Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Running with the dingos!
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Yes, the first abstract posted was a commentary on a study. Some journals will have a leader in a similar field write a short commentary highlighting the results of the study. Good thing, too, since that must have been the most convoluted abstract and paper I've ever read.
From the commentary (by C. Agostoni) of the main study (Smit EN et al., Fatty acids in formulae for term infants: compliance of present recommendations with the actual human milk fatty acid composition of geographically different populations, ACTA PAEDIATRICA, 92 (7): 790-796, 2003.):
"On the whole, the entire fatty acid profile of human milk is a "concerto", reflecting the quality of the exogenous fat intake, the endogenous synthesis in the case of carbohydrate-rich diets and the individual genetic "disposition" towards utilizing, storing and/or synthesizing specific fatty acids. Human milk samples largely differ also as far as their absolute fat content is concerned. Finally, each breastfed infant has a unique fat intake, both quantitatively and qualitatively, differing by time of lactation, maternal diet, mothers' genetic inheritance, culture and country. This is just one of the best examples of the non-reproducibility of human milk."
[Any typos are mine.]
The paper itself actually draws conclusions to the effect that the ethnic background of the mother makes a difference in the milk composition. Never knew that.