But not right up front, that would put me in mommy blog territory.
Last week’s post about breastfeeding reminded me that I had mentioned back in August
a few things about baby growth charts, and how some odd numbers had actually been part of a series of events that led to me having an urgent c-section. I figured since I’d brought it up, I should update you all.
The little lord is growing just fine. He’s actually quite the textbook little baby….literally. If I read any book that says “around week 16 this will happen” he’s there +/- 3 days. If it says he’ll want to eat every 3 hours, he’s there to the minute (he did this 7 times in a row once, to the minute). If you wanted to write a textbook about a baby, you could come watch my son. I’ve come to realize predictability is an amazing quality in a baby.
As of his last checkup he was 40th percentile for height and 30th for weight.
Interestingly, the biggest reaction I get when I tell people that he’s 30th for weight is “how much more is he supposed to weigh? He looks fine to me!”.
I think this is another interesting misunderstanding of the height/weight charts. Average is not necessarily the same thing as normal. Normal can be a broad spectrum, average is just one number. My baby is normal, thankyouverymuch.
After a few of those comments, I went and took a look at the growth charts. In reality, the differences between the percentiles are quite small. The difference between the 25th percentile and 50th percentile at 4 months is around 1 lb. That’s about the same as the difference between the 50th and 75th as well….so half of all babies fall in the same 2 lb range (or at least half of all babies in the group they used 40 years ago to make the charts. That range doesn’t change much….it’s about +/- .6 kg up until a year. The differences on the more extreme ends get bigger as the months go by….at birth the difference between the 5th percentile and the 50th is .6 kg and at a year it’s 1.6 kg.
All right, now that you’ve sat through all that metric system, here’s the baby picture I promised (and yes, he’s labeled in this picture….5 months old):
I told you he was cute.
9 thoughts on “This post has a gratuitous cute baby picture in it”
He is cute.
But Jonathan was a cute baby, too, and I was really cute. So – it may not last.
Definitely at the 99th percentile in cute… beat out only by grandchildren.
If babies weren't cute the human race would have gone extinct long ago. Cuteness is natural selection in action.
True words. Who else could get away with multiple night time wakings for months on end?
I'll accept him being beaten by grandchildren 🙂
On the other hand, Jonathan did give you two REALLY cute granddaughters…so those genes have some use.
Eeeeeee! He's adorable!
Andrew, for at least the first year, was down in the 5% for height & 10% for weight. But that was using the old APA chart, not the WHO breastfeeding chart. And if you looked at his height/weight ratio, it was right at 50%. He always looked really healthy to me, so I just shrugged my shoulders & said, “Whelp, someone's kid has to be at the bottom.”
Hey! I simply wanted to say that you definitely have made a magnificent website. In addition to that I want to ask you a question that is very interesting to me. Do you take into considerations writing professionally or running a blog is a?
Comments are closed.