# 2 years to fully recover from pregnancy and birth?



## shell024 (May 21, 2005)

I hear all over the place that it takes the body two years to recover fully from pregnancy and birth. I haven't seen or read any actual research on it (if anyone has any links, please share!







), but I was wondering what you all think about this? Whenever I ponder over it, I keep thinking "but what about the people all around the world who go along with nature's flow, not trying to control birth (for example, quiverfull parents, etc.)...is that to say that many of them did not recover fully from their PGs and births if their children were very closely spced?"

My instinct says that if that were the case, then most people would naturally not get pregnant for at least two years after birth...but that doesn't really happen for many unless using some form of birth control right? Even exclusively breastfeeding on demand, day and night, no other nipples but mine, eating plenty and healthy foods, tons of liquids, etc. I still got my first pp AF at 3months and ovulated several times before ds was even 1yo yet. We don't use any form of birth control and I became pg when ds was about 13 or 14 months old. So technically, if it is true that it takes two years, then my body has not fully "recovered" yet.

I'm just looking for others' thoughts on this subject, and what you make of the research for postpartum recovery.


----------



## Patchfire (Dec 11, 2001)

Hmm. I've never considered that a mama needs two years to recover _physiologically_ from pregnancy and birth, but I have often thought that it takes around two years (give or take three to six months on either side - every mother and every baby is different!) to really integrate everything mentally, emotionally, spiritually. I don't think that means that mamas who have babes close together are lacking somehow, mind; I think it just means that they then combine the integration of one with the pregnancy and possibly birth of another. I hope that made some sense.









For myself, I would say that I feel more 'integrated' mentally around a year, but that it's just around two years that I feel emotionally integrated. Physically, between three and six months. That's just me, though; I really think it varies widely between women. The big thing, to me, is that we need, as a society, to recognize that postpartum is not just six weeks!


----------



## savithny (Oct 23, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *shell024* 

My instinct says that if that were the case, then most people would naturally not get pregnant for at least two years after birth...but that doesn't really happen for many unless using some form of birth control right? Even exclusively breastfeeding on demand, day and night, no other nipples but mine, eating plenty and healthy foods, tons of liquids, etc. I still got my first pp AF at 3months and ovulated several times before ds was even 1yo yet. We don't use any form of birth control and I became pg when ds was about 13 or 14 months old. So technically, if it is true that it takes two years, then my body has not fully "recovered" yet.
.

Human beings living closer to the way we historically have lived through most of human history usually do not become fertile again until they've stopped nursing, or until late in a nursing relationship that used to go on for at *least* 2 years and usually more like 3-4-5. So you just didn't see babies being able to be concieved closely enough to have them closer than 3 years apart at the earliest.

Those of us living in developed countries with amounts of food our foremothers would have boggled at, will begin to cycle again much sooner. THat "plenty and healthy food" you mention probably contributed significanly to the early return of your fertility.

What that means for whether you really need that amount of time to recover - I don't know! The excess food over what we used to get as hunter-gatherers means our bodies gear up for more babies faster - but does that mean we've used some of that food to rebuild our own stores, or is that our body trying hard to have as many babies as possible before all this wonderous plenty (from our body's POV) goes away?

ALso I wonder, if our babies have always had a solid several years of nursing and are at a certain point of development before their next sibling comes along, is there possibly a reason that the natural spacing of children is further apart that is for the child's sake?


----------



## BelgianSheepDog (Mar 31, 2006)

A lot of so-called primitive societies have children spaced much farther apart than US families who eschew birth control. So I wouldn't look simply to large families living in a frankly pretty unnatural environment (no matter how "crunchy" you are you probably have zipped across the terrain at 60 mph and have indoor heat and plumbing) to figure out what's natural in this case.

4 years apart is a fairly standard spacing in a lot of nomadic cultures.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Yeah, you have to think that a lot of the 'quiverfull' people feed with formula, so their child spacing is not as 'god' (or nature) intended.

I don't know about fully recovering, I don't think pregnancy and birth are traumatic, but in the interest of nursing and providing good care for the first child, I would think it would be optimal not to get pg before the 2 year mark. Everyone's life is different tho and there is lots to consider.


----------



## tamagotchi (Oct 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 
Yeah, you have to think that a lot of the 'quiverfull' people feed with formula, so their child spacing is not as 'god' (or nature) intended.

Hmmm... do you actually know that people with big families are feeding formula, or is that just an assumption you're making because they are having lots of kids? Breastfeeding may delay fertility in many cases but it is certainly no guarantee. I only have one child but I can tell you that for me, I started cycling again after only 4 months PP despite nursing every 1-2 hours round the clock. This may have some genetic component or perhaps it has something to do with my family's diet (as in savithny's post, above); there are some closely spaced children in my family history, with no history of formula feeding or early solids.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *tamagotchi* 
Hmmm... do you actually know that people with big families are feeding formula, or is that just an assumption you're making because they are having lots of kids?

Certainly not everyone, and I'm not saying they're necessarily formula feeding *becoz* they are quiverfull. Just that some people formula feed, and call themselves quiverfull and taht they are getting pg by 'god's design.' When they are removing nature's natural birth control. Which yes, works differently for different people.

Then you have the whole race to have as many children as possible, a la Duggars. And I believe she weans her infants at 5 months for the express purpose of conceiving again.


----------



## sebarnes (Feb 2, 2005)

I don't have it on hand but in an LLL meeting we discussed some research that pointed to the theory that women who ate dairy more than every once and a while tended to get their fertility back sooner than women who don't. The hypothesis is that the extra hormones in the dairy contribute to early return of fertility. I think this plus the copious amounts of foods we eat are responsible for industrialized societies' closer spacing.

As to the two years thing, I think that it's a pretty good average, really. Not just physically, but emotionally for both woman and child. It's hard to give a child as much as they need in the early years if there is another one right behind them. Not saying that some women can't do it - I have a very good friend whose children are 12 months and 1 day apart, and she is amazing - but I think most women have to let some things slide. Just my not so humble opinion, so take it for what it's worth!


----------



## tamagotchi (Oct 16, 2005)

Has anyone here read _Mother Nature_ by Sarah Hrdy? It's been a couple of years since I had it out of the library, but I seem to remember that she discusses how dramatically child spacing can vary between different traditional societies, depending on diet, food availability, and cultural practices like length of breastfeeding and distribution of childcare responsibilities. I'm thinking that in some groups, the normal child spacing is more like four or five years, and in others it's less than two years.

ETA: If you haven't read the book, I would recommend it to anyone; it's fascinating.


----------



## runes (Aug 5, 2004)

yes, as a physical therapist i would have to agree that it takes 2 years on average to FULLY recover from the effects of pregnancy, with the caveat that some things will always be different from a physical standpoint, and also keeping in mind that the woman is breastfeeding. there is not much research out there but in my own experience as well as the extensive experience of my own physical therapist who i have been going to for help in recovering from childbirth, lactation hormones definitely do change the body.

now, it's entirely possible to successfully have babies that are very closely spaced and not have any immediate effects, but in the long term i wonder about things down the line, as in low back pain or pelvic floor issues/prolapse/incontinence. that would be fascinating research to see the effects over the course of pregnancy, then perimenopause and then menopause to see if any issues may arise when using child spacing as a variable.


----------



## BlissfullyLoving (May 4, 2006)

Child spacing is a huge topic in research. There are so many studies that I suggest you just use google scholar and take a look through what comes up.

Early studies showed that women with pregnancy intervals under 2 years had more low birth weight babies and higher miscarriage rates then women with pregnancy intervals over 2 years. I think researchers now have studied this topic from every angle. I have seen mother's recovery, milk supply, sibling interaction, economic implications, etc, etc.


----------



## DahliaRW (Apr 16, 2005)

I think that fertility really is partially genetic and partially nursing/environment. My mom always got her period back by 6 months pp. I didn't get mine until 15 months pp when ds started sleeping more. So it really can vary. I have friends who have gone 2 years without a pp af (still nursing).

As for 2 years, it would make sense. Pregnancy is hard on a body and it probably does take some time to build back up iron stores and such. But then, 2 years would just be an "average" and some women would be "rebuilt" sooner than that or later than that.

But it is an interesting question...


----------



## 4lilfarmers (Feb 9, 2006)

i had read somewhere that is it actually 4 years to fully recover (in many ways...physical, etc) from pregnancy and birth. i feel for myself it was at least two years to recover physically and mentally although i had my period at 6mo pp. There is much more to it than that...the intensity of birth, the length of pregnancy, the way it effects your body (muscles, hormones, etc)

I want to look through some of my books and try and find that info now.


----------



## BlissfullyLoving (May 4, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *DahliaRW* 
I think that fertility really is partially genetic and partially nursing/environment. My mom always got her period back by 6 months pp. I didn't get mine until 15 months pp when ds started sleeping more. So it really can vary. I have friends who have gone 2 years without a pp af (still nursing).

In the book Breastfeeding and Natural Child Spacing by Sheila Kippley, she says it is not just how often you are breastfeeding or anything genetic that is essential to postponing menstruation and ovulation. She says that it is long periods of nursing or suckling on the breast. I and some of my friends used these tips after our first menstrual cycle pp, and we all were able to postpone our next menstrual cycle for at least a year. I was having difficulty sleeping at night with my toddler nursing. I would slip him off as soon as he was ready, so that I could get myself comfortable. Within a few months I was menstruating again.


----------



## MommytoTwo (Jun 20, 2004)

I would certainly say that I myself took 2 years to feel like myself again. And then I keep going and getting pregnant again. lol


----------



## Jilian (Jun 16, 2003)

I agree that it can take around 2 years to recover from birth mentally and physically. It took me about 2 years to get back to my pp weight and to feel like myself again. I didn't get my pp af back until around 18 mos pp.

It probably varies from person to person, but I think it probably takes everyone at least one year to really recover.


----------



## stacyann21 (Oct 21, 2006)

I'd assume the women around the world who "go with the flow of nature" are also EBFing their babies and natural fertility doesn't return until about 2-3 years later









I can defintely say that the 6 week mark is crap and has nothing to do with actually being recovered!


----------



## Mama Poot (Jun 12, 2006)

Interesting... I get my period back at 8wks post partum every time regardless of exclusive breastfeeding. Even with my second child who has never taken/will never take a bottle OR a paci, co-sleeping, nursing all the time, it came back. However! I have not ovulated during every cycle since his birth, I think I've only ovulated three times, this current cycle being the 3rd ovulation. I have awful cramps and pain and my CM shows up twice, 2nd time around being *extremely* noticeable, indicating to me delayed ovulation. My 1st cycle was 42 days, 2nd was 30, 3rd was 34, kinda all over the place right now. My children are 11.5 months apart. That was not planned or intended, and indeed I was not recovered from my first birth. I suffered hyperemesis, difficulty with blood sugar, struggled to even gain 20lbs during the second pregnancy. But I took care of myself the best way I could and I had an easy homebirth and a fantastically healthy baby. I know MY body can handle back to back pregnancies, but it is the child who ultimately suffers. My firstborn was weaned at 6 months because I lost my milk supply in pregnancy completely. I did not know I should have kept nursing him in spite of that and supplementing with formula, but there it is. THAT alone is enough incentive for me to space future children farther apart. I want my second to get all of the benefits of my mama milk and nurse for as long as he needs and wants to, and I am doing my best to make sure that happens for him.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sebarnes* 
I don't have it on hand but in an LLL meeting we discussed some research that pointed to the theory that women who ate dairy more than every once and a while tended to get their fertility back sooner than women who don't. The hypothesis is that the extra hormones in the dairy contribute to early return of fertility. I think this plus the copious amounts of foods we eat are responsible for industrialized societies' closer spacing.

I think any number we arrive at is sheer guesswork. I remember reading about a woman in South America somewhere who had something like 45 kids. From the pictures I saw, they didn't look like they were exactly rolling in the money or the food.

My diet has been almost exactly the same with each of my pregnancies/post-partum periods.

DS1: Weaned at 10 months - period returned a copule of weeks later.
DD: Exclusively breastfed to about 5.5 months or so (breastfed to 21 months) - period returned at just under four months pp.
DS2: Exclusively breastfed to about 6 months (still breastfeeding at 18 months) - period returned at 13 months pp.

After ds1, I was emotionally ready for another baby within about six months. With dd, it was a little longer, as she was much higher needs, and I was in a very strange (mostly positive) emotional state, anyway...after 10 years of trying, it was hard to _really_ believe she was _here_.

Two years sounds like a reasonable sort of guideline, but I suspect anywhere from six months to three years is "normal".

ETA: My kids were all unwanted c-sections. My physical recovery was basically complete within two months with my first (ie. no more surgical pain, back to prepregnancy weight, felt great, except for slight sleep deprivation). With dd, it took 7-8 months to get over the incision pain, but aside from that, my body felt "right" within about three months. With ds2...I don't think my body will ever feel "right" again, as the nerve damage in my abdomen and lack of bladder sensation still make me feel as though my body isn't mine. However, that's directly related to the surgery, not the pregnancy.


----------



## kathan12904 (Jun 23, 2006)

It took me about two years to feel normal again after my daughter was born physically and emotionally. Also, keep in mind, you may be getting your period within weeks or months, but how many are actually conceiving again that quickly? A much smaller percentage, I'd say. Just having a period doens't necessarily mean you are "fertile."


----------



## AngelBee (Sep 8, 2004)

Interesting thread







:


----------



## DoomaYula (Aug 22, 2006)

FWIW, according to my developmental psychology class in college, it takes a woman 9 months to return to normal, physically.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *kathan12904* 
It took me about two years to feel normal again after my daughter was born physically and emotionally. Also, keep in mind, you may be getting your period within weeks or months, but how many are actually conceiving again that quickly? A much smaller percentage, I'd say. Just having a period doens't necessarily mean you are "fertile."

This is probably true, but as soon as I started getting periods after dd, they were regular. I also noticed the "egg white" mucus mid-cycle between the first and second appearance of the bleeding. I'm pretty sure I was fertile again quite quickly. I've wondered if age affects that, though...you know, your body going "hey - you don't have forever - let's speed this up and get some more babies happening".


----------



## shell024 (May 21, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sebarnes* 
I don't have it on hand but in an LLL meeting we discussed some research that pointed to the theory that women who ate dairy more than every once and a while tended to get their fertility back sooner than women who don't. The hypothesis is that the extra hormones in the dairy contribute to early return of fertility. I think this plus the copious amounts of foods we eat are responsible for industrialized societies' closer spacing.

See, I was thinking about this too. That perhaps the amount of processed foods, increased exposure to toxic chemicals, artificial hormones, etc. that so many humans have increasingly been consuming for generations, has messed so much with our reproductive systems that we've "adapted" (right word usage? evolved maybe?) by ending up with fertility problems, and really irregular and sometimes dysfunctional systems, and the like...?

Good point about the dairy, I was thinking of meats too, including lunchmeat/deli meats.


----------



## sapphire_chan (May 2, 2005)

Well, I know I won't be relying on LAM for pp birth control.


----------



## huggerwocky (Jun 21, 2004)

I read somewhere that in most "natural" societies ( tribes?) children are naturally spaced 4 years apart. Or maybe that was some specific tribe. I forgot.

Anyway, I think there's some truth to it.


----------



## liseux (Jul 3, 2004)

Delaying solids is a big part of this too. Back in the day (and in other parts of the world right now) lots of babies didn`t eat solids until they walked and very few babies ate anything but table food if they were able to grab it. Now people introduce solids as early as 4 mo. and their cycles come back sooner.


----------



## wannabe (Jul 4, 2005)

I think that when considering natural child spacing you need to remember that although we are a large investment type of species, there's still some selective advantage to having more kids when times are good. So when you're well nourished and there's enough food around for your baby to eat things other than your milk, it's advantageous for you to have another child, as opposed to when you're all half starved. That way your children would cluster in times of planty when they're more likely to survive, and space out in times of famine when they're more likely to die.

But in our modern society, where we are all well nourished and have control over our fertility, three to five years is the optimal child sacing for health and survival. because don't forget that you should be nursing for at least two years, even if your period is back. And I don't think tandem nursing is nutritionally ideal. Pure stats- wise you should wait until child #1 is finished nursing and then get pregnant.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...30/ai_95105825

Quote:

Children born 3 to 5 years after a previous birth are about 2.5 times more likely to survive than children born before 2 years.

Compared with children born less than 2 years after a previous birth, children born 3 to 4 years after a previous birth are:
Advertisement

* 1.5 times more likely to survive the first week of life;

* 2.2 times more likely to survive the first 28 days of life;

* 2.3 times more likely to survive the first year of life; and

* 2.4 times more likely to survive to age five.
...

Compared with women who give birth at 9- to 14-month intervals, women who have their babies at 27- to 32-month birth intervals are:

* 1.3 times more likely to avoid anemia;

* 1.7 times more likely to avoid third-trimester bleeding; and

* 2.5 times more likely to survive childbirth.

While the biological and behavioral mechanisms that make shorter birth intervals riskier for infants and mothers are little understood, researchers suggest such factors as maternal depletion syndrome, premature delivery, milk diminution, and sibling rivalry. For instance, studies suggest that shorter birth intervals may not allow mothers enough time to restore nutritional reserves that provide for adequate fetal nutrition and growth. Fetal growth retardation and premature delivery can result in low birth weight and greater risk of death.


----------



## mamabain (Sep 19, 2002)

wow, the dairy thing is one i hadn't heard and it anecdotally makes sense in my case.

my first child i got my first postpartum period at 4 months and i was drinking non-organic dairy. exclusively breastfed till 5.5 months, co-sleeping, bfing every 2 hours minimum.

with my second, same breastfeeding and cosleeping pattern and my first period didn't return until 17 months post partum. but i was drinking ONLY organic milk! (no hormones).

i feel like some previous posters that my body isn't back to normal until 2 years postpartum.


----------



## savithny (Oct 23, 2005)

Another thought on the subject...

Just because modern life has made something *biologically* possible doesn't mean it is the best idea for our bodies or the way our bodies were truly designed to function.

The age at first menstruation has been dropping lower and lower. Preindustrial women didn't become fertile until they were 15 or 16. Now its down to 11 or 12.

Just because it has become biologically possible for 11 year olds to get pregnant does not mean it is biologically *optimal* for 11 year olds to *be* pregnant.

Likewise, just because the plentiful food availalbe to most modern women in developed countries means our fertility returns sooner after a pregnancy does not mean it is *optimal* for us to get pregnant as soon as our fertility returns.


----------



## Kitten (Jan 10, 2005)

Quote:

I don't think tandem nursing is nutritionally ideal. Pure stats- wise you should wait until child #1 is finished nursing and then get pregnant.
Do you have stats you can quote to support this? I have a two year old and don't have time to read a 36 page report, LOL.

I don't think it's a great idea to intentionally get pregnant again before the previous one is at least two, but I've never seen statistics showing that an older child should be weaned before a woman gets pregnant again, or that tandem nursing an older child and a newborn is somehow nutritionally deficient for either. If such a study exists I would be interested in seeing it.


----------



## Marlet (Sep 9, 2004)

I think alot of it does have to do with diet (I haven't read the whole thread) and our amount of excercise (or lack thereof). I think the way our diet is here in America our bodies get these mixed signals to get up and do something. I think the nomadics and pioneers etc. ate more useful foods and were active to the point that the only thing their bodies could do was focus on nourishing the one babe. The way the average American eats today we are so pumped full of extra stuff that our bodies have no other outlet then to get all systems geared up and ready to go. So to speak.









As for me my af returned when DD was 13 months but I wasn't cycling normally until my third or fourth cycle. I conceived again when DD was 18 months. From the few things I've read it seems most nursing mamas, in todays American society, who don't use birth control start conceiving around 18 months on average.


----------



## BlissfullyLoving (May 4, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *wannabe* 
And I don't think tandem nursing is nutritionally ideal. Pure stats- wise you should wait until child #1 is finished nursing and then get pregnant.

I looked at the website that you sited, and I could not find anything that about tandem nursing. Do you have a reference for that statement? When you say finished nursing do you mean child led weaned or adult weaned?

I guess I am just wondering if this is your opinion, or if there is a scientific basis.


----------



## savithny (Oct 23, 2005)

I don't know about "should be" weaned before concieving again, but I do know that in my ethnographic reading (and primatology reading) I've been doing over the last year or so I have yet to come across any instance of a human population living a "natural" lifestyle that practices tandem nursing. Across the board, every one I've read about so far has very clear practices that enforce weaning as soon as mom is pregnant, if not before. The few remaining hunter-gatherer societies all seem to have major issues with even getting pregnant while nursing -- there are insults among the !San reserved especially for women who get pregnant while they still have one in the sling (ie nursing)... Tandem nursing is a very, very unusual practice from a anthropological point of view.

YOu really, really, cannot take modern American fertility patterns and be able to generalize them to what is "optimal" for human beings. You can't take modern American *anything* (diet? Exercise patterns? Sleep?) and generalize it to what is optimal!


----------



## sebarnes (Feb 2, 2005)

Yes, tandem nursing is not often practiced in tribal life. But it should be noted that it is not the older child that is usually weaned should this situation occur. Their survival depends upon them being allowed to nurse. In many cases, it is the infant who is killed at birth so that the older child, to whom the mother is already attached , has a better chance of survival. And this is due to nutritional issues. We are lucky enough to live in a society where there is enough food so that we don't have to make a decision like this to ensure either our or one of our children's survival. I do think that tandem nursing arises as the most natural way to deal with an unnatural situation (being pregnant while still having a nursling.)


----------



## Kitten (Jan 10, 2005)

I thought I had read that those hunter-gatherer societies that wean before getting pregnant again do so because they have a superstition that milk *during* pregnancy is bad for children. Because it starts to turn to colostrum, and they think it is "rotten." Because colostrum causes loose stool in older children, which they think is diarrhea, which *can* be deadly for a child in that living situation (although colostrum diarrhea is *not* deadly).

At any rate, I am pretty sure that Adventures in Tandem Nursing discusses the research on tandem nursing in hunter-gatherer societies and third world countries and points out that even in those societies weaning during pregnancy is not a hard-and-fast rule, there are lots of women who continue to nurse through and after pregnancy anyway. Gotta run and make dinner so I don't have time to quote page numbers right now.


----------



## Shahbazin (Aug 3, 2006)

Storm Bride

Quote:

...I've wondered if age affects that, though...you know, your body going "hey - you don't have forever - let's speed this up and get some more babies happening".
This is an interesting thought - is it just American diet bringing on earlier cycles, or the trend towards later childbearing? I eat healthy, nurse round the clock, didn't introduce solids until after 6 months (& DD didn't actually eat them until 8 months.) AF resumed for me at 11 weeks post partum. I don't think I ovulated that 1st cycle, but we went ahead & conceived again after the 4th cycle (DD was 5 1/2 months). I was back to pre-preg. weight by 4 months post partum. I'm still nursing DD, & plan to tandem; have gained 5 lbs in this preg. by 15 weeks, milk supply is lower, but still pretty good, no anemia problems. I'm turning 40 this year & have a fairly active lifestyle. I don't know about optimal, but if I've a bitch or a ewe that has easy pregnancies, doesn't get run down nursing, keeps a good body weight & is fit, I'll space breedings closer than those that need more recovery time (a good diet w/optimum nutrition & calories is a must), so based my own spacing on similar principles.


----------



## CalebsMama05 (Nov 26, 2005)

wow this is an interesting thread! I don't have an opinion but here are my stats and whatnot in regards to my two...

#1: ebf to 10 days (yes ten days) bf/formula 10 days-4m ppaf when he was 4.5/5.5m (first ppaf was 2 days of extremely light pink *blood* not sure if I should count it) he was sleeping through the night at 4 weeks, and adored his paci. when he DID nurse it was for 10 minutes maximum from a month on.

#2: ebf to 6wks then reverse cycled recieving 10oz ebm max a day (have to work to survive unfortunately!) pumping at work, not too interested in the paci nursing every 1.5-2hrs (even still) ppaf @ 3m and ovulation immediately.

oh yes #1 I was addicted to milk (regular supermarket kind) and #2 I still can't drink it. I can't even eat cereal really with milk in it etc.

not sure that supports the theory.

oh and another thing, emotionally I was ready to ttc as soon as #1 weaned (I think he was 4.5m when we decided to ttc) and right now I am not interested. So I think that in my case at least there won't be any pregnancy until he weans.

I also am interested in stats about tandeming...


----------



## mum2James&Bean (Dec 8, 2006)

This is pretty interesting! Despite EBF, no other nipples, cosleeping and him eating every 1.5 to 2 hours, I got my af back at 9 weeks pp. What a BUMMER! BUT, we started trying to get pregnant when James was 8 months, and it took a year (he was 18 months when it finally happened) because my thyroid was completely thrown off for a while afterward (it got better by itself).

Oh and for the record, I intensly dislike milk *bleck*... except maybe in a coffee


----------



## wasabi (Oct 12, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *savithny* 
Human beings living closer to the way we historically have lived through most of human history usually do not become fertile again until they've stopped nursing, or until late in a nursing relationship that used to go on for at *least* 2 years and usually more like 3-4-5. So you just didn't see babies being able to be concieved closely enough to have them closer than 3 years apart at the earliest.

ITA. I was one of the lucky ones in that I didn't cycle until 19 months and didn't have ovulation until about 20.5 months. Even then the first few cycles were wacky and had a short LP etc. I doubt I would have cycled normally and conceived DD#2 if we had not gone on a vacation that required a two day car trip and so cut down on our pattern of almost constant nursing. So far I am still ovulating late and having a very short LP. I doubt I could keep a pg at this point though I am getting closer with each cycle. By the time DD#2 is two (less than three months) I bet I'll be at the point that I could actually sustain a pg and I'm getting closer emotionally and psychologically as well. So yeah I think two years sounds about right to me physically, psychologically, emotionally etc. And we didn't use bc at all until after I started cycling again so you can be open to what life brings without having closely spaced kids.


----------



## cchrissyy (Apr 22, 2003)

If anybody has actual sites or articles I can check out, please post them here, I never got the data I was searching for. thanks!
http://mothering.com/discussions/sho...d.php?t=542382


----------



## Brisen (Apr 5, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Storm Bride* 
I think any number we arrive at is sheer guesswork.









:

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Storm Bride* 
This is probably true, but as soon as I started getting periods after dd, they were regular. I also noticed the "egg white" mucus mid-cycle between the first and second appearance of the bleeding. I'm pretty sure I was fertile again quite quickly.

IME, even when I have fertile mucous, I'm not necessarily fertile. I will still have a short luteal phase for several cycles, which prevents pregnancy.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *huggerwocky* 
I read somewhere that in most "natural" societies ( tribes?) children are naturally spaced 4 years apart. Or maybe that was some specific tribe. I forgot.

There is a lot more to this kind of thing than just numbers. Firstly, there is a huge variation in the beliefs and cultures of different natural societies/tribes. In some groups, this spacing is achieved by multiple wives and sex taboos when a mom has a child under a certain age. Abortion is not a new thing, either; infanticide, as has been mentioned on this thread, is also not an uncommon practise. Some groups will "test" the bravery of each infant by leaving it somewhere dangerous to see if it cries. If it does, it is left outside of the village. Some groups have susperstitions about twins and will kill one or both. Really, just because a tribe or group is "more primitive" or uses less technology than we do doesn't mean they are acting "naturally." Just because some groups have tandem nursing taboos doesn't mean it is bad or wrong. Some tribes/groups have colostrum-drinking taboos. :shurg In any case, I'm certainly no expert on the situation, those are just my thoughts. Huggerwocky, you may have heard that stat in The Continuum Concept -- the tribe the author lives with generally has their kids spaced 4 years apart, IIRC.

And to add my experience -- I haven't used any form or birth control or conception avoidance (ie, NFP) except for breastfeeding. We don't start solids until a year, don't use pacis, etc. I have read the book referenced here earlier, "Breastfeeding and Natural Child Spacing," and I try to follow the guidlines given in it.

#1 was 5 months (I wasn't nearly as crunchy then, started rice cereal at about that age, and had been pumping to give him a bottle or two) when my first period arrived; cycles were very irregular for a while (I soon realized that the rice cereal wasn't good for him and went back to exclusive bfing); conceived at 17 months; kids were 26 months apart.

#2 was 15 months when my first period arrived; cycles were long (50-60 days) at first, but settled down to closer to my normal cycle length. Conceived at 18 months, but miscarried in the first tri. Conceived about 3 months after the miscarriage, so when #2 was about 24 months; kids were 32months apart.

#3 was 11 months when my first period arrived; cycles were long, and my luteal phase was short. Conceived at 18 months, but miscarried, and then had a number of early losses. I'm pg now, and have high hopes that this pg will last (thanks to some hormone helping herbs). If so, #3 will be 37 months when the baby is born.


----------



## KiwiZ (Apr 4, 2004)

You guys, this thread is so fascinating! Thanks for all the research, comments and observations - so educational! I have 2 girls (one a c-sec and one a VBAC) and I would say I "felt like myself" again roughly 9-10 months after having each. IIRC, if you want a VBAC, they want you to you to have at least 18 months spacing for your uterus to be at its strongest (but don't quote me on that!). Again, great thread!


----------



## cchrissyy (Apr 22, 2003)

re: Brisen's subjects there, I read a fascinating book last year called "Mother Nature: on mothers, infants, and natural selection"
I cannot even describe how amazing this books was. I learned something on every page and couldn't help shaing it with whoever was around. It was recomended to me online, but then I learend my 20yo sister owned a copy for a college class!

There was lots about this weaning/feeding/fertility/preganncy stuff. Lots. Plenty on infanticide and sex selection and mate choice and ways babies entice better care . Plenty on bonding and "mother love" and grandma's role.

And it overflows with animal kingdom and cross-cultural examples. Real data, you know, not just theories or some man's idealized history of what motherhood should be. HIGHLY recommend!

http://www.amazon.com/Mother-Nature-.../dp/0345408934
(it has a new subtitle in this printing)


----------



## Brisen (Apr 5, 2004)

Thanks for the book recommendation, I'll see if my library has it.

I read "The Family in Various Cultures" by Stuart A. Queen when my first was little and I was just nursing constantly, along with "The Continuum Concept" by Jean Leidloff (I think I mangled her last name) and "Our Babies, Ourselves" by... I'll have to google that... Meredith Small. I find the subject really interesting, but I've hesitated to do more reading, since I don't know how accurate any author would be. Freeman vs. Mead, for instance.


----------



## wannabe (Jul 4, 2005)

Quote:

When you say finished nursing do you mean child led weaned or adult weaned?
child led, that why I said "finished nursing" and not "weaned".

The site I linked to was about child spacing not nursing, but in terms of evolutionary fitness and the nutritional investment by the mother, more children will survive to adulthood and reproductive age if they are not so closely spaced that either the nursling or the new child lacks for nutrients that are in short supply, like iron and folic acid. For example, if the mother's anaemic from a first child and doesn't recover those stores well enough before the second child is born then it'll be anaemic too. And anaemia has bad effects on health and development. Isn't there also an issue with calcium stores?


----------



## MCatLvrMom2A&X (Nov 18, 2004)

It has taken me 2 yrs for my body to get back toward normal after ds. My pubic bone and lower back in particular. So I can see how it would take that long for sure.


----------



## applejuice (Oct 8, 2002)

Pregnancy and childbirth are a huge drain on the human body and on a person's life even though I thoroughly enjoyed all four of my pregnancies.









Really.

It would make sense that it should/would/does take at least two years to recover and integrate the changes that creating and bringing a new life into this world entails.


----------

