Pregnancy & Birth Clubs <
10/09/2014 at 10:39
I've had 2 measurements taken at 29 & now at 34 weeks & this baby is apparently on 90th centile! My daughter is only 9th-25th centile & my bump doesn't look much different this time round. The mw did mention that it could just be me. As I want a home birth I've been trying not to put on too much weight as I need to keep my BMI under 35 so this is a surprise. How accurate is to to actually measure your bump size to check baby size??? Thanks x
10/09/2014 at 11:00
Completely inaccurate in my experience. In both pregnancies I measured 2 weeks ahead and both times I've had average sized babies (7lb 9 at 39 weeks and 7lb 12 at 40+3). A lot is to do with baby position rather than baby's size IME x
10/09/2014 at 11:59
Agree with Coco. I was measuring 2 weeks ahead the whole time and had a massive bump. Baby was 7lb 10 so very average. I did have loads of water though!
10/09/2014 at 13:44
Thanks, The graph I've got only has 3 lines on it for 10th, 50th or 90th centile but nothing about measurement for dates. Midwife said I might need a growth scan if I'm measuring any bigger at my next appointment in 2 weeks time (36 weeks), part of me thinks it would be nice to see him again & get them to check the measurements properly. Just looked & at 90th centile it seems he's nearly as big at 34 weeks as Isobelle was when born at 40+4!!
10/09/2014 at 14:01
If I remember rightly it was a centimetre per week as a rough guide. So at 34 weeks, you should be measuring 34cm. I was always 2cm ahead.
10/09/2014 at 14:16
My bump measured small throughout and I had several growth scans. She was born 8lb4oz so by no means a tiddler!
10/09/2014 at 14:43
my bump 1st time round measured small or just ok at each appt. One day two different mw measured it at two different times and got different numbers! Disco was 8Lb 11oz and a bit every one commented he was bigger than my bump suggested. The bump measurment is an indicator but only that ass position of baby and amount of fluid also affect its size.
10/09/2014 at 14:53
10/09/2014 at 14:59
I always measured slightly behind and S was 8lbs 4oz. When I saw my mw after he was born she commented that she'd no idea where he'd been hiding! I had a scan at 36 weeks and that put him just under 6lbs I think so I was expecting him to be over 8lbs. Although it was nice to see him in that last scan, he was a bit squished in there so I didn't get the nice view that I had at 20 odd weeks!
10/09/2014 at 16:21
Thanks for sharing your experiences.
Ninky: According to my chart my bump is 34cm at 34 weeks so not sure how it works!! I text a friend whose a midwife & apparently they've changed the way they measure the fundal height & so more women are being told their babies are bigger than they actually are so not gonna worry it about it now (but won't bother buying any tiny baby clothes!!)
10/09/2014 at 18:26
10/09/2014 at 21:40
This is my graph. All it does is plot fundal height against predicted weight at birth. Just followed the curve & if this is correct he will be 10lb!! Hope they are wrong!!
10/09/2014 at 22:52
I always measured 3 weeks behind and had a few growth scans, I had a perfectly average 7IB 6oz baby
11/09/2014 at 08:11
I measured exactly average every single time and had a 9lb 9oz baby, so not accurate for me! I think judging by the responses you're right not to worry, and if you do end up with an extra scan just see it as a nice bonus
Continues below ad
Nice to see you! Please do nose around, sign up and join in.