I got a nice surprise tonight

Ericka Kammerer wrote:
Research has suggested that the optimal
spacing for health reasons is 2.5 years to 5 years.
Earlier than that the risk of preterm labor and low
birthweight are increased.

I thought the best results were supposed to be from conceptions from 18-30
months after the older child was born. My understanding was that waiting
longer than 30 months resulted in more preterm labors and low birthweight.
Am I misremembering, or have more studies been done showing that spacing as
long as 5 years is not associated with those complications?
--
Be well, Barbara
Mom to Sin (Vernon, 2), Misery (Aurora, 4), and the Rising Son (Julian, 6)

Aurora (in the bathroom with her dad)--"It looks like an elephant, Daddy."
Me (later)--"You should feel flattered."

All opinions expressed in this post are well-reasoned and insightful.
Needless to say, they are not those of my Internet Service Provider, its
other subscribers or lackeys. Anyone who says otherwise is itchin' for a
fight. -- with apologies to Michael Feldman

Circe wrote:

Ericka Kammerer wrote:

Research has suggested that the optimal
spacing for health reasons is 2.5 years to 5 years.
Earlier than that the risk of preterm labor and low
birthweight are increased.


I thought the best results were supposed to be from conceptions from 18-30
months after the older child was born. My understanding was that waiting
longer than 30 months resulted in more preterm labors and low birthweight.
Am I misremembering, or have more studies been done showing that spacing as
long as 5 years is not associated with those complications?

I was using the resulting child spacings, so
conception at 18 months leads to a child spacing of
about 2.5 years. At least the study I was looking
at showed different risks for longer spacings (not
the preterm labor and low birthweight) and I'm pretty
sure it was five years. Let me see if I can dig it
up...

Well, found a couple (including some new ones)

http://tinyurl.com/34bq9
This one says optimal for low birthweight is conception
from 18-23 months after the previous birth.

adj. odds ratio comp. to 18-23 months
1st-2nd 2nd-3rd 3rd-4th 4th-5th
6 mos 1.3-1.5 1.3-1.6 1.1-1.4 1.1-1.6
24-59mos 1.3-1.6 1.2-1.4 1.1-1.5 0.9-1.5
60-95mos 1.0-1.1 1.0-1.1 0.9-1.1 1.0-1.4
96-136mos 1.3-1.8 1.3-2.0 1.0-2.0 0.8-2.3

(odds ratio of 1.0 means equally likely)

http://tinyurl.com/2dlf2
This one says that optimal for prematurity is an
interpregnancy interval of 18-59 months.

incr. risk of very or moderately premature
18 mos 14-17 percent higher risk
59 mos 12-45 percent higher risk

http://tinyurl.com/3dbus
This one says optimal interpregnancy interval is
18-23 months for black and white women:

Odds ratio:
LBW premature SGA
w, 6mos 1.5 1.3 1.3
w, 120mos 1.9 1.4 1.7
b, 6mos 1.5 1.2 1.3
b, 120mos 1.6 1.3 1.4

http://tinyurl.com/2fquc
This one says short interpregnancy intervals
seem not to be associated with stillbirth and
early neonatal death, but long intervals we

(after controlling for other maternal factors)
Odds ratio:
stillbirth early neonatal death
3 mos 0.8-2.1 0.5-1.6
72 mos 1.1-2.1 0.9-2.1

There are more out there, but results seem
similar.

Best wishes,
Ericka

Congrats on the decision, however, snicker kids will fight no matter. I
have some close and some spaced they fight when they want to.

"Jennifer and Robert Howe" wrote in message
ink.net...
Hubby and I were talking and he said "I want another one". I said another
what and he said another baby. He said he wanted ours to grow up with a
brother or sister close to her so they won't fight as badly. We had
talked
about this in the past and I have been thinking of having the IUD out in
August after she was a year old but now he wants me to have it removed
sooner. I don't think I want to do this considering I had a c-section
with
the first one I want to let my body heal a bit. Do you think that this
would be a good idea or should I go ahead have it taken out and try for
the
2nd one? I'm not sure what to really do about it.

Jennifer
Ariana 8/27/03

Well, from my perspective (mom of three), I would say that you are at that
point where parenting is easy and anything is possible :-). Your child is 9
months old - usually at that point, they are predictable to you, cute, and
easy to manage. Your DD probably isn't walking yet, I'll bet. Lots of
parents start thinking they could easily handle another when they have one
cute, cuddly, napping 9 month old in the house. I'm at that stage myself
with two older kids (5 and 7.75) and a six month old. I've started
thinking, "I could have four! This is a piece of cake!" But you see, in
your case, if you were to get pg. right now, by the time the baby came,
you'd have a cantankerous, 18 month old to deal with. One who was running
all over the place, irrational, tantrum-prone - still cute, but just way
more to deal with than what you have now. You will look back on your
present place with fondness. I personally would not have wanted to have an
18 month old and a newborn at the same time. For one thing, it's hard to
nurse one while the other is doing death defying antics!

Now, I know lots of parents like to get the babyhood thing over with, so if
that's you, maybe just immersing yourself in diapers and babies for a few
years and then moving on is the way to go. I love babies, so in my perfect
world, my kids would have born every four years....

Karen
"Jennifer and Robert Howe" wrote in message
ink.net...
Hubby and I were talking and he said "I want another one". I said another
what and he said another baby. He said he wanted ours to grow up with a
brother or sister close to her so they won't fight as badly. We had
talked
about this in the past and I have been thinking of having the IUD out in
August after she was a year old but now he wants me to have it removed
sooner. I don't think I want to do this considering I had a c-section
with
the first one I want to let my body heal a bit. Do you think that this
would be a good idea or should I go ahead have it taken out and try for
the
2nd one? I'm not sure what to really do about it.

Jennifer
Ariana 8/27/03

Jennifer says:

Do you think that this
would be a good idea or should I go ahead have it taken out and try for
the 2nd one?

After both of my babies, the midwives (2 different sets of midwives, that
is) recommended waiting for a year after the birth before considering
getting pregnant again. I think the recommendation is mostly to give your
body a chance to regain itself and get back to something resembling normal
before going through pregnancy again.

IMO, enjoy your first baby for a little while longer. Allow yourself to
enjoy her babyhood without throwing yourself right back into pregnancy.
The achievements and milestones come fast and furious in the first couple
of years. If you're caring for another baby, you can't gaze in the first
child's direction and savor all those wonderful and amazing changes.

And most importantly, you said you're not really sure what to do. That
right there is probably the most important argument in favor of waiting.
:-)

-- Alpha
mom to Eamon and Quinn

I personally would not have wanted to have an
18 month old and a newborn at the same time. For one thing, it's hard to
nurse one while the other is doing death defying antics!

I had a 16 month old and an ewborn. Wouldn't change it for the world. #1
learns patience and how to fall off the couch without getting hurt


Now, I know lots of parents like to get the babyhood thing over with, so
if
that's you, maybe just immersing yourself in diapers and babies for a few
years and then moving on is the way to go.

That's my style.

I love babies, so in my perfect
world, my kids would have born every four years....

Karen

Well after thinking for a bit I have decided to wait atleast until august to
have the IUD removed. I will give it more thought then.

Jennifer
Ariana 8/17/03

"Alpha" wrote in message
nk.net...
Jennifer says:

Do you think that this
would be a good idea or should I go ahead have it taken out and try for
the 2nd one?

After both of my babies, the midwives (2 different sets of midwives, that
is) recommended waiting for a year after the birth before considering
getting pregnant again. I think the recommendation is mostly to give your
body a chance to regain itself and get back to something resembling normal
before going through pregnancy again.

IMO, enjoy your first baby for a little while longer. Allow yourself to
enjoy her babyhood without throwing yourself right back into pregnancy.
The achievements and milestones come fast and furious in the first couple
of years. If you're caring for another baby, you can't gaze in the first
child's direction and savor all those wonderful and amazing changes.

And most importantly, you said you're not really sure what to do. That
right there is probably the most important argument in favor of waiting.
:-)

-- Alpha
mom to Eamon and Quinn

I thought the best results were supposed to be from conceptions from 18-30
months after the older child was born.

http://tinyurl.com/34bq9
This one says optimal for low birthweight is conception
from 18-23 months after the previous birth.

Geez, that's not a very big window!

IIRC, one of the reasons to wait is to replenish the mineral stores that
the baby depeted from the mother's body (like iron and calcium); are
those related to low birthweight in large studies, or is that a
different issue?

Mary S.
mom to the Sproutkin
and a new wee babysprout, due Oct. 1

Mary S. wrote:



I thought the best results were supposed to be from conceptions from
18-30
months after the older child was born.


http://tinyurl.com/34bq9
This one says optimal for low birthweight is conception
from 18-23 months after the previous birth.


Geez, that's not a very big window!

No kidding! ;-)

IIRC, one of the reasons to wait is to replenish the mineral stores that
the baby depeted from the mother's body (like iron and calcium); are
those related to low birthweight in large studies, or is that a
different issue?

They may well be related. Most of the studies
I've seen don't really discuss *why* they think some
spacings seem more optimal. They just draw the
correlations.

Best wishes,
Ericka

This one says optimal for low birthweight is conception
from 18-23 months after the previous birth.

Geez, that's not a very big window!

No kidding! ;-)

I'm counting on my fingers going, "Whew, we just squeezed through!" LOL.

They may well be related. Most of the studies
I've seen don't really discuss *why* they think some
spacings seem more optimal. They just draw the
correlations.

It seems like depletion of things like iron and calcium could be
significant, even though it's probably not a huge thing because your
body will eat away at your own bones before shorting the baby (although
something like iron, IDK... they were awfully concerned about me getting
anemic last pregnancy).

Mary S.