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
If you’re discussing spacing children 3 years apart, I think it’s also important to talk about *how* you’re spacing those children! Hormonal/chemical birth control is WAY worse for the mom’s health, IMO, than having children spaced closer together. I wish women were more informed about the dangers of “the pill” and other hormonal birth control methods. You talk about traditional cultures, but it’s pretty clear that years of abstinence or multiple wives won’t work to space children in today’s culture. The result, then, is that most women resort to unhealthy and dangerous forms of birth control for years on end.
Also, most women in traditional cultures started having children in their late teens and 20’s (which I firmly believe are our optimal years for childbearing!) We spaced our children close because we wanted a large family and I wanted to have them in my 20’s. I’m just now pregnant with our 6th (and probably last) child, and I’m 32. I had my first at 20 and although I do understand your point about close spacing I think there’s a lot to be said for the benefits of having children in your younger years.
I understand – and appreciate – your post, but I think there’s some holes in it, especially when comparing traditional cultures and their child spacing to ours.
i know it’s annoying and a pain in the rear, but barrier methods are great for this, no chemicals and hormones. I know I turned into a witch on birth control so I stopped taking it. That was long before I knew any of the dangers.
Let’s also honour Mum’s need to return to her vital self after a miscarriage or loss of her infant. All the nutrients needed to create a fetus are spent whether or not the pregnancy becomes a miscarriage, stillborn, or live birth – especially those first three months of incredible growth and creation of so many bodily systems! On every level – body, mind and soul – Mum needs to be healthy before conceiving again.
Great post, I have always wanted a longer child spacing for my future children (ideally 4 years) but have heard new mothers of both their first and subsequent children say that they have a strong urge or a child as soon as possible. I have long questioned where this urge comes from and thought of many theories (natural protection of reproduction of the species/ reaction to birth experience/ a lack of frequent early breastfeeding/ relationship problems with the father and immediate family/ prior cultural beliefs and expectations … etc). In the case of the “Octomom” this (extreme?) urge was identified as an addiction and signified major psychological issues including problems with attachment to her family of origin.
I wonder, did you find out about the possible connection of these psychological factors and traditional child spacing wisdom or of an alternative explanation in your research of this topic? It is truly the most fascinating and ignored topics in female health and mothering.
Well, so my question is: if a woman is pregnant, and the pregnancies are less than three years apart, what supplementation protocol would you personally use? Because of our religious beliefs, I have had several pregnancies less than three years apart and am an older mother pregnant once again. I know the great value of traditional nutrition and try to feed my family accordingly. Would you stick to the WAPF recommendations for pregnant and nursing mothers? (Please don’t be critical, I am doing the very best for my children that I know how…) I really want this last baby to be vibrantly healthy and strong, but I know that I am depleted, even eating a nutrient dense diet!
I have waited four years to have another child. mainly because I feel that we are emotionally ready now. I breastfed for 2.5 years. And I am glad to have had this valuable time with my son, which I hope has helped his development on all fronts. I am glad to know that by doing this I may also be improving our chances of a healthy baby and mama. (Not that my diet is perfect, but it is improving daily!)
I can see how this makes sense, but the human body is so mysterious . My mom became pregnant with me 4 months after she had my older brother and I turned out to be the responsible one. Sometimes we just have to leave it up to God.
Did you see the news recently that showed higher rates of autism in subsequent children born less than 3 years apart?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jan/9/close-birth-spacing-linked-to-autism/
Nice article, helps me not feel guilty for NOT wanting to have another one for quite awhile! I think some confusion arises from the “2 years between babies” mantra–is it that the babies’ birthdays would be two years apart, or that Mom would get pregnant after the first baby is 2 years old? I always thought it was the latter, which would be closer to the ideal you’re portraying here. In my mind, waiting till my first baby is at least 2 sounds very good. He was such a difficult fist one, what with reflux, and lots of tummy troubles, and tons of crying. He is one year now and I still do not feel ready emotionally for another one. I’m just starting to enjoy him, and I don’t want to disturb that lovely equilibrium that’s finally developed. Plus, I tend toward depression and am on maintenance antidepressants, and I don’t want to have another too soon and risk having a really rough time with the pregnancy hormones raging.
Very interesting article! I am currently nursing a 11- month old daughter, and impatiently waiting to try for another. This article makes sense and has helped me be a little more patient. I still am waiting on return of fertility, though, so I might really have to wait until she’s 2!
My main problem is that I LOVED being pregnant, and really don’t want to wait that long. I just need to keep reading this periodically to remind myself of the advantages of waiting..
Hi Sara .. no need to rush things. Be patient when growing your family. Having them too close together robs them of valuable nutrition and stresses the Mom physically so that exhaustion that is very hard to recover from is frequently the result.
And, more time between each pregnancy allows both parents and child exclusive time that will never be had again. Babies aren’t collectibles after all; we’re having children because we want to get to know who they are and explore their wonderful gifts WITH them!
Kelsey, look for Kippley's Breastfeeding and Natural Child Spacing, or her more recent Frequency Factor. The key is frequent, frequent suckling. Pacis, bottles, cribs, sitters, lovies, bouncy seats, swings, solids replacing breastmilk in the first year… all these things can be good, and even necessary in some situations, but they all also have the effect of lessening time spent at the breast.
But there's even more. This is more than just "exclusive bf'ing" or "extended bf'ing." The typical mother who gets a very extended LAM (Lactional A-Menorrhea) usually will say she is nursing at least once an hour during the day (or even far more often, just a quick reconnect-and-go-again), and several times at night (while both she & baby sleep), leaves the baby connected for a long nurse-nap at least once a day), and that she views them as babies until they're 2.5-3 – about the time that they're reading to wean, leave the bed, & leave mother's arms on their own. She typically is still providing most of baby's nutrition at 12, 15, even 18 months. (I quibble with Kippley's nap standard – it's important for *baby* to nap while nursing, not so much that mother herself naps.) She doesn't unlatch baby when he's "comfort nursing" – that "non-nutritive suckling" which is so built into babies and which stimulates the LAM mechanisms even when baby no longer needs the milk itself.
OTOH, if someone does just some of these things, it appears that LAM is extremely individual, probably varying based on diet, genetics, possibly even things like chemicals in the environment or deficiencies in the soil that we can't do anything about. Those things may also mean that some women who nurse identically to one with a long LAM, may get a short LAM – I can't rule that out as a possibility, as long as we realize that in people living ancient ways, the LAM is still very long. It's built in, even if we can't always achieve it today for a huge variety of reasons, ranging from lame to absolutely valid & necessary.
Those who practice exclusive, extended, and/or ecological bf'ing absolutely need to know, though, that they can't give what they don't have – we've got to get super-nourished, after our lifetime of depletion, and make every bite count, because milk is only as good as what the cow/mama eats. 🙂
Loved this post but have loved your comments even more! One thing I would add is that I believe that the daily nap is one of the most important parts of Ecological Breastfeeding, even more so than frequent feedings and following the wisdom of “true” Baby Led Weaning. I can not imagine that a mother wouldn’t ever be tired enough to take at least one nap a day nor be able to deny the immediately reaped restorative benefits of getting more than just night time/night feeding sleep, even if she was not aware of the long term gains of doing so.
Plus we all know (or should) the numerous and far reaching affects sleep deprivation has on the health of non pregnant/lactating woman’s body, so I could only imagine they would be increasingly detrimental in this instance. I would also argue that SLEEP (both the amount and quality) is one of the biggest factors in the wisdom of the TIME aspect of tradition child spacing.
On one hand it is amazingly sad that we need to highlight this natural “facts” these days, but I am so glad to find other women who have learned and are wise to the same things that I have “put together” and found to be so very true!