The fatal flaw of the study on test weighing is the definition of the gold standard. How did they determine milk intake. This has been studied extensively in the anthropometric literature. Visual inspection of the ml on a bottle is not the gold standard and is not accurate. Babies dribble and spit up. I have measured the weights of many a bottle and found that the lines used to indicate milliliters to be highly inaccurate from bottle to bottle even within the same brand. So, this study did not prove ANYTHING about accuracy or precision. And there is a large body of literature in nutritional sciences that these particular neonatologists should read. In terms of the more important indicator of DEPENDABILITY which means how accurate any observation of a feeding is, all tools that we might use to assess the baby are flawed if we only observe the baby once. You can watch one feeding and assume the baby is happy and contented and the next feeding the baby may be screaming. You can measure one feeding and the baby might gulp down 4 ounces quickly, but if mom hasn't fed the baby from the breast in 12 hours and hasn't pumped, the baby might be riding off the backlog. And the baby might do a terrible feeding the next time. Or, you might see a baby within two hours after the last feeding and that baby might be barely swallowing so you might conclude the baby is not doing well. But the baby may just not be ready to feed. Any indicator that you use should be put into context of the whole picture over time of how a baby feeds. Best regards, Susan E. Burger, MHS, PhD, IBCLC *********************************************** 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