Dear Gene, I think I prefer your idea of ranges � rather than my original idea of examples.
As to your novel question about nappy 'changes', I too am well past this experiment. Cheers, Pat Naughtin LCAMS Geelong, Australia -- on 2004-02-15 04.44, Gene Mechtly at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Wed, 11 Feb 2004, Pat Naughtin wrote: >> ... >> The comparisons of baby masses that I use and recommend are: >> >> 1.5 kilograms = very small baby >> 2.5 kilograms = small baby >> 3.5 kilograms = average baby >> 4.5 kilograms = large baby >> 5.5 kilograms = very large baby > > Pat, > > Have your definitions been adopted by any health care associations? > > Equivalent *ranges* of mass have the appeal of limits as *integers*! > > That is: > > 1 to 2 kg = very small > 2 to 3 kg = small > 3 to 4 kg = average, etc. > > By either set of definitions, few babies would have precisely a numerical > value of mass appearing in either one of the two tables. > > Measurements after each diaper change would demonstrate variations of at > least a few grams from the listed values. > > Have any of you recent parents quantified such variations. My parenting > days are long gone. > > Gene. >
