Paula writes:
>I agree with Anne Altshuler's suggestion that you use Miriam
>Labbock's definitions for breastfeeding categories. MDs in my area have
>remarked that they don't see that much difference in health for some
>Breastfed babies...well some babies aren't breastfed as much as they are
>formula fed. AND maybe the health attributes of breastfeeding aren't *doled*
>out by mom nature on a linear basis. 100% breastfed gets 100% of the
>attributes. But does a 90% breastfed baby get 90% of the attributes of
>breastfeeding? Probably not, IMO.
>
>Keeping the stats with *true* definitions would be truly advantageous.


Paula knows I've been working on this topic for my new book -- problem is
that even Labbok and Krasovec don't take into account all the different
feeding behaviors that go on out there.  Take two babies both getting 75% of
their feeds at the breast (3 out of every 4, nice regularly spaced feeds,
all of the same quantity -- AS IF THAT EVER HAPPENS) -- It matters a great
deal whether the other 25% of the feeds are formula in a bottle, expressed
breast milk in a bottle, manzanilla tea in a bottle, Coca-cola in a bottle,
apple juice in a cup, dirty water in a cup, etc. etc. etc.  Yet the Labbok
and Krasovec system would lump all these together.  None of the current
systems work very well for the vast array of human behaviors, unfortunately.
Katherine A. Dettwyler, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Anthropology and Nutrition
Texas A&M University