Cat Ownership = Healthier Heart

Correlation doesn't necessarily equal causality, but a new medical study reveals that cat owners have a lower incidence of heart attacks and strokes than do non-owners:
Non-cat owners appear to have a 40 percent higher risk of dying from myocardial infarction than those who do have a cat, according to a study presented at the American Stroke Association's International Stroke Conference last month in New Orleans. Researchers examined the data of 4,435 people from the second National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. (Dogs didn't factor into the findings because fewer participants owned them.)

Picture via Flickr user avidpets

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/pets/5599262.html via Evangelical Outpost

Your commentary seems to contradict the article:

"cat owners have a lower incidence of heart attacks and strokes than do dog owners"
vs.
"(Dogs didn’t factor into the findings because fewer participants owned them.)"
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
More junk science from people who don't quite understand statistics (although kudos to the article for admitting they basically pulled that conclusion from their ass and have no hard science to recommend that people should buy a cat).
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
What if cat owners tend to be more wealthy and able to support a cat's life style, and therefore eat healthier and therefore have less risk.

correlation is not causation should be taught with more emphasis than algebra
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
It's true, I myself own 50 cats, this has enabled me to leap over 3 story buildings and withstand more gamma radiation than the average waterbear!
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
This is nothing new. It's been known since the late 70's that pet ownership (cats and dogs) has a " powerful influence on long-term survival of heart patients released from coronary care units".

In the first statistically valid study of its kind ( by Dr. James Lynch and Dr. Aaron Katcher of Johns Hopkins) 4 times as many non pet owners had died with in the first year compared with those with pets.

Follow up studies done by the pair in the 80's demonstrated that interaction with pets - even watching fish in an aquarium- significantly lowered blood pressures and had " a truly profound effect on our hearts and blood vessels"
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
We used to have great biodiversity where I live but feral & domestic cats have killed everything. I really miss all the wildlife. I'm sure if all the wonderful creatures were still around to look at, I'd be healthier too. But no, all gone, killed by cats.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
on another end of the spectrum, it could have to do with the fact that animals bring bacteria and allergens into the home. when they do this, their owners are exposed and are forced to react either by illness or allergy-related ailment. either way, your immune system has to boost itself back to health and it creates antibodies to protect you from future outbreaks. it's the same concept as a flu shot, except without so many needles and band-aids. with an over-all boost of immunity, you tend to ward off more illness, which improves your over-all health, and enables you to have a longer life-expectancy. but this is just my take on it.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
This study was biased because it didn't include dogs. I would expect to find an even better health effect from dogs, actually. Sure, you can pet them and have companionship (like with cats)... but dogs will also get you off your butt and outside because they need exercise... and therefore you get exercise, too.

And is it really healthier to give love to something that couldn't care less if you didn't come home one night? Dogs are always glad to see you. Cats? Not so much.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
I'm severely allergic to cat hair. Owning a cat would probably make my life shorter.
And in response to MoonCake's comment, I don't think it quite works that way. I grew up with cats and it hasn't made me any less allergic.
People with dustmite allergies live in the constant presence of dustmites (there is no escaping them, they're EVERYWHERE), and as far as we know, this doesn't reduce their allergic reactions.
I suppose we could do an experiment, but there would be no way of having a control no-dustmite group unless we locked those subjects naked in a plastic bubble with no fabric.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Login to comment.
Click here to access all of this post's 17 comments




Email This Post to a Friend
"Cat Ownership = Healthier Heart"

Separate multiple emails with a comma. Limit 5.

 

Success! Your email has been sent!

close window
X

This website uses cookies.

This website uses cookies to improve user experience. By using this website you consent to all cookies in accordance with our Privacy Policy.

I agree
 
Learn More