Lois & Clark Forums Forums General Discussion Off Topic Family members

Can anyone who has more then one kid in the family tell me this thing that I've ovbserved is true or not? It seems like that the youngest one of each family is always the biggest. I'm just curious, Is it true though?

Not true. I am the oldest and I am much taller and fatter than my younger sister . Now as for the younger one being MUCH more spoiled or having much fewer restrictions . . . those are all true!

edit: I was just thinking about this again, and I know of other families where the oldest is definitely the biggest: my best friend Rachel is shorter, but fatter than her little sister. The people I work at the concession stand with, Kim is taller and fatter than both of her brothers (but they both play hockey very seriously -- one professionally). There is no real trend, though, because in other families it works the opposite way. My dad is younger than his sister and he is taller and fatter. My mom and her twin are the oldest of the three sets of twins in her family, and I think they are in the middle of weight and height. Actually, my mom is taller and thinnner than her (fraternal) twin. I really don't think there is any trend. It all depends on genetics. There is no saying that the youngest will be the biggest. It's completely stochastic, I believe.

- Laura

Not true at all! My litle brother is much shorter and thinner. But I agree, he is soooooo spoiled it makes me sick sometimes.

Well, I'm 15 and my brothers 14 and 9, so we haven't finished growing up yet. But my youngest brother has always been extremely skinny (you can see his ribs when he's not wearing a shirt!) and he's one of the shortest boys in his class.
My 14 year old brother has been one of the shortest kids in his class too, but he had always been... well, not fat, but fatty. But the past few months he's getting taller and taller.
I, otoh, have been one of the tallest girls in my class always, and with a nice silouette (not fat, not skinny). Now that I have almost finished my growing-up I am 1.65 metres (about 5 feet 5 inches) tall and weigh 65 kilograms... a fairly normal girl.

And, what they said about spoiled children!!
AnnaBtG.

i've been told that, in general, later children are larger than first children.

my oldest sister is probably about 5'3", the younger of the two probably about 5'7", and i (the youngest of us all) am about 5'8".

despite that, however, i have a special understanding with my oldest sister that she is, in fact, taller than i am, no matter how things look or what the numbers say. she's the big sister, she's taller. that's how it works.

Paul

thanks for all the answers. I guess all my relatives are all finished growing. I'm not the tallest in my family but I am the strongest...well the second strongest. Like my boss says, "You don't know your own strength." But I am horizontally the biggest in the family and supposed to be the prettiest too. My oldest sister looks is like a petite little toothpick with a big butt. Big butts run in the family gene.

My cousin Jessica is the youngest of her family and she's the tallest and biggest in her family.

Just noticed this thread, and decided to chime in. My family is not one to go by. I'm the only chickie in the family, so of course, I'd be the shortest one. (Okay, not always, but my family is all short). I'm the eldest, and 5'0". My brother is 5'9", just a year younger. My other brother, we can't count on yet, as he's only 11. The odds are against him, though, because our dad is 5'6", and his mom (half-brother) is 5'0".

My husband's family, the eldest is the tallest. My husband is 6'6", and his younger brother is about 6'4" or 6'5", I think.

This is an interesting question and I have to chime in because I think that I know where the saying came from. Each successive baby that a woman has tends to be larger than the last(gross blanket statement) on average. I know that there are different circumstances that can change this but it seems to be the general rule, and one that I have seen proven true in many instances.

My oldest friend has two children and her daughter, the younger one, was 9 13 and her eldest, the boy, was 7 7. My younger sister also has two children, a boy and then a girl, which also followed the 'general' rule.

Then there is the adults that I know, in my family there are three girls born to both my mother and father and even though my younger sister was the largest birthweight, my older sister was the middle birthweight and I was the smallest. I was also a month premature so that does make a difference. But now my older sister is the tallest and my younger sister is the shortest. But then the trend is reversed in my husband's family, the youngest of four brothers is the tallest and then they get incrementally shorter until you get to the eldest who is the shortest. I beleive that their birthweights followed the same pattern.

So I guess that you could say that humanity is still wonderfully varied <g>

Just read this and thought I would put in my 2 cents. I had also heard this, but in relation to babies. In my family there are 7 children (iam 6th). Mom pretty much followed course with each baby a few ounces bigger than the next. I was the only baby that didn't follow suit, but I was almost a month early (and still over 8 lbs).
My kiddies <all girls>
1st 42 weeks 8 lbs 12 oz 2nd 40 weeks 8 lbs 12 oz
3rd 37 weeks 8 lbs 9 oz. And No 4 39 weeks 7 lbs 5 oz. The older ones are right in the 50-75th percentile in height and weight. Caroline (no 4) is 10 months and barely 16 lbs. She is in the 10-20th percentile in height and weight

Seven! My mom is in a family of eight. I have approximate 120 cousins and 21 aunts and uncels. I'm #5 of 5 and all girls in my family.

My mom was one of 11-My grandpa keeps an extended family tree. He said that they have 67 natural grandchildren 87 greats and 4 great-greats. Whe you start adding inlaws, ex's, steps,etc the numbers are even bigger.

My Dad was one 9 but most of his sibs only had 2 or 3 kids, so the extended family isn't too big.

My husband sometimes goes into shock at family functions. He's one of 2 children and has 2 cousins on one side and 7 on the other.

I don't even want to start counting my in-laws. Too confusing. Every few years I find out that I have another cousin that I didn't know about before. That's why my family dinners always takes forever, it takes thirty minutes to twenty minutes to get through the intro. Yours must take forever.

Talking about family sizes... I'm one of six-originally-one brother was adopted by my aunt. My husband is one of seven! And we have four--so far. But it reminds me of my husband's best friend-- who is one of 13-originally-one died as a baby and one as an adult a few years ago. I said all that to get to this.

Best friend said his father was one of 14. He commented that 'daddy' and 'mama' didn't have a tv. Grandad was one of 18-- they didn't have a tv or a radio. Grandad's friend was one of 23. It was said that 'friend' and 'wife' didn't have a tv, radio, or a job. (Couldn't resist. )

Youngest baby is not always bigger though. At birth or otherwise. My youngest was and is smaller in both areas. My oldest is unusually tall.

Speaking of a lot of children . . .

My grandfather had so many brothers and sisters, he didn't even know all of them! Some of them were adults and died in wars before he was born! And apparently some of his brothers and sisters stayed in Poland when his family came to America.

From records that my dad has seen, he's said that my grandpa probably had over 20 siblinsgs. I couldn't confirm or deny this from my grandfather because he's been dead for about 9 years

Might be why a kid with my same last name who I am not related to showed up at my high school! My dad sort of deduced that he might be a really distant cousin.

(my last name is NOT a common name!)

- Laura