When someone raises the issue of infant growth, I make a point of
mentioning what I read some years ago (do not recall the source at the
moment, but will try to find).  By the end of the first year, an
artificially fed infant receives an excess of 30,000 calories (above needs
for growth) as a rsult of the bottle-feeding of formula.

It seems to me that that means such an infnat is fed MORE than is optimal
and would probably result in an increase in clinical obesity if babies were
measured on a breastfeeding-oriented growth chart. THAT info came from Kay
Dewey when she spoke at the ILCA Conference (1993, I believe).

If we reverse our thinking--and our language--so that the norm is the
breastfed infant, then we can indeed think of the non-breastfed baby as TOO
heavy, OVERfed, etc.

We need to practice such speaking and such thinking, for it does not come
"naturally" to those of us schooled first in presenting the benefits of
breastfeeding instead of the risks of non-breastfeeding.

There. I'm off that particular soapbox. Next!




Def. of LC service: "We are all faced with a series of great opportunities
brilliantly disguised as impossible situations."
Kathleen G. Auerbach,PhD, IBCLC (Homewood, IL)- [log in to unmask]