Further question about centiles - just out of interest!

[hellosailor]

Following on from the other recent thread about baby weight gain and centiles, I've been meaning to post and ask, in the experience of those with children who are no longer babies - how much did the centiles your babies were on during, say, their first year, actually reflect what size they turned out as older children?

My daughter is about to turn 1 and has been almost every centile! Born on 91st, fell to below 25th over first 7 months (exclusively bf but poor milk supply, tongue tie undiagnosed and untreated, reflux etc) and then when I started weaning her I was a bit over zealous with both milk and solid feeds for about a month, in my anxiety for her to gain weight, and she gained a BUMPER amount over a month and then gradually went back up to just over 75th. For height she is almost 91st.

Does this actually really mean she is going to be very tall? Or larger build than average?

I can probably answer my own question as my partner was born on 98th, I think, and is of slight build now and has been very slim since he was a young boy apparently, and I was born on 2nd, and am average build now - so it doesn't actually mean much, I'm guessing?

Whenever my daughter has gone up or down the charts, there always seems to be a very obvious reason - tongue tie, stomach bugs, made her go down, and on the other hand, a bit of mummy over feeding and her recent refusal to eat anything other than bread and pasta has made her go up, in fact it seems to be very much circumstantial rather than predetermined genetically?

what are other people's experiences? Are there people out there who had babies steadily on high centiles until they were 2 or whatever, and they're now one of the smallest kids in their class, and vice versa?

[Fuschia]

Ds1

Born at 41+4, 85th centile

Went up to 98th

Dropped gradually to 75th once he got mobile

Think he is about 60th now

When he was 6 I measured him agAinst m&s size chart

Height was age 7

Waist was age 3-4

So quite wiry

Twins - twin 1 was .2nd cemtile

Twin 2 was 2nd cemtile

By 3m both 25th

Now at age almost 4, both 50th

Slightly tall in comparison to weight

Latest baby..

Umm

Don't even know!!

Oops

Quite small when he was born. I would guess he is about 50th now, judging by his clothes sizes. Lost his chubbinsss when he started to wAlk at 12m

[Fuschia]

I think once the baby is mobile, you can't judge much from the cenfiles tbh and the child starts to move away from the Line based on birth weight and towards the one based on genetics

[Belle]

I'm sure I read somewhere that children shouldn't ideally vary more than two centiles between height and weight...my son is between 75th & 98th height but 25th weight...but had his 2.5 yr check and nothing was said so presume nothing to worry about, just wonder if others have heard this? sorry, a tangent I know...

I do find the whole centile thing v confusing.

[Fuschia]

Belle, I don't think that can be right. Because there are a range of physiques that are normal.

Isn't it dropping two centile lines is considered a potential problem?

But cenfiles just show the normal distribution for the population surveyed... So if at birth exactly half the other babies are heavier than you, you might expect that fact to stay fairly constant as you get older. But obviously that can't be the whole story.. My firth child was big because he was late. He stayed high on the chart because he comfort fed a lot. But clearly by genetic he is Destined to be someone of low average height (I think he won't be taller than 5 8) and he is quite slim, and looking more so as puberty approaches (plus very active)

[Fuschia]

http://www.nhs.uk/Planners/birthtofive/Pages/Yourchildsweightandheight.aspx

[Fuschia]

http://www.growtall.com/growth-charts2.htm

[Fuschia]

http://www.blossom-consulting.co.uk/growth-charts-explained/

[Fuschia]

http://www.kidspot.com.au/familyhealth/Development-Babys-first-year-Height-and-growth--Whats-normal-and-whats-not+3300+212+article.htm

[Saffron]

Fuschia Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> http://www.nhs.uk/Planners/birthtofive/Pages/Yourc

> hildsweightandheight.aspx

From the article, "Weight: Usually, weight gain is quickest in the first six to nine months. It gradually slows down as children move into the toddler years."

Hmm, that's interesting. Are they drawing their conclusions from a population of mixed-fed babies, I wonder? Because, in my experience, many exclusively breastfed babies have very slow weight gain in the first 6 months. Sometimes I think these blanket statements can be a little misleading and cause b/fing mothers to feel doubtful of their babies' growth. I guess it just shows how deeply formula feeding has become part of baby culture, that the article doesn't even say if this is or isn't different. I'm not opposed to formula feeding, but I do think there needs to be better education --even in the medical community-- of the differences in weight gain in the first year.

[Fuschia]

Saffron, I think for all babies the first months are the time for fastest growth... Albeit ff bakes may gain even faster than bf ones.

When you compare a 1 yo with. Newborn.. Never again will there be so much growth in one year

[Saffron]

Fuschia Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> http://www.kidspot.com.au/familyhealth/Development

> -Babys-first-year-Height-and-growth--Whats-normal-

> and-whats-not+3300+212+article.htm

These height calculators are interesting, but are they only really accurate if your child falls within an overall average height range in the population? I mean, do these calculations assume that the child's height is a relative (to gender) average of parents' heights. Genetics don't necessarily work that way. The child can disporportionately inherit genes for the height of one parent rather than the other, no? In which case, if that parent is very tall (or short), the child's height will not be a straight average of the two. And what about the effects of recessive genes?

The old-wives saying for height is that you take the height (for girls) at 2 yr and double it (2.5 for boys b/c they have their teen growth spurt later than girls). This is an estimate +/-2 inches for adult height.

The growth calculators put my daughter's estimated height around the same as mine: 5'6". The old-wives method estimates her to be no less than 5'10". She was already in a size 7 shoe at 2 yr, and clearly to us she takes after my husband physically (6'1"), I'm sooo curious to see one day how tall she really will be!

Edited to say... this site is great if you need help converting height, weight, etc between metric and conventional:

http://onlineconversion.com/

[Fuschia]

Same calculations in the red book, saffron, iirc

Clearly it's very rough

My friend is of average height And so is her partner, though HER father is 6ft 2

My friend's daughter is heading to be really tall

[sanity girl]

I have no idea as I've never had either of my children weighed (apart from immediately after the birth). I find it's the best way to avoid any anxieties, as long as they are thriving (mind you, they were both rather fat babies :)) ). I think it's hard to predict children's size as an adult as they tend to grow in "spurts" but I seem to remember reading that if you double their height at 2 years old then that will give you an idea of their height as an adult.

[Bumpkin]

I don't think you can take too much notice of these. My dad measured me and my sister regularly and plotted the points on a graph (yes extremely sad, he was a train spotter too...). According to his detailed predictions, she would end up 2 inches taller than me as she was taller age for age all the way through. She's now 2 inches shorter than me.

[Fuschia]

The point I was making, really, is that children don't get their adult height/weight from their original centiles! So though the charts can be a reassuring thing if you child is tracking a centile (and pick up he occasional case where there is a real problem) over reliance on the charts can lead to a lot of unnecessary worry

[Saffron]

Yup, I second that, F! GPs and paediatricians I've spoken to about it have pretty much said that we can throw the charts out the window, as far as parents are concerned. Charts are really more for tracking population trends, or as you say, monitoring the occasional serious problem in an individual. Sanity girl, I wish we had done what you did, no weigh-ins. If we ever have another, I'll do that too. I don't know of any studies that look at individuals as individuals. The all seem to track populations from a public health view. Would be interesting to read if there are any out there.

[hellosailor]

all very interesting - thanks all!

Very interesting articles Fuchsia - my instinct has also been that height and weight will be predicted more by genetics after this initial period when other factors come into play (how efficiently they've fed, how well they've taken to solids, how soon they crawl and burn off calories etc)

Sanity Girl - you're so right, next time I have a baby I am not going to get them weighed after the first couple of weeks, caused so much anxiety when she was dropping down 3 percentiles but she is 75th now so wish I'd never known how far she was 'falling' and been subject to talks from hvs about failure to thrive etc!

[helena handbasket]

Yikes! According to the height calculator, my son (who was 36" at 27 months) would end up being 90 inches! That's 7.5 feet! Somehow I don't see that happening.

My son was 97th in weight and 40th! in length when born (basically he was built like a bulldog, big body and hilarious little short legs). He has sat between 95-100th in weight his entire life, but grew quite tall as a toddler. At five, he is now 97th for both height and weight.

I'm average, his dad is tall. My family is short, but two cousins are 6'3. How? Their dad is average (they look like their dad, so no they're not the milkman's boys).

In school pictures, my dad is always the tall kid in the middle. But around the age of 13, everyone outgrew him and he ended up being a somewhat short man.

It's all a mystery, I think.

edited for sad grammar

[Saffron]

helena handbasket Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Yikes! According to the height calculator, my son

> (who was 36" at 27 months) would end up being 90

> inches! That's 7.5 feet! Somehow I don't see

> that happening.

Haha, that's crazy! But possible, I guess. Although using the old-wives trick of doubling the height at 2.5 for boys (assuming he doesn't grow much more before 2.5 yrs), he'd be around 6 ft, which seems more reasonable. Yes, still a mystery. Let's all meet up in 20 years and compare how they turned out?! :)

[helena handbasket]

Ha, I misunderstood. I multiplied his height at age 2 times 2.5

Phew! I was imagining the expense of shoes for a teenager that big!

[Vickster]

My parents were concerned about my height when I was a teenager, so much so they took me to see a consultant (I am a fairly respectable 5'4" now thankfully). The consultant told us that periods of illness as a child can interfere with your growth patterns, and as I had a bladder problem which was corrected with surgery aged 9, this could have been a contributing factor to my slow growth. I found this quite interesting. I suppose it makes sense, as your body is busy trying to heal itself, and if this coincides with a growth spurt, that growth spurt may be compromised. While my height is now not a problem, I am a couple of inches shorter than my mum and sister so there may be some truth in this.