This post has a gratuitous cute baby picture in it

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

  1. 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.”


  2. 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.