Post by awkwardpenguin on Feb 14, 2016 14:38:05 GMT -5
Kirkland formula advertises that it is the only store brand formula that doesn't contain palm olein from palm oil and claims it's better for calcium absorption. I'd never heard of this issue so I looked it up and found this article:
The finding is that babies fed formula with palm olein (Enfamil) had lower bone mineralization and lower bone density than those fed formula that uses a different oil blend (Similac).
It seems that Similac and Kirkland don't use palm olein but most other formulas (Enfamil, Up and Up, Parent's Choice) do contain it.
I doubt it's a huge deal (I don't understand bone density stuff enough to know if the differences in the article are enough to matter in real life), but I do think I'm going to switch DD to Kirkland just in case. It's actually cheaper than Up and Up so win win I guess.
Post by spankswife on Feb 14, 2016 17:25:42 GMT -5
I can't keep up.
Enfamil has (or at least used to) more dha than similac. So I now I have to pick be brains and bones. Ugh. DD was fed enfamil. DS is combo fed. I feel like it's so hard to just feed your baby.
Well fuck. DS was EBF until 9.5 months. I only plan to continue formula until he's a year. I've been buying enfamil and just stocked up at Costco. Should I switch it out? Or is it not much of a concern since I'm only using it for a couple of months?
Yeah, I think I'm going to switch it out today. Blah. I just bought them, so the packages aren't open. Just inconvenient. I bet the Kirkland stuff is cheaper though, so that's a bonus.