>
>However, not every baby is formula fed. How can the increased number of
>breastfed babies translate into 74% increase in tubby infants? Even though
>the US does not have a high rate of breastfeeding infants, it seems that the
>increase in "baby obesity" outpaces the number of breastfed (normal) babies.
>

Actually, that 74% increase in obese babies *could* be completely due 
to artificially-fed babies.  The percentage of babies 0-6 months who 
were defined as obese was 3.4% in 1980 and 5.9% in 2001.  Those 
numbers, while frighteningly large when we think of the health 
implications for the population, are not very big percentages.  When 
you start with a small number it's not that hard to increase it by 
74%.

Considering that 86% of US babies are being formula-fed at 6 months 
(61% no breastfeeding and 25% mixed feeding vs. 14% exclusively 
breastfed), it certainly could be artificially-fed babies driving the 
increase in obesity rates.  (2005 CDC data: 
http://www.cdc.gov/breastfeeding/data/NIS_data/data_2005.htm)

Which brings up the question:  Did the researchers make any attempt 
to break out breastfed vs. non-breastfed babies in this study?  It 
doesn't look like it, from the news reports.

Margaret

             ***********************************************

To temporarily stop your subscription: set lactnet nomail
To start it again: set lactnet mail (or digest)
To unsubscribe: unsubscribe lactnet
All commands go to [log in to unmask]

The LACTNET mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software together with L-Soft's LSMTP(R)
mailer for lightning fast mail delivery. For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html