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
Boy, did they get THIS one wrong!! According to my family, the oldest child is NOT the most intelligent one and NEITHER is she the perfectionist !! In fact, she is behind her younger brother in school grades and her room ALWAYS looks like a tornado hit it! Younger brother’s room is fairly decent all the time and his grades are always very good. The youngest is sort of between the two. This is essentially what played out when I was growing up as well.
I found this article to be especially assuming that all pregnancies are planned. My husband and I have become pregnant for a second time after my first daughter has just turned one. This was a surprise. I have been taking many vitamins and supplements and eating very healthy through out this post partum period and feel that even though one year isn’t ideal, it isn’t fair to say that my child will most likely suffer from birth defects and other unfavourable traits because I chose for that to happen.
Most of your articles are helpful and informative. Although I wouldn’t say this one is ‘bad’, it doesn’t have the punch of your other articles. You didn’t mention if the people in the study breastfed, their diet, lifestyle, type of birth and interventions, age, etc., etc. So many factors have to be considered. If a healthy woman who co-sleeps, breastfeeds, delays solids, births naturally, etc., etc. gets pregnant naturally before 2 years, it will most likely be fine. A woman with a typical American diet, been on chemical contraception before, unnatural birth, not breastfeeding, will be much more likely have the problems addressed in your article. I have 9 perfectly healthy children ages 1 to 26. Most are naturally 2-3 years apart, but a couple came unexpectedly earlier. For me, extended breastfeeding kept fertility away for years when I was younger, but only weeks when I was older. My child born when I was 47 is just as healthy and smart as the ones born in my 20’s. I am very healthy too. There is so much more to be considered; I hate to see the ladies here worried that they did or are doing it wrong! Just the fact that they read this article shows me that they are doing well! Learn to listen to your body and your inner self so you will know what is right for you.
and that is why I’m smarter then the older 3. 15 years between me and youngest of oldest. And IQ is not true measure.it measures what you have learned. according to that test. People may not have learned somethings but learned others things. There by being very smart. Its not what you learned. its how much you can learn and who you follow also.
I love most of your posts but there are many statements I disagree with. I challenge you to watch this documentary.
thebirthcontrolmovie.com
Great post!
I have been pondering this for a while….. My sister (oldest of 7) just had number 10… they average about 15mo-2 yrs apart. They all seem healthy. My sister has few if any health problems, not even a very good diet and full of energy, 38 and ready to have 3 more! Which is Awesome. (Please, I am not trying to open any population control arguments here or how the future will end up for them)
But it puzzles me how she does it (or is still alive!)? I know I could never do that. I have always just figured she zapped my mom of all her child-bearing nutrients.
I, on the other hand, have 4 pretty healthy kids, (AND I totally see my oldest as the most robust) They are all about 2.5 years apart except for the last 2, they are exactly 2 years. I recover very slowly from my pregnancies and, especially that last one, took it’s toll on me!!
But all was not lost! Surprisingly, my youngest seems to have the same vitality as my oldest. I fully attribute the WAPF diet for that and for Joette Calabrese’s pregnancy protocol. HIGHLY RECOMMEND! I was also enjoying my first CSA share at the time of pregnancy, and in all my life I have never eaten so many good, varieties of veggies.
Growing a little human is hard work and a healthy one doesn’t happen magically. I am not my sister and I know there are only a few like her….we all have diff strengths and I do believe she was given that gift. I certainly cannot bounce back that quickly…..but do not fear if your babies do come a little closer, you can still give them SO much in the womb and out!
It definitely makes sense to replenish your body between pregnancies, but if you end up pregnant sooner than the ideal time it doesn’t mean your subsequent children will any less than the first. I had 3 children in the span of 43 months from beginning of first pregnancy to the 3rd being born and all three are very bright, athletic and mentally and emotionally balanced. I agree with another response that said it is better to have babies in your 20’s – all mine were born in my mid twenties. My diet could have been better during this time but all kinds of women/girls who don’t live a healthy lifestyle give birth to healthy, bright children and others don’t. Everyone has a unique story and there are so many things that can influence children’s lives. Some are told they’re not smart so they never do well while others set out to prove the naysayers wrong. I don’t think spacing children is an issue at all. Parenting is the bigger issue.
You may not realize this, but you have a video ad for Ritz crackers smack in the middle of your article.
Yikes! Thanks for letting me know. Those things are gross! Will tell my ad manager .. I am opted out of all processed foods ads, but companies are tricky and purposely miscategorize their ads to slip through the filters.
Sarah,
This is slightly off topic, but I’d love hear your thoughts on other reproductive system issues – in particular: abnormal pap smears / high grade SIL / LEEP procedures and hysterectomy. I know you’re not a doctor ;-), but your are very intelligent and do such thorough research. I thought perhaps you have experience with this and/or have researched. THANK YOU!
Oh Please, this re issue is to show your loyalty to Green Pastures and the
Fermented cod liver oil that has come up very short in recent tests and
may in fact be harmful to pregnant and nursing mothers. Knowing what I know
now, I will never take it or advise mothers to take it or give to their children
till Weston Price tests the fermented cod oil with the same tests Dr. Daniels did and Weston Price honestly reports them, and they come up clean. This whole issue is much too serious to believe that Dr. Daniels and others
at Weston Price, who choose right now to remain nameless, had these
tests done in order to bring down Green Pastures. as Weston Price claims. I am sick to my stomach over your ethics Sarah And the cheaper fish Green Pastures used, instead of cod. but remotely in the cod family, well they get from Alaska??? More danger. FUKUSHIMA! That
alone would stop me from taking it ever again! God I pray that Green Pastures Fermented Cod oil at least does not hurt people, never mind that it may do nothing good.
Actually, I have recently learned that there are radiation issues in the North Atlantic also from sunken atomic subs 🙁 I need to research this further.
Dr. Daniel’s report is pretty much discredited at this point. Did you see the cogent response from the WAPF on this: http://www.westonaprice.org/uncategorized/questions-and-answers-about-fermented-cod-liver-oil-fclo/
Maybe we should all start buying tuna again. You first.
Hi Joy,
This is an interesting article from April 9 of this year, q13fox.com/2015/04/09/boat-suspected-to-be-tsunami-debris-found-off-oregon-with-live-fish-common-to-japan-photos/
and this article nwpr.org/post/japanese-fish-found-alive-oregon-waters from febuary of this year.
and this is a really interesting article of a video on Chernobyl today made in 2014 travelerstoday.com/articles/9872/20140514/chernobyl-wildlife-documentary-video-shows-animals-adapting-radiation.htm
Interestingly, Bacillus Subtillis is a bacteria strain in Bio Kult and there are many scholarly studies on this particular strains resistance to Radiation and as a powerful detoxifier of radiation. scholar.google.com/scholar?q=bacillus+subtilis+and+radiation&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ved=0CB8QgQMwAGoVChMI9dTozPHTxwIVSZ-ACh1LRwGO
We have to be able to live with radiation, we are exposed to it daily.
Here are some sholarly articles on Radation remediation and Vitamin C and Vitamin A
scholar.google.com/scholar?q=vitamin+a+and+radiation+&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&as_vis=1
I took my FCLO this morning and my HVBO as I have done for the last 9 years with confidence that I will meet the day stimulated by stress.
Where are all of the harmed people who have been taking FCLO?
None!