Janet Simpson wrote:

>Any ideas why BF babies seem to be bigger than ABM fed babies? It seems to me
>that, in my area anyway, the BF babies seem to be bigger.  Any studies to
>corrolate with this or is it just coincidence?

I have read that there is a different growth curve for formula vs. BF
babies.  BF babies show much higher growth rate in the first three months,
then level off, with smaller growth spurts around 12 months or later.
Formula babies tend to have a straighter growth curve throughout the first
year.  This would mean that if most of the babies you see professionally are
under 3 months old, you are seeing them during that higher rate of growth.

Unfortunately, I can't find where I read this, so no citation.  I'll keep
looking and let you know if I turn up anything.  I expect some of the
nutritionists out there have this info at their fingertips.

Margaret K.K. Radcliffe               [log in to unmask]
Dept. of Mining & Minerals Engr.
Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA