When Did Women Start to Outlive Men?

Although a greater life expectancy is seen as normal today, it is a relatively new demographic phenomenon that emerged among people born in the late 19th century

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

It's well known that women live longer than men do, but this wasn't always the case: A new study finds that differences between men and women's life expectancies began to emerge in the late 1800s.

For the study, researchers analyzed information from people born between 1800 and 1935 in 13 developed countries.

They found that over this time period, death rates decreased among both men and women. But starting in 1880, death rates decreased much faster among women, leading to differences in mortality rates between the sexes.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


The findings show that, although a greater life expectancy for women is seen as normal today, it is actually "a relatively new demographic phenomenon that emerged among people born in the late 19th century," the researchers concluded.

For example, among people born before 1840, death rates were about the same for men and women of a given age. But for people born between 1880 and 1899, death rates for men ages 50 to 70 were 1.5 times greater than those for women of the same age.

Among people born after 1900, the death rate of 50- to 70-year-old men was double that of women of the same age, according to the study. [8 Tips for Healthy Aging]

Cardiovascular disease was the main cause of the higher death rates among men, the researchers said. Heart disease and stroke accounted for more than 40 percent of the increase in male mortality rates versus female mortality rates between 1880 and 1919, the researchers noted.

Biologically, men may be more vulnerable to cardiovascular disease, but this susceptibility was seen only after deaths from other causes, such as infections, started to decline, the researchers said.

Body fat (also called adiposity) tends to be distributed differently over men's bodies compared with women's, and "their differing patterns of adiposity could make men more vulnerable to the increasing weight that resulted from changes in diet and activity," the researchers said in their study, published this week in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Future studies could investigate other differences between the sexes, including genetic dissimilarities, that may play a role in the increased risk of death from heart disease in men, the researchers said.

Follow Rachael Rettner @RachaelRettner. Follow Live Science @livescience, Facebook& Google+. Original article on Live Science.

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe