Duggar blog post on Scientific American

[FakePigtails]

I saw this on Scientific American's website today. It's written by an anthropology professor. She talks about some of the health issues that come with having so many kids back-to-back.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/context-and-variation/2011/11/11/the-duggars-demonstrate-life-history-trade-offs-around-quality-versus-quantity-of-offspring/

[gustava]

Fascinating. Thanks for the link. What struck me is this: "In a broader sense, the timing of pregnancies are an interesting way to study life history trade-offs. For instance, one may choose to have many offspring, place them close together and allocate less resource to them, or one may choose to have only a few offspring, spread far apart. This is a classic quantity versus quality trade-off question, and we see trends in these trade-offs within and between species, but also in humans, and even among different cultural traditions."

Many of us on FJ have pointed out the quality/quantity position, primarily as regards the time the individual child spends with parents. The author of this piece points out the physical relationship between the number of pregnancies of the mother and the health of the fetus/child. We have some evidence with Josie that she is not well. And we suspect that some of the younger children may have learning and/or speech disabilities, although we do cannot really sort through what might be a disability and what might simply be parental attention.

[Cassandra]

It is very interesting because from an anthropological perspective it's very unlikely that humans had large families (5+ kids) prior to the advent of agriculture.

Our species is 'K' selected, which means that Humans along with other animals like elephants are known for having fewer offspring and investing a lot more time into these children. Modern Hunter-Gatherer women usually only have a child every 3-6 years.

There's also a theory that menopause developed in humans (it only occurs in captive great apes) because older women would not have the time or resources to invest in raising a new child.

Also there's a relationship between pregnancy and tooth health. More pregnancies=poorer tooth health, so I'd be really interested in seeing the state of Michelle Duggar's mouth. I'm willing to bet she's had more than one tooth pulled.

[Visionoyahweh]

Also there's a relationship between pregnancy and tooth health. More pregnancies=poorer tooth health, so I'd be really interested in seeing the state of Michelle Duggar's mouth. I'm willing to bet she's had more than one tooth pulled.

Isn't the old saying 'a tooth for every child' due to all the nutrients lost in pregnancy? I realize it's not the case now, due to better healthcare/nutrition. Without them Michelle would be pretty darn close to the toothless hillbilly she aspires in her heart of hearts to be. Imagine kissing that, JB!

ETA:

I'm finally glad to see a article that's not afraid to mention TLC foots a lot of the Duggar's bills. Too bad its from a scholar instead of a journalist.

[Cassandra]

It's nutrients and also there's a relationship between estrogen and amount of saliva. Estrogen decreases saliva which increases tooth decay. It's one of the reasons (along with women eating more carbohydrates than men) that women historically have worse teeth than men.

[Mythicwings]

Yeah, I wonder if Michelle HAS lost a bunch of teeth - her diet is terrible, and I was shocked in the Today interview to hear her say how she was taking extra-good care of herslef THIS time (exercise, no caffeine, eating her greens) like she could just wing it with the first 19? :idea: They all look like they were born healthy, except for little Josie, so it just adds to my wonderment about the resilience in some females and their babies, vs others who do so poorly even living healthily. And I have to say, I mean I just HAVE to say, I hesitate to judge another woman's choice in her family size, but I get SO angry when people throw the safety of their children and themselves in God's face, like oh ok, as if Michelle is saying, "my last baby was probably like that article's author said, the baby being born very early to take her chances in the outer would, because things weren't going very well inside me - but I think since God handled that for us, he'll take care of this one too, sure he may need to spend 6 months in the hospital, and somehow that is all paid for nicely, thanks, God!"

:o GAH I mean - MIND TURNED OFF - but no one EVER said that the intelligent have more children than the ones who think a dark mind is AWESOME.

[Buzzard]

But we need to realize that all reproductive decisions, not just those that limit the number of children, have costs and benefits.

Yeah, like the jeubs!

[Stanley]

I guess that explains this article from Rick Arndt in "Above Rubies" magazine:

Her Husband Praises Her

Three minutes ago, I received a call from my wife, Cathy, who is out shopping for family bargains."Guess what?" she exclaimed, in a voice trembling with glee, "I'm nauseated!"

Wow, I thought to myself, this is vintage Cathy! She's feeling queasy in the stomach while out shopping, and is rejoicing about it because the nausea is sign that her 20th pregnancy might result in her 15th full-term delivery, and not her sixth miscarriage!...

To see how this turns out read the rest of the article here on p.14 -- http://aboverubies.czamolitev.org/pdf/english/Above_Rubies_64_magazine.pdf