If there are any men left who still believe that women are the weaker sex, it is long past time for them to think again. With respect to that most essential proof of robustness—the power to stay alive—women are tougher than men from birth through to extreme old age. The average man may run a 100-meter race faster than the average woman and lift heavier weights. But nowadays women outlive men by about five to six years. By age 85 there are roughly six women to every four men. At age 100 the ratio is more than two to one. And by age 122—the current world record for human longevity—the score stands at one-nil in favor of women.
So why do women live longer than men? One idea is that men drive themselves to an early grave with all the hardship and stress of their working lives. If this were so, however, then in these days of greater gender equality, you might expect the mortality gap would vanish or at least diminish. Yet there is little evidence that this is happening. Women today still outlive men by about as much as their stay-at-home mothers outlived their office-going fathers a generation ago. Furthermore, who truly believes that men’s work lives back then were so much more damaging to their health than women’s home lives? Just think about the stresses and strains that have always existed in the traditional roles of women: a woman’s life in a typical household can be just as hard as a man’s. Indeed, statistically speaking, men get a much better deal out of marriage than their wives—married men tend to live many years longer than single men, whereas married women live only a little bit longer than single women. So who actually has the easier life?
It might be that women live longer because they develop healthier habits than men—for example, smoking and drinking less and choosing a better diet. But the number of women who smoke is growing and plenty of others drink and eat unhealthy foods. In any case, if women are so healthy, why is it that despite their longer lives, women spend more years of old age in poor health than men do? The lifestyle argument therefore does not answer the question either.
Many scientists believe that the aging process is caused by the gradual buildup of a huge number of individually tiny faults—some damage to a DNA strand here, a deranged protein molecule there, and so on. This degenerative buildup means that the length of our lives is regulated by the balance between how fast new damage strikes our cells and how efficiently this damage is corrected. The body’s mechanisms to maintain and repair our cells are wonderfully effective—which is why we live as long as we do—but these mechanisms are not perfect. Some of the damage passes unrepaired and accumulates as the days, months and years pass by. We age because our bodies keep making mistakes.
We might well ask why our bodies do not repair themselves better. Actually we probably could fix damage better than we do already. In theory at least, we might even do it well enough to live forever. The reason we do not, I believe, is because it would have cost more energy than it was worth when our aging process evolved long ago, when our hunter-gatherer ancestors faced a constant struggle against hunger. Under the pressure of natural selection to make the best use of scarce energy supplies, our species gave higher priority to growing and reproducing than to living forever. Our genes treated the body as a short-term vehicle, to be maintained well enough to grow and reproduce, but not worth a greater investment in durability when the chance of dying an accidental death was so great. In other words, genes are immortal, but the body—what the Greeks called soma—is disposable.
Genes in sperm may determine why female mammals live longer than males, according to a Japanese study published in Human Reproduction, a European journal.
Tokyo University professor Tomohiro Kono and Manabu Kawahara of Saga University found that female mice produced from genetic material from two mothers, but not from a father, lived significantly longer than mice with the normal mix of maternal and paternal genes.
The “bi-maternal” mice were created by manipulating DNA in mouse eggs, so that the genes behaved like those in sperm.
Once modified, this material was implanted into unfertilized adult female mice eggs to create embryos.
These mice lived 841.5 days on average — 186 days longer than in control mice born with a normal genetic mix, whose lifespan was 655.5 days.
The longest-lived “bi-maternal” mouse lived for 1,045 days, while the oldest control mouse expired after 996 days.
Another intriguing finding was that the “bi-maternal” mice were lighter and smaller than control mice and seemed to have a stronger immune system.
The big difference could lie in a gene called Rasgrf1, the researchers believe.
The gene, located on Chromosome 9, is associated with post-natal growth. It normally expresses from the paternally inherited chromosome.
“The study may give an answer to the fundamental questions: that is, whether longevity in mammals is controlled by the genome of only one or both parents and, just maybe, why women are an advantage over men with regard to the lifespan,” Kono said.
One theory about longevity is that males have bigger bodies in order to win out in the race for breeding opportunities and thus scatter their genes.
The price for this, though, is a shorter lifespan.
Females, though, do not have to engage in this genetically costly beauty show, and instead optimize their reproductive output by conserving energy for delivering their offspring, nurturing it, foraging for food and avoiding predators.