# All you mums who had excellent blood sugar control, but big babies regardless...



## Babysaurus

Sorry in advance for getting slightly obsessive about all this - the closer my due date looms (10 weeks, next week I'll be down to single figures!) the more it is playing on my mind 

I have been going a bit of Googling and trying to find info on bigger babies being born to diabetic mothers. The impression I had before I discovered this site was that high blood sugars, especially over a period of a few days, leads to large, or macrosomic, babies. This would presumably mean, surely, that if you keep your blood sugars as low / normal as possible then this was unlikely to happen. However... some of you have had excellent overall control by the looks of things but _still_ had babies who would be considered 'large.' This has got me wondering, were the babies born weighing over, lets say, 8lb's going to be large regardless but it was 'blamed' (for wont of a better word) on diabetes, or was it indeed due to the diabetes that they were big. 

Everything I can find on the net so far seems to point in the direction of high blood sugar and not much else, but some of the mums on here seem to have different experiences. 

I am interested to hear anyone else's theories / experiences....


----------



## Northerner

A close friend of mine got married and his wife had three children over 10 lbs, but she didn't have diabetes. I then learned that his mother (who was a tiny woman!) had had similar experiences with him and his two brothers. She didn't have diabetes either, but clearly there was a strong genetic tendency involved, so I guess some people just have big babies, regardless of blood sugar control through the pregnancy. Perhaps this family history could be another factor in those cases where excellent control has led to larger than expected babies?


----------



## Babysaurus

Notherner, that's exactly what I am hoping!


----------



## Jude76

Hi Babysauras,
My control was all over the place when i was pregnant,LOTS of hypos and a few really high readings but they said LO was going to be small and i was surprised as i was always told babies of diabetic mums had large babies!
My consultant told me this wasn't always the case and there are lots of different factors and they don't even understand them all yet.
I was also expecting my insulin requirements to rocket but that didn't happen either,they stayed roughly the same and my doc said they don't always go up.
I just ended up being quite relaxed about everything as i knew i was doing all i could & the hospital were keeping a really close eye on me.
Adam was born 2wks ago weighing 5lb 6oz,they estimated he'd be about 6lb.
The most important thing is he's healthy!!!
So please stop worrying,as long as you're doing your best there really is nothing else you can do!


----------



## Babysaurus

That's a relief to hear, Jude. The thing is, when I even _suggest_ such a thing to the various HCP's, apart from DSN, they all seem to look disbelieving and carry on banging on about mahoosive babies regardless, so it's hard to get the whole pic! Sometimes I wonder if they think that if they tell me stories similar to yours they think that I'll run amok in the sweet aisle and not bother with any insulin at all!


----------



## Ellie Jones

My mum was 5ft tall,  I was 8lb 9 at birth, so this would be considered big in my mums case, my twin siter was 6 lb 8 which is a rather good weight for a twins, multi births tend to be lower weight..  Mum wasn't diabetic..

I'm 5ft 4, but I'm very slender dress size 8/10, I didn't have diabetes with my oldest daughter who was 10lb 10, but diagnosed with diabetes the same day I found out I was pregnant with my son,  he was 10lb 12 1/2,  and my youngest daughter was 11lb 13...

My oldest daughter was  born 2 weeks early, by her own choice I was induced with the other two at 38 weeks.. 

The regime for diabetes when I had my youngest two, was very strict indeed, with 2 injections a day and a prescribed amount of carbs, spread over 3 meals and 3 snacks, these being at set time as well, you checked your BG 7 times a day, before and after a meal then before bed.  Worked well as never had a hypo and a bA1c in the 5's...

At the end of the day, not worth really worry about how big your baby might be, as it will be the weight it will be...  Not a lot you can do about it apart from ensuring that you maintain good control..


----------



## Medusa

my control whilst pregnant was excellent, my first son was 8 pound 7 my second was just short of ten pound! both normal labours too no c section or assistance, i was 7lb born but my mum was 10 pound so i would say it is genetic, and also i think a second is often bigger than a first, try not to worry too much i think when folk leave their diabetes out of control in the pregnancy is when the worry is needed


----------



## Monkey

My control definitely wasn't under the magic 6.1% that I keep hearing, but was in the low 6%s for the majority of my pregnancy, and, as you know, C was still big. Massive, some would say!

I think there's so many factors involved in determining birthweight that it's probably really easy to blame diabetes for bigger babies tho, yup.


----------



## Smit

My control has been the best its ever been since falling pregnant and i've good control for the past few years before falling pregnant.  I still seem to all over the growth chart for our baby. We've been told its too small and I've not put on enough weight. 3 weeks later the baby was above the 95 per centile and was apparently massive. 2 weeks after that the baby hadnt grown and now its back to the middle line on that chart. Who knows what tuesday will bring at my growth scan. I now take it with a pinch of salt, I was 6lb 2oz and my oh wad 7lbs. My other half is also a very tall bloke, 6ft 6. So I think baby may be longer. All i know is I've done my utter best in trying to keep good control. I'll let u know in about 5 weeks if its big or small. I know you're doing a great job too! X


----------



## Cate

My consultant told me that the macrosomia is caused by spikes in readings, anything over 8 mmol/l is a problem as the baby produces extra insulin to regulate its own blood sugar levels, which helps it to lay down fat (as "eating to the insulin" does for us, too).

I forgot to say on my other reply (other thread) that I think it's partly genetic in my families case, my grandfather weighed around 14lbs (!) at birth, no evidence of diabetes on that side of the family at all.


----------



## PhoebeC

I dont think Diabetes why Jemima was 6 lb 4 at 6 weeks early. I was always in the low 6s. I went from 7.4 before hand to 6.2 at about 6 weeks, and stayed about the same.

I was having non stop hypos from about 20 weeks. Everytime i hypo-ed i was sick, so hated being low. I admit some days i might have run 7-8ish but if i was too low id be sick and when its every day it really is too much.

I had extra fuild so i was measuring 2 weeks bigger, which they blamed on D too. 

My mum was huge with me and i was 8lb 8 at full term, dont know about my brother he was born at 24 weeks so very tiny.

My Grandma on my dads side had 5 big babys all 8-9lb years apart from each other , one was nearly 10, and my aunt who was 9lb 8 had a baby  9lb 2 , 10 days over so. And she put on no weight when pregnant. on her partners side they are also big babys. 

So i think some people will have big babys anyway. And its horrid they blame our control every time.

I think some (not all) with GD dont look after themselves as well as they could, and dont get tested for it as early as they should be and then get poor care, maybe making bigger babies.

I dont know why its really so bad, i know there are more risks, but there are with tiny babies too.

xx


----------



## RuthieG

This is a useful thread.

I was windering about the spikes as I continue to have quite a few around 8.odd to 9.odd after meals and then dropping quickly (even with a pump, although it is improved), so thatlast post worries me a bit. 

I read on some general baby development web pages that this week (22 weeks pregnant) the baby's pancreas is developing so how can it be producing its own insulin yet?

In my case the baby is currently slap bang in the centre of the growth chart (although I am obviously a few weeks behind Smit and Babysaurus so time for change)

Babysaurus and Smit - when was your next scan after the 20 week scan? My Obstetrician has said he will do one in 4 weeks or so - that's 26 weeks. Does that sound similar to your experiences?

Thanks Ruthie


----------



## Monkey

RuthieG said:


> Babysaurus and Smit - when was your next scan after the 20 week scan? My Obstetrician has said he will do one in 4 weeks or so - that's 26 weeks. Does that sound similar to your experiences?
> 
> Thanks Ruthie



Obviously not either of those folk, but I had growth scans at 28 and 32 weeks, then weekly scans of amniotic fluid and placenta health from then on.


----------



## RuthieG

Monkey said:


> Obviously not either of those folk, but I had growth scans at 28 and 32 weeks, then weekly scans of amniotic fluid and placenta health from then on.



Thanks Monkey. I won't feel left out yet then!


----------



## PhoebeC

And mine were at 20w, 28w and then every two weeks after that. The last scan i had a 34 weeks they said they would change it to every week.

x


----------



## newbs

I think D does play a small part but that most babies are near to the size they would have been if D wasn't involved if your BG is well controlled.  Both my DDs were 8lb 3oz.  If you look at births in your local paper etc most babies these days seem to be around the 8lb mark +.  These babies are mainly born to women without D so I think it is just the way things are.  Having a baby over 8lb isn't a bad thing, they don't seem to fragile iykwim, I thought mine were perfect sized


----------



## PhoebeC

newbs said:


> I think D does play a small part but that most babies are near to the size they would have been if D wasn't involved if your BG is well controlled.  Both my DDs were 8lb 3oz.  If you look at births in your local paper etc most babies these days seem to be around the 8lb mark +.  These babies are mainly born to women without D so I think it is just the way things are.  Having a baby over 8lb isn't a bad thing, they don't seem to fragile iykwim, I thought mine were perfect sized



See now Jemima is fine i can say im glad she was so big for her weeks. My friends baby was only 3lb something at 34 weeks where Jemima was double that, she was still tiny but compared to the rest in neo-natal she was huge. xx


----------



## sugarfreerach

I spoke to my DN about this as I was annoyed that I was told tight control would mean a normal weight baby, when my control was 6% the whole way through and he was 7.9lb 4 weeks early. She said that it's not about our sugar levels but the way the baby uses the sugar that we eat. 

Next time around I may avoid sugar all together, apart from the inevitable hypos in the first trimester and see what happens then.  

Babysaurus, yes Nate was big for 4 weeks prem but he was perfectly healthy, no blood sugar crash and no intervention from scbu because of the tight control that I had during pregnancy, I think that's all that matters in the end. Xx


----------



## DaisyDuke

I developed GD at 15 weeks ,had good control ,baby was 7lb 3 at 39 weeks.


----------



## beckyp

For what it's worth I think a lot comes down to genetics and poor control is blamed in a lot of cases - although say that to a doctor and they'll frown at you as though you're crazy.  

E was born at 38 weeks and was 9lb 5oz.  They expected her to be smaller from the growth scans (she has very long legs though so I suspect that if she was a normal height (gawd knows where she gets it from as we're both shorties!) then she would have been a smaller birth weight.  A friend (type 2) was told to expect a massive baby from the growth scans (born at 38 1/2 weeks) and her daughter was 6lb 3oz!  My SIL (non diabetic) produced a 9lb 12 1/2 oz little boy - without pain relief as she was too late arriving at the hospital (eeek!).  As you'll see the growth scans are not always accurate either and diabetes means squat in some cases too!

My doctor told me to remember that after 20 years of diabetes I would not achieve a perfect control every day between 4 and 6mmol and that I should just try my best.  He encouraged me to go to bed at 14 or 15 so that I would wake in the mornings at a normal level (this is something that I strongly disagreed with at the time and started setting two alarms in the night to test/correct with juice or insulin instead).  ALL doctors give different advice and it's really hard to know what is the best thing to do - my advice....do what works for you!  You know your body better than any doctor. 

Just checked in my pregnancy book and it says..."_Your baby is reliant on a steady stream of glucose, which is stored as glycogen in the liver.  This continues throughout pregnancy and at birth your baby will, for her size, have significantly larger glycogen stores than adults do.  The correct level of glucose in the mother is controlled by insulin.  The placenta, however, has little control over the amount it takes from your bloodstream and passes on.  For this reason if your glucose level is very high, for example in poorly controlled diabetes, the baby will have high levels of glucose.  To maintain a normal glucose level she will secrete insulin, but this will lead to increased fat deposition and weight gain._"

Now my question is....E was born with very LOW sugars.  If I run my levels high at the birth of no. 2 does that mean that he/she will have higher sugars and I don't go through the stress of having her sugar levels taken every hour?  That stressed me out more that the birth and not something that I would like to go through again. 

Try to not worry about bubs size.  What will be will be and as long as bubs arrives safely you should try to not worry about anything else - except packing that hospital bag with snacks!!!


----------



## Monkey

beckyp said:


> Now my question is....E was born with very LOW sugars.  If I run my levels high at the birth of no. 2 does that mean that he/she will have higher sugars and I don't go through the stress of having her sugar levels taken every hour?  That stressed me out more that the birth and not something that I would like to go through again. QUOTE]
> 
> I think the opposite is true - if your blood glucose is high throughout labour and birth, baby will, in theory, be exposed to that and will be producing more insulin to counteract it. Low blood sugar in newborns is because of exactly this - they need a bit of time to readjust to not being connected to your blood supply in any way. If anything, high blood glucose in labour would be more likely to lead to low blood sugar in a newborn.


----------



## trophywench

Like most things D, I wouldn't actually get too hung up on the Theory of stuff.

Just do your best, it's all you can do and these HCPs have a lot to answer for IMHO - far better a happy contented pregnancy than one where mummy is constantly stressing.  And I know how hard it is not to stress in a non-D pregnancy so I know it's inevitable anyway LOL - why do they make it worse?

What you get, you get.  In the unlikely event if there's summat not quite right, you are in ABSOLUTELY the right place for it to be sorted.

Chill, Ladeez.


----------

