Posted on 04/20/2006 3:59:52 PM PDT by twippo
CHICAGO - Women can maximize their chances of having healthy babies by spacing their pregnancies at least 18 months but no more than five years apart, researchers say.
The researchers reached that conclusion after an analysis of 67 international studies involving more than 11 million pregnancies.
The analysis found that spacing babies too close together or too far apart raises the risk of such complications as premature births and low birth weight.
The findings suggest that millions of infant deaths could be avoided worldwide with better family planning, said one of the authors, Dr. Agustin Conde-Agudelo of Santa Fe de Bogota Foundation in Colombia.
(Excerpt) Read more at miami.com ...
So having 10 welfare babies in 18 years would be optimal?
Thanks for my chuckle of the day!
The article doesn't specify, but there may be a number of pregnancies that is optimal for a woman's health. Some reproductive cancers are associated with nulliparity.
My pregnancies were about 13 months apart and my second was a complete nightmare! It's been three years and I STILL shutter at the thought of it!
er, "shudder"
I know this is anecdotal, but my mom had us pretty closely spaced together and is going very strong as she pushes 70.
#1 6/57
#2 4/58
#3 3/59
#4 11/61
#5 5/63
Interesting how often that happens, because as Dave Barry puts it, "Children are their own birth control."
BS. The analysis found that spacing babies too close together or too far apart raises the risk of such complications as premature births and low birth weight.
My daughter was born on May 3, 1983 and my son on May 26, 1984. He is as healthy as an ox and as big. He has always been super healthy. He is now a 225 lb. pure muscle body builder and over 6ft tall. I don't think I could stand it if he were any healthier and stronger!
The main thing is for the mother to be in a place in her life where she can live healthy for the duration of the pregnancy. Eat, sleep, exercise, drink healthy. And don't drink alcohol, don't smoke, don't use illegal drugs. I was 32 when I had our daughter and 33 when I had our son and they are both the picture of health. My beloved adult children - with whom I am well pleased!
Mine were about 13 months apart and I was healthy happy and so were the babies. Had our daughter in FORTY NINE MINUTES from start to finish. From 9:15 am till 10:04 am when she pretty much popped out, really fast. My son was born in less than two hours. I had no problems and my babies were healthy and I was up and about right away. I was very healthy and strong to start with, worked out at gym, etc. I lived my life for the pregnancies at the time, for healthy babies. We wanted babies. They are my joy in life.
9/48
7/50
7/52
9/53
9/56
My sister born in 53 was just as healthy as the rest of us. I think this study isn't taking into account the health of the mother, post-natal nutrition, economic status, etc.
But I have always heard that if you wait 5 years between babies it is like starting all over again. Harder on your body, etc. Plus you get out of practice, taking care of a new born. We also had a son in 1981 and he was fussy and didn't like to sleep at night. The second child, our dauther... and the third child, our youngest son - both slept all night from day one. What a relief after a fussy first child. But we enjoyed and cherished and treasured every min. with all three of them. Just wish they could still be little. We had such a great time with them. I was a housewife so I was able to really enjoy their childhoods. I think having grandkids will be wonderful! I think I was always meant to be a MOM.
Their first baby died before the 20th century but they mourned that little boy the rest of their lives.
My maternal grandmother had 10. Eight of them lived to adulthood. The oldest one is 91 and still alive and she still doesn't need glasses! 20-20 vision. I hope I inherited that! They were all so healthy. They were close in age. None of them more than two years apart. My mother who was next to youngest just turned 79 and just got remarried April 1 after being a widow since 1992 - and she is off to Hawaii for her honeymoon Saturday! With her 81 year old hubby. He is so nice, we love him. Handsome cuss too!
My paternal great grandmother had 9 kids, back in the 1890s. They were all healthy as oxes, too.
They were all poor and didn't ever have much. My mom didn't have indoor plumbing or elec. till she was 18. They worked hard out on the farm. They made their own soap, they canned their own fruits and veggies, they dried/smoked/salted their meats.
Maybe that is why they were so healthy and strong, all that hard work, and no pampering, and no junk food, and no sitting around being bored. LOL
I think you nailed it, the health of the mother and how well she takes care of herself before and during the pregnancy. I tried to eat really healthy while pregnant. Heck I SHOULD be doing THAT all the time!
Basically, getting pregnant too soon after the prior birth increases the risk of complications. After 5 years, the body forgets how to squeeze them out, increasing the risk of a long labor and those attendant complications.
It has been my observation that "family planning" means abortion on demand. That cute little euphamism sounds nice, but you go to Planned Parenthood seeking fertility guidance or prenatal care and see what happens.
I always heard that breastfeeding spaces babies naturally.
It kind of is, but it's so nice to be able to return to the joy of having a baby again, with older siblings there to enjoy and even help. I have another every 5 years or so and I really love having the different ages around. All are well and wonderful.
The other natural way, one that I've never heard discussed, ever, is a baby's ability to psychicly (sp?) detect that mom and dad are going to do the wild thing, and start screaming their little heads off, from the other room, from a sound sleep, with no other stimulation at all. Back in the parent's room, the mood dies, a potential sibling remains un-ordered, and junior's status as the only recipient of family resources remains intact. They lose this ability ~18 months old.
But they can do it. Repeatedly, accurately, and to frustrating effect.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.