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
While first-borns may get more fat soluble vitamins than their siblings, they also get more toxic dumping from their mothers, right? So are first-borns more at risk of GAPS as a result? So there is a mixed bag being the first-born.
Secondly, I really doubt that traditional cultures were able to space their children as described. Looking at third world practices today, where no contraception is used (for whatever reason), children are born with short intervals, and I don’t see how that was ever different.
I have not seen any research that firstborns potentially are born with a greater toxic load.
In Ayurveda, the recommended gap between children is 4 years.
In western birth order science, a 4 year gap is long enough to be considered a “first born” in terms of personality traits. (First borns tend to be more dutiful, more responsible, harder working. Younger siblings tend to be more extroverted and more the artist than the scientist.)
But this stored up nutritional angle is very useful to read. Thank you.
Interesting! Thanks for sharing.
I’m sorry, but I know plenty of families where the oldest kid is NOT the smartest/most accomplished by any means (among my older sisters for example!). I do think it’s a good idea to space kids out enough that you can breastfeed each child adequately, but honestly that is different for each child. I also think it’s healthier for mom and baby to let mom’s body rest and replenish between pregnancies. But each woman, baby, and pregnancy is different! Raising a family is SUCH a personal thing filled with so MANY tough choices- the last thing a woman needs is someone looking down on her because her kids are “too close in age”. Really? There are women who are drinking, doing drugs, etc while they are pregnant and we want to persecute the responsible, loving mothers who have their kids a year and a half or two years apart? Come on….
I think it’s sad that there are women reading this article and saying things like “I wish I had known this before getting pregnant again with my second! Now they will be two years apart. Does anyone have advice on the best way to reduce the chances of later babies having problems?”
There won’t be anything wrong with her upcoming baby just because they are only 2 years apart and not 3….it’s wrong to scare women who happen upon this article and have no other knowledge on the matter. This article severely lacks research and data to back up its claims. To simply repeat the statement that “traditional cultures” spaced kids 3 years apart does not convince me of anything, sorry. I could write an article saying “traditional cultures did x, y, z, so we should too!” and it wouldn’t mean a thing. Those traditional cultures probably also sacrificed twin children because they were “signs of evil” or they probably ate people… Just because they did it, doesn’t mean we should..
Yes indeed. I’ve noticed some of these cases also particularly within the last few years. As depleted a diet as people are eating nowadays and that children are growing up on … which has declined significantly even just within the last 10-20 years, it is very possible for the firstborn to not be healthy either. If Mom starts eating nutritiously, for sure the later-borns can be healthier than the first was.
I agree Brittney. I am the oldest of a VERY large family and, while I consider all my siblings unique and beautiful in their own right, the smartest is the ninth (born 16 months after the previous baby)who effortlessly maintains the highest GPA in a competitive private school and excels musically as well. The healthiest are the twins conceived 4.5 months after the birth of their older sister( the closest gap in our family) who have never had a cavity or serious illness in their life. The unhealthiest are actually the 2 children who had the biggest gaps before their birth. They suffer from asthma and had to have braces. I honestly think there is so much more to health and intelligence than birth spacing!
There are certainly other factors that come into play that result in exceptions, but in general, the majority of firstborns enjoy greater health and IQ. But, note that the younger ones do have higher grades according to researchers and this is common, but this does not mean higher IQ! I am the fifth of seven and had the highest GPA of any of my siblings (I had all A’s through high school and college for 8 years straight). Yet, I am NOT the smartest … my sister who is the oldest is. Also … later habits make a big impact. As adults, younger ones could be healthier due to better habits if the oldest squanders the “birth inheritance” so to speak of greater fat soluble stores to start with.
Hi I know this is an old post, but I am looking for a reliable natural birth control method. I don’t really consider barrier methods natural . Does someone have suggestions that have REALLY worked for them? I don’t think I can’t fully rely on breast feeding.
naprotechnology.com/
Women, at least healthy ones, have cycles. You can work with it. In fact most physicians recommend something like “the pill” to prevent cycles so they don’t have to go deeper.
Tech? ayda.co/
“Natural Family Planning” is not just rhythm today. There are lots of signs of the fertile period.
Check with your local (traditional) Catholic Church, they are the experts. There is also “contraception, why not”, article and audio – applies to artificial contraception if you want to know more side-effects.
The hard part is “healthy” when applied to a women in her childbearing years means easily capable of getting pregnant. Fighting that in any way other than cooperating with the cycle so as to avoid the fertile period means making the woman sick in some way.
As far as spacing, nature has a point where the child is weaned, and cooperating with nature means no artificial contraception required. The exact point will vary a bit by child. It ought not be pushed nor extended. Breast milk might be very nutritious but the toddler as it gets bigger needs to eat other food.
Check out the Marquette Method of NFP. After our first we were looking for a reliable method that worked when I was postpartum. Marquette is the only one I felt was reliable while pumping, breastfeeding, etc. It doesn’t rely on basal temperature as most do (which could be impossible to use if baby is waking up to feed throughout the night – have to have four hours of sleep and test at the same time), but uses a combo of hormone monitoring and fertile mucus observations. We used it successfully for 2 years, then conceived easily, and have been using it, successfully, again, for a year. You just have to make sure you understand the method fully, most surprise pregnancies are “user error”.
Hi. I have a question about this information: “Intervals longer than 59 months (or 5 years, 8 months between full term siblings) increased the odds for the same problems”.
Is this because the age of the mother, or is it something else? Thank you very much for your answer.
This is waaaay! Late I know but for anyone else out there wondering this; I had a friend who had one kid, at age 24 and wanted to enjoy and focus on him for a few years, well she DID.. Circumstances, finances etc got in the way and at age 36, she was pretty sure she’d left it too late and her womb would be erm, out of practice…! But her gynaecologist said, in fact, if you’ve had one already, you’ll be fine. Technically she was of ‘advanced maternal age’ but apparently that over 5 years interval stuff is rubbish. She never did have another, her son was 12 and said it would be embarrasing! Hehe.
but my mum had 3 in her 20’s 2yr gap then 4yr one (6 yrs from me to littlest bro) then had our sister at 40 with not one complication. Docter told her the same thing.
Was going to add btw, I do tend to agree with this article in general t
he other way, tho. It makes sense (when we have control, some don’t! ) to allow your body to recover AND to have time to focus on/enjoy each child as an individual. Personally I’d want about 5 years between mine. I don’t see this as a huge age gap, and time goes soooo quickly I wouldn’t want to miss anything!
My brother and I are approximately 1 1/2 years apart… I was born early August of 1993 and he was born late March of 1995. We are absolutely 100% different people, but whether or not this is an aftershock from how far apart we were spaced is debatable. I am extremely artistic and spiritual with strength in languages, writing, visual arts, music, performance, psychology. I love to travel and I have very few health problems, save for my precocious puberty (age 7). I did well in school and am doing well in college, although I do struggle with procrastination. I have naturally low serotonin levels so I’ve struggled with some depression, anxiety, and some mild OCD over the years. I also strive for healthy eating, likely from being raised as a vegetarian. My brother, on the other hand, is extremely good at math, sciences, and extremely athletic and sports oriented. I am good at science, however, other than that I am not good at anything he is and he is not good at most things I am. Whereas he is more interested in exercise, he is not interested in healthy eating. He is also much less passionate about things and a bit more apathetic than I am, also struggling with anxiety much more than I. He much prefers to stay grounded and in one place rather than travel. He also graduated high school with high marks just as I did. He and I are both relatively social individuals, however, I tend to require much more alone time to recover than he does. So, in conclusion, I would say that for some people close together pregnancies is not a smart move; however, I think that for some people it works just fine. My brother and I are perfectly normal and operating wonderfully…I know it is just one example, however, I just thought this comparison may be helpful to some.
I wish I had known this before getting pregnant again with my second! Now they will be two years apart.
Does anyone have advice on the best way to reduce the chances of later babies having problems? Specific supplements or foods? Any advice would be much appreciated.
I’m healthy to begin with and not opposed to eating lots of organ meats and taking supplements throughout pregnancy, but I’m unsure about how much and how often these things should be eaten. I’m barely pregnant, so 9 months of opportunity to improve!
Thank you
I realize that this is an old post, but am hoping that you still receive the comments and questions and might respond. My question is this, how would you go about optimally spacing your children? Obviously, things like birth control are not healthy for the mother. But, if one is following a relatively traditional diet, and exclusively breastfeeding, pregnancy is still quite possible before the 2-3 year mark. I know from experience! How do you recommend naturally spacing children in this way?
Kinzi, I’ve been using a fertility monitor for the past year and it has worked to avoid becoming pregnant! The one I purchased online was about $300 but it is worth not taking hormonal birth control. My friends told me I was crazy but so far it’s worked well for me.
Dear Sarah, what are your thoughts on Materna , the pre natal vitamin? Thanks