More children(with more support from friends/family) helps women live longer

[TylerDurden]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-3394637/Want-stay-younger-longer-children-Women-offspring-longer-telomeres-sign-longevity.html

[sabertooth]

I wonder if more (children=stronger telomeres) points to a causation or is just a correlation between the two? Meaning mothers whom have stronger genetics generally tend to have more children and will also make life choices which would better insure that they are a part of a more nurturing and supporting community......while those predisposed to genetic weaknesses tend to have less children, because at some level their bodies know it cant handle it, and they tend to come from family lines which also have weaker genetics?

I would agree that having children seems natural for women, yet society today seems to not provide the general support for most women to mother children in natural ways, which would fully activate these genetic mechanisms which would ensure that our mothers live to become even stronger, wiser, and more complete grandmothers...

Since the "liberation of women" in modern society, women with multiple children are immediately set at a disadvantage within our society. The extended support of traditional family structures has withered away, and the friendships centered around the mutual caring for each others children, has given way to daycare's and working moms. To bring forth the most optimal human beings, children need to be nursed for at least the first three years and be at their mothers side, and then be gradually separated and allowed to be cared for by trusted members of the wider community.

Many of the most fit and capable women of my generation chose not to have children, because it would ruin their plans and lower their station in life. There is a feeling that having children will cheat a young girl from having a life of her own, and all her friends will be living the good life while she is trapped(chained to the stove bare foot and pregnant). So a trend is set of women who do not have children, or if they do its only one or two, and that may not happen till the thirties, then very few will actually nurse the child very long or practice the kind of bonding which is so beneficial to moth mother and child.

Though there is much more complexity to it this kind of genetic data, it could indicate why so many women whom do not have multiple children, may be more prone to degenerative disease than women whom have many children and are well supported.

[TylerDurden]

Perhaps it is just a case of "you use it or lose it". In other words, a childless woman would be more likely to get breast cancer or ovarian cancer. Plus, a childless woman is also far less likely to have social support than child-bearing women.

Do not agree re 3 -year-nursing. Quite sordid, though not as bad as some mothers who claim that breastfeeding is OK until the infant is 9 years old. Basically, HG tribes breastfed till 2 mainly because it was the best form of contraception available at the time. From a more natural standpoint, I would assume that breastfeeding should stop as soon as the infant has enough teeth to be able to chew solid food of sorts, without needing it powdered/liquidised etc. first.

[sabertooth]

There is plenty to debate in regards to what is optimal...birth control is only part of it....the blood brain barrier in human infants does not close up until around 2.5 years of age...and the immune system in children before then is also not fully on line....so the maternal antibodies, as well as the optimized nutrition within the milk would have been a critical advantage for insuring optimal health and intelligence in paleo children, and are still important today....Nursing an infant with the help and support of a community for an extended period of time can also allow the woman to slow down, and enjoy being a mother and not get caught up in the modern games, and drama played out by women who have not experienced the positive feeling of being saturated with lactation hormones.

Exclusive breast feeding for the first two years followed by a transitional weaning period which would likely end around the time the mother was entering the late stages of her next pregnancy would have been the norm... I think the transition from around two to three is a vital part of developmental health...When the child begins to eat foods on their own, while still supplementing with mothers milk, it helps them immensely on many levels...developmentally they will be much better off...and their immune systems will be better able to build up tolerance to the same food stuffs mother has been eating while the child goes through the transition.

Anecdotally I have noticed that children who have breastfed past the age of three seem to be overall happier, healthier and more intelligent people, in general...My Girlfriend was nursed until she was four years old, and through her life she has benefited from really good immunity to all illness, and is highly intelligent....

[TylerDurden]

You appear to be right:-

http://kellymom.com/ages/older-infant/ebf-benefits/

OK, so nutritionally it is always superior in childhood. However, humans start to lose the ability to digest lactose as they get older, and the child's development might easily be hindered if they are breastfed until past 3, as their independence might be threatened etc.