At 03:27 PM 12/22/98 -0500, NECSI wrote:
>>in other words, their children were say in the 30th % on those silly charts.
>
>The way percentiles work is that 70% of the kids measured were bigger
>and 30% were smaller than a kid in the 30th percentile. That means that
>someone *has* to be in the 30th percentile for the charts to work!!

exactly.  It's like they aren't realizing 30% of the healthy kids who were
on the chart stat builder were at that weight.  It doesn't mean they're
only 30% of healthy, or even small for heaven's sake.

>Seems to me that there has to be some other indicator than weight to
>assess how a kid is doing that are universally accepted measures of
>well being.

personally I like it as part of a package.  Ok so your one year old is 15
pounds.  does she look healthy?  does she eat well or drink her breastmilk
a lot?  meeting milestones?  gaining SOMETHING?  on her own curve?  well
hydrated?  bony and sticky or just SMALL yet round and babyish?
Occasionally of course there is reason for more investigation.  But I am
brave enough to say 9 out of 10 parents I hear saying "my baby is too
small" just have naturally small kids.  I have one friend who's spent the
last 21 months of her daughter's life having her prodded and tested for
every disease and syndrome on earth, based virtually SOLEY on her
(admittedly tiny) weight.  For example, she was 13 pounds at one year.  Now
that is tiny.  Her father is 6 foot 3 or so and about 130 pounds.  Are docs
reccomending HE goes on pediasure?  or ensure?  no.  He's just a skinny
guy.  Finally she's decided after numerous tests finding nothing to take
her daughter off the pediasure and let her eat and be a normal little tiny
girl she is.

-wendey (LC studying in Montreal)