Table of Contents[Hide][Show]
I read an article the other day that really got me thinking – Sorry Kid, But First-Borns Really Are Smarter. The article details how a study of 90 pairs of siblings in high school showed that first borns had higher IQs and were more perfectionist while later borns had higher grades and were more extroverted.
The article also suggests that perhaps the reason first borns are smarter is because at some point in their lives, they were the only ones that received their parents’ attention.
I thought this was a very incomplete explanation as the eldest having the higher aptitude (and being healthier in general) would likely be the case even for adopted children or those from single parent families where the child is in daycare much of the time.
The real reason that eldest children typically have higher aptitude and better health than later-borns is because they get the benefit of all of Mom’s nutritional stores, primarily the fat soluble vitamins A and D which are critical to optimal fetal development (1). Later-borns get the nutritional dregs, so to speak. Fat soluble vitamins take time to rebuild in the tissues and unless Mom makes a concerted effort to replenish these stores between pregnancies, the health and ability of later children will very likely suffer as a consequence.
Sadly, most modern women make no effort to replenish these vital nutritional stores between pregnancies. Alarmingly, these same women sometimes think that 2 years is the ideal spacing between children.
2 years between children the ideal? Let’s look to healthy, ancestral cultures to see if this prevailing wisdom is, in fact, true or even a good idea.
What is the Optimal Birth Spacing Between Children?
Traditional cultures knew that proper spacing between children was necessary to ensure that younger siblings were as healthy and smart as the first. Tribes practiced this through a system of multiple wives or abstinence in the monogamous cultures.
The minimum time between children of the same mother was 2.5 – 3 years. Any timeframe less than that was frowned upon and even looked at with scorn as it opened up the very real possibility of a child with less ability and intelligence or even birth defects. A full three years between births gave Mom the opportunity to breastfeed the child for an extended period of time and also to replenish her own nutritional stores before gestation began anew.
Modern research has borne out the wisdom of this traditional practice.
Columbian researchers found in an analysis of 67 studies between 1966 and 2006 that pregnancy intervals shorter than 18 months (or 2 years, 3 months between full term siblings) increased the risk of low birth weight, preterm birth, and small size for gestational age. Intervals longer than 59 months (or 5 years, 8 months between full term siblings) increased the odds for the same problems.
Pregnancy intervals less than 6 months were particularly devastating. Younger children conceived only 6 months after the previous child have a 1.4 times great risk of preterm birth, 1.6 times greater risk of low birth weight, and a 1.3 times greater risk for being small for gestational age.
As a result, the modern notion that “2 years between children is best” is clearly a fallacy and a very dangerous one indeed for the health of younger siblings.
It seems common sense that women today should really not even try to get pregnant again until the previous child celebrates his/her second birthday based on this longstanding research and observation of the practices of traditional cultures. This is especially true considering the shocking depletion in the nutrients of even organically raised foods!
Even with proper spacing, women must take an active role in replenishing their nutritional stores of the fat soluble vitamins like A and D in order to ensure that their younger children are as capable and healthy as their first. These two particular nutrients are critical to optimal fetal development, particularly the brain and vital organs (1). This is best achieved with a daily dose of high quality cod liver oil that has not been industrially processed so the natural Vitamins A and D are preserved (note that most cod liver oil on the market contains synthetic A and D due to the processing, so beware!).
Proper Spacing Preserves the Long Term Health of the Mother
I should also add that I’ve had women tell me that they felt comfortable spacing their children closer than 3 years because they were very confident in their nutrient dense diet. To this argument, I would counter that traditional cultures also ate a very nutrient dense diet (with no processed foods whatsoever) and child spacing was still a minimum of about 3 years.
While it may be possible to have a healthy child spaced less than 3 years from an older sibling if the woman eats a particularly nutrient dense diet, it should be noted that the 2.5 – 3 year minimum rule between births was also to protect the long term health of the Mother.
Having a healthy child spaced less than 3 years apart from an older sibling at the expense of the Mother’s long term health is not a good trade-off by a long stretch.
Healthy children and a healthy Mom are not just a matter of diet, but also a matter of TIME.
Sarah, The Healthy Home Economist
More Information
Natural Birth Control Using Herbs
Lunaception for Fertility, Natural Birth Control and Balancing Hormones
Very good point, Cory. Nothing is completely controllable, but we as parents should still do our best to skew the odds in our favor.
Interesting take on this issue, but I also rest in the fact that God is the giver of life and the number of our days is in His care. I know of many couples who have firstborns with health issues, as did our grandson who died after two days. My DIL eats a traditional, very healthy diet, exercises and the like. I know of no women who was as careful during pregnancy as my DIL. We must be careful in generalizing diagnosis, as many things in life are way beyond our control.
Hi Kate, just because a woman gets pregnant doesn't mean the baby or she will be ok. Also, the goal here is not just "ok" but vibrant health with genetic IQ maximized. I am concerned for you trying to get pregnant again with already 2 spaced close together. The third child is especially prone to problems if the first two were too close. Be careful as you could very well be nutrient drained.
Hi Megan, liver is the best food hands down. If you can't eat liver, fermented cod liver oil is the next best or fish eggs.
Really good food for thought. And even though you've most likely covered this on here before, what are some good ways to get fat soluble vitamins A & D? Aside from supplements?
I had four children in four years, now ages 7,6,5,and 3. While they have shown absolutely no health issues whatsoever and always score above average etc., I have definately suffered from the effects of having them so close together. So much so that after having my fourth and almost bleeding to death, the doctor pleaded with me to call it quits. which we did. It took me a full two years to rebound after completely depleting my immune system. I was a pale zombie with no energy to care for my huge family. God is faithful and restored my health through the use of probiotics and major dietary changes. Thankfully, all of my kids are exteremly healthy with no allergies, defects, etc…but I definately paid for it with my body. Having them close together has its benefits, but as for mother's health, its not one of them.
Interesting. Honestly I don't think I would change how my children are spaced though. I enjoy it how it is (they are 18 months apart, just under). We were originally hoping for another about 18 months after the second, but he is almost 14 months and no pregnancy, so clearly will be further than that!
I'm not going to try to justify it health-wise. It's just a choice I am making.
As it happens my second is healthier than my first. First was born in a hospital and taken from me (and had "procedures"), exposed to formula (as a supplement) early on, started on early, typical solids (rice cereal at 4 mo.), allowed junk food, etc. We struggled with her health issues (allergies, sleeplessness, extremely low B12 and other vitamins) for months and months. GAPS helped. My second, though, was born at home, breastmilk only for 5 months and only tastes of meat and occasionally veggies cooked in stock until 8 months, when he began eating in earnest. He never had any drugs (first had Tylenol), he never had any junk food. Even now I'm stricter with him. I will allow the oldest a cup of juice here and there, or a tiny piece of cake at a party, but I don't even offer these things to him. He showed early sensitivity to milk but by 8 months was fine and easily able to tolerate raw dairy. We were soooooo thankful not to have to struggle with him the way we did with our first.
As for my health, I've basically been fine. I tend to recover from illnesses easily (always have, even on SAD) and I don't get sick much at all anymore. My husband has commented that I seem to like sea salt more in the last couple months, so maybe that's a sign of some minor adrenal issue. But I'm really not fatigued or have any other symptoms and I've been working on getting out in the sun a lot and being even more careful about my diet. I'm sure this is why I haven't gotten pregnant yet, though: my body's not quite ready.
Basically I think if a woman is able to conceive (and is on a traditional diet), she will probably be okay. If you are healthy your body will not allow conception if you are not ready. I realize there are many, many exceptions to this, but I feel this is how things are for my body. It knows when it is balanced and ready and I am willing to wait until then.
Great take on this, Sarah. We spaced our children quite close–only 18 months between their births (this was long before I discovered Nourishing Traditions). Although my son (who is my second) is quite healthy and strong, at very close observation it's not hard to tell my oldest leans toward being healthier. I'm just thankful it's not more obvious than that or I would be trying to overcome a serious guilt complex! The one advantage my younger son has over my daughter, though, is that he got to start eating real food at a younger age (2 1/2 vs 4 years old). This is just one of those instances where I achknowledge it could have been done differently, but I didn't know any better at the time.
I will agree with you about protecting the mother's health as well: out of the three of us (me and my two little ones), the damage of eating low-fat SAD and having two children so close is most obvious in my own health. I think the close pregnancies stacked on top of a poor lifestyle was the catalyst for my adrenal burnout and possible thyroid issues. But fortunately two years of real food and a few lifestyle changes has helped me recover my health.
Eating nutritious foods will help your child's overall development-of course physically, but also emotionally and mentally. Good, healthy foods help children to think better, have more energy and sllep better as well. It does the same for adults. We all feel better when we eat better. Your child watches everything you do, so when you eat healthy foods, she well want to as well.
Cool post!