>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