>Dear Nina and others: > >There is a huge body of research in nutritional anthropometry >demonstrating the accuracy >of these scales. The researchers are actually using the wrong >standard. Long ago, >nutritionists showed the inaccuracy of measuring by EYEBALL what is >in the bottle. Dr. >Wight has already written that one of these studies were flawed. I >will be happy to >demonstrate at the next ILCA conference how poor eyeballing the >content of the bottle is. >There is water tension, the meniscus that can be misread, the >breastmilk that clings to >the bottle and doesn't come out. All of these things have been >researched before and >need not be researched again. But this study (the one in ADC) did *not* eyeball the bottle. The milk that was going into the babies was weighed, and it was also measured by syringe. > > >It is not the tool that is the problem, it is the use of the tool. >Any tool, even observations >of swallows can be misused. I cannot tell you how many babies have >been sent out of >the hospital when their mothers were told that they were swallowing, >only to have that >not be the case. Or vice versa. But that's just poor practice - test weighing is not going to resolve that. I am going to post later with a resume of what I have learnt from raising the issue of test weighing - thanks to all who responded. Heather Welford Neil NCT bfc, tutor, UK *********************************************** To temporarily stop your subscription: set lactnet nomail To start it again: set lactnet mail (or digest) To unsubscribe: unsubscribe lactnet All commands go to [log in to unmask] The LACTNET email list is powered by LISTSERV (R). There is only one LISTSERV. To learn more, visit: http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html