To: Catherine Watson Genna and Kathleen A--

Thank you--

Catherine:

<<I believe there is research evidence that children grow in spurts.  Therefore,
a study that took weights only twice or three times could easily miss spurts in
weight gain.>>

Yes, thank you, you state it more clearly than my longwinded treatise. My obtuse
point was that the "oz/day" or "20 gm/day" expectation seemed to have come from
*an average* obtained by watching babies grow, *over time,* and pediatricians
typically use it over the long period 2 wks to 2 mos, a period which usually
encompasses a growth spurt at approx. 6 wks (more or less), and presumably some
time of slower growth, too, to average out at 20 - 30 gm/day..

  << Another problem with the drive to quantize is that unusual does not
necessarily mean abnormal.  The reason normal processes were first charted was
to find the tails of the bell shaped curve, so that persons who fell in the
upper or lower SD could be scrutinized TO SEE IF THERE WERE SOMETHING WRONG....
Growth charts are a screen.  Being on the tails of the bell shaped curve merits
further scrutiny, but is not in and of itself abnormal.
        Take home message:  statistically average is not the same thing as
normal.>>

Thank you. Excellent point.

And thank you, Kathleen, for seconding my comments.  Or rather, I should say,
firsting them.  I'm afraid I'm so belated to this field that I'm diving in five
years late to this controversy. Yesterday, after I posted my note to lactnet, I
went to my US mailbox (the metal one with the red flag) and found an invitation
to subscribe to BIRTH. I've sent it off.

Tina Smillie