I've had a chance to read the entire article now. Sample size was minuscule, 40 babies in all, 20 in each group. Because of this, none of the differences between the groups reached statistical significance, and I find it remarkable that they were able to get it published at all, because it looks more like a pilot study to examine the feasability of doing a properly dimensioned trial which could actually shed new light on the subject of how best to support exclusive breastfeeding in babies with a weight loss of over 5% at 36 hours of age, which was the group from which they recruited participants. One of the strongest associations with exclusive breastfeeding in their material, *in both groups* was multiparity. When you only have 20 mothers in each group, it is clinically relevant, but not statistically significant, that 14 of the mothers in the intervention group were multips, but only 10 in the control group. The authors do mention this in the discussion part of the article, the part that doesn't make it into the abstract and certainly isn't highlighted in the press releases. The authors don't mention the (also not statistically significant, but equally clinically relevant) difference in mean gestational age between the groups. The intervention group babies were about a week closer to term than the controls (just over 39 and 38 weeks, respectively). So, the control group consisted of more primips and less mature babies, and we shouldn't be surprised that the average number of days before lactogenesis II in the control group was longer than in the intervention group. The mothers who were recruited to the study had expressed an intent to breastfeed exclusively but were not averse to supplementation, and this is also mentioned in the discussion. The authors are well aware that the very inclusion criteria for the study might have biased it in favor of less exclusive breastfeeding among subjects. What I am trying to point out is that there are numerous possible explanations for their findings besides the one that is getting an inordinate amount of media coverage in the dumbed-down version 'Early formula gives more breastfeeding'. We can, and should, wonder whose media machine saw to it that this teensy weensy study got spread all over the world the same day it was published in the journal of an organization that receives millions of dollars each year from the formula industry. Studies are published all the time, GOOD studies, studies with enough participants to give proper statistical power to the findings, and we don't hear about them, while this one is everywhere. Got to run for work now, where the study made a largeish splash on Monday. :-( Rachel Myr who would rather be helping mothers actively, instead of doing damage control, in Kristiansand, Norway *********************************************** Archives: http://community.lsoft.com/archives/LACTNET.html To reach list owners: [log in to unmask] Mail all list management commands to: [log in to unmask] COMMANDS: 1. To temporarily stop your subscription write in the body of an email: set lactnet nomail 2. To start it again: set lactnet mail 3. To unsubscribe: unsubscribe lactnet 4. To get a comprehensive list of rules and directions: get lactnet welcome