pregnancy lengths statistics

More little BLWers in the making... <rubs hands>

pregnancy lengths statistics

Postby Singale » 29 Jan 2014, 22:02

As we're discussing about when we should ask DH's godmother & goddaughter to come over in preparation of little dot's arrival, I got to wonder on whether or not it is true that Tigerle's - exact on due date - birth, especially as a first born, is really THAT unusual.

So did a bit of a google & I came across this page that displayed the result of survey about length of pregnancy that was taken by 5000+ of women. Fascinating!
What do you think? Any wager on what's the likelihood that little dot will also make an appearance exactly on due date? A bit later? a bit earlier?

ETA: In summary, the graphs are saying that most people's pregnancy lasts exactly 40 weeks (i.e. 280 days = 9 months & 6 days). On the graph shown the blogger even had to limit the maximum number of people giving birth exactly on due date because otherwise it'll go off the chart completely. And it seemed like this is still true regardless of whether it's the first child, second, and so on. I think it's fascinating.

But at the same time am still nervous when DH said that Tigerle's favourite cousin C, (DH's 13 yrs old goddaughter) will only start her summer holiday on the last week of July, i.e. the week of the due date & that he thinks that his godmother (Tigerle's favourite oma) should travel together with C because she's not flown or gotten out of the country in the last 30 yrs or so! Oh dear! What if little dot decides she wants to say hello 2 weeks early?! :scream
Last edited by Singale on 29 Jan 2014, 22:32, edited 1 time in total.
Tigerle's mum since Sept 2010
And now Pferdle's as well since July 2014
Singale
 
Posts: 1103
Joined: 12 Apr 2011, 23:52

Re: pregnancy lengths statistics

Postby Tintin » 29 Jan 2014, 22:14

Not read the article, but Stompy arrived on her NHS due date. I can't comment about the accuracy of that, because I wasn't paying that much attention around the time of conception (IYKWIM!).

With Squeak, we had been struggling to conceive, so I was charting, taking temps, monitoring CM etc - she was 6 days late according to the NHS, but I told the midwives I wasn't accepting their date, and that I expected her to arrive on the 11t or 12th. She came on the 11th.
DD1 Stompy, home-birthed Feb 08
DD2 Squeak, home-birthed March 11
Tintin
 
Posts: 5358
Joined: 22 Jun 2008, 16:52

Re: pregnancy lengths statistics

Postby Kanga » 29 Jan 2014, 22:22

Haven't properly read the article but my dd was 11 days over nhs date & ds was 5 days over. I think I disputed the dates a little but can't really remember!
Mummy to 2 gorgeous munchkins who are trying to eat us out of house & home! Dd A born July 08 and ds J born June 12. V3 due October 2014.

Also selling handmade gifts etc at http://www.alittleroar.com
Kanga
 
Posts: 5383
Joined: 25 Sep 2008, 15:42

Re: pregnancy lengths statistics

Postby Nix » 29 Jan 2014, 22:40

I thought it was a very low percentage of babies who actually arrived on their due date in some statistics I read a long time ago when I was hoping to be one of those people. Mine were 7,8 and 14 days overdue. I think Pippa may have been more if not for induction.

My sister had two babies who arrived on their exact due date. She said she doesn't do waiting around and late. As a very punctual person, I took slight offence to this. I had no control whatsoever over the babies arriving and I assume other people don't either. I believe if your body is ready you can help things along but my 41 week and 42 week pregnancies were not chosen so by me!
Very proud mummy to three little stars:

Harvey born January 2009
Jasper born October 2010
Pippa born January 2013
Nix
 
Posts: 6516
Joined: 28 Apr 2009, 16:11
Location: Eccles, Manchester

Re: pregnancy lengths statistics

Postby Singale » 29 Jan 2014, 23:00

Bahahaha! Oh if it's dependent on the mother's, then given my genes/ cultural background & my track record on punctuality, Tigerle would have definitely arrived much later than the calculated due date! :D

Currently we are blaming her dad's uber punctual genes for her arrival being exactly on due date.
And lo and behold, she's turning more and more like DH everyday in looks gestures and habits despite starting out looking almost like a mini me as a newborn. Sigh!

DH's blaming my gene pool for her drama queen tendencies. :wink:

But who knows, really? I'm still of the opinion that the smart little babies & mums' bodies are so in tune with each other & - given that nothing else sis amiss - things will progress as they should & the little ones will come out when they are ready regardless of their supposedly calculated due dates.

I think I read even somewhere that a new research result's showing that the spread of what should be considered as a normal gestation period for humans is 5 weeks on both sides of the calculated due date rather than the currently accepted 2 weeks? (ETA: found the article!)

Still it'd be good to know of the date & being able to plan for it, though rather than it being a spread of 4 weeks!
Tigerle's mum since Sept 2010
And now Pferdle's as well since July 2014
Singale
 
Posts: 1103
Joined: 12 Apr 2011, 23:52

Re: pregnancy lengths statistics

Postby RJandA » 29 Jan 2014, 23:39

There are lies, damn lies, and statistics. :)

I did a fair bit if this myself, and I think I calculated that the risk of me going into labour during the 36 hours we were planning to spend at my parents' over Christmas (given that I hadn't already gone into labour) was 3.8% or thereabouts. Guess what happened? Yup.

The problem is that you're only ever looking at averaged of what had happened to other people. It's interesting that in France they don't give you a due date but a due period of about 3 weeks... Makes much more sense IMO.
Mum to Big A - (March 2010), Li'l A - (December 2012)
RJandA
 
Posts: 991
Joined: 23 Sep 2010, 15:18
Location: SE London

Re: pregnancy lengths statistics

Postby CaelaCoo » 30 Jan 2014, 05:53

I've yet to meet someone who birthed on their due date

I was 37+6 with monster..

But she has always been impatient
*Moo moo's (26/03/13)*
*baby c (4/3/15)*
CaelaCoo
 
Posts: 593
Joined: 05 Sep 2013, 16:53

Re: pregnancy lengths statistics

Postby fourweewonders » 30 Jan 2014, 06:18

Mine were 39+0, 38+0 & 37+6.

From all the midwifery journals i read when pregnant with b (student nurse at the time with access to them via uni library) 40+3 is the most common gestation to give birth at, & only 3% of babies come on their given due date.

Dependent on how late your dating scan is you date based on that can be upto 5 days out.

I knew exactly when we dtd with b & e but my scans with both put them forward by 3 days, my community midwife & I stuck with my dates both times
Mum to B (b.sept 2006) & E (b.sept 2009) and R & A (b.july 2011).
fourweewonders
 
Posts: 5324
Joined: 19 Mar 2010, 15:07
Location: yorkshire

Re: pregnancy lengths statistics

Postby RJandA » 30 Jan 2014, 07:15

But DTD doesn't necessarily equal when sperm meets egg does it? Don't sperm live for up to 3 days, so they can hang around waiting for an egg to show up?
Mum to Big A - (March 2010), Li'l A - (December 2012)
RJandA
 
Posts: 991
Joined: 23 Sep 2010, 15:18
Location: SE London

Re: pregnancy lengths statistics

Postby blackberrycrimble » 30 Jan 2014, 09:15

Fluff was 39+0. Sybil was 40+9, but by my dates, S was a week more cooked than that - so over 42 weeks. I have a very predictable, stable cycle, so I can't see really how both of those situations could be just wrong dates/late or early actual conception etc. at least one of them must have been not a standard length pg.
My peas are gone as well as my marbles.
blackberrycrimble
 
Posts: 7579
Joined: 02 Jun 2008, 07:47
Location: Reading, Berks

Re: pregnancy lengths statistics

Postby blackberrycrimble » 30 Jan 2014, 09:19

I must admit I've only skimmed the article, but the first chart has around 180 first time mothers giving birth on the due date, from a sample of 3081. That's about 6%. So not really that many (and not way off the 3% others have mentioned).
My peas are gone as well as my marbles.
blackberrycrimble
 
Posts: 7579
Joined: 02 Jun 2008, 07:47
Location: Reading, Berks

Re: pregnancy lengths statistics

Postby blackberrycrimble » 30 Jan 2014, 09:21

What do you mean the blogger 'had to limit the number giving birth on the due date'? I can't find mention of that. And if they did, that's a rubbish bit of data analysis!
My peas are gone as well as my marbles.
blackberrycrimble
 
Posts: 7579
Joined: 02 Jun 2008, 07:47
Location: Reading, Berks

Re: pregnancy lengths statistics

Postby Gizmo » 30 Jan 2014, 11:06

Aren't due dates a bit skewed anyway? We had IVF so I know the exact date they were 'conceived' and put in. From that date to the day I had them was actually 35+4 weeks, however my NHS due date was dead on 38 weeks when they were born.

ETA: They were totally normal birth weights (6lb & 7lbs) and not prem in any way. It was a planned cs.
Gizmo
 
Posts: 3194
Joined: 08 May 2012, 18:12

Re: pregnancy lengths statistics

Postby Jelly Belly » 30 Jan 2014, 14:06

Sperm can survive in a female body for as long as 7 days. DTD doesn't guide likely conception (apart from no earlier than x) but ovulation gives you a definite 2 day window. I knew when I ovulated for both Squirmy and Bam and therefore disagreed with the MWs and sonographers who tried to give me different dates - particularly the one who insisted I feel pregnant before actually having sex (Mr JB isn't that good!).

From what I understand, first pregnancies and subsequent pregnancies differ in duration by roughly 3 days. My 40+5, 40+2 and 40+3 gestations certainly followed that pattern going by conception date but would not have followed the pattern if I'd accepted the NHS dates.
The Chooby 28/10/07
Squirmy 12/12/09
Baby Bam 13/06/13
Jelly Belly
 
Posts: 6079
Joined: 07 May 2008, 20:47
Location: Watford, Hertfordshire

Re: pregnancy lengths statistics

Postby RedRum » 30 Jan 2014, 17:07

Sorry if someone already mentioned this but it says they've only counted births resulting from spontaneous labour, so I would have thought those figures are pretty skewed, given that anyone who's gone far over enough to be induced wouldn't have been included.
Mama to R (2007) and J (2015)
RedRum
 
Posts: 5950
Joined: 18 Apr 2008, 17:26
Location: West Sussex

Next

Return to Pregnancy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users