https://boards.hellobee.com/ Pregnancy, Baby and Parenting blog, by Hellobee en Sun, 17 May 2026 11:45:58 +0000 https://boards.hellobee.com/topic/ultrasound-measurements-reliable-or-not#post-708481 Thu, 11 Apr 2013 15:15:52 +0000 googly-eyes 708481@https://boards.hellobee.com/ <p>I was told 80th % and DD was born in something like the 30-40th %! </p> https://boards.hellobee.com/topic/ultrasound-measurements-reliable-or-not#post-708276 Thu, 11 Apr 2013 14:36:08 +0000 Corduroy 708276@https://boards.hellobee.com/ <p>Mine was way off. My fundal measurement was consistently short so my doctor sent me for an ultrasound at 34 weeks. At the ultrasound the baby was estimated to be 7lbs 8oz. I was shocked to hear I was tracking for a 9 1/2 lb baby.</p> <p>When I delivered 5 days after my due date I was even more surprised by my long and lean 6lb 10oz baby. The first thing I said after delivery was "How much does she weigh?? That's no 9lb baby!" </p> https://boards.hellobee.com/topic/ultrasound-measurements-reliable-or-not#post-707905 Thu, 11 Apr 2013 12:32:53 +0000 sotofamilia 707905@https://boards.hellobee.com/ <p>This is my first post yay!</p> <p>I just had my LO in February. My ob ordered a growth ultrasound at 38 weeks (I still don't know why) and it was estimated that LO was 9 lbs 8 ozs. The tech said they can vary up to 2 lbs in either direction but the ob wanted to schedule my induction that week...and was pushing a scheduled c-section to boot.</p> <p>After much soul-searching and crying, I decided that I felt in my heart that he wasn't ready to come out yet and decided against the induction. He was born at 40 weeks plus four days naturally (well, with an epidural!) and weighed 8 lbs 2ozs. I had ZERO trouble delivering him.</p> <p>I've since transferred care to a midwife for gyn stuff. And I'm still irritated with my ob. </p> https://boards.hellobee.com/topic/ultrasound-measurements-reliable-or-not#post-707902 Thu, 11 Apr 2013 12:32:36 +0000 yerpie110 707902@https://boards.hellobee.com/ <p>My LO consistently measured 2-3 weeks ahead throughout my entire pregnancy (no GD). I had 3-4 growth scans as a result and the final one at 39 weeks estimated her weight to be 9lbs 4 oz. The ultrasound technician kept suggesting that I get a c-section due to size but luckily my OB was not a believer in the accuracy of ultrasounds and said they can be off by as much as 20% in either direction. She also encouraged me to have my baby vaginally and though I did end up with a c-section (for other reasons, not due to size), my LO was born at 7lbs 10oz. </p> https://boards.hellobee.com/topic/ultrasound-measurements-reliable-or-not#post-707844 Thu, 11 Apr 2013 12:13:29 +0000 sslm 707844@https://boards.hellobee.com/ <p>Not reliable. At our prenatal class the instructor said that fear of a large baby should never be a reason for a c-section! Unless you have GD? She said women's bodies are built to birth babies and it's rarely the case that a baby won't fit. </p> https://boards.hellobee.com/topic/ultrasound-measurements-reliable-or-not#post-707779 Thu, 11 Apr 2013 11:49:50 +0000 T.H.O.U. 707779@https://boards.hellobee.com/ <p>@mrsbookworm: I think at 36 weeks I was told she was estimated to be 8lbs 13 ounces (at that date) and that obviously measures to be about 40 weeks. </p> <p>She was born at 39w5d and was 9lbs 7 ounces. </p> https://boards.hellobee.com/topic/ultrasound-measurements-reliable-or-not#post-707769 Thu, 11 Apr 2013 11:47:00 +0000 sorrycharlie 707769@https://boards.hellobee.com/ <p>my baby was actually spot on accurate, but I've heard they can fluctuate! </p> https://boards.hellobee.com/topic/ultrasound-measurements-reliable-or-not#post-707647 Thu, 11 Apr 2013 11:07:10 +0000 lomom 707647@https://boards.hellobee.com/ <p>This is really interesting. I was diagnosed with IUGR and they said LO was measuring 2 weeks behind at 3.9 pounds at 34 weeks. The growth ultrasound was originally ordered just as a precaution since I'd had slightly elevated blood pressure since 20 weeks but it was never out of control and my fundal measurements have always been spot on. The cord blood flow looks normal too. DH really thinks the u/s was off by a bit and he also thinks since we were small babies (I was 7lb8oz at 8 days overdue) that LO will prob be small. </p> <p>We get additional measurements at our next u/s so we'll see. </p> https://boards.hellobee.com/topic/ultrasound-measurements-reliable-or-not#post-707636 Thu, 11 Apr 2013 11:02:09 +0000 mrsbookworm 707636@https://boards.hellobee.com/ <p>Thanks! I am going to push for at least trying a vaginal delivery first. I'll see another OB at the practice next week and bring up the subject again. This dr said that since it's my first baby, she doesn't know if I would be able to deliver a baby over 9lbs but I figure she doesn't know that I can't either.<br /> @runsyellowlites: My tummy is also measuring ahead, but I don't have GD and I haven't gained much weight during the pregnancy (around 7lbs total) I was overweight to start, though. I've had quite a few u/s because the baby has a mild case of pyelectasis (dilation of the kidney). </p> https://boards.hellobee.com/topic/ultrasound-measurements-reliable-or-not#post-707603 Thu, 11 Apr 2013 10:49:06 +0000 oliviaoblivia 707603@https://boards.hellobee.com/ <p>They were off by one ounce with DD. they said 10lbs. +/- 1/2lb. She was 10lbs 1oz. </p> https://boards.hellobee.com/topic/ultrasound-measurements-reliable-or-not#post-707590 Thu, 11 Apr 2013 10:45:44 +0000 blackbird 707590@https://boards.hellobee.com/ <p>At 34 weeks, they estimated she would be between 7.5-8 lb....I had her six days late and she was 8 lb 2 oz, so mine was accurate </p> https://boards.hellobee.com/topic/ultrasound-measurements-reliable-or-not#post-707581 Thu, 11 Apr 2013 10:43:25 +0000 LemonLong 707581@https://boards.hellobee.com/ <p>At 38 weeks my ultrasound showed her measuring at 5 lbs 3 oz. I delivered her the next day and she was 5 lbs 2 oz, so mine was almost dead on! </p> https://boards.hellobee.com/topic/ultrasound-measurements-reliable-or-not#post-707561 Thu, 11 Apr 2013 10:39:37 +0000 Bookish 707561@https://boards.hellobee.com/ <p>I've been wondering this as well. At the last ultrasound we had, she was already measuring over 2lbs, which is pretty big for 25 weeks, and this last week (26 weeks) my Dr said my stomach was measuring a week ahead. I've now got this image of a giaaant baby lol! </p> https://boards.hellobee.com/topic/ultrasound-measurements-reliable-or-not#post-707560 Thu, 11 Apr 2013 10:39:24 +0000 2PeasinaPod 707560@https://boards.hellobee.com/ <p>Another whose OB said that they aren't that reliable. They told me that LO was measuring around 8lbs at 39 weeks, but it could be give or take 2lbs. He came out at 6lbs, 13oz. </p> https://boards.hellobee.com/topic/ultrasound-measurements-reliable-or-not#post-707545 Thu, 11 Apr 2013 10:37:13 +0000 Mrsbells 707545@https://boards.hellobee.com/ <p>At 38 weeks they told me my baby weighed about 7lbs 8oz but she was born at 40 +5 weighing 6lbs 9oz. she was tall so I guess that threw them off? </p> https://boards.hellobee.com/topic/ultrasound-measurements-reliable-or-not#post-707538 Thu, 11 Apr 2013 10:36:07 +0000 LittleFox 707538@https://boards.hellobee.com/ <p>According to my OB, not reliable. I've heard they can routinely be off by as much as 2lbs from others. I think they're actually more reliable very early on, less so as pregnancy progresses. </p> https://boards.hellobee.com/topic/ultrasound-measurements-reliable-or-not#post-707529 Thu, 11 Apr 2013 10:34:46 +0000 runsyellowlites 707529@https://boards.hellobee.com/ <p>Late term u/s can be off up to 2 lb in either direction. Is your tummy measuring 2 weeks ahead or is this just by baby's u/s size, do you have GD?... just wondering if there was reason your Dr. ordered the u/s to begin with.</p> <p>As for cesareans due to big baby, here is ACOG's stance. After looking at all the research they put out a statement saying that they "do not support prophylactic (preventative) cesarean delivery for suspected fetal macrosomia (big babies) with estimated weights of less than 5,000 g (11 lb)."</p> <p>Personally, I would look into natural birth methods so you're able to be mobile and deliver in a squatting or all 4's position since both can give you up to 20% more pelvic opening and your baby has more opportunity to get into optimal presentation (laying on ones back works against this). </p> https://boards.hellobee.com/topic/ultrasound-measurements-reliable-or-not#post-707460 Thu, 11 Apr 2013 10:24:08 +0000 MamaMoose 707460@https://boards.hellobee.com/ <p>@mrsbookworm: Based on my 36 week ultrasound it was estimated that my baby would be around 8 pounds if I went to my due date. I ended up giving birth the day after my due date to a 6lb 7ounce peanut! So I don't put too much stock in those measurements. I normally default to putting your trust in your doctor but I would probably push back on this one and insist on at least trying to deliver vaginally. </p> https://boards.hellobee.com/topic/ultrasound-measurements-reliable-or-not#post-707447 Thu, 11 Apr 2013 10:21:53 +0000 mrsbookworm 707447@https://boards.hellobee.com/ <p>At my last 3 ultrasounds (29wks, 33wks, 36wks) they told me that the baby was measuring 2 weeks ahead. I know what date I conceived (IUI) so my due date is correct. So, they're thinking the baby is rather large. I was curious, how often do they tell you a weight and then when you have the baby they're way off? My OB wants to discuss a c-section due to size, but I'd like to try to deliver vaginally... </p>