Men benefit from marriage more than women

Family|June 12th 2015

Women gain no health benefits from marriage, new research claims.

In a joint project, researchers from the London School of Economics, University College London and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine analysed data relating 10,000 people born in the UK during the same week in 1958.

They found that while unmarried men ran a noticeably higher risk of illness, the same was not true of unmarried women. The latter had effectively the same chance as their married friends and relatives of developing what is called ‘metabolic syndrome’ – a combination of high blood pressure, diabetes, and obesity typically associated with middle age. Unmarried women did, on average, show higher levels of ‘biomarkers’ (biological signs) associated with breathing problems and heart disease, but the difference was slight in both cases.

By contrast, levels of the biomarker associated with heart problems were 14 per cent higher in unmarried men compared to their married counterparts. In addition, women who divorced while still in their 20s had a 31 per cent lower chance of developing metabolic syndrome than those who remained married.

Both men and women who divorced saw little change in their health if they went on to find a new long term partner, the researchers also reported.

Researcher George Ploubidis of University College London concluded:

“Not marrying or cohabiting is less detrimental among woman than men.”

Whereas, he continued, “…being married appears to be more beneficial for men.”

The study was published in the American Journal of Public Health.

Image by Marco Monetti via Flickr

Author: Stowe Family Law

Share This Post...

Comments(6)

  1. Andrew says:

    I can’t wait to see the reactions of the Usual Suspects to this!

    • Luke says:

      I would hate to disappoint you Andrew 🙂
      .
      There are statistics and then there are statistics:
      .
      ==================================================
      Getting Married and Getting Heart Disease: A National Study
      .
      A report of an 8-year study of heart disease, based on a nationally representative sample of more than 9,000 people in late mid-life. When the study first started in 1992, the participants ranged in age from 51 to 60.
      .
      The participants were contacted five times from 1992 and 2000. Their marital status, cardiovascular health status, and health behaviors were assessed. Other information (for example, socioeconomic status) was also recorded.
      .
      There are five different marital statuses:
      • Continuously married (i.e., first and only marriage)
      • Remarried
      • Widowed
      • Divorced
      • Always single
      .
      Let’s look first at the prevalence of heart disease at the start of the study. (Heart disease = doctor diagnosis of heart attack, coronary heart disease, angina, congestive heart failure, or other heart problems, or stroke.) In the table below is the percentage of people (averaged across all ages) who had heart disease at the start of the study. Lower numbers indicate less prevalence of heart disease, so the group ranked #1 is the healthiest. The rank-ordering of heart disease for the 5 marital statuses was the same for the men as for the women. See if you can guess which marital status goes with each rank.
      .
      WOMEN MEN
      1. 8.4 13.0
      2. 8.7 13.5
      3. 10.7 16.4
      4. 10.8 16.5
      5. 11.6 17.7
      .
      Okay, here are the answers:
      .
      1. Always single
      2. Continuously married
      3. Remarried
      4. Widowed
      5. Divorced
      .
      So there you have it. The lowest rate of heart disease is found among the women and men, ages 51-60, who had been single all their lives. The rates for the continuously married are higher, though not statistically so.
      .
      The study went on for years, and the authors calculated the probability of experiencing heart disease for each age, from 51 through 65. (See Table 5 in the article.) Of course, the probabilities increase with age for men and women of all marital statuses. Let’s see where they end up at age 65. Here are the results for the MEN.
      .
      1. 29, always-single men
      2. 33, widowed men
      3. 42, remarried men
      4. 46, continuously married men
      5. 50, divorced men
      .
      Look at what has happened to the continuously married men. At 46%, the likelihood of having heart disease is greater for them than for any other group of men except the divorced. The always-single men are doing way better, at just 29%.
      .
      (For women at age 65, the probabilities were 32 for continuously married, 38 for always-single, 43 for widowed, 45 for remarried, and 47 for divorced. So even though men typically have higher rates of heart disease than women, the always-single men have the lowest rates of all 10 of the groups.)
      .
      The authors also looked at how the risk of heart disease changed for each successive year of marriage. Here, in their words, is what they found: “Each year in marriage increased rather than decreased the risk of cardiovascular disease by 2% for both men and women.” The risk increased each year both in first marriages and in remarriages.
      .
      Because the authors collected data on health measures such as smoking and obesity, and on conditions described as morbid (really, that’s the technical term), they could venture a data-based explanation as to why each year of marriage added to the risk of heart disease: “Longer marriages were associated with less healthy behaviors and an accumulation of morbid conditions, such as hypertension, diabetes, and high cholesterol.”
      .
      .
      This national study of heart disease was published in a very reputable journal (Journal of Marriage and Family) in 2006. Do you remember seeing any headlines about it in the media? I don’t either.
      ================================================
      .

      • Andrew says:

        There are lies, damned lies, and statistics!

        However, Luke, please tell me(1) how you inserted the smiley and (2) how you leave blank lines between paragraphs on this site.

        • Luke says:

          Andrew, a smiley is just a “:” + a “-” + a “)” – all three characters together. Surely you have used these before ? I am not generally a big fan of emoticons but I do think sometimes they help convey the tone of the writing in an effective way.
          .
          I just put a full stop on a blank line to break it up.
          I’m not trying to use up more of Marilyn’s precious resources, honestly Cameron (!), I do it to try and make it easier to read.
          .

  2. JamesB says:

    To Anyone thinking about this. It’s like walking into a casino and putting all your money and future on black, or red. Most people, quite rightly, wouldn’t.

Leave a Reply

Close

Newsletter Sign Up

For all the latest news from Stowe Family law
please sign up for instant access today.



Privacy Policy