FROM: Sturgess, Frances Coulter
TO:[log in to unmask]
SUBJECT: Nutrition and MD
DATE: 01-31-97   13:10 EST
PRIORITY:


In reference to the email below, I am assuming the part to be shared includes
that, the way I read it, the sstatement "human milk does not meet" is not
true.  It did not appear, from the digest given, that it had any effect that
artificial babymilk does not already have (and we seem to agree that *that*
does not meet all needs) ie, it promotes growth, sort of like feed in a feed
lot, and we are not fattning these "kids" for market....It also does not say
what the other 50% of the feed was, when "breast milk exceeded 50% of
intake"--which again seems to me tomean that the more breast milkthere was,
the better, although fortified breast milk performed better on the growh
curves than unfortified breast milk, again, is this what we want?--I suppose
the "other" 50% was a preemie ABM.

Now, for the citation:  the original research was published in the American
Journal of Clinical Nutrition,64:142, 1996, which any med library should be
able toaccess--or on the Medline on Net or whatever, i suppose.
The abstract was from Nutrition and the MD, a newsletter"written for the
professional by the professional" and is a continuing ed service for
physicians and nutritionists (and others) under the auspices of the University
of California, San Diego.  (and although the article in Nutr and MD is about
brfdg, it is listed in the table of contents as being about "Current issues in
PRegnancy: Nurture or Nature?  Inside, the title is correct, ...issues in
breastfeeding...)  Published byu LIppincott-Raven Publishers, Po box 1600
Hagerstown, MD 21741-9910

lactnet excerpt follows
Date:    Fri, 31 Jan 1997 10:06:20 -0500
From:    Please Confirm At The Same Time <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: LACTNET Digest - 30 Jan 1997 - Special issue

In a message dated 97-01-30 16:54:53 EST, you write:

<<
just an exceprt from Current Issues in Brfdg: Nurture or Nature, Nutr and MD
Jan 97--
"Despite potential benefits, human milk does not meet all preterm
infants'nutrient requirements."(????):'( >>
Please forgive my ignorance, but I have never heard of this Journal.  Is it
new?  I would love to quote this source to our neonatologists,  if it is a
reliable journal.
******************************************************************