Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP--what was the birth weight? As a PP hints at that would seem more relevant to whether the weight gain is too much (and perhaps an indication of a metabolic issue) than just the weight taken out of context. The rule of thumb I was given (actually to ensure enough weight was gained) was double the birth weight at six months and triple at one year.

Birth weight was 7 lbs 3oz

Wow, sounds like a metabolic issue. I would get this kid to a pediatric GI, stat.

I don't know. My boys grew incredibly fast in the first couple of months - they are preteen/teen now and tall but healthy weights. I don't remember exact numbers now but I'm about positive that they had more than doubled their birth weights well before their 6 month check ups. And they were not "fat" babies at all.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP--what was the birth weight? As a PP hints at that would seem more relevant to whether the weight gain is too much (and perhaps an indication of a metabolic issue) than just the weight taken out of context. The rule of thumb I was given (actually to ensure enough weight was gained) was double the birth weight at six months and triple at one year.

Birth weight was 7 lbs 3oz

Wow, sounds like a metabolic issue. I would get this kid to a pediatric GI, stat.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP--what was the birth weight? As a PP hints at that would seem more relevant to whether the weight gain is too much (and perhaps an indication of a metabolic issue) than just the weight taken out of context. The rule of thumb I was given (actually to ensure enough weight was gained) was double the birth weight at six months and triple at one year.

Birth weight was 7 lbs 3oz

Anonymous wrote:OP--what was the birth weight? As a PP hints at that would seem more relevant to whether the weight gain is too much (and perhaps an indication of a metabolic issue) than just the weight taken out of context. The rule of thumb I was given (actually to ensure enough weight was gained) was double the birth weight at six months and triple at one year.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did the conversation going something like

you: Is his weight a problem?
Dr: Well, children who are overweight tend to have a higher risk of being overweight later in life.

Or did the doctor come out and say the baby is going to be a tub of lard?

There is a lot of room for interpretation of this scenario.

Agree. I will say, my friend had to put her daughter on a "diet" at 13 months. She was way off the charts for weight and actually was having difficulty mobility wise because she was basically a sphere with arms and legs

Why is this even up for discussion?! Breast fed babies typically look like the Michelin Man until they start to move around on their own. The growing brains and bodies absolutely need the high fat and sugar diet that is breast milk. Delaying feeding times for a 2 month old is completely ridiculous. Why the hell would anyone want to wait until a baby is starving and hysterical to offer food?!

The ped is off his rocker.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can't believe how derailed this thread is. The baby is two months old!! Both my kids were chunky their first year, top weight percentiles. DS is a skinny four year old who can't keep his pants up (he was 15 lbs at two months) and dd is a slender almost 2-year old.

Op, sorry this thread got so weird. I think the ped was off base, I don't think there's any study showing a correlation between weight at 2m and later issues.

Did you go to medical school or are you just making your opinion based on your 2 kids?

Oh, STFU.

I'm so glad I got a rise out of you. My job is done for today. Have a great weekend and have a drink to relax.

Anonymous wrote:I actually think it is encouraging that doctors are saying something to young babies. I read when I was pregnant (only a few years ago) that doctors would not categorize children as obese until the age of 2. I get that because before that age, getting weight on kids is important, especially if they are on the small size, and because some people will go too far and put health toddlers on diets because of their own weigh obsessions. All that said, during the last few years that I have been among babies and toddlers, I have seen some really chunky toddlers and babies. As on pp said, some of these little kids are actually unable to move very much because of the rolls and rolls and rolls upon rolls. So, I think some balanced and measured input from doctors is very good.

Also, I think the whole "percentile" thing can be misunderstood by people who don't really understand it. For example, a 90% kid in height is good--yay, your kid is tall. 90% in weight--maybe not so good after the birth. Yay--big baby. Not so yay when your kid is bigger than 90 of other kids in a country with obesity. As kids get older and older, that is even more troubling.

So, OP/Nanny, is the baby very long in addition to being 15 lbs? Because if the kids is very long and was very big at birth, maybe the doctor's concerns are misplaced. If the baby is a very petite baby in terms of length, then yes, that is a superchunko kid.

Anonymous wrote:If I were the kid, I think I'd find a new mommy. 24 hr nanny at 2 months? Damn. At least do a 3 month maternity leave before going back to work.