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
THANK you for posting this! I'm gratefully waiting until my daughter is 3 to think about having another child, and I'm so grateful to have this insight and guidance from dr price's research. This post puts it cut and dry, and sometimes I want to be brave and honest like this on my real food blog, but now I can just link yours! Thank you so much! -Elizabeth from Nourishing Creations
I was actually referring mostly to trisomy disorders – which are most definitely more linked to maternal age than maternal health. (Just one of more scientific articles on just one of the trisomy disorders:
So to make your point, I would never forgive myself if I waited to have children and my child had a very serious (or life threatening) genetic condition.
I have spoken at length with my midwife about the subject and she happens to believe that for my age, 2 years is a good spacing.
My intent was not to question the article, but to point out that at some point in a woman's life it becomes a balancing act that maybe isn't as cut and dry as what was done in traditional cultures.
I know this comment is two years old, so I don’t know if you will see it or not. I had my first son at 38 and my second son at 41. They’re both beautiful and healthy (no amnio or invasive prenatal testing).
My only daughter, born when I was 20, had a catastrophic genetic disorder (Walker-Warburg Synrome). Her life expectancy was 6 months to 2 years, and she lived to age seven.
The bottom line? You can’t control what may or may not go wrong with a pregnancy, no matter your maternal age. However, you can do as Sarah suggests, and as research shows to be best. Allow your body time to resotore it’s nutrient supplies between pregnancies, and eat a nutrient dense diet. Best wishes.
Jodi, this is not theory. The three year spacing is born out by research as well as traditional practice. The cultures I speak about (please click the link in the article) are the ones studied by Dr. Price which were healthy. If there are others that did not space their children and were healthy, Dr. Price couldn't find them as he traveled the world and only put the healthy ones in his book (the vegetarian cultures didn't make the cut either as they weren't as healthy as the omnivore cultures).
Yes, liver is off the charts in terms of nutrition, hands down. Needs to be hormone & antibiotic free, ideally pasture raised, not conventionally raised.
In addition to proper spacing, here's a helpful list of foods for pregnancy and those hoping to become pregnant:
http://www.westonaprice.org/childrens-health/311-diet-for-pregnant-and-nursing-mothers.html
and a Q&A (note the info about synthetic Vit A in supplements):
I don't mean to hijack your informative post or argue, but I definitely beg to differ. Sure, one year by itself may have negligible risks, but I'm not talking about one year – I'm talking about 2, specifically the difference between having my 3rd child at the age of 36 vs. 38 – where the risk of Trisomy 21 increases from 1/300 to 1/180 during those two years. That would be almost a doubled risk. Call that insignificant if you like. We can certainly agree to disagree about that.
What I would like some further clarification on, since you link the well known 3 year spacing recommendation solely to nutrition and the mother having a chance to replenish her stores, is why do those same studies show a then increased risk of the same problems if you wait longer than 5 years between children? Certainly if the only factor was maternal health and nutrition and a chance to replenish then you wouldn't expect a demise in fetal outcomes when children become further and further spaced.
I'll say it again, I don't think it's as cut and dry as you make it out to be. To be more clear I think this is a gross oversimplification of a very complex equation.
Interesting theory though. I'll run it past my midwife.
(And FWIW, I'm sure you know, not all traditional cultures spaced out their children. Many traditional cultures breastfed through pregnancies and practiced tandem nursing as well.)
I should also add that my goal with this article was not to question anyone's decisions but to simply have Moms make this decision with consciousness and careful thought and not simply based on the "2 years is the best spacing" false belief that our modern culture perpetuates.
1 year has a negligible impact in trisomy risk. That one year has a potentially huge impact on your future's child's health and abilities. Traditional cultures have known this for centuries. It seems wise to learn from their wisdom and be patient with having your children and not so rush rush about it. You are way young to be so worried about trisomy!
Hi Jodi, I had my first at 34 and waited to 37 for my second and 41 for my third. If you are eating a nutrient dense diet, advanced maternal age factors are insignificant (ask any midwife) and proper spacing between children is more important for their health. Waiting is the best policy for your children. There is nothing worse than watching a child struggle to learn or being sick all the time with chronic illness or worse. You would never forgive yourself if something might have been prevented by your waiting. It might have happened anyway, sure, but as a Mom wouldn't you want to make sure as best you could?
Very true. My paternal Nigerian grandmother had her last, healthy child at age 50. How’s that for “advanced maternal age”? 🙂
Very interesting!
As a first time 32 year old breastfeeding mother of a 9 month old, I have no doubt that I'm not ready for another pregnancy or child just yet. But I do wonder when you refer to traditional cultures, how is maternal age factored into this equation?
For instance, I had my first child at 32. If I want 3 children, I would not have my 3rd child until I was 38 years old – which is considered advance maternal age and has many well known and documented medical risks.
I would assume that in traditional cultures a first time mom in her 30s was not the norm.
Do I believe that a 20 year old would have the healthiest children if she waited until she was 23 for a second and 26 for a third? Sure!
As for me, I'll take my risk on my second and/or third having a slightly lower IQ as opposed to waiting and increasing their risk for much more serious conditions that become a factor with advanced maternal age.
Do you know how maternal age factors into any of these comparisons?
The reasons any woman has for choosing how to space her children go far beyond "just" health. Clearly health is extremely important but it is not the only consideration in making such an important decision. It is all about balance, so all considerations must be weighed in choosing your family size, timing, spacing, etc.
very true. my first two are two years apart, i didn’t really plan it carefully, but it still worked out that way. funny, i was already thinking of having my third be three years apart from the second one. but i can’t wait too long because i didn’t get married until 27. I’d like to have about four children, and there is a fertility window you have to deal with. fortunately we have no problems with that and are able to get pregnant very quickly, but still, don’t want to be having babies at 40.