3 ms·

What's this 3 year rule that I have also missed then?

rat9988 8y ago
A rule that doesn't exist.
amitport 8y ago
perhaps he is referring to this research (or something similar) https://obgyn.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1016/j.ijgo.2004.11.012 https://obgyn.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1016/j.ijg... (though this was done it relation to developing countries) "Conclusion Considering both the increased risk of mortality and undernutrition for a birth earlier than 36 months and the great number of births that occur with such short intervals, the author recommends that mothers space births at least 36 months. However, the tendency for increased risk of neonatal mortality for births with intervals of 60 or more months leads the author to conclude that the optimal birth interval is between 36 and 59 months. This information can be used by health care providers to counsel women on the benefits of birth spacing. "
- laythea 8y ago
  If this is what is meant by 3 year rule, then in my opinion, this is utter nonsense. Having the 3 youngins play and bond together at a similar age is why we deliberately had them as close as possible. Its great to see the bonds develop.
  - cgriswald 8y ago
    It’s not nonsense. It’s optimizing on a different metric than the metric you chose. Do you have some evidence that being one or two years apart bonds siblings better than being three+ years apart? My sister and I are three years apart and we definitely always had a strong bond. I can’t imagine a year or two would have made a difference. Our other siblings are as far as decades apart from us and we are less close (still close though), but we also didn’t grow up together - my sister and I had already flown the coop. I’d guess there are some limits in between there, but it’s just a guess.
    - laythea 8y ago
      Off course, it is not the case that a 3yr+ gap means no bonding, but I think each year gap makes a massive difference when they are young.

A rule that doesn't exist.

perhaps he is referring to this research (or something similar) https://obgyn.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1016/j.ijgo.2004.11.012 https://obgyn.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1016/j.ijg... (though this was done it relation to developing countries) "Conclusion Considering both the increased risk of mortality and undernutrition for a birth earlier than 36 months and the great number of births that occur with such short intervals, the author recommends that mothers space births at least 36 months. However, the tendency for increased risk of neonatal mortality for births with intervals of 60 or more months leads the author to conclude that the optimal birth interval is between 36 and 59 months. This information can be used by health care providers to counsel women on the benefits of birth spacing. "

laythea 8y ago
If this is what is meant by 3 year rule, then in my opinion, this is utter nonsense. Having the 3 youngins play and bond together at a similar age is why we deliberately had them as close as possible. Its great to see the bonds develop.
- cgriswald 8y ago
  It’s not nonsense. It’s optimizing on a different metric than the metric you chose. Do you have some evidence that being one or two years apart bonds siblings better than being three+ years apart? My sister and I are three years apart and we definitely always had a strong bond. I can’t imagine a year or two would have made a difference. Our other siblings are as far as decades apart from us and we are less close (still close though), but we also didn’t grow up together - my sister and I had already flown the coop. I’d guess there are some limits in between there, but it’s just a guess.
  - laythea 8y ago
    Off course, it is not the case that a 3yr+ gap means no bonding, but I think each year gap makes a massive difference when they are young.