Length of labour

[jazzandru]

When do they count from? My notes said 4.5 hours and health visitors etc said how fast that is for a first baby. It took 10 hours from 4cm to birth and they broke my waters at some point as they wouldn't burst. Is the 4.5 from breaking my waters? Baby 2 is said to be faster but I contracted for nearly 24 hours in total so a bit confused.

 

[SmartieMeUp]

It'll be from transitional stage which is 7cm to 10cm

 

[jazzandru]

Thankyou!

 

[mum22ttc#3]

I think with mine they've always gone from active labour so 5cm, it's always been pretty right though as I've always dilated quickly

 

[NDH]

Length of labour is counted from when they feel you are in active labour . generally that's around 4cm, but lots of times its apparent that while one may be dilated 4 or even more its still in the early stages

 

[jazzandru]

How interesting that it varies. My notes said 4.5 hours. That means I was 8cm when they started counting.

 

[babyjan]

Yup it's from active labour x

 

[MayesW]

oh yeah, they start counting from the active labor although i know that not all women thinks the same. for me i know that it was from about 5 cm, but for others can start from 4 and even up to 8 cm. it is different from one woman to another. as well as the time length is different too from one to another.

 

[BabyBlondex]

For me and my notes was from 4cm-delivery 😊 my first was 9 hours and my second was 2h 20 mins

 

[Dory85]

Mine counted active labour which was 4cm to delivery. First was 18 hours and second was 3 minutes!

 

[cosmicgirlxxx]

I was in labour for 1hr 29 mins and it was a lot worse than my longer, more slower labours.

 

[Rhi_Rhi1]

My first was also 4.5 hours and my second was 1.5 hours. Quite nervous about this next one. I didn't have time for pain relief etc and it was very overwhelming but least it was quick ! So I don't know if I would prefer more time or if it is better to just get it done with. I think they count active labour somewhere from 5-7 cm. I got to 8 without even noticing though.

 

[Jaxons Mummy]

I was in labour for 1hr 29 mins and it was a lot worse than my longer, more slower labours.

Im no expert on giving birth cos im only on my first but my mum had a very quick labour with my brother & she said it was the worst ever! She would rather have a slow longer labour.. My midwife told me its not right cleaver to have a quick birth

 

[Spudtastic]

Good question. I've had two different births and my longer one was worse than my shorter one.

With dd1 she was back to back and my midwife judged me to be in active labour when I was 2cm. When I got to the hospital they thought I was in transition because of my continuous contractions but I was only 2.5cms. Active labour was 17 hours according to midwife. If taken from 4 cms it was 9 hours.

With dd2 I was 3cm for a week before labour.
I had a different midwife and she didn't examine me when I arrived at the hospital but she took active labour again from when the contractions became a certain level of pain. She said 5 hours active labour.
I was examined once and was 5cms. An hour later dd2 was born.

 

[smileyfaces]

Mine was always 4cm to delivery

 

[SusieRose]

Mine was always 4cm to delivery

I have been having this discussion with friends as one said they were in labour for 40hrs. Counted from 1cm dilated. To me that's not labour. I didn't even notice I was in labour until I was 4cm. my active labour was 1hr 45 minutes with my first. Would have been quicker too if she wasn't back to back to start with. I agree with other posters with shorter labours being painful. I have nothing to compare it to but after I was in shock I couldn't stop shaking.