Just wondered if this was really supposed to be true?

[coggy]

Read today that babies conceived less than 2 years after the last one are supposed to be less intellegent.(I've not put that very well but hopefully you know what I mean - it's late!)

Is it true?
And why would/might it be?

Never heard that one meself. Can't think of a reason why it would be true either, other than to stop us from sprogging so close together for whatever reason!

never heard that one before and could name you a few examples to contradict it

I thought it was low birth weight if the second pregnancy was too close to the first.

Sounds like a lot of rubbish to me. I know a few families with babies born really close together - within a year in some cases - and there were no problems.

Surely, if the mum takes care of herself nutritionally etc., there would be no reason for the next babies to suffer??!!

sounds a load of rubbish - where did you hear this?

well
most likely some nerdy scientists have done a study and discovered some tiny difference measured on some arbitrary scale of intelligence. It's probably a tiny difference over lots of cases, i.e. you wouldn't actually notice it. And doesn't mean that if you have a second child 'too soon' that child will be thick

Here's a recent meta-analysis looking at inter-pregnancy interval and adverse perinatal outcomes \link{http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16622143&query_hl=4&itool=pubmed_docsum\article}

"Compared with interpregnancy intervals of 18 to 23 months, interpregnancy intervals shorter than 6 months were associated with increased risks of preterm birth, low birth weight, and small for gestational age [...] Intervals of 6 to 17 months and longer than 59 months were also associated with a significantly greater risk for the 3 adverse perinatal outcomes." I suppose you could find studies showing an association between these poor birth weight etc and cognitive ability.

Agree with Arfy too.

Lots of other factors to take into account, e.g. a difference of >59 months (6 years) between two children means the mum is 6 years older which may by itself be associated with an increased risk of pre-term birth etc.

Oh, I've seen tables associating birth spacing with IQ differences. The difference is higher when the gap is under two years. But a) it's an average difference, and b) it's like 4 iq points or something, so not exactly significant.

Part of it may be the physical stuff Cristina mentions, but I believe the bulk of it has to do with how much attention the new baby gets. If you have a one-year-old and a new baby, the new baby will get a lot less of your attention than if you have a two-year-old and a new baby. As your older child grows up, they need less and less of your attention, and you can be more responsive to the younger child.

But as I said, this is a) a difference of averages and b) a miniscule difference. I saw the table in "What's Going on In There" which is a really good book on cognitive development, both before birth, and to the age of about 5.

Notquitecockney - that about parent time for the second child makes sense.
I thought it was nonsense about the lower IQ and was surprised when I read it.
Just wanted to know other people views and experiences.
I read it in a non-medical book so probably just someone's waffle...shan't worry about it now!!! :)