can we revisit the baby birth weight estimate topic?

[Anonymous]

I have read several past threads about estimated birth weight, but thought I'd take a more current poll.

Yesterday, the perinatologist estimates my girl is currently 7 lbs 6 oz, which is in the 75% range. I'm 38 weeks today.
I believe he said his margin of error was 6-7 ounces.
Further, he estimates that babies gain an ounce a day...

So just wanted to check in with recent stories; do estimates tend to go high?

[Anonymous]

My son was estimated to be 8.5 pounds at birth a week prior to my giving birth. He was 8 pounds 2 ounces, so it was close, but a little under.

[Anonymous]

I think estimates are all over the place.
My SIL was estimated to be 7 1/2 lbs at 38 weeks. At 39 weeks she deliverd a 7 lb 0 oz baby boy.

Another SIL was estimated to be 8 1/2 lbs at 40 weeks - surprise a 9 lb 10 oz baby girl.

[Anonymous]

I only have my personal experience, but with my first, they were spot on accurate (she was 6lb 5oz at birth). As of yesterday they estimated my second to be 6lb 13oz, so we'll see next week!

Both times I was given a margin of error of a full pound.

[Anonymous]

They estimated my son to be 11 pounds (!!) and so I freaked out and the doctor scheduled a c-section and it turned out my son was only 8lb 9oz.

He was long and skinny and I think that they measure the thigh bone and something else and calculate an average weight from the estimated height, but basically I think there is a huge margin for error.

[Anonymous]

With my first they estimated him to have IUGR (growth retardation) and be under 5.2 lb and wanted to induce me for that reason. I refused and he was born 10 days early weighing 6.2lb. Small but no so much that it was a problem. With my second they told me he was 8.2 lb at 36 weeks and recommended a c-section because he was too big. Again I refused. Well he was exactly 8.2 lb five weeks later when he was finally born.
So they were completely off both times!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They estimated my son to be 11 pounds (!!) and so I freaked out and the doctor scheduled a c-section and it turned out my son was only 8lb 9oz.

He was long and skinny and I think that they measure the thigh bone and something else and calculate an average weight from the estimated height, but basically I think there is a huge margin for error.

So your doctor scheduled a c-section based solely on the birth weight estimate? That seems surprising to me given that I too thought that those estimates are all over the place. I have zero medical expertise but I've never heard of a c-section being scheduled for that reason before.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They estimated my son to be 11 pounds (!!) and so I freaked out and the doctor scheduled a c-section and it turned out my son was only 8lb 9oz.

He was long and skinny and I think that they measure the thigh bone and something else and calculate an average weight from the estimated height, but basically I think there is a huge margin for error.

So your doctor scheduled a c-section based solely on the birth weight estimate? That seems surprising to me given that I too thought that those estimates are all over the place. I have zero medical expertise but I've never heard of a c-section being scheduled for that reason before.

Frankly if there was ever a valid reason I think this is it! When I hear about all the tearing and whatever else that people have with 6 and 7 pound babies I was not going to even begin to try to deliver an 11-pounder naturally! Insurance had no issues with it, so I guess it was ok.

[Anonymous]

The ultrasound estimated 8 pounds, my doc felt my belly & said she feels more like a 9 pounder and she ended up weighing 9 pounds 13 oz. Huge baby. More important than pounds is head size. My doc said she would not induce or schedule a c section based on weight because the weight they gain at the end goes toward body fat not bone structure/head size. I am glad doc prepared me for the possibilty of a c section cuz that's what I ended up with after a really long, hard labor -- and after using all the midwife's tricks.

[Anonymous]

Ultrasounds are notorious for being +/- 2 lbs. -- and most estimates seem to err on the side of predicting too big a baby. (At 40w, my tech swore up and down DS wouldn't be under 8.5 lbs. -- more than 2 weeks later, he arrived at 6 lbs. 9 oz.)

ACOG does not endorse induction or c-section due to suspected size. Plus, the size of your baby has nothing to do with tearing and other general pelvic trauma -- that's (literally) in the hands of whomever is catching your baby. If your doc/midwife lets you push how you want, where you want, and helps support your perineum at delivery, you'll be in much better shape than if you're on your back, pushing to the count of ten and getting an episiotomy to boot.

[Anonymous]

With both my babies, they estimated 8 to 8 1/2 pounds. They were both over 10 pounds. Big heads...

[Anonymous]

With mine they estimated 6 pounds, she was exactly 6 pounds. I was induced because she wasn't growing anymore at 38 1/2 weeks.

[Anonymous]

I actually posted on here about this the other week and now have an outcome to report. My good friend was told two weeks ago that her baby (her first) was "too big," at nearly 10 lbs. She was 38.5 weeks and they scheduled her c-section for a few days later. That night, however, she went into labor and a different doctor was at the hospital. He told her he didn't rely on those estimates and said she should try to deliver vaginally first. By then she wanted the c-section and was very frightened of trying to do it vaginally. Anyway, she did end up giving birth vaginally to a 7 lbs 8 oz baby. Her labor was tough arleady, and the entire time she said she kept thinking she was trying to push out a 10 lb baby when in fact it was just a normal sized baby. She said it got into her head and messed with her. Easier said than done, but try not to let it get into yours!!!

[Anonymous]

My doctor didn't give me an estimate weight at birth, but 2 weeks before I delivered they estimated he was then 7 lbs 6 ounces (at the time)...baby was born 9 lbs 3 ounces.

I delivered vaginally. 2 hours of pushing. Only a few internal stitches needed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I actually posted on here about this the other week and now have an outcome to report. My good friend was told two weeks ago that her baby (her first) was "too big," at nearly 10 lbs. She was 38.5 weeks and they scheduled her c-section for a few days later. That night, however, she went into labor and a different doctor was at the hospital. He told her he didn't rely on those estimates and said she should try to deliver vaginally first. By then she wanted the c-section and was very frightened of trying to do it vaginally. Anyway, she did end up giving birth vaginally to a 7 lbs 8 oz baby. Her labor was tough arleady, and the entire time she said she kept thinking she was trying to push out a 10 lb baby when in fact it was just a normal sized baby. She said it got into her head and messed with her. Easier said than done, but try not to let it get into yours!!!

15:40 poster here. Yes, exactly. It is SO RARE that a baby is "too big" to be delivered. Honestly. You'll do great, if you want to have a vaginal birth. Babies have mold-able heads...my baby lost almost 2 inches in height by the time we went home because his head got so pointy being born! Moms and babies alike are built for this.

My advice -- based on my two hours of pushing -- is get the epidural. I don't know that I would have had the strength to push for 2 hours if I had not been able to sleep and relax through the contractions.

I was very grateful to the wonderful nursing staff and Dr. Johnson (Reiter, Hill and Johnson) for never once mentioning the word "c-section" to me during my labor or the seemingly-endless pushing.