Living Alone Can Be Deadly

I suspect that it is worse in the United States, given the toxic uncivil macho nature of our society and the commodification of of intimacy and friendship.

I’d rather be single and miserable, than married and wishing I were dead. I forget where I first heard such words of wisdom, now that I’ve seen the light.

A number of the postings here make it clear that some portion of the populace sees men as burdensome people who need caretaking or vacant-eyed beings unable to entertain themselves. It might just be possible that many men feel lonely because they truly enjoy the warmth of human companionship -- all those intimacies that glue relationships together and create a healthy environment of shared joy and responsibility. I sometimes hear my women friends crowing over the joys of living alone. But I like guys and miss mine. Despite a vigorous social life, yup, I miss him.

What about women living alone? My house is so much more peaceful since the ex has moved out! Stress levels way down... seems better to me.

I strongly suspect that the 81% of those not living long lives alone ie those not highly educated or of executive status, do not do the following: exercise daily 5-6 days/ week at a gym, eat a healthful diet, visit their doctor 2-4 times a year and carefully follow his/her advice, do watch a lot of TV, rather than reading almost anything, do drink more alcohol than recommended per day and have few "outside interests", which they failed to develop as their lives progressed and don't share their life with a dog or cat. And perhaps they smoke. Even at 85 and possibly with good genes, a healthy life takes time and work. It ain't all fun!

Did an editor overlook the headline? It said Living Alone can be deadly. The word men should have been in the headline. I get so sick of health articles written as if women did not exist in the world. And for the record, women living alone do not have this issue. Hey Nicholas, why not research that concept and come back with an article about that.

Unless the man plays adult league ice hockey well into his 70's...

What about women without many friends? Do they not count?

Wow! Wouldn't it be interesting if they included women? A retrospective study in which they had access to both men and women's data, and for some reason, they chose just to analyze men's data? Or did the correlation not hold true for women, so they just didn't report it? Notice that the recommendations are NOT restricted to men - they are assuming that if a finding is true for men, it's true for everybody. And the NYT headline doesn't specify that the study only included men, either. Be Better, NYT.

Yet another study of half the population that blithely generalizes to the other half of the population. If you are studying men, stick with conclusions about men. As a woman who is very happily living alone after a long marriage, I suspect that women simply do better alone--are better both at caring for themselves and at socializing and do not automatically gravitate to care taking of others once their children age grown. Perhaps another generation of woke men might be able to feed themselves better and form friendships but until then let's not just assume that what goes for men goes for women. Shame on you NYTimes; you should know better.

My 90+ year old highly educated father would be long gone if not for my mother. Why? She takes care of him. She is the social director getting him out of the house to see friends and engage in hobbies. She gets him to see a trainer and physical therapist and all his various doctors. She makes sure there is healthy food to eat. So, I'm not surprised at all by the results of this study.

Like so many studies, this one just notes correlation, not likely causation. Another commenter mentioned pets. That would be a significant factor to consider. The basic interest in one's activities, and whether or not a person has any enjoyable activities to live for can make a difference. We don't know how much a role human contact weighs against so many other factors. There are so many factors to consider. But it was an interesting statistic.

It is interesting that the wealthy men if this study weren't dying young. The wealthy have people in the sense that they can pay for whatever services they want, including compaionship. The poor do well by building strong social networks to meet each others' needs. I think it is easy to design for greater social interaction--just design to encourage strangers to eat together in a dining hall. Mealtime is the best time for social interaction.

This has GOT to be wrong. My wife and kids are killing me!!

The headline of this too brief article should have been, “Male Mortality Increases When Living Without Adult Supervision.” Look, loneliness is indeed a killer but it orders the execution, it doesn’t carry it out. That I can only believe is undertaken by poor lifestyle choices. It can be as simple as not seeing a physician at a critical time, or drinking and eating too much for too long, or simply not taking care of oneself when caught in the snare of despair. Death occurs via complex interactions, and living alone puts men on the slippery slope. But for me, not living with my ex has been a health boon. I now live calmly, freed from the grinding stress of trying to assuage her manically manifold demands. In practice this means that I’ve quit needing cigarettes, alcohol and marijuana to face another day with her. Also, I am freed from using food as a shared activity, and have adopted a strict, healthy diet. I fill the empty hours in the gym or outdoors activities. My sleep is bliss. When in a relationship we drink our partner’s poison; alone we drink our own. Freed from theirs, all you have to do is to put down your deadly chalice and you will be fine.

What about if a man lives alone but has a dog and two cats? Does having pets benefit people who live alone and negate the effect talked about in this brief article?

I wish I lived alone! I can't understand how an unskilled worker could afford it. I know I can't. Maybe it works in the Netherlands but I can't see this in NY. As for the increased risk, sure if a heart attack or stroke hits and no one else is there to call for help, that's going to be the end.

the author asks at the end how can we built cities that make social interaction easier? Look no further then European cities, think London in the 19th century or Paris in the late 1600s, Rome in both its classical period and the Renaissance. Today, modern cities are ugly and very anti-human, placing functionality above beauty and the humanities can eventually take its toll on people.

When they designed their study, the researchers appear to have omitted one very important question: "Do you like living alone?" If that question had been included, the study would have revealed whether or not solitude by itself is enough to shorten men's lives or whether the killer is solitude + loneliness.

Men living alone have a higher mortality rate according to this study. That should be important to half the population. What about women living alone? Do they also have a higher mortality rates ? Inquiring minds want to know if women who aren’t caring for aging men actually live longer.

This research was a waste of money and effort. What is the point of the research if the authors had no suggestions on how to reduce this mortality risk. In public health you learn that there is no point in screening for a disease if you can't do anything about it, other than to tell the person earlier than normal that they are risk for something. Telling an older single man that he is at an increased risk of death - should that drive him to change his long-standing behavior that already got him the age of 63. Those at the higher SES levels didn't have that risk - even after controlling for all those risk factors. There must be more to it than companionship and the risk factors mentioned.

Living alone is not the problem - it's that society does not teach men socialization and homemaking skills that will serve them if they do not have a partner. Women tend to be raised with these, and so women who live alone are more often successful, social, and healthy. But at a certain point, people who live alone and who still have fairly good mobility need to take some accountability for their own situation - there are plenty of opportunities for socialization if one reaches out. There are churches, senior groups, volunteering, and other opportunities that can be reached by safe transportation if one is in an urban area. Blaming family or "inattentive younger neighbors" for not creating a social schedule for those who live alone is not fair.

I'm not sure that the inference that men need more help than women is quite it. I really doubt there is a DNA level imperative that men are more dependent than women. Isn't it more likely that the research looking at people who were raised in a generation with less fluid social norms than are seen today. ? Men worked, came home, had dinner, watched TV, went to bed. Rinse, repeat. Women did the same, but also were expected to manage the couple's social life. A social life is the opposite of isolation. A retired widower (or person who lost his partner) may not have the life experience of being his own social chairman. That man would probably not have the confidence to begin building new relationships. Less educated people may feel as though they have fewer options or escapes from loneliness. They may be limited to their own experience (or TV), rather than extrapolating potential choices from something they read somewhere. As important, perhaps, may be the sense there is (no longer) anyone who cares if you show up or will listen to what you might say. Surely even the most incommunitive men gain some sense of comfort from having someone else in the room. Women are not smarter or more creative than men. They do have different life experience and have lived in a society that requires them to be more social. Social skills come. from experience. Generalities are so unsafe ... Anyway, in my case, I got a dog.

I don’t live alone. But if I’ll see another article today where - otherwise highly intelligent - researchers mistake association for causation, I’m sure to suffer untimely demise before my nightcap tonight.

"Living alone was not associated with dying prematurely for those in the highest socioeconomic group" meaning another study not worth the time it took to read it. Confounding factors are everywhere. Those at the top of the economic spectrum likely have the social skills to get along and ahead in society. And, gee, it turns out they don't die any sooner. Those in lower groups may have ended up there due to lack of the same. Living alone for them is a side effect of something else, not a cause.

One really hates the overgeneralization that all men need to be taken care of. Honestly, when I was single, I was highly competent, fit, successful, engaged, active, and self-reliant, although certainly not perfect. That said, in many ways accommodating my spouse was a step backward in terms of some aspects of my self-care, i.e.m too many calories, and in other ways a step forward, i.e., better sleep and self-monitoring, but then again, I was one of those educated professionals that didn't suffer alone. In the end, I am still eternally grateful for my spouse, who does rein in on some of my more unhealthful habits.

I have lived in the same Upper East Side NYC 100 apartment building for 30 years and have lost count how many times elderly tenants have been discovered dead in their homes after a day or few. One is better off living either in a village or where neighbors acknowledge your existence. Considering the fashion for younger apartment dwellers to ignore and avoid contact with neighbors I do not hope for any improvement.

Men. Men need nursemaids. Not women. Women know how to cope.

They started with men aged 63 and tracked them for 32 years. What's "premature" dying?

Throw out cellphones that do anything more than call people to talk to them or face time with them. Texting is not socializing.

And women??? Why was over half the population excluded from the study?

Where would I be without her? Dead maybe.

Did they control for how many visits they made to the doctor or sought other assistance?

It's not paradoxical at all. It's simple: it's easier for single people to live in urban conglomerations where they can get their varied needs met without having to rely on a family network.