Dear all:

I really mean no disrespect to June, but I have to say that the question of caloric content of human milk versus formula makes the nutritionist in me want to bang my head against the wall.  I cannot tell you how many registered dieticians (again no disrespect to the many very qualified RDs on this list) I've had as clients ask the very same question.  At which point I have to bite my tongue and breath deeply rather than asking where in the haystack did you get your degree anyway.  I have an easier time with clients who are not RDs.

Still, this question may fall into my list of examples of COMMON sense doesn't always mean GOOD sense.  For some reason there is a perception that formula has a different (and often higher) nutrient content than human milk.  If it is a substitute  it should be as close as possible to human milk.    By FDA regulations is required to have a minimum amount of 29 nutrients [a mere fraction of all the nutrients we have identified in human milk]  and a maximum number amount of 9 nutrients to be "closer" to human milk.  So why on God's green earth would the calorie content be different?  I didn't even have to purchase a can of formula to check what I already know to be true and makes GOOD sense.  I found a formula label online at:

http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/baby-foods/9750/2

which confirms that a serving of formula (a serving is defined as 30 g or about 1 oz) contains 20 kcals.  Therefore the caloric content of a formula deemed worthy of calling itself "unadulterated" by the FDA.  

And my very old copy of Lawrence's Breastfeeding a Guide for the Medical Profession 5th Edition, Appendix A on page 737 shows that the AVERAGE caloric content of mature human milk is 70 kcals per 100 ml. Converting this to kcals per ounce by multiplying by 28.4 ml/oz and dividing by 100 ml you also end up with 20 kcals per ounce.  

Whether you state it in kcals per ml or in kcals per ounce, the average caloric content of formula and human milk is about the same.  The average caloric content of early milk is lower because babies need antibodies first to cope with the germy world they just entered and the protein (of which antibodies are composed) has a lower caloric content than fat.

The more important issue here is "Why would anyone want to SUPERSIZE infant feeds" in an era where the childhood obesity rates are astronomically higher than they were in the past?  New York City has finally seen a slight decline in childhood overweight which is OVER 40%.  The amount an infant ingests should be appropriate to the infants stomach size, age, and if the infant is at a healthy weight and the metabolism hasn't been compromised by unnecessary separations -- appetite.  

In Breastfeeding Answers Made Simple, research cited on pp 206-207 suggests that while there is a metabolic cost whereby formula fed infants need slightly more to grow at the same rate (7% at 3 mo, 9% at 6 mo) formula fed infants are still fed too much milk (15 % at 3 mo; 23% at 6 mo).  If you calculate the difference between the amount fed and the metabolic cost, formula fed babies are overfed by 8% at 3 months of age and 14% at 6 months of age).

Basically, I feel there should be advertisements mimicking those silly ads about some juice pouch that says "Respect the Pouch" where the pouch gets popped and some bizarre thing happens to the kid doing the pouch popping and instead the ads should say "respect the stomach" where something bizarre happens to the parent (or health care practitioner) that pours too much milk into an infant's stomach.

Best regards, Susan Burger

             ***********************************************

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