I read an article the other day that really got me thinking. The name of the article is, Sorry Kid, But First-Borns Really Are Smarter. The article goes on to detail 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 lame 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. 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 usually feel that 2 years is the ideal spacing between children.
2 years between children the ideal? Nothing could be further from the truth.
What is the Proper 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 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. Three years between pregnancies 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.
Research has borne out the wisdom of this traditional practice.
 |
| Picture Credit |
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 2nd 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.
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 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 3 year minimum rule 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 is not only a matter of diet, but also a matter of TIME.
Sarah, The Healthy Home Economist
|
|
{ 50 comments… read them below or add one }
Cool post!
Eating nutritious foods will help your child's overall development-of course physically, but also emotionally and mentally. Good, healthy foods help children to think better, have more energy and sllep better as well. It does the same for adults. We all feel better when we eat better. Your child watches everything you do, so when you eat healthy foods, she well want to as well.
Great take on this, Sarah. We spaced our children quite close–only 18 months between their births (this was long before I discovered Nourishing Traditions). Although my son (who is my second) is quite healthy and strong, at very close observation it's not hard to tell my oldest leans toward being healthier. I'm just thankful it's not more obvious than that or I would be trying to overcome a serious guilt complex! The one advantage my younger son has over my daughter, though, is that he got to start eating real food at a younger age (2 1/2 vs 4 years old). This is just one of those instances where I achknowledge it could have been done differently, but I didn't know any better at the time.
I will agree with you about protecting the mother's health as well: out of the three of us (me and my two little ones), the damage of eating low-fat SAD and having two children so close is most obvious in my own health. I think the close pregnancies stacked on top of a poor lifestyle was the catalyst for my adrenal burnout and possible thyroid issues. But fortunately two years of real food and a few lifestyle changes has helped me recover my health.
Interesting. Honestly I don't think I would change how my children are spaced though. I enjoy it how it is (they are 18 months apart, just under). We were originally hoping for another about 18 months after the second, but he is almost 14 months and no pregnancy, so clearly will be further than that!
I'm not going to try to justify it health-wise. It's just a choice I am making.
As it happens my second is healthier than my first. First was born in a hospital and taken from me (and had "procedures"), exposed to formula (as a supplement) early on, started on early, typical solids (rice cereal at 4 mo.), allowed junk food, etc. We struggled with her health issues (allergies, sleeplessness, extremely low B12 and other vitamins) for months and months. GAPS helped. My second, though, was born at home, breastmilk only for 5 months and only tastes of meat and occasionally veggies cooked in stock until 8 months, when he began eating in earnest. He never had any drugs (first had Tylenol), he never had any junk food. Even now I'm stricter with him. I will allow the oldest a cup of juice here and there, or a tiny piece of cake at a party, but I don't even offer these things to him. He showed early sensitivity to milk but by 8 months was fine and easily able to tolerate raw dairy. We were soooooo thankful not to have to struggle with him the way we did with our first.
As for my health, I've basically been fine. I tend to recover from illnesses easily (always have, even on SAD) and I don't get sick much at all anymore. My husband has commented that I seem to like sea salt more in the last couple months, so maybe that's a sign of some minor adrenal issue. But I'm really not fatigued or have any other symptoms and I've been working on getting out in the sun a lot and being even more careful about my diet. I'm sure this is why I haven't gotten pregnant yet, though: my body's not quite ready.
Basically I think if a woman is able to conceive (and is on a traditional diet), she will probably be okay. If you are healthy your body will not allow conception if you are not ready. I realize there are many, many exceptions to this, but I feel this is how things are for my body. It knows when it is balanced and ready and I am willing to wait until then.
I had four children in four years, now ages 7,6,5,and 3. While they have shown absolutely no health issues whatsoever and always score above average etc., I have definately suffered from the effects of having them so close together. So much so that after having my fourth and almost bleeding to death, the doctor pleaded with me to call it quits. which we did. It took me a full two years to rebound after completely depleting my immune system. I was a pale zombie with no energy to care for my huge family. God is faithful and restored my health through the use of probiotics and major dietary changes. Thankfully, all of my kids are exteremly healthy with no allergies, defects, etc…but I definately paid for it with my body. Having them close together has its benefits, but as for mother's health, its not one of them.
Really good food for thought. And even though you've most likely covered this on here before, what are some good ways to get fat soluble vitamins A & D? Aside from supplements?
Hi Megan, liver is the best food hands down. If you can't eat liver, fermented cod liver oil is the next best or fish eggs.
Hi Kate, just because a woman gets pregnant doesn't mean the baby or she will be ok. Also, the goal here is not just "ok" but vibrant health with genetic IQ maximized. I am concerned for you trying to get pregnant again with already 2 spaced close together. The third child is especially prone to problems if the first two were too close. Be careful as you could very well be nutrient drained.
Interesting take on this issue, but I also rest in the fact that God is the giver of life and the number of our days is in His care. I know of many couples who have firstborns with health issues, as did our grandson who died after two days. My DIL eats a traditional, very healthy diet, exercises and the like. I know of no women who was as careful during pregnancy as my DIL. We must be careful in generalizing diagnosis, as many things in life are way beyond our control.
Very good point, Cory. Nothing is completely controllable, but we as parents should still do our best to skew the odds in our favor.
The reasons any woman has for choosing how to space her children go far beyond "just" health. Clearly health is extremely important but it is not the only consideration in making such an important decision. It is all about balance, so all considerations must be weighed in choosing your family size, timing, spacing, etc.
very true. my first two are two years apart, i didn’t really plan it carefully, but it still worked out that way. funny, i was already thinking of having my third be three years apart from the second one. but i can’t wait too long because i didn’t get married until 27. I’d like to have about four children, and there is a fertility window you have to deal with. fortunately we have no problems with that and are able to get pregnant very quickly, but still, don’t want to be having babies at 40.
Yes, liver is off the charts in terms of nutrition, hands down. Needs to be hormone & antibiotic free, ideally pasture raised, not conventionally raised.
In addition to proper spacing, here's a helpful list of foods for pregnancy and those hoping to become pregnant:
http://www.westonaprice.org/childrens-health/311-diet-for-pregnant-and-nursing-mothers.html
and a Q&A (note the info about synthetic Vit A in supplements):
http://www.westonaprice.org/faq/783-faq-pregnancy-and-feeding-infants.html
Very interesting!
As a first time 32 year old breastfeeding mother of a 9 month old, I have no doubt that I'm not ready for another pregnancy or child just yet. But I do wonder when you refer to traditional cultures, how is maternal age factored into this equation?
For instance, I had my first child at 32. If I want 3 children, I would not have my 3rd child until I was 38 years old – which is considered advance maternal age and has many well known and documented medical risks.
I would assume that in traditional cultures a first time mom in her 30s was not the norm.
Do I believe that a 20 year old would have the healthiest children if she waited until she was 23 for a second and 26 for a third? Sure!
As for me, I'll take my risk on my second and/or third having a slightly lower IQ as opposed to waiting and increasing their risk for much more serious conditions that become a factor with advanced maternal age.
Do you know how maternal age factors into any of these comparisons?
Hi Jodi, I had my first at 34 and waited to 37 for my second and 41 for my third. If you are eating a nutrient dense diet, advanced maternal age factors are insignificant (ask any midwife) and proper spacing between children is more important for their health. Waiting is the best policy for your children. There is nothing worse than watching a child struggle to learn or being sick all the time with chronic illness or worse. You would never forgive yourself if something might have been prevented by your waiting. It might have happened anyway, sure, but as a Mom wouldn't you want to make sure as best you could?
Very true. My paternal Nigerian grandmother had her last, healthy child at age 50. How’s that for “advanced maternal age”?
1 year has a negligible impact in trisomy risk. That one year has a potentially huge impact on your future's child's health and abilities. Traditional cultures have known this for centuries. It seems wise to learn from their wisdom and be patient with having your children and not so rush rush about it. You are way young to be so worried about trisomy!
I should also add that my goal with this article was not to question anyone's decisions but to simply have Moms make this decision with consciousness and careful thought and not simply based on the "2 years is the best spacing" false belief that our modern culture perpetuates.
I don't mean to hijack your informative post or argue, but I definitely beg to differ. Sure, one year by itself may have negligible risks, but I'm not talking about one year – I'm talking about 2, specifically the difference between having my 3rd child at the age of 36 vs. 38 – where the risk of Trisomy 21 increases from 1/300 to 1/180 during those two years. That would be almost a doubled risk. Call that insignificant if you like. We can certainly agree to disagree about that.
What I would like some further clarification on, since you link the well known 3 year spacing recommendation solely to nutrition and the mother having a chance to replenish her stores, is why do those same studies show a then increased risk of the same problems if you wait longer than 5 years between children? Certainly if the only factor was maternal health and nutrition and a chance to replenish then you wouldn't expect a demise in fetal outcomes when children become further and further spaced.
I'll say it again, I don't think it's as cut and dry as you make it out to be. To be more clear I think this is a gross oversimplification of a very complex equation.
Interesting theory though. I'll run it past my midwife.
(And FWIW, I'm sure you know, not all traditional cultures spaced out their children. Many traditional cultures breastfed through pregnancies and practiced tandem nursing as well.)
Jodi, this is not theory. The three year spacing is born out by research as well as traditional practice. The cultures I speak about (please click the link in the article) are the ones studied by Dr. Price which were healthy. If there are others that did not space their children and were healthy, Dr. Price couldn't find them as he traveled the world and only put the healthy ones in his book (the vegetarian cultures didn't make the cut either as they weren't as healthy as the omnivore cultures).
I was actually referring mostly to trisomy disorders – which are most definitely more linked to maternal age than maternal health. (Just one of more scientific articles on just one of the trisomy disorders:
So to make your point, I would never forgive myself if I waited to have children and my child had a very serious (or life threatening) genetic condition.
I have spoken at length with my midwife about the subject and she happens to believe that for my age, 2 years is a good spacing.
My intent was not to question the article, but to point out that at some point in a woman's life it becomes a balancing act that maybe isn't as cut and dry as what was done in traditional cultures.
I know this comment is two years old, so I don’t know if you will see it or not. I had my first son at 38 and my second son at 41. They’re both beautiful and healthy (no amnio or invasive prenatal testing).
My only daughter, born when I was 20, had a catastrophic genetic disorder (Walker-Warburg Synrome). Her life expectancy was 6 months to 2 years, and she lived to age seven.
The bottom line? You can’t control what may or may not go wrong with a pregnancy, no matter your maternal age. However, you can do as Sarah suggests, and as research shows to be best. Allow your body time to resotore it’s nutrient supplies between pregnancies, and eat a nutrient dense diet. Best wishes.
THANK you for posting this! I'm gratefully waiting until my daughter is 3 to think about having another child, and I'm so grateful to have this insight and guidance from dr price's research. This post puts it cut and dry, and sometimes I want to be brave and honest like this on my real food blog, but now I can just link yours! Thank you so much! -Elizabeth from Nourishing Creations
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.
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.
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.
Or the pregnancy is an "oops" for a much older woman who didn't think she could get pregnant anymore.
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.
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.
LYM, thank you for this excellent, detailed comment. Very interesting about the return of fertility based on breastfeeding.
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.)
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.
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!
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!
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!
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.
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/
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.
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!)
amy@BreadandCircuses\’s last post: Computer Problems and Self Growth
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!
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.
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.
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.
Dear Sarah, what are your thoughts on Materna , the pre natal vitamin? Thanks
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.
{ 1 trackback }