babble » blogs » Strollerderby
Strollerderby
They Say: Birth Weights Are Dropping
Chances are your kid weighed a lot less at birth than you did when you were born. Scientists have found birth weights in American babies are dropping.
But even after an exhaustive study of babies born between 1990 and 2005, they don’t know why.
The Wall Street Journal reported on the study that appeared in the new issue of the Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology late last week, citing a two-ounce dip in the average weight of newborns in that time period. It’s a reversal of a trend of growing babies that had been seen in effect since the fifties – one that doctors were happy with.
After all, lower birth weights are associated with a host of problems, and organizations like the March of Dimes are focused primarily on keeping babies in the womb as long as possible and helping them grow (although not growing too big – that’s associated with health problems too).
But the study out of Harvard also found babies are being born – on average – two and a half days earlier. The factors range – there are those elective C-sections, of course, but also the increase in the number of pre-term babies, which tend to be smaller (although those born extremely early were not counted).
But even out in the average birthing world – one that’s complication free – an overall look at babies I know, their birth dates and the birth weights, all points to smaller, earlier babies. My daughter was induced at eight days late because the doctor was uncomfortable letting me go any longer than that (her dropping heart rate didn’t help), where my mother had me naturally ten days after her due date. Not surprising – my daughter was also several ounces smaller than I was.
Are you noticing this sort of trend in your neighborhood?
More by this author:
Go Back To Strollerderby
8 Comments
Mae commented on Jan 25 10 at 11:45 amMy daughter was a day late (not induced) and twice my birth weight. However, she weighed only 6.5 pounds, and I was a premie. Both my nephews were born early and small, though my niece was induced a few days late and quite large.
Eric commented on Jan 25 10 at 12:02 pmIn livestock, full term low birth weight offspring are desireable as they are delivered more safely and with less interevention. Obviously, if the low birth weight is because they aren’t full term it is much less desireable.
Lucky commented on Jan 25 10 at 1:39 pmHa! My husband and I were both in the 6 lb range (I being full term), and our son tipped the scales at 9lb 2oz! Obviously that doesn’t mean much for overall trends but I was proud. :)
Laure68 commented on Jan 25 10 at 3:00 pmI have to chime in here and say that elective C-sections are still very rare. I’ve tried to find an actual number, but it appears that they only count for about 1 to 2% of all pregnancies. Not really enough to bring the average weight down significantly.
Sorry, this is one of my pet peeves.
Miss Chris commented on Jan 26 10 at 10:01 am“Chances are your kid weighed a lot less at birth than you did when you were born.”
I just want to point out that this sentence is a total misrepresentation of the actual study and its the sort of thing that really gets under my skin. First off the study only went from 1990-2005, unless your demographic includes a majority of teen parents (which I doubt), the study would not appy to the birth weights of most of your readers. Then, of course, the change in weight is around 2oz, an amount very hard to categorize as “a lot”. Basically the entire first sentence is exaggerated and misleading. You do provide the rest of the information further down, but that only shows you actually know the correct information but for some reason chose to ignore it when writing your opening. The study also provides a perfectly adequate explanation for the weight change: babies are being born on average 2-3 days earlier, largely because of medical intervention. During the last few weeks of pregnancy babies put on up to half a pound (8oz) per week. Being born 2 days earlier on average would absolutely account for 2oz.
This is a non-story.
jeannesager commented on Jan 26 10 at 10:06 amMiss Chris – although the study went from 1990 to 2005, it addressed a reversal of a trend since the 50s. The scientists found that the kids born in that 15-year span were smaller than their predecessors – those predecessors being TODAY’S average parent, not some teenager.
Likewise, the study did NOT give an adequate medical explanation at all. The scientists themselves said it didn’t matter if they used medical intervention (C-section) or what – they themselves can’t figure it out.
becca commented on Apr 30 12 at 3:38 pmMany women are being induced a week or two early of the expected date, which is only a guess anyways, so that could lower the birth rate a bit, they really pack on the meat toward the end there.
sarah commented on May 01 12 at 11:22 amI find that interesting, considering most babies today weigh 8+ pounds at birth. When my siblings and I were born, 8 lb. was fairly large; and when my parents were born, it was almost unheard of.
Add your take:
Note: Babble is a supportive, diverse community. We encourage a range of opinions,
but any unduly hostile comments will be removed.
Comments are delayed up to 15 minutes
Lori Garcia 
Joslyn Gray 
Amber Doty 
Julianna Miner 
Monica Bielanko 
Sierra Black 
Meredith Carroll 
Carolyn Castiglia 
Sunny Chanel 
Madeline Holler 
Rebecca Odes 
Danielle Smith 
Danielle Sullivan 
Katherine Stone 
The Walt Disney Company supports Babble as a platform dedicated to honest, engaged, informed, intelligent and open conversation about parenting. However, the opinions expressed on this site are those of individual parents/writers and do not reflect the views of Disney. In addition, content provided on this site is for entertainment or informational purposes only and should not be construed as medical advice, diagnosis, treatment, or safety advice.
8