We pride ourselves on having the friendliest
and most welcoming forums for moms and moms to be! Please take a moment
for free so you can be a part of our growing community of mothers.
If you have any problems registering please drop an email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Our community is moderated by our moderation team so you won't see spam or offensive messages posted on our forums. Each of our message boards is hosted by JustMommies hosts, whose names are listed at the top each board. We hope you find our message boards friendly, helpful, and fun to be on!
I am wondering.. I am 23, almost 24 weeks, and not yet diagnoxed with gd, (but pretty sure it's coming). My sugars have been high. Today I checked upon waking, after not eating for almost 12 hours and my reading was 6.7. Anyways, in this time when the sugars are kind of high, does baby still grow too much, or does it happen later on in pregnancy? (like 3rd trimester?) I've been told my sugars will only get higher in the 3rd trimester. I guess I'm just wondering if this affects baby even now?
(I have done my glucose screen and just waiting for the results, so I am working on either being diagnosed or ruled out -doubt it though- so it's not like I'm doing nothing.. can't help the waiting, right? but just curiuos. I have a u/s in 2 weeks and I'm half wondering if poor baby will be bigger than she should be? )
Yes, high blood sugars can contribute to a larger baby at any stage in pregnancy, but once you get your sugars under control the situation resolves itself and the baby goes back to being a normal size. Since you are really on top of the blood sugar problems you are having I would not really worry too much, it takes many many weeks/months to end up with macrosomia and a baby that is too large.
Yes, In agreeance with Rebecca.. babies born to mothers with out of control blood sugars can have a high risk of having a baby that is to big. My daughter was 10lbs 8 ounces at 38 weeks gestation. My blood sugars were under control for the most part toward the end of my pregnacy.. but I have a feeling they were undiagnoised long enough to cause the issue.
Holy cow 10.8 at 38 weeks?! Wow, that is a BIG baby!!! You say your sugars were "mostly" under control? Are you sure? WHen were you diagnosd with it?
Rebecca, my sugars are not controlled yet. Its just recently i actually got the moniter to watch them, and tuesday was the glucose screening. No idea how long its been this way, maybe just started? The nurse is hoping to get my results today and see if my dr wants the GTT done; she said it sounds like perhaps we should do it anyways to see the results.
With my first, I didn't get my fasting blood sugars under control until I was 34 weeks pregnant. I found out I had GD at 28 weeks. I also had a few high numbers during the day.. I was on a high dose of insulin NPH at night also.. My daughter was born at 39 weeks and 2 days weighing 6 lbs 14 oz's.. Perfect size and not affected by my having GD..
With my son, I controlled my sugars since the day I found out I was pregnant.. He was born at 39 weeks and 1 day weighing 7 lbs 13 oz's.. He was born unaffected by me having GD.. He even had a APGAR score of 9.9..
So, just because you have GD, doesn't mean your doomed to have a large kid.. Even if your sugars are not controlled majority of the time..
Last edited by Adriana's Mommy; December 3rd, 2009 at 01:46 PM.
Adriana's mommy, I think I am mainly worried about size becaue I have never had GD before, and my last 3 babies should have been 9 - 9.5 pounds. My last baby was 7lbs 8oz at 36 weeks (and like I said, no blood sugar issues).
Soooo... what happens to these "natural" 9+ pounders when you add unstable sugars to them? I ate lunch nearly 3 hours ago, went to sleep and just took my sugars.. 8.5
Also.. what the heck am I supposed to eat at a time like this? I am hungry and it has been 3hrs since eating.. but I'm afraid any food will only make my sugars rise HIGHER than that. Not eating is probably not good, but what kind of things would be ideal at this time? Or do I waitt for the readings to come down first?
I have another question. I was just reading an article on gd and came across this
Modern obstetrics increasingly focuses its attention upon its perceived 'dangers' of macrosomia, including birth trauma for mother and baby and what are thought to be subsequent risks for obesity, high blood pressure, and earlier diabetes. Clearly, true diabetic pregnancies have produced true diabetic macrosomia, in which the child may develop asymmetrically (more trunk growth than head growth), have organomegaly, and show excess adipose tissue. This pattern of development clearly is abnormal and unhealthy for baby, these babies clearly have higher rates of shoulder dystocia (shoulders getting stuck at delivery) and birth trauma, and this macrosomia clearly responds well to tighter control and intervention. The question in milder cases of gd, however, is whether the somewhat higher rate of 'bigger babies' (usually 9-10 lbs.) is abnormal and unhealthy, what its real cause is, whether treatment satisfactorily lowers baby size, whether such treatment is safe, and the degree of clinical importance of reducing baby size.
I found it interesting because at my last mca scan (u/s for checking baby's artery in her brain because of my antibodies) she showed average growth according to the report .. when they broke it down, every part they measured showed average, EXCEPT her stomach, which was much bigger than the rest of her. On the graph they provide, looks something like this: I------I-----*--I the first is 0 percentile, mid line is 50 percentile and the third is 100 percentile and her line was about where I put the asterix .. just glanced at the report yesterday and the nurse said, Yeah her belly is measuring quite a bit larger, but didn't catch which percentile.. I was 21w5d at the time of the u/s.
Anyways, that tummy thing really caught my attention. Now I'm wondering if this is GD related and just how long my sugars may have been high!
Let me preface this by saying that I'm not a doctor. However, I am a mother who lost a child because of undiagnosed untreated diabetes.
I think your baby is fine. I really do. You may very well have been diabetic this whole pregnancy. But I learned that the kind of blood sugar insanity that is required to permanently damage a baby at this point is really hard to achieve. I know, because it happened to me. I just don't think your blood sugars have been consistently high enough to cause a problem. Wanna know how high mine were? Consistently in the 400's. Why? Because I don't have GD - I have Typre 1 insulin dependent diabetes. I am very severely diabetic. You're not If you were to completely ignore the GD the entire pregnancy she might be big, but you're not going to do that. And a 9 pound baby is not that big of a deal, it's when babies reach 15 pounds that problems arise! And some asymmetry in growth is normal at this point, she'll even out eventually.
I used to work in foster care, and I saw the children of meth addicts and heroin addicts turn out surprisingly normal. Babies are amazingly resilient. It really is hard to irrevocably damage a baby in utero. I know, because it happened to me. And it's NOT going to happen to you.
I'm not sure if this wall of text is helpful, or even makes sense, and I know I'm not a doctor, but I have learned an incredible amount about diabetes in pregnancy since losing my son, and I am absolutely, 100% positive that your little girl is fine and will continue to be fine the rest of the pregnancy.
thanks again rebecca. First want to say I'm sorry for the loss of your son, what a crappy way to be thrown into learning about diabetes. Secondly, I know my sugars aren't crazy. But they're not normal, either, and supposedly they only get higher. I'm sure, becasue we are watching everything so closely, she will be fine. And I'm not worried about 9 pounds. I'm just saying, my kids should have been in that range WITHOUT sugar issues. 9 pounds is okay. Once you get 10+ it scares me. Doesn't matter. I have 2 rh antibodies. I have pregnancy induced hypertension, and (possibly) now this diabetes thing; like the nurse told me yesterday, there is almost zero chance she'll be allowed to go 40 weeks, so she won't get enormous anyways.
I was actually just more curious about that. My next u/s is in 2 weeks and either she will be better proportioned, or she won't, in which case, now discovering my sugars, they may have a better idea of if this is waht is causing it or not, kwim? It was more interest than anything. I've had 6 kids and none of them have been that disproportioned before.
I have a friend whose baby was seriously misproportioned during the third trimest, her doctors were really concerned. But she evened out just fine, she was born 2 weeks ago and everything was the right size.
I have multiple health issues too besides the diabetes, so I know how frustrating and worrisome it can be.
And I think GD induced macrosomia is kind of interesting, just this week a couple from the midwest had a 15 pound baby and then there was that lady from Singapore who had a 21 pound baby!!! I can't even wrap my mind around how big that is!
Well I just talked to the nurse and I did fail my 1hr screen, but not as badly as I would have thought.. barely actually. My glucose moniter showed 9.2 right before they drew my blood but the lab came back with 7.9.
And the cut off is 7.8. lol The nurse said wait and see on tuesday if my dr thinks the 3 hr is necessary. I understand this, but am confused. First of all, does this really reflect daily life? My sugars are WAYYYYYYY higher after a carb than actual junk food.(like a sugary drink) So if this 3 hr is not necessary, (and sugars get higher in the 3rd trimester) .. I mean, I've read that even moms who have borderline numbers but not actually diagnosed with gd have babies that tend to be just as affected as women with gd.
How does that work? Should I wait 4 weeks to take the second test if my dr deems it necesary so that I'll be 28 weeks and the sugars may be higher?
Generally the 1 hour and 3 hour tests are an accurate determiner of whether or not you have GD. I'd talk to your doctor and see if he wants you to do the 3 hour test, but in the meantime you could just follow the GD diet anyway. It's honestly a pretty good diet whether you are diabetic or not. I know a couple of girls following it without actually having GD.
Well I've been trying to follow the diet today and for the most part my sugars are very nice. There was one, where 3 hours after lunch it was 7.1 (127.8) .. didn't check before that becsuae I went to sleep.. but technically the last time I checked 3 hours after lunch it was 8.2 so this is an improvement.
Should I perhaps make an apt with my endocrinologist; would that be useful? i havent' been seeing him this pregnancy, but would he be better able to deal with this? I have a thyroid disorder, which can cause gestational diabetes.. and I have pih which is aggravated by Gd.. Even if I pass the 3 hour, my sugars are not normal, just maybe not high enough to be dx'd. And this can do almost the same damage to the babies.. I will see what my dr says on tuesday and perhaps book an apt with the endo..
Hope you don't mind me chiming on. I don't have nearly the experience that Rebecca has. My first baby was born, without GD, weighing 9 lbs 12 oz. This past time around, I barely failed my 1 hr screen but was diagnosed with GD after failing the 3 hr screen. I was controlling my sugars with diet alone and was concerned that my baby would be huge, fearing that I just had a generic predisposition for it based on my first baby. My son was born last month at only 7 lbs 9 oz. He looked so small in comparison.