I'm a little surprised that this debate is still going on. Scales are tools,
nothing more and nothing less. The better the tool and the better the
tool-user, the better the result - assuming that the tool was appropriate in
the first place.
I wrote a piece about this issue ten years ago!
http://bflrc.com/ljs/myths/gadgets.htm
Linda J. Smith, BSE, FACCE, IBCLC
Bright Future Lactation Resource Centre Ltd
6540 Cedarview Ct, Dayton OH 45459
937-438-9458 / fax 937-438-3229
www.BFLRC.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Susan Burger [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 10:53 AM
Subject: Re: Test weighing
Dear Nina and others:
There is a huge body of research in nutritional anthropometry demonstrating
the accuracy
of these scales. The researchers are actually using the wrong standard.
Long ago,
nutritionists showed the inaccuracy of measuring by EYEBALL what is in the
bottle. Dr.
Wight has already written that one of these studies were flawed. I will be
happy to
demonstrate at the next ILCA conference how poor eyeballing the content of
the bottle is.
There is water tension, the meniscus that can be misread, the breastmilk
that clings to
the bottle and doesn't come out. All of these things have been researched
before and
need not be researched again.
Nutritionists have done a huge body of research on estimating intake. The
bottom line is
that there is NO gold standard. You can do 24 hour food records. What
happens - people
change what they eat. You can do 24 hour weighing the food and plate waste.
Again,
people change what they eat. You can do 24 hour recalls, people forget what
they ate.
You can also do food frequency recalls. None of these are the truth. Each
of these has a
role when you understand what information they do provide, what their flaws
are, and
how to use the information in conjunction with others.
No one except researchers does 24 hour test weighings. Again, no one who
uses test
weighing uses it in isolation. Anyone who is guessing by swallows falls
prey to the same
problems of dependability. If you observe swallows at one feeding it does
not mean that
all feedings are the same as the one that you observed. Also, I guarantee
you that none
of the mothers I see are stressed out by my use of the scale. They are
usually quite
relieved. ANY measure that you use whether clinical, diaper counts,
behavior, weights is
subject to dependability problems if you don't do follow up.
It is not the tool that is the problem, it is the use of the tool. Any
tool, even observations
of swallows can be misused. I cannot tell you how many babies have been
sent out of
the hospital when their mothers were told that they were swallowing, only to
have that
not be the case. Or vice versa.
One of my Australian colleagues here explained to me how her baby was test
weighed for
every feeding when she gave birth in Australia. That to me would stress a
mother out
entirely. That is NOT how most people use scale. I use it like any tool I
use in the
kitchen. Measuring cups, teaspoons, etc. Taste always wins out in the end
over precise
measurements. Judiciously and appropriately and in context.
Best regards, Susan E. Burger, MHS, PhD, IBCLC
***********************************************
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 email list is powered by LISTSERV (R).
There is only one LISTSERV. To learn more, visit:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html
***********************************************
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 email list is powered by LISTSERV (R).
There is only one LISTSERV. To learn more, visit:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html
|
