Printable View
Sorry for the ridiculously dumb question...
I was wondering if anyone could tell me where the data comes from for these charts? (you know the charts in the back of the baby health record books you get, or the blue book, whatever you know it as). What is it based on?
thanks :)
Its a good question. I presume they must've gathered data of babies weights/ heights so to make the charts.
Not sure where they come from, but I know the new ones are done by the WHO, don't know if they did the older ones too or if it was just based on research results?
I'm sure that I've heard they are based on formula fed babies from back in the 70's.
Probably not the best basis to compare, especially if your bub is fully breastfed but an interesting comparison nonetheless. FWIW my older two were always in the middle percentile and Caleb was on the top line, bigger that 97%.
Sammi that's true. They were always correlated by WHO, but in Spetember last year they were updated and if you go to the WHO website you can get the new ones. THey are a bit different.
Yep, lab results from the USA, formula fed babies in the 1970's.
I am trying to find the "WHO" website, are you talking about WHO magazine?
Ashlee - World Health Organisation.
Yeah I heard it was middleclass american babies on formula.
They've brought out charts based on breastfed babies now which is much better. No more MCHN's telling us we have underweight babies and to supplement with formula!
I was thinking of sticking these in the blue book somewhere, but I so rarely get Tallon weighed it didn't really matter hehe.
Takes big babies and small babies to make their averages... who's average anyway? LOL
Thanks Liz, don't I feel like a right idiot LOL
I think it would be of more use to get rid of the shaded centile areas and just have a grid where you can plot your baby's weight etc and just be able to see their growth pattern and not be worried about them fitting into a particular 'size'
Lindsay, some babies are just meant to stack on the weight, regardless of how they have been fed. I reckon for all the babies I know, it would be half and half as to large BF v large FF and small BF v small FF. I had one who stacked it on, one who just poked along and one smack in the middle of those two LOL.
I have had Smee weighted ONCE since she was 4 months old... WHen my milk was failing it was too depressing watch her drop a %tile every time and i really didn't need anyone telling me to FF! Lol.
Since starting on solids (and especially since getting teeth) she's leapt back up to the %tile she was born on (50th for weight, 91st for height) - my little lady is 79cm tall! I told her "2 more cm and you'll only be a metre shorter than mumma..." :)
Thanks ladies :)
Shellbell thats what I thought but then someone told me what Sammmi-j said.
I am just confused by the charts as they put Claire in the very top for her length but the bottom for her weight and I didnt get how that worked! She's not THAT skinny!
Its no big deal, as I know Claire is fine she has pretty much maintained a consistent growth and I am not pedantic about weighing her , but everyone comments to me that she is "so tiny" so I was just wondering where they get the info from the charts.
I think people just have an expectation that all babies should be chubby. I got the skinny/tiny comments about my third child and she was exactly average, but really really tall, so she never looked chubby.
Thanks Sherie, I think it must be the same thing with Claire.