Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Sat, 5 Dec 1998 11:31:42 EST |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Chris wisely points out:
<< It's my impression that measuring milk output has got us into lots of
trouble
in the past century. It has allowed people to see human milk and man-made
substitutes as equivalent. "You can measure formula; you can measure human
milk; so they must be pretty much the same stuff." Then the difference
between how much a breastfed baby gets and how much a formula fed baby gets
becomes an unsettling question, and people start trying to feed breastfed
babies more so they'll match the overstuffed artificially fed babies.
>>
And one of my major frustrations with the before and after weights is that it
doesn't tell us anything beyond the volume the baby gets. Since fat changes
depending on the feed -- how long it has been since the last feed; the length
of the feed, the time of day and so on, then the caloric value of the milk
changes too. So on the one hand, you could have a volume of 2 ounces which,
if they did a caloric count on it could be at, oh, 19 calories/ounce average.
OTOH, you could have a volume of 2 ounces, but since it was closer to the last
feed, it might be 23 cal/ounce. You simply don't know. If a baby is
receiving formula, he is getting 20 cal/ounce. Period. With breastmilk, it
varies from feed to feed. So only looking at volume in a breastfeeding baby
doesn't tell us much of anything -- including when we look at volume taken
from a bottle.
I agree with Chris. We really need more research!!
Jan Barger -- where it is supposed to be 70 degrees in Chicago today!!
|
|
|