Does The Sex Of A Child Affect A Mothers Future Health?

in #science7 years ago (edited)

Hello to all mothers and fathers out there! Congratulations on your families and I hope that your children are all going to grow up to be movers and shakers in our world! You are nurturing our future as a species with your children, however have you ever wondered whether having a child has had an effect on your health? Lets take things a step further, have you ever wondered whether your child was a boy or a girl had an influence on your health? Seems like a nonsense question right? There can't possibly be any sort of link between these things! Or is there?


Image Source

Today we discuss research recently published in the journal Nature: Scientific reports titled "Offspring sex and parental health and mortality". Here the authors were looking at just that, the sex of a child, and the potential for adverse long term health outcomes for either parent.


Number of Children And Mothers Mortality

Remember when we are talking about mortality, we are talking about our likelihood of death from any cause. One area of study where people were looking at the effect on peoples lifespans has to do with whether or not they chose to have children, and what effects the number of children raised, have on their long term health (and likelihood of death).

There have been a surprising number of studies looking into this idea and the data that has been generated thus far may actually be surprising to you. For instance one publication found that, throughout history, having more children was associated with lower mortality. However in analysis of modern women it found that was no longer the case, it was observed that women who had either no children or had more than four children had higher mortality (aka they were more likely to die). Unexpected right?


This article feels a bit depressing, so perhaps I will fill it with some cute babies to lighten the mood

The above referenced article isn't the only source of data pertaining to number of children and potential relationship to parental mortality either! There have been a few indicating that having more children may result in a shorter life for a parent in modern times. [3]. However these studies pertain to having a bunch of kids, having kids in general is still thought to increase lifespan (especially in that 1-3 child range). [4] (yet another example of moderation in life being important... shows up everywhere it seems).

Does Gender Of The Child Matter?

Prior research on the subject postulated that ... yeah it might, as odd as that may seem from a common sense standpoint! Researchers have postulated that boys, being more difficult to raise then girls, may end up causing extra stress on their mothers and lead to decreased lifespans for those mothers. [5]. This sort of idea has been supported by other publications, where it has also been reported that male children reduce longevity in mothers. [6] While others pour cold water all over it and don't observe any correlation between male children and longevity of mothers. [7]

There are a variety of both physical, and socioeconomic factors relating to this discrepancy, life is not black and white. The article we are going to discuss today was written to look a bit more into the potential associations of the sex of your child and whether or not it effects the mortality rates of either mothers or fathers or both.


So How About Some Results From The Study We Are Actually Discussing?

Figure 1
Figure 1

So here we are looking at some plots depicting the "hazard ratio" for death from a cardiovascular event (like a heart attack or something of that nature ) with respect to the number of either male or female offspring had for both mothers and fathers. The first thing that I think we need to clarify is what "hazard ratio" refers to. Basically this is the rate at which someone is likely to experience a "hazard" (in this case cardiovascular trouble). If we are examining two groups of people and one group has twice the rate of heart attacks when compared to the other, then they would have a hazard ratio of 2 in that comparison.

In Figure 1 we see that the correlation between number of children has a U shape, where having two children results in the lowest hazard ratio regardless of whether those children were boys or girls. This trend is observable for both mothers and fathers, but is way more pronounced for mothers. What we can also see from this plot is that the increased likelihood of cardiac events with more children is much MORE pronounced for women who have had four or more male children. Odd right?

Other Results

  • Having a boy as the first child was associated with higher risk of death (by 2%) in general in women but not in men, for men there was no association at all. Having a girl as the first child resulted in no change in mortality risk.
  • The increase in mortality from having male children was mostly due to an increase in the chance for a cardiovascular related issue.
  • For other diseases (non cardiovascular) a correlation was not observed

Why Might This Happen?

Why are these negative health outcomes so prevalent for mothers but not fathers? Its a good question. One such possibility could be due to the hormonal changes that women experience during pregnancy. These changes are not the same for a male and female child. The authors explain that for mothers higher levels of oestrogen and testosterone are associated with having male offspring. However having female children results in higher levels of progesterone and gonadotropins. [8].

It is entirely possible that the exposure to these differing hormone levels may effect the health of mothers down the road. This would also partially explain why the overall effect on the health of fathers (from number of children, shown in figure 1) is not as significantly affected as it is for mothers.

A Random Observation

The sample sizes used in this study are HUGE, they took into account data from over 600,000 women and 600,000 men. So over one million total data sets. That is a lot of information to parse through and analyze. It also produces a higher degree of credibility to the associations they pulled out, as they truly have to be present across a very significant number of people for it to not be swamped out by the sheer size of the population.


You made it to the end, so you've earned one more adorable baby picture

Closing Thoughts And Answering The Title Question

It is strange to me that there is this association between the gender of the children we have, and the potential for mortality of a mother. Yes the sex of a child affects a mothers future health, male children raise the chance of cardiovascular events (heart attacks etc. ). The idea that hormones during pregnancy may be involved is an interesting thought, but the whole concept is a bit unsettling to me. What do you think about all of this?


Sources

  1. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-05161-y
  2. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00324720500436011
  3. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1568163707000207
  4. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16510865
  5. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20299140
  6. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12004121
  7. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21551178
  8. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8776463

All Non Cited Images Are From Pixabay.com, Flickr.com, Pexels.com, or Wikipedia.com And Are Available For Reuse Under Creative Commons Licenses

Any Gifs Are From Giphy.com and Are Also Available for Use Under Creative Commons Licences



If you like this work, please consider giving me a follow: @justtryme90. I am here to help spread scientific knowledge and break down primary publications in such a way so as to cut through the jargon and provide you the main conclusions in short (well compared to the original articles at least!) and easy to read posts.

SteemSTEM

Secondly, please consider supporting the @steemstem project. SteemSTEM is a community driven project which seeks to promote well written/informative Science Technology Engineering and Mathematics postings on Steemit. The project not only curates STEM posts on the platform through both voting and resteeming, but also re-distributes curation rewards as STEEM Power, to members of Steemit's growing scientific/tech community.

To learn more about the project please join us on steemit.chat (https://steemit.chat/channel/steemSTEM), we are always looking for people who want to help in our quest to increase the quality of STEM (and health) posts on our growing platform, and would love to hear from you!

Finally consider joining the @steemstem voting trail, the project account only votes on STEM related posts, so being a part of the trail will allow you to selectively benefit our growing science and tech community on the platform. Thank you for your support.

Sort:  

Interesting stuff.

... it was observed that women who had either no children or had more than four children had higher mortality
...
However these studies pertain to having a bunch of kids, having kids in general is still thought to increase lifespan (especially in that 1-3 child range).

Another possibility could be that healthier people with a stable social background and high education (who anyway have a longer lifespan) tend to have 1 to 3 children. The number of children may correlate with the length of the lifespan, but need not necessarily be the reason for it.
Edit (addition):
also some women with 0 children may have none because of some sicknesses (which reduce lifespan as well).

Interesting explanations why boys could reduce the lifespan in comparison with girls: a) they may cause more stress or b) because of different hormone concentrations depending on the sex of the baby.
Another hypothesis would be that mothers are more affected than fathers, because in average they still spend more time with their children than fathers, so that in case it is true that boys are causing more stress than girls mothers suffer more than fathers (in average).

Another possibility could be that healthier people with a stable social background and high education (who anyway have a longer lifespan) tend to have 1 to 3 children. The number of children may correlate with the length of the lifespan, but need not necessarily be the reason for it.
Edit (addition):
also some women with 0 children may have none because of some sicknesses (which reduce lifespan as well).

Indeed, good points.

Another hypothesis would be that mothers are more affected than fathers, because in average they still spend more time with their children than fathers, so that in case it is true that boys are causing more stress than girls mothers suffer more than fathers (in average).

This is true, but could be studied for what happens to stay at home dads. Do they end up with similar mortality rates to women? Or are they similar to non stay at home dads.

Interesting results. I can easily imagine, that raising boys and girls may be variously difficult (at least at certain ages and perhaps for the mother or the father) but I had not thought that the mother's lifespan may be affected by the sex of her child. I hope, that fact doesn't result in higher abortion rates after knowing the sex of the child! :-)

P.S.: I think that there are little mistakes in the citation formatting of sources 6 and 7 in the text above.

Fixed thanks!

I didn't dare to mention the latter! :-)

Oh, sorry. I will be going to a corner and feel ashamed :-(

Aha! My sneaking suspicion that having a girl is better than having a boy is confirmed at last! I just didn't expect the reasoning to be a 2% reduction in the chance of cardiovascular death.

Lol, thanks for reading @dber!

They can definately relate more with a daughter than a son. So it would make a difference for sure! Nice post :)

Thank you for reading

It is great discovery but does not seem the truth at all. Even some mothers having 6 to 8 children were healthy and lived very long life.

You are making the mistake of looking at single data points. Everything in life falls on a distribution. In science we try to represent the average likely hood of something. This does not mean that something bad will happen to everyone that has a bunch of kids, only that the likely hood of something happening is higher for that group then for a different group. Beyond this, it's an association, not an indication of cause.

So while it may not seem like it should be true. The data indicates that it is. We don't have to like it, we just have to explain the data.

Ok, got your point buddy.

Interesting read. I must say I was not very surprised by the finding that mothers had a greater risk of cardiac arrests with 4-5 sons than with 4-5 girls.

Just looking at my own experience being two boys growing up, and with a mum that would get nervous by anything(!), I feel like I can relate to it. I could easily call my dad and say "hi dad, you know what? Tomorrow I will be jumping out of an airplane in a parachute!" To which his first reply would be "That's awesome! But don't tell your mother until after you've done it, or she will freak out!" That difference in mentality seems likely to be the explanation. If it is true, as some evidence suggests, that meditation can help reduce the risk of coronary heart disease, then being more calm about what your kids are up to could have a similar effect.

It's interesting though that it is only with 4 sons (or 3 in some cases according to Figure 1) that the mother's risk is greater than with 0 children. I guess if we were to then closely examine the boys of the parents in the sample. We could try and split them into two groups: Troublemakers and non-troublemakers, where troublemakers are defined based on measures such as # of fights he got into at school. Number of times he got into trouble with the police. Etc. Then we could get a measure of the percentage of boys that were troublemakers by that definition. As the mother's risk goes up with the number of boys, perhaps it only reflects the fact that she is then statistically more likely to have at least 1 son that is a troublemaker. So that it is not a biological effect, nor boys in general, but whether or not she has a son that is a troublemaker that makes her stay awake at night, or spend time worrying about him. It would be interesting to do such a split of the boys, and then run the analysis again where you control for whether there is a troublemaker among the children, to both observe it's effect on the parents health, but also if that then eliminates the negative effect of boys in general.

What do you think?

I think that you are right and that would be interesting. Any sort of added experimentation that can help to eliminate more of a psychological, or biological component can better hone in on what results specifically in this effect in women. However that's a lot of extra information and very difficult to obtain for a study like this where the sample size was so big like this one. They would need to cross reference school records or something for the children of the participants.

this is great observation, informative post @justtryme90. restemeed

Thanks man! Glad you liked the post.

Agreed, definitely an unsettling concept that a child's gender could affect health. Interesting post :)

Thank you, and thanks for giving it a read.

Very good post, I will have a son very soon, I hope my health will be better because I am trying to improve to show him the best of his father ☺

I will have a son very soon, I hope my health will be better because I am trying to improve to show him the best of his father

Congratulations, I hope so too!

Great post! I love the term hazard ratio.

Thanks, it's honestly a term I hadn't seen before which is why I felt it deserved an explanation.

Coin Marketplace

STEEM 0.19
TRX 0.15
JST 0.029
BTC 63179.13
ETH 2573.33
USDT 1.00
SBD 2.72