Evonne mentioned:

<< My pediatrician, also an IBCLC, mentioned attending a conference in Memphis
in
 the last few weeks.  She said it was discussed that failure to thrive is when
 a baby looses 7% birth weight.  Frankly it scared her, and me, that the
 definition seems to be getting lower and lower.  What happened to a 10% loss?
 I thought this was as "red flag" not a definition for FTT.  >>

This is one of my soapboxes, because I'm concerned that people are simply
looking at percentage of weight lost and not the overall picture.  Remember
that with moms who have had epidurals and/or pitocin and/or lots of IV fluids
that there can be a fluid shift to the baby, and the amount of weight loss is
simply a reflection of that fluid shift -- the recorded birth weight would not
be the baby's actual weight in a normal delivery.  I've seen babies who have
lost nearly a pound in 24 hours....give me a break -- that baby isn't not
getting enough to eat -- he's peeing all the extra fluid out.  Has anyone
looked at the number of wet diapers those babies have in the first few days;
looked at the labor & birth history, or anything else?

If you look at the specific definitions of FTT (a la Lawrence), it talks about
10% under birth weight at about 2 weeks.  You have to have some type of track
record before you can define a baby as "failing to thrive."  He has to be
failing at something.  Even 10% weight loss (assuming no extra fluids in
labor, etc) at say, day 4 or 5, does NOT mean that baby is FTT -- it simply
means the baby isn't getting enough to eat at this point in time.  Check mom's
milk supply, check the number of feeds, check to see that the baby is actually
EATING.  Let's not be too quick to throw around this term -- it's not a nice
one, and it sure scares the moms who will be quite quick to turn to formula if
they think their baby isn't thriving, when all she may need is a confidence
boost and a change in the "management" of the breastfeeding.

Air is thin.  Choke.....gasp....getting down now....

Jan B.