Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Interesting history lesson, Theatergypsy. I wish my grandmother was still alive, so I could ask her how she fed my father. I know that because she had a great deal of trouble breastfeeding, she switched to bottlefeeding him almost immediately, and I'm wondering if this is what she did.
what makes the synthetic and very expensive stuff better?
."
Formula these days are made in such a way that the nutrients available in it is as close to breast milk as possible. That is why it's expensive.
As such, some brands are more expensive than others. It doesn't mean the less expensive brands are somehow flawed. They could be less expensive because of lower advertisements costs or other things completely unrelated to the actual formula itself.
I have not done an ingredient match for formula but I did that with Aveeno and Johnson and Johnson head to toe baby wash. When my first born was born, I used Aveeno all the way. I had this notion that since Aveeno is more expensive, it's somehow massively better than J&J. With my second one due in less than 3 weeks and the financial situation somewhat different, when buying baby products, I did a comparison. To my surprise, the ingredients used to make Aveeno baby wash are exactly the same as J&J. At least technically there is no difference not sure if the ratio used would make a difference.
Point I am trying to make is, Kidkland formula vs Enfamil may prove to be something similar.
Evaporated milk, water, and karo just do not have the vitamins needed that formula has. Sure, it might work. The baby could turn out fine. If you have no other option it won't kill the baby. But in this day and age we have options that are healthier, so why would you use something that has no nutrients? It's just mostly calories.
Actually, current medical science supports breastfeeding, NOT formula feeding.
Children who are breastfed have higher IQs and stronger immune systems. Parents of babies who tell you otherwise don't want to breast feed and are prone to rationalizing about it.
And the reason baby formula is kept under lock and key is because it can be used to create crystal methamphetimine. Not because it is really expensive. (of course, relative to human milk, it IS expensive)
Actually, current medical science supports breastfeeding, NOT formula feeding.
Children who are breastfed have higher IQs and stronger immune systems. Parents of babies who tell you otherwise don't want to breast feed and are prone to rationalizing about it.
And the reason baby formula is kept under lock and key is because it can be used to create crystal methamphetimine. Not because it is really expensive. (of course, relative to human milk, it IS expensive)
I did not breastfeed, no rationalizing here. My children are fine and healthy they made it to young adult hood just fine.
Do some research....because I can't believe that anyone would espouse the ideas you are. They are dangerous at best.....and completly willfully ignorant.
Do you know why you hear of more allergies? Because kids aren't dying as babies is why! Do you really want to go back to that with your Karo sryup??
Wow, my mother had seven kids. She used the same formula as the OP mentioned.
None of her babies died. In fact, growing up during the baby boom, with literally tons of kids around, I don't remember anyone having one of their babies die, and they all used pretty much the same 'formula'.
Such drama!
At that time, feeding formula was considered 'modern'.
I breast fed all three of mine.
My oldest daughter fed her two formula; my middle daughter breast fed her three. Mixed bag.
I have to agree with the OP; the expensive formulas of today could be adequately changed to more affordable formula, but new mothers generally follow the advice of their OBs (who probably own mega-shares of baby formula companies).
Hypernatremic dehydration in infants was fairly common between the 1930’s and 1950’s when evaporated milk formula was widely used in this country; Fomon and Ziegler theorize that there was
a relationship between use of evaporated milk formula and increased incidence of hypernatremic dehydration. As the use of commercial formulas increased and the use of evaporated milk formulas decreased, the incidence of hypernatremic dehydration in infants decreased.
Quote:
The protein in commercial formulas has been modified to be more easily digested, by decreasing the size and “tension” of the curd. While the heat treatment of evaporated milk may do this to some degree, the protein in evaporated milk formula may be more difficult for infants to digest and absorb.
Formulas are being made closer and closer to breast milk now. Evaporated milk and karo are simply not good for infants.
Btw, Karo is not a good treatment for constipation in babies.
Dark corn syrup was once a common home remedy for infant constipation. However, today's commercially prepared dark corn syrup might not contain the type of chemical structure that draws fluid into the intestine and softens stool. This makes dark corn syrup ineffective for infant constipation.
Dark karo syrup was prescribed by our ped for constipation 12 years ago.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
