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
melissa
Was your last baby vibrantly healthy? I think inam in a similar situation. I try so hard with the health of my children
melissa
Do you have an article with solutions on how to “reverse” the bad effects of poorer health and poor dental arch formation.
I am at the dentist and my 11 year old (4th birth, born 26 months after his twin sisters) has a super small jaw and lots of cavities. I just finished reading weston a price book this week…it seems with good diet my grandchildren can have great arches but not this generation. I am asking because my new baby (number 6) was born only 16 months after his brother even with constantly nursing etc. That being said i ate well and took vitamins and cod liver oil during pregnancy. I just want hope for my children. So far only one with no braces. (Number 2 child…)
Sarah Pope MGA
At that age, little can be done to reverse it. I would recommend looking into the DNA appliance.
Maria
I think spacing is best personally specially if the time is used wisely to prepare for the next baby. Still, I think the tone of the article while informative and well-meaning is a bit alarming. I can’t find the word. My mother at 41 was breastfeeding my little brother when she got pregnant. The baby was born when the other baby was 13 months. The second baby was put in gifted classes while the first one was in special education. I think that other factors have more weight on outcomes than only spacing. My mom didn’t have adequate nutrition for the first one and relied solely on reserves. She was also under stress and had to work when the baby was born. The baby had less attention than the second. Today, the first one seems to have more resilience emotionally but the second is considered “smarter” more articulate but is constantly depressed and has scoliosis. (He’s getting better on resilience due to our family getting closer).So I agree that spacing would have been better all in all but on a more balanced note the environment can influence outcomes better. Perhaps those 60 something percent were already depleted while the 40 something percent positive outcomes were healthier to start with. Anyway I would space it out but if it were to happen I would have to be more diligent with health to improve the outcome. I think worrying would do nothing but harm.
Rachel
I really disagree with a lot of the claims made in this article. My own mother had 11 children and the oldest was 16 when the 11th was born. The youngest was close to 9 lbs and the rest were all 6-7lbs. I also am one of 99 grandchildren (on my dads side; he was 1 of 14. And that’s grandchildren; not great grandchildren included in that number). My family (extended included) are very intelligent. And very few, if any, were born premature or had low birth weights.
Perhaps all these traditional eating tribes that these claims were made from had such spacing because their bodies were so healthy that as long as they were breastfeeding, they wouldn’t have their cycle return. After all, prolactin (milk producing hormone) and progesterone shouldn’t exist together is a body that has balanced hormones. I’ve heard that a lot of tribes that are free from modern diets and not exposed to all the chemicals that the industrialized world is are able to breastfeed for so long and won’t get their cycle back until their baby is weaned.
While I do agree mothers need to nourish their body, making claims like the ones mentioned in this article is quite a bit ridiculous. And I personally know dozens (probably hundreds) of mothers that could refute these claims.
joy
Please is there any leaves or plant seed a female can take to prevent pregnancy for a long time naturally
Sarah
This article may help: https://www.thehealthyhomeeconomist.com/natural-birth-control-using-herbs/
Ardelle Stone
I have 5 children, first 3 born are just over 5 years apart, 4th born 8 years after my 3rd born and 5th born 14 months after the 4th born. All of my children are very healthy and very smart. So far my 1st and 3rd have been tested as being enriched/gifted and the 4th and 5th are still too young but are following the same patterns as the 1st and 3rd. Only thing we did differently with the 2nd born was my husband stayed home for parental leave(the later 6 months of her first year) and I returned to work.
Jas
Absolutely false . My sister has 6 children all born within 2 years of each other. Every child was a 9 pound baby. All of them as healthy and smart as can be. You are basing your ENTIRE argument on the observations of one man. Weston price made some generalizations about a couple of cultures but that is diregarding thousands of accounts about other indigenous cultures. Am too find mountainous contradictory evidence one must simple got to the nearest university and do a little research in the anthropology section. I am really sad that you feel comfortable offering this to moms who of course are going to read this article and be worried without doing any real research. If you get an article published by an Ivy League schi then let me know; but there is absolutely no credible academic authority here. Of course the nutrition part is important; eat well always for the sake of your babies. But the spacing thing? Don’t listen ladies.
Sarah
Glad your sister’s family is fine, but most are not who space children too closely!
Royaloil
Interesting article. I’ve noticed (very unscientifically) that second born children seem to be stockier than their older siblings, could this be an adaptive thing due to less nutrients being available so that the body created is more adapted to scarcity (ie, more prone to getting fat)
Sarah
Unless Mothers make a concerted effort to maintain balance, gut dysbiosis tends to get worse after each pregnancy. This can contribute to later children being more predisposed to obesity as a result as babies inherit Mom’s gut flora at birth no matter what it is … balanced or unbalanced.
Lauren
Hi Sarah,
I recently just stumbled upon your blog-and BOY, I AM SO GLAD I DID! My husband and I have been married for 4 years (together for 6) and our little boy just turned 17 months. My husband and his sister are 18 months apart, and my brother and I are 5 years apart. My husband and his sister don’t get along because of her competitive “Mom and Dad love me more” nature; yet, I love my brother and am fiercely protective of him-but he and I have always been in different phases of life-so we could never relate to each other. For these reasons, my husband and I decided that we want to have more than 2 children (ideally 3), spaced about 3 years apart. This article makes me feel so good about this choice as I am currently fighting baby fever. I know we have time; I turn 28 tomorrow and hubby just turned 33, but I do want our kids to be close to one another. I fear a 3-4 age difference will destroy that. As a mom of 3, can you tell me more about your story and your opinion?
Thank you,
Lauren
Alison
So.
What do you do if you are planning three children, but you are 38 and pregnant with the first one? Is it safer to still space them out by 2.5 – 3 years, or is it better to have them before you are too old?
Sarah
I wanted 3 children and waited for a 3 year spread to have my third at age 41. I figured it was better to have a healthy baby and preserve my own health than to risk a shorter spread. If I hadn’t been able to get pregnant with my third, so be it. I didn’t think the clock running out was reason enough to risk the baby’s or my health. Obviously, this is a very personal decision!