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
I read once that post partum is really three years. And that it takes Mama that long to be emotionally/mentally/spiritually ready to for the next baby. So it makes complete sense to me, that Mama's need three years to be physically ready too!
Sarah – Thanks for the post, it has justified some thoughts I've had and given me food for thought. I have been dealing with health issues since the birth of my 4th child (4 in 5 1/2 years!) and I kept saying I just felt I hadn't rebounded from the last baby and that pregnancy and breastfeeding has drained my body – Dr's don't look at this and don't even think about it! It's great to finally read something that confirms my suspicion.
@Kelsey – Ecological breastfeeding is a term used to describe a certain type of breastfeeding…you can google it and find out more. It's talked about a lot with those who practice Natural Family Planning because of it's effect on a womans fertility.
So this will show my ignorance, as we unfortunately have not been able to conceive as of yet. But I was very intrigued by LYM's post, and was wondering – what exactly is "ecological" breastfeeding? Is it just not using any "mother substitutes"? And why is it so difficult for women now to practice ecological breastfeeding – just because of culture? I knew that it was safer for both baby and mother to breast feed as long as possible, so I was curious about this.
(P.S. Sarah – very interesting post. I am the youngest of six children, and all of us are just about two years apart. The oldest has pretty much no health problems, while the rest in between all have problems to varying degrees, while I seem to have gotten the major portion of digestive and immune issues. Now it makes more sense! Thanks for getting the word out about SPACING! I know it's not the only factor, but it sure helps.)
LYM, thank you for this excellent, detailed comment. Very interesting about the return of fertility based on breastfeeding.
Yes, there are exceptions. Yes, genetics affect things. But the fact is that Weston Price studied numerous cultures all over the world and there was little or no diabetes, heart disease, cancer, cavities, orthodontic problems, depression, delinquency, neurological problems, mental "retardation," or most of our other modern, chronic, health problems.
None. Genetics only determine what problems you will be susceptible to if you have unnatural factors (diet, environment, no sun, drugs, etc.) in your life. Nature made us for health.
And what Price saw was that in a large family eating natural foods, all children were as healthy/smart/whatever as the first, but in a large family eating processed foods, IN GENERAL, each child was less healthy than the preceding. The worst anomalies (club feet, cleft palate, Down's Syndrome) usually happened in the children born to the oldest mothers, not because they were old, but because they had lost their nutritional stores to frequent childbearing w/o restoration of nutritional status.
"Advanced maternal age" is irrelevant if the mother is fully nourished.
And every one of these cultures had special food to nourish women of child-bearing age, in addition to their normal totally unprocessed diet, and most of them had protocols to ensure that babies were not born closer than 3 years apart, even to these super-nourished mothers.
We cannot ignore this.
But we also can't have this discussion without talking about something that Price never mentioned – my guess is he didn't know about it – ecological breastfeeding.
When a mother uses *no* "mother substitutes," not even an occasional paci or unlatching or any kind of regular separation that leads to breasts filling up uncomfortably, she maintains a high level of lactational hormones that stave off menstruation. In America, our cultural breastfeeding leads to very quick return of periods, but even among those trying to implement "ecological" breastfeeding, the average return of fertility is 14 months postpartum.
In traditional rural societies, the average return of fertility is 25 months – leading to a spacing of … three years!!!
Miraculous, IMO.
(It is very, very difficult for many women to implement ecological bf'ing in our modern society, but in addition to the spacing benefits (my own children have all been spaced 2.5-3.5 years by bf'ing alone, all five of them), this is the means by which breast & ovarian cancer are prevented. Having only two dozen periods over the course of one's life is a very different estrogen picture from having them every month for decades. This is common knowledge among breast cancer researchers, but since they know almost no one will change her behavior based on this knowledge, they put these facts in the drawer and focus on drugs to replicate the effect.)
God has built this beautiful mechanism into us to allow us to recover from the enormous effort of cooperating in the gift of creating life, but as with modern diets & modern indoor lives, our modern parenting practices lose us yet another means to the gift of health for which He created us.
I know this comment is old, but I am researching the topic of ecological breastfeeding as birth control right now- and I keep coming across the 14 month average for cycle return- Where did you read the 25 month average for other cultures?! 🙂 That’s the research I’m looking for! Hopefully you or Sarah can help me out. 🙂 Thank you!
Nutrition and Physical Degeneration by Dr. Price
I appreciate the point of this article (replenishing the body to prepare for conception and a healthy baby) however, I believe that this is determines maybe half of the actual outcome. I am the first born of a very large family. My mother abided by many of Price's suggestions and I think, in general, we are healthier than most families – no glasses needed, no obesity or weight issues, no broken bones etc. Her pregnancies were anywhere from 15 months to three years apart. As we all grow older and continue in Price's principles, it is apparent that some of us are unhealthier than others due to inherent genetic issues…and these have no rhyme or reason when seen in the light of spacing. I am the eldest and have had quite a few issues early on whereas siblings further down the line (some spaced quite close) are quite hearty. Ultimately the genetics we are divied out at conception determine many of our future health factors. My point is…don't be too upset if you get pregnant before the "optimal" time. Do what you can and then God ultimately decides the health of the baby.
Or the pregnancy is an "oops" for a much older woman who didn't think she could get pregnant anymore.
Good question, anonymous. I don't know why over five years creates possible low birth weight problems. The research did not indicate any plausible explanations. I am suspecting that perhaps the woman was having trouble getting pregnant in the first place with this long of a difference in age and perhaps that was indicative of some other underlying physiological issues but that is just a guess.
Hi Sarah,
Just curious, why waiting more than 5 years between children creates the same problems as having them sooner than 3 years?
Thank you.
Thanks for commenting, Elizabeth! I hope this information shines a light on this most important finding by Dr. Price on his travels around the world and unfortunately, a finding that is often overlooked – even ignored, but still critically important.