>The study quoted cites undiluted evap milk as the abm.  This is MUCH more
>overconcentrated than just changing 20cal commercial abm into 24cal.

It addresses the general question of overconcentrating "formula"/ABM/cow's
milk, which is still being widely done by the public, and the average
layperson does not measure how many kcal/oz were being given originally,
are now being given, or could be given.  The consequence is a natural
sequelae to the event, which makes it a good example of the dangers of
overconcentrating ABM.

> Besides, evap milk and cow's milk have much higher protein, sodium (salt)
>than commercial abm anyway.

ABM, whether plain ol' evaporated milk & corn syrup, or a "formula," has a
higher renal solute load than breastmilk.  They are much more similar to
each other than they are to breastmilk, because of course "formula" is
cow's milk, modestly modified (except when it's soybean juice).  And, of
course, overconcentrating either one will increase the burden on the
infant's kidneys, which is what led in this case to dehydration,
mummification and gangrene, necessitating amputation.  The composition of
"formula" undergoes continual, if minor, change in the twin efforts to
improve it and to appear to improve it, and yet the solute load remains
higher than that of breastmilk.   One problem is that the protein of cow's
milk is inferior in its amino acid profile, necessitating a higher overall
load in order to meet the needs of the human infant, at least at this point
in time.

>The commercial abm companies would think that this article was
>great for THEIR cause, as they always marketed their product as being more
>like bm and evap milk as the only "bad guy."

But of course infant "formula" is *not* much more like breastmilk, which is
why we can lump them together.  I called a famous nutritionist and textbook
author a few years ago to ask her opinion  on this, and she said that if
women weren't going to breastfeed, she felt they might as well use
evaporated milk, as formula offered so few benefits for the money.  Of
course, all nutritionists can point to *some* improvements in infant
formula, but it has to be admitted that for every "improvement" (e.g.,
removing the milkfat of cow's milk to replace it with more digestible
vegetable oil) there is some concern which appears may mitigate the benefit
(e.g., vegetable oil in formula is unlike the fat in breastmilk, has been
shown to change babies' body composition and does not support the infant's
development as well as some animal fats do).  I myself choose to use
"formula" (modified evaporated milk) in preference to plain evaporated milk
to support an infant's nutrition when breastmilk is unavailable.  But it is
a very thin line we travel on.

I prefer to lump them together rather than take the risk of glamourizing
infant formula.

Arly Helm


[log in to unmask] (Arly Helm, LC)