WOMEN’S HISTORY MONTH · LONGEVITY & HEALTH
By: Katherine – Catalyst Brand Strategy
Women live longer than men globally, yet longevity research focuses overwhelmingly on male subjects. For Women’s History Month, here’s why this matters and what needs to change.
The longevity industry is booming. Bryan Johnson spends $2 million annually on his Blueprint protocol, which tracks 70+ biomarkers and involves taking more than 100 supplements daily. His company just raised $60 million from Kim Kardashian, Paris Hilton, and the Winklevoss twins. The market hit $29 billion in 2026, and investment in the sector increased 220 percent from 2023 to 2024. NAD+ precursors, rapamycin, metformin, senolytics: these compounds are discussed with religious fervor on Twitter and in Silicon Valley boardrooms. The protocols are detailed, data-driven, and increasingly mainstream.
They are also optimized almost entirely for male biology. Women live longer than men in virtually every country on Earth. Yet longevity research, funding, and the viral protocols dominating the conversation are designed by men, tested on men, and marketed to men. We are repeating the same exclusion that took until 1993 to correct in medical research, this time in an industry explicitly focused on extending life. The irony would be funny if the consequences were not so serious.
Women live longer than men in virtually every country on Earth. Yet longevity research, funding, and the protocols dominating the conversation are designed by and for men.
The Data Tells the Story
Women globally live an average of 5 years longer than men. In the United States, women are expected to live to 79 while men live to 73. This has been consistent for decades. Despite this, the National Institutes of Health allocated only 10.8 percent of its $45 billion budget to women’s health research in 2023. Women are two-thirds of all Alzheimer’s cases, yet only 12 percent of NIH funding for Alzheimer’s research focuses on women. Cardiovascular disease is the number one cause of death for women over 65, and in the decade after menopause, women’s cardiovascular disease risk equals or exceeds that of men. The research gap mirrors the longevity industry’s current trajectory: women live longer, age differently, and are systematically excluded from studies that claim to understand aging.
Menopause is the clearest example. Menopause affects half the global population and has profound impacts on cardiovascular, metabolic, and brain health. The global menopause market is valued at $17.66 billion and expected to reach $27.63 billion by 2030. Yet menopause remains drastically underfunded and understudied. A 2024 survey found that 72 percent of British Menopause Society members believe newly qualified healthcare professionals have not been given enough education about menopause. In the United States, only 1 in 5 obstetricians report formal training on the topic. A global analysis of medical textbooks found that 58 percent contained no mention of menopause at all.
This is the landscape into which the longevity industry has arrived. Bryan Johnson’s Blueprint includes rapamycin, metformin, testosterone, DHEA, and over 100 daily supplements. The dosing is extreme, and overlapping biological pathways have raised concerns among longevity scientists about potential negative synergies. Rapamycin extended lifespan in mice by up to 52% in males and 48% in females when administered at 600 days of age. Johnson discontinued rapamycin in 2024 after nearly five years, citing side effects including elevated blood glucose and impaired healing. The protocols are experimental. The risks are real. And the data informing them comes overwhelmingly from male subjects.
Only 10.8 percent of NIH’s $45 billion budget goes to women’s health research. Women are two thirds of Alzheimer’s cases but receive only 12 percent of research funding.
Why This Keeps Happening
The exclusion of women from medical research until 1993 was justified by the same logic being applied now: women’s hormones fluctuate throughout the menstrual cycle, making studies more expensive and time consuming. Researchers chose efficiency over accuracy. The result was decades of drug dosing, treatment protocols, and health recommendations based on male physiology and assumed to work the same way in women. Eight out of ten prescription drugs withdrawn from the market between 1997 and 2001 posed greater health risks for women than men because they were never properly tested on women before being released.
The longevity industry is following the same pattern. The protocols going viral are designed for male biology. Andrew Huberman’s recommendations, Peter Attia’s frameworks, and Bryan Johnson’s Blueprint are all built on research conducted predominantly on male subjects. The biohacking community is overwhelmingly male. The venture capital funding longevity startups is overwhelmingly male. And the decision makers determining what gets studied, what gets funded, and what becomes commercially viable are overwhelmingly male.
Women’s health startups receive approximately 2 percent of venture capital funding. Menopause affects 51 percent of the population at some point in their lives, yet receives less research funding than erectile dysfunction, which affects roughly 5 percent. The market signal is clear: investors and researchers do not see women’s health as urgent, innovative, or commercially viable despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
What Needs to Change
In 2025, momentum finally began to shift. Melinda French Gates committed $2.5 billion to research on maternal, menstrual, gynecological, and sexual health. Pivotal Ventures and Wellcome Leap announced a $100 million program for women’s health research. The Gates Foundation’s investment specifically focuses on low and middle-income countries where women’s health infrastructure is weakest. These investments signal recognition that the gender health gap is both an equity issue and an economic opportunity. The McKinsey report published in 2024 estimated that closing the gender health gap represents a $1 trillion opportunity. Treating women’s health as a niche issue leaves half the market unserved and half the population without adequate care.
Longevity research focused on female biology would look different. It would prioritize ovarian aging and its systemic effects on cardiovascular, metabolic, and brain health. It would recognize menopause as a critical inflection point for longevity, a time when targeted interventions could dramatically improve outcomes decades later. It would study how NAD+ depletion, cellular senescence, and mitochondrial function differ between men and women and develop protocols optimized for these differences.
This is not a call for separate research. This is a call for inclusive research that reflects the full population longevity science claims to serve. Women are not smaller versions of men. Our hormones, metabolisms, cardiovascular systems, and aging processes are fundamentally different. Protocols designed without that understanding are incomplete at best and dangerous at worst.
We are repeating the same mistake from the 1990s, this time in an industry explicitly focused on extending life. The irony would be funny if the consequences were not so serious.
Catalyst Brand Strategy works with health and wellness organizations to build equitable research frameworks and communications strategies that serve the full demographic spectrum. Women’s History Month exists to remind us that progress requires deliberate action. The longevity industry can learn from the mistakes of medical research or repeat them. The choice is being made right now, in the labs, boardrooms, and funding decisions, determining whose lives are worth extending.
Sources: National Institutes of Health budget allocation (2023), McKinsey Women’s Health Gap Report (2024), British Menopause Society survey (2024), Menopause Society market analysis, Bryan Johnson Blueprint documentation, rapamycin longevity research, Gates Foundation women’s health funding announcement (2025).
Disclaimer: The information provided in this article is for informational purposes only and is not intended as medical, financial, or investment advice. The views expressed are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of any organization mentioned. While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the data presented, the longevity and health industry is a rapidly evolving field, and the statistics or projections cited may be subject to change. Readers are encouraged to seek professional guidance for any health or financial decisions.
