Both of my boys were over 9 pounds (9lb7oz & 9lb1oz) and I am most definitely not diabetic. My blood sugar and GTT tests throughout all of my pregnancies have been normal.

Some babies are just big.


----------



## GAmomto5 (Apr 9, 2008)

Big baby maker here too, and no diabetes!

DS#1 - 9 lb. 3 oz.
DD#1 - 8 lb. 5 oz.
DS#2 - 9 lb. 6 oz.
DD#2 - 9 lb. even
DD#3 - 10 lb. 5 oz. - I did eat extra protein with her and feel this is why she was bigger.


----------



## kitkat5505 (Feb 22, 2005)

My boys were 8.15, 8.14, and 9.3 and I've never had GD. Big babies run in my mom's side of the family (I was 9lb and my mom's smallest) without any trace of diabetes. I definitely don't think 9lb is *huge*, some people just have bigger babies, just as some people have smaller babies.


----------



## Amylcd (Jun 16, 2005)

My first was 9 lbs 7 oz, my second was 10 lbs 3 oz. (at 38 weeks 0 days!)

No diabetes.


----------



## ShwarmaQueen (Mar 28, 2008)

Induced at 39 weeks (born by c/s), DD was 8.14 oz- it's safe to assume she would have been over 9 if not delivered then. I was tested twice, passed with flying colors. I was vegan until my 3rd trimester, so I don't see how protein could be responsible for growing a big baby. However, I do see how family genetics can- my father was 6'4" and mother 5'9", both large framed (I'm 6'0").


----------



## mommajb (Mar 4, 2005)

I am a little surprised to read this now. My mom fought this when my sister was born in 1972 at 9lb 14.5oz.

Being diabetic can cause the baby to be large but the causality doesn't work in the other direction. There are other reasons to have a big baby. Two that I can think of are 'superior' nutrition and genetics.


----------



## mamazee (Jan 5, 2003)

My daughter was 9 lbs 12 oz. I was really worried about GD this time, and I took the 3 hour test, but as it turned out not only do I not have GD, but my numbers were much better than average. And I'm turning 41 this month so I'm pretty high risk for it.


----------



## TanyaS (Jun 24, 2003)

10 lbs 1 oz. Did not fail GD test. Do not have diabetes now.


----------



## ledzepplon (Jun 28, 2004)

My ds2 was 9 lbs 5 oz, and I did not have GD, nor do I have any other form of diabetes now. My brother was over 10 lbs and my mom isn't diabetic either.

I wouldn't call over 9 lbs "huge." I think that nurse was just plain wrong.


----------



## lovemybubus (Oct 2, 2007)

Both babies big, over 9lbs, never had GD still no diabetes!


----------



## 34me (Oct 2, 2006)

I have heard of a link to big babies and a risk to developing diabetes down the road. And when they say big they only mean over 8 pounds. I think a lot of us here fall into that category because many of us (unless there are other reasons) on MDC are wait and let the baby be born when it wants to be born kind of people. I don't know anyone IRL that went past their due date, as they were "done" being pregnant. All the baing said I only gained 16 lbs with my 1st 10 pounder and have never had any signs of diabetes.


----------



## earthmama369 (Jul 29, 2005)

It's a classic logic error.

Some babies born to mothers with gestational diabetes suffer from macrosomia -- i.e. they're large babies at birth.

this does not equal

All large babies are born to mothers with gestational diabetes.

But that's the connection some medical professionals make. It's wrong. Take my son and I, for example. He was 10 lbs. 4 oz. at birth.

I took the stupid test during pregnancy -- big fat "negative" for GD. I had no symptoms. My weight gain was the same as during my first pregnancy, which resulted in a 7 lb. 12 oz. baby. Granted, this pregnancy went three weeks longer, to 41 weeks, which is partly a factor, I'm sure.

So no symptoms, passed the GD test, and I had a large baby.

They tested his sugar more than TWENTY TIMES before he was released from the NICU for unrelated health issues. They just couldn't believe that I hadn't had gestational diabetes because he was so big.

It's crap. There's a wide range of normal, and some babies have to be the outliers. That's just how it works.


----------



## AutumnAir (Jun 10, 2008)

Oh, this annoyed me so much. My DD weighed 4020g at birth, and apparently the cut-off for 'diagnosing' GD in the hospital where we ended up was 4 kg even! So they insisted on doing a whole bunch of totally unnecessary tests on both of us, only to show that, no, in fact, I did NOT have GD. Which I'd already told them I don't know how many times







:

It couldn't possibly have anything to do with genetics? Both my brother and I were 9lb 4oz when born and my mom didn't have GD either. My DD was considered small by everyone in my family whose babies are all over 9 lb. I had also expected her to be bigger.

They really need to stop using the same yard-stick to measure everyone - one size does not fit all, literally. I mean, look at the mother and father. If they're both of small build then maybe a 9lb baby may signal possible GD. But if mom and dad are both of a larger build then it's fairly obvious that a 9-10 lb (or more!) baby is simply following its genetic programming! Plus, I find the whole GD thing a bit of a con for the most part. Yet another way to scare women into unnecessary stuff...


----------



## Jenivere (Aug 4, 2003)

Ridiculous! My mother is not a diabetic and I was 10lb+ baby. My sister has had several babies over 10 and is not diabetic. My daughter (second child) was 9lb 6oz and I am not diabetic. I am in fact the opposite, I have low blood sugar.


----------



## Carlyle (Mar 31, 2007)

My daughter was 10lbs 7oz at birth. No diabetes--in fact, I was eating an excellent diet to prevent bladder infections (a diet that is recommended for women with gest. diabetes)--all whole grains, NO sugar or any corn syrup products (even reading labels excessively to avoid the sneaky "cane juice" type things), etc. I was also eating a largely vegetarian diet. I do think her birth weight was a little bit inflated due to an IV and pitocin, but I mean, heck, even if you take an entire pound off for that, she was still big!

My friend's midwife suggested that for my next baby, I avoid drinking milk during the last month or two. She said that she believes that mom drinking lots of cow milk (which I was--organic, whole cows milk) can cause babies to be larger. I'm in to try...


----------



## Full Heart (Apr 27, 2004)

Had 3 9 lb babies and never had gd in any of my pg. My bs is always perfect.

ETA about cows milk. I don't drink cows milk cause I am allergic. But every pg once they see my placenta and its always calcified (I always go to 42 weeks its gonna be) they always ask if I drank a lot of milk. So it didn't cause my bigger babies either lol.


----------



## Carlyle (Mar 31, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Full Heart* 
ETA about cows milk. I don't drink cows milk cause I am allergic. But every pg once they see my placenta and its always calcified (I always go to 42 weeks its gonna be) they always ask if I drank a lot of milk. So it didn't cause my bigger babies either lol.

Gah! I am still holding out hope that I can get a smaller baby next time!







Rats...


----------



## leavemealone (Feb 16, 2005)

I've had two 9.5 lbers (9lbs, 6ozs and 9lbs, 10ozs) and have not been diabetic before, during or after either pregnancy. I have found out that there is a pretty good family history of decent sized babies on my side of the family (my dad was 9lbs, 2ozs). I was due Dec 4th with my third and both the OB that I see and my MW believe this one will be another 9lber at least. I hope to find out very soon how big this baby will be when he/she arrives!


----------



## broodymama (May 3, 2004)

The local military hospital (where I just had bloodwork done at the beginning of my pregnancy with DD2) called me to tell me that since DD1 was a "big" (in their minds) baby that I _would_ have GD during my pregnancy with DD2. I wasn't even being seen there, but they still called me around 19 weeks to tell me that, and try to pressure me to come in for the GTT and to go ahead and schedule an induction at 38-39 weeks.







: I just told them that I wasn't their patient, all pregnancy related decisions would be discussed with my midwife.

DS: 8 lb 3 oz, passed GTT
DD1: 10 lb, declined GTT
DD2: 9 lb 9 oz, declined GTT but monitored my blood sugar (mornings & post-prandial) for a week and my numbers were always excellent

Good-sized babies just run in my family and DH's family.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

My last three babies were all over 10 pounds. I never had the GD testing with Aaron, but I did have it with dd and ds2. I was fine. They also did some heel prick blood sugar test on ds2 (maybe dd, too, but I was in post-op) and he was fine.

Why are my babies so big? I don't know...but my son with my ex was only 7lb. 12oz. My ex's own birthweight was 7lb. 12oz...and dh's (father of the last three) birthweight was 9lb. 13oz. His three brothers were all over 9.5 lbs., as well...and there's nothing to suggest that MIL was/is diabetic.


----------



## claddaghmom (May 30, 2008)

Thanks for the wide range of responses!

Now that I think about it, both both sides of all families (in-laws and paternal/maternal) have babies 9lbs+. Out of my eleven siblings, I believe only 1 was under 9lbs, a couple were 10lbs and a couple were 11lbs. Dh's siblings were all 9-10lbs.

LOL, you know how you ask a potential partner "those serious questions" before marriage....maybe I should have asked DH for a list of baby weights before marrying him!


----------



## the_lissa (Oct 30, 2004)

My babies were 8lbs, 9 ounces and 9 lbs, 10 ozs. No one ever mentioned having diabetes to me. That seems like a silly and inaccurate way to diagnose that.


----------



## brandyk (Apr 16, 2008)

that is freaking ridiculous. not only is it a scientifically (and logically) unsupported proposition, i have gestational diabetes and let me tell you, you would KNOW if you had it. when your blood sugar gets too high your heart pounds (not faster, but you can FEEL it beating - it's weird) and you don't feel good and get all shakey (in a different way than low blood sugar).

For the first week after i was diagnosed with GD i thought it was bullpuckey, but after that, it really kicked in. Mine's very controlled, but man is it real for people who have it! I'm not talking about slightly elevated sugars that are natural in pregnancy, but full on GD.

Right now if baby's growth is on track the same as it's been my whole pg, we're expecting her to be like 9.5 lbs... and i'm 4'11"! [sob, baby come OUT! you are 40w and too fat!] And mine's been under control since 26w.

But yeah, GD related macrosomia is very different than just a plain large baby. GD babies have extra fat in their chest & shoulders. They have their little >9lb rubric but I think an experienced practitioner should be able (95% of the time at least) to look at the baby and tell.


----------



## kriket (Nov 25, 2007)

now, My dad was almost 11lbs and HE is diabetic, not his mom (at the time, she's borderline now). I was over 10 lbs and I am borderline, not my mom. She's tiny and healthy. I don't know if its related, but it seems like a trend in my family.


----------



## claddaghmom (May 30, 2008)

You know, I figured since I was discussing this topic, maybe I should read up on it, lol.

So I read this article: http://www.emedicine.com/med/TOPIC3279.HTM

And I am perplexed. I have NONE of the variables/risk factors noted in the article. DH and I are both small (5' 5" and 5' 7"). I was fit and not overweight before and during pregnancy. I didn't have rapid weight gain. No uncontrolled sugar problems. I'm not hispanic. My baby was female, not male. Etc etc.

Weird.

Also, I noticed the article said large babies (defined as more than 8lbs, 13oz) comprised only 10% of the US baby population!


----------



## Mommal (Dec 16, 2007)

I think the fact that you have none of the risk factors listed in the article points to one of the real difficulties with the macrosomia diagnosis: sometimes macrosomia is of pathological origin, sometimes it's totally normal.

If I remember correctly, 75% of macrosomic babies are born to normoglycemic women (a.k.a. women without diabetes). Unfortunately, many practitioners make a similar mistake to the one your nurse made: they assume that all women with gestational diabetes will grow macrosomic babies. That assumption leads them to recommend early inductions to limit fetal growth, or to push a c-section because they think the baby is bound to be too big to birth naturally.


----------



## Pod4One (Nov 28, 2005)

DS1 was 9lb 14 oz and I didn't have GD. Now, I was 10lb 12oz and my mom said she did have GD - DH's mom didn't have GD and DH was 9lb 9oz. So we were both big.

DH is now 6' 7" and 350# - yeah, we make big babies, is anyone surprised?


----------



## ruthmg (Dec 24, 2007)

I'm not presuming to know what anyone's diet on here is, but many American women nowadays eat high fructose corn syrup, transfats, meat with growth hormones, very concentrated calories, lots of sugar, etc. Maybe this has to do with some, but not all big babies? Maybe some of the ones who don't have a family history of big babies? Just a thought and pure speculation... (Again, not saying that anyone on here eats this...I wouldn't know your diets!)


----------



## Chloe'sMama (Oct 14, 2008)

My dd (my first born) was 10lb 5 oz when she was born (one day early) and I tested perfect my entire pregnancy, even measured a little small. I am 5'6 and not super big, so I guess I was just lucky to have a big baby. I had no problems pushing her out either, so I think maybe my body knew how big to grow her!


----------



## zjande (Nov 4, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *claddaghmom* 
So I read this article: http://www.emedicine.com/med/TOPIC3279.HTM

Also, I noticed the article said large babies (defined as more than 8lbs, 13oz) comprised only 10% of the US baby population!

Huh. I had no idea how uncommon big babies are! The babies I had during my vegetarian years were both 8lbs 13oz & the baby I had after converting to a traditional foods diet was 10lbs 6oz (my UC







). I was very healthy, never overweight, etc during each pregnancy (& no GD!). Only 1.5% of babies are born over 10lbs..... I wonder what percentage of those were unassisted homebirths?







:


----------



## Kidzaplenty (Jun 17, 2006)

I make large boys. Not diabetic at all, and have passed the glucose test every time.

I have had four boys with three of them weighing 8.5, 9.0, & 9.5.

My girls OTOH all weighed between 7lbs 4oz and 7lbs 8oz.


----------



## DBZ (Aug 9, 2005)

What a bunch of BS! I've had 3 babies over 9lbs (10.2, 9.3 and 9.2). Everytime I tell someone who knows about pregnancy, they ask if I had GD. I am also overweight. I never had it though. I always passed their tests with flying colors.


----------



## lifeguard (May 12, 2008)

Well, I was GD & had a terrible time controlling despite my best efforts & he was 8lb 9oz.


----------



## pantufla (Jun 7, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Mommal* 
If I remember correctly, 75% of macrosomic babies are born to normoglycemic women (a.k.a. women without diabetes).

This. My first was 7lbs 10oz, my second was 9lbs 8oz. I passed the GTT easily both times. This time I declined the test.


----------



## akwifeandmomma (Aug 13, 2005)

That's hooey. No diabetes here. DS2 was 9,1. DS1 and DD were both in the mid-8s.


----------



## L&K'smommie (Aug 23, 2007)

I haven't had big babies but does anyone wonder if some of the statistics on baby sizes are skewed by all the early inductions and c/s done nowadays. These babies who come earlier than they would if not induced or sectioned would definitely be bigger if they went "full term". Just a thought.


----------



## claddaghmom (May 30, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ruthmg* 
I'm not presuming to know what anyone's diet on here is, but many American women nowadays eat high fructose corn syrup, transfats, meat with growth hormones, very concentrated calories, lots of sugar, etc. Maybe this has to do with some, but not all big babies? Maybe some of the ones who don't have a family history of big babies? Just a thought and pure speculation... (Again, not saying that anyone on here eats this...I wouldn't know your diets!)

Well, I was thinking on how the statistics are 10% of the babies in the US, so maybe it is reversed....And those who don't have the regular American diet have bigger babies?

And that's when I recalled a story my GP told me of seeing a woman who gave birth to a 15lb baby. She was a native American and she claimed 15lbs was normal in her thinking.

Just food for thought!


----------



## kangaroomum25 (Jun 21, 2007)

I'll add mine
dd 8lbs 12 oz
ds 10lbs 2 oz
ds 9lbs 2 oz.
Never tested positive for gd. I did eat more sugary desserts with number 2 but ate much better with number 3. I'm not that tall either, maybe 5' 3''


----------



## Mommal (Dec 16, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *L&K'smommie* 
I haven't had big babies but does anyone wonder if some of the statistics on baby sizes are skewed by all the early inductions and c/s done nowadays. These babies who come earlier than they would if not induced or sectioned would definitely be bigger if they went "full term". Just a thought.

I think you have picked up on something very real! 8 lbs is becoming a "big baby" and that perception is leading to a lot of early inductions, which is only making the problem worse, because when an induction fails the thinking that larger babies are too big to birth naturally is reinforced.


----------



## Novella (Nov 8, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *claddaghmom* 
So what happened??

What "happened" is that your body did a lovely job of growing a beautiful, perfect, healthy baby.







:









#1 9 lb 14.25 oz
#2 9 lb 1.5 oz
#3 11 lb 1.0 oz

For #1 and #2, I dutifully did the first-level GD screening. For #3 I dutifully did both the first and second level of screening. Even though I passed the first test, they just couldn't believe it was OK and wanted "assurance".







:

My last pregnancy was twins. I found out it was twins at an ultrasound performed at the office of an OB I do not like and did not see beyond that. He pronounced very certainly that given the previous birthweights, coupled with carrying twins, it was a _*certainty*_ I would develop GD in my twin pregnancy.









I didn't. :nana:


----------



## riverscout (Dec 22, 2006)

Baby #1 - 8lbs 8oz
Baby #2 - 9lbs 1oz

Both born the day after their due date. Took the 1 hour test with both and no GD with either. No family history of diabetes. No risk factors for diabetes. No one ever told me I should be concerned about diabetes.

I was actually quite pleased that my babies were the size they were. They seemed so healthy and strong. Not that smaller babies can't be too, but that is just how I felt about mine.


----------



## Rikki (Aug 7, 2002)

I'm a Type 1 diabetic... Have been since I was a teen. The biggest of my 5 children was 7#5oz. at birth.

Can I pretend I'm not diabetic now? I'd really like to...!









ETA: All of my children were natural, vaginal births. Though the last one was evicted early due to PIH.


----------



## jr'smom (Oct 17, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mommajb* 
Being diabetic can cause the baby to be large but the causality doesn't work in the other direction. There are other reasons to have a big baby. Two that I can think of are 'superior' nutrition and genetics.

Exactly! I've had two big babies too (9#6oz and 10#3oz.) I didn't have GD with either of them. My MW hasn't even asked me to take the test this time because my weight gain has been less than half a pound a week toward the end here.

My babies were long and skinny too like their dad.


----------



## jr'smom (Oct 17, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Novella* 
What "happened" is that your body did a lovely job of growing a beautiful, perfect, healthy baby.







:









#1 9 lb 14.25 oz
#2 9 lb 1.5 oz
#3 11 lb 1.0 oz

For #1 and #2, I dutifully did the first-level GD screening. For #3 I dutifully did both the first and second level of screening. Even though I passed the first test, they just couldn't believe it was OK and wanted "assurance".







:

My last pregnancy was twins. I found out it was twins at an ultrasound performed at the office of an OB I do not like and did not see beyond that. He pronounced very certainly that given the previous birthweights, coupled with carrying twins, it was a _*certainty*_ I would develop GD in my twin pregnancy.









I didn't. :nana:

Awesome! Just wondering...what did the twins weigh?


----------



## Full Heart (Apr 27, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *jr'smom* 
My babies were long and skinny too like their dad.

This - My first 9 lber everyone guessed was going to be around 7 when he was born. He was so skiny. Shocked wouldn't even describe it when we weighed him. They actually recalibrated the scale and weighed him 3 more times just to be sure lol. Everyone assumes a big baby is fat, but muscles weighs twice as much as fat. My babies are pretty lean generally. I can say I had 1 "fat" one. Roly poly squishy baby, she was lots of fun to snuggle with. But she was only 8.5 lbs, not even one of the 9 lbers.

That study was a little silly. Almost like they were saying we have no idea why babies get big.

Quote:

Despite these so-called risk factors for macrosomia, much of the variation in birth weights remains unexplained. Most infants who weigh more than 4500 g have no identifiable risk factors.


----------



## Girlprof (Jun 11, 2007)

We've only had one baby under 9 pounds in three generations in my family - my brother born at 38 weeks by planned c-section. And he was 8 lb 13 oz at 38 weeks. I really think we just grow "larger" babies - but for us, these are normal babies!


----------



## hapersmion (Jan 5, 2007)

Absurd. I wouldn't even consider a baby big until it's at least 10 pounds, personally. 

I was 9 lbs 12 oz, and my mom is DEFINITELY not diabetic in any way. She's never even been overweight.


----------



## Bellabaz (Feb 27, 2008)

I was 9lbs. 6oz. My mom was not diabetic. My sil had two babies. Both were 3 weeks early, both were well over 8lbs (so had they been full term they most likely would have reached teh 9lb mark). She is not diabetic. There are plenty of stories in Ina May's spiritual midwifery of healthy women having huge babies and not being diabeitc. Some women just have big babies.


----------



## clutterbug (Apr 6, 2007)

My first was 9 lbs 5 oz and I passed the glucose tolerance test twice (17 weeks and again at 26ish weeks).


----------



## angelpie545 (Feb 23, 2005)

I passed the glucose tolerance test with my first, then switched to a free standing birthcenter with midwives instead of the hospital birth I was planning. It was a good thing I did, because DD#1 was 9lbs, 5oz. At the time I had no idea that in the hospital they might freak out and want to do heel sticks for blood sugar and all that. DD was fine, btw. By the time my insurance kicked in for the next pregnancy, I was already past the time to test for GD, so I didn't have that test. DD#2 was 7lbs 6oz, with no problems either.


----------



## mommabear207 (Nov 19, 2007)

my older brother was 9lb 14oz i was 8lb 14 oz and little brother was 9lb 10oz and my mom (or anyone else in my fam) doesn't have diabetes


----------



## barefootpoetry (Jul 19, 2007)

Here's another anecdote for ya: my grandmother was a staggering TWELVE POUNDS when she was born. My great-grandmother? Not diabetic. She was just very tall, as was my grandmother (over 6 ft.) All her babies were 10 lbs. and over. Parental body type plays a big role in it.

DS2 was 8 lb. 4 oz., but he was postdates, so if he'd come "on time" he probably would have been closer to the 7 lb. birthweight of his brother. I don't consider that big, though. To me a baby is "huge" when they cross 10 lbs. IMO 8 is the median, 9 and up is just the bigger side of normal.


----------



## lalaland42 (Mar 12, 2006)

DD was 9lbs 8oz (not diabetic) and me and my 3 sibs were all 9.5 lbs (mom not diabetic). My midwife guessed immediately after birth that DD was 8 pounds but no.

Having tall, skinny babies runs in my family and diabetes does not. I asked my MW about her weight and she said that birth weight is a measure of placental health and weight gain after birth has to do with genetics.


----------



## Zadorina (Mar 25, 2008)

I fought the GD diagnosis my entire third pregnancy. I went against my better judgment and took the screen (it was positive). It was also positive the first two babies I had. Ended up when I did the three hour that I ended up being negative BOTH TIMES so on number three I put my foot down and said no. I basically said forget it...the three hour makes me throw up and practically pass out (who thinks that making a pregnant woman starve herself for basically 11 hours for a test was a GOOD idea???) I think that some people just react to that stupid solution that you have to drink...

Long story short, ended up self-testing AND moving to a different facility to have my child after being told that I was GD and I needed to deal with it. I was also told that there were NO alternatives to the 3 hour and if I didn't do it then I was going to be treated as GD and had no choice in the matter.

Found a doc that agreed that if my levels were consistently normal then we would not continually have the GD discussion as I was NOT interested in continually being treated as a ticking time bomb when I was relatively certain that I didn't even have it.

Funny...when self-testing I only ended up with a couple of high numbers and that's if I TOTALLY carb-loaded that day. BTW...did research and that is normal.









So, to make a long story short...babies were 8 lbs, 8 lbs 9 oz and 7 lbs 13 oz...but all were either long enough or had big enough heads (last one was 14.5 inches) to 'qualify' as large babies so blood sugar testing was 'indicated'. Babies one and two got poked numerous times but baby number 3 got a total of 4 and then I put my foot down and said no more.

Don't panic and don't be afraid to stand your ground if needed. It's your baby and your body. I agree with what others have said...some people just make big, healthy, beautiful and well-grown babies!!!


----------



## mytwogirls (Jan 3, 2008)

I had two girls vaginally who were both well over 9lbs. The first was 9lbs 2oz and the second was 9lbs 8 ozs. I am 95lbs 5'2" and I weighed 4lbs at my birth and Dh is not big either and he was a 7lb baby. I DID NOT have diabetes, I have no health issues AT ALL and I eat only organic foods so WHY I had such big babies is beyond me.


----------



## MoonJelly (Sep 10, 2004)

My brother was 9lbs 10oz and my mom has never had remotely anything resembling diabetes, nor even now in her sixties. She's also petite in height and weight.

I have never thought that a 9lb baby is that big a deal. It seems in the realm of normal to me. It's just one of those nurses' myths that get repeated over and over until no one questions it anymore.


----------



## ShwarmaQueen (Mar 28, 2008)

So what about a GD momma having a 8. 9oz babe? My sis did yesterday, right at 40 wks! I guess weight is just not a good indicator.


----------



## cappuccinosmom (Dec 28, 2003)

my last two were 9 lb 15 oz and 10 lb 8 oz. I have never been diabetic. Never had GD. Been tested and passed every single time.

For me, i am sure, sure that people assume GD (and high blood pressure) because I'm very obese. I love my midwives but it always bothered me that they *assumed* GD and acted shocked every time I had perfect bp.


----------



## ShwarmaQueen (Mar 28, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *cappuccinosmom* 
For me, i am sure, sure that people assume GD (and high blood pressure) because I'm very obese. I love my midwives but it always bothered me that they *assumed* GD and acted shocked every time I had perfect bp.

















:

My OBGYN made me take the GT test twice she was so convinced I was GD. First at about 12 wks, then again at 28wks just because my babe was large for dates.


----------



## pazerific (Oct 25, 2006)

that's just strange to make a blanket statement like that. i'm very fit, and dd2 was 9lbs 2oz, and 22.5" long. i was nowhere near having GD. some ppl just grow bigger babies.


----------



## mytwogirls (Jan 3, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *pazerific* 
that's just strange to make a blanket statement like that. i'm very fit, and dd2 was 9lbs 2oz, and 22.5" long. i was nowhere near having GD. some ppl just grow bigger babies.

Yep, my Ob just shakes his head at little ole' me because I had such "big" babies (I still don't think 9lbs are all THAT big) but then again maybe I should not have been snacking on that Miracle Grow........


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *hapersmion* 
I was 9 lbs 12 oz, and my mom is DEFINITELY not diabetic in any way. She's never even been overweight.

What does her weight have to do with whether she's "diabetic in any way"? I've had two friends who were/are diabetic in my life, and _neither_ of them was overweight.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *cappuccinosmom* 
For me, i am sure, sure that people assume GD (and high blood pressure) because I'm very obese. I love my midwives but it always bothered me that they *assumed* GD and acted shocked every time I had perfect bp.

















:
I heard a nurse tell another nurse that ds2 was an "obvious case of missed GD". Right. I passed your stupid test, and my son is healthy as a horse...but I'm fat, and he's big, so I _must_ have gestational diabetes. It's no wonder they assume fat women with large babies have GD - if you're fat and have a big baby, they retroactively diagnose you with it!


----------



## leavemealone (Feb 16, 2005)

I just had my third "big baby" - 10lbs 13ozs and still no GD/diabetes. My two previous babies were 9lbs 6ozs and 9lbs 10ozs and no GD/diabetes.


----------



## Rikki (Aug 7, 2002)

Boy do I ever understand the misconception that all diabetics are overweight... Of course, almost all T1s are not overweight, but I happen to be one who is. I also have the test results to prove that I have T1, because doctors never believe that I could possibly be a T1, that I *must* be a T2...ugh. I also know plenty of T2s who are not overweight in the least. Their bodies just don't manage glucose well.


----------



## claddaghmom (May 30, 2008)

: OMGsh. I'm just tired of hearing remarks about it.

(With a knowing smile) "Honey, you need to watch your sugar intake next time around"

"I think you need to seek medical attention! Diabetes is very dangerous!"

"That's what you get for eating junk food!"

So maybe in the last month, I gave in to some comfort foods....icecream was a big one. And there was a time in the end of the 1st tri where I wanted kentucky fried chicken and poptarts. But I still did not even eat the quantity I eat when I am not pregnant.

I really, really focused on having a supremely healthy diet. I supplemented. I did organics. I charted and researched and counted. Agh! It's as if they are discounting all my hard work, making me to be an overweight junk food hog who ruined her kid!








: And this to someone who was so skinny before pregnancy that people would use the word "anorexic" to describe me!


----------



## mykidsmom776 (Jan 13, 2007)

My third child was 9lbs 1.5 oz at birth. I never had GD. The truth is he was never chubby. He was born with these huge feet and hands and ears and nose. He's nearly 7 years old now and finally grown into them! (And yes that does mean he's quite tall for his age too). He was just meant to be big. None of my other kids (so far) have come close. I did eat a LOT more protein when I was pregnant with him, but it was the only way to keep from passing out all the time.

My mother in law had 7 kids and I think her smallest was nearly 9 lbs. All the rest were over 10 lbs.

Sometimes it's just genetics. Ain't nothing wrong with that.


----------



## wende (Oct 4, 2003)

My first baby was 9lbs, 13oz. I was 15 years old when I gave birth to her, eating mostly vegetarian, and had a short, drug free labor. I was only 120lbs or so at the time of her birth. I was certainly not diabetic and was/am very healthy. Consequently the rest of my children were 6lbs 15oz, 8lbs 8.5oz, 4lbs 9oz, and 3lbs 12oz.

The funny thing was that my nurse kept telling me that I wasn't eating enough because I wasn't eating meat and that my baby was going to be unhealthy and small. She was all 10's on the apgar and the only negative to that drug free birth (I was told over and over that I'd never accomplish that too) was that I had lost a lot of blood and kept fainting. However, once I got home (and I had to fight to let me go home because I was fainting frequently) I was fine. That almost 10lb baby is now a 5'11", 140lb 16 year old girl. She's also not diabetic, lol.


----------



## Turquesa (May 30, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *wende* 
The funny thing was that my nurse kept telling me that I wasn't eating enough because I wasn't eating meat and that my baby was going to be unhealthy and small.

Isn't that something? I'm vegetarian, and ever since my 10lb1oz babe was born to non-GD me, relatives have laid off the nagging about my not eating meat. Clearly my kid got what she needed and then some!


----------



## boysmom2 (Jan 24, 2007)

I have a friend who has big babies. They weigh a lot, but they're also really long, so proportional, not hugely chubby. This makes sense since my friend is 6 ft tall and her dh is 6'7". But every time she and her babies has had to be tested for diabetes. The doctors even admit that they know that's not the reason, it's clearly genetic, but they do it anyway!







:


----------



## mamabear0314 (May 13, 2008)

My DS was 10 lbs 6.5 oz and no diabetes here!


----------



## mytwogirls (Jan 3, 2008)

I am 5'2" 95lbs pre-pregnancy and my husband is not a giant either. I vaginally birthed a 9lb 2oz girl and a 9lb 8 oz girl and I am NOT diabetic and I don't eat a lot of meat and I did not take prenatals either (I just could not find one that would not hurt my tummy) Sometimes it is just genetics.


----------



## mytwogirls (Jan 3, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *dogmom327* 
i've known quite a few people who had babies over 9 lbs. And none of them were diabetic. That's a bunch of bs.

this!


----------



## KJoslyn78 (Jun 3, 2007)

my last baby was 9#3oz... and after seeing him after birth, evne the nurse thinks that my "due date" was off by a week or more and he was just a late baby. But his sugar levels were still tested (his, not mine).. and i never had GD with ANY of my kids (though diabets runs rampet in both me and DH's family - so i did appericate the concern at the time)


----------



## ShwarmaQueen (Mar 28, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mytwogirls* 
I am 5'2" 95lbs pre-pregnancy and my husband is not a giant either. I vaginally birthed a 9lb 2oz girl and a 9lb 8 oz girl

Holy smokes! Could you please send your birth videos to the AGA to teach them about the amazing female pelvis?!! I'm surprised you didn't get thrown the CPD card!


----------



## mytwogirls (Jan 3, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ShwarmaQueen* 
Holy smokes! Could you please send your birth videos to the AGA to teach them about the amazing female pelvis?!! I'm surprised you didn't get thrown the CPD card!

Yeah I am pretty proud of my pelvis







Let me tell ya, they can be quite flexible when they need to be. I am lucky I have such a great doc. My first babe was posterior as well and after three hours of pushing the "c" word was never mentioned and I was able to birth her just fine. My second girl basically did the cha-cha out the birth canal though


----------



## ShwarmaQueen (Mar 28, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mytwogirls* 
My second girl basically did the cha-cha out the birth canal though


----------

