Cat Ownership Correlated With Heart Health

Ant tips us to a story making the rounds lately, based on reporting a couple of weeks old, that owning a cat could cut your heart attack risk by one third. No such effect was seen from dog ownership, but the researchers say that could be because there weren't enough dog owners in the study population to provide meaningful statistics. The study: "...analyzed data on 4,435 Americans, aged 30 to 75, who took part in the federal government's second National Health and Nutrition Examination Study, which ran from 1976-1980. According to the data in the survey, 2,435 of the participants either owned a cat or had owned a cat in the past, while the remaining 2,000 had never done so. [The] team then tracked rates of death from all causes, including heart and stroke. Cat owners 'appeared to have a lower rate of dying from heart attacks' over 10 years of follow-up compared to feline-free folk..."

Obviously

[Anne Thwacks (531696)]

Obviously, they died of furball before they were old enough to have a heart attack.

Re:Obviously

[The_Jeff_79 (1253736)]

Yeap, Hard to die of a Heart Attack when your smothered in your sleep

LOL

[16Chapel (998683)]

I'm in ur aortas, reducing your stress

K thnx bai

Re:LOL

[oodaloop (1229816)]

so i really can has cheezburger?

Cats Purr

[by Anonymous Coward]

They purr when they are happy and they purr when in distress. It helps in healing, even broken bones mend faster when a cat purrs. There are tons of studies to back up that rather obvious claim, but there is some speculation that a cat's purr can speed healing in others as well. Perhaps why a healthy cat will lie next to a sick one and purr? Perhaps why cat owners have healthier hearts?

Every species of cat purrs, both large and small. No other animal on earth purrs.

Re:Cats Purr

[autophile (640621)]

Wikipedia's article on "purr" claims that all cats DO purr, but their link is to an article on cheetahs. Anyone else?

Sure, I am known to purr on occasion.

--Rob

I always knew it!!

[by Anonymous Coward]

Pussy is actually good for you, while having a bitch in your life makes no noticible improvements.

My cats

[foistboinder (99286)]

They obviously have never seen our cats. Stress reducers? I don't think so.

Re:My cats

[ShieldW0lf (601553)]

They obviously have never seen our cats. Stress reducers? I don't think so.

You misunderstand the mechanism by which the protection is granted.

Endless years of kitty drama builds a general tolerance to drama in a person.

Then when the frustrating external event occurs that would have caused a normal person to blow a valve and die, you're emotionally prepared to roll your eyes, throw the instigator across the room and go back to your Sudoku.

Re:My cats

[Lumpy (12016)]

Exactly, I have a 1 year old persian that is Evil Incarnate. The little bastard will happily sneak up on you in the middle of the night and then decide to crawl under the covers to steal heat. Then if you move that's the sign to play and you awake in a shriek of "WHAT HE HELL! STOP CLAWING ME!" and then it gives you the innocent kitty look so you dont throw it across the room.

This cat does a lot of other things that has me convinced it's trying to kill me. rushes down the stairs to get fed and then stops on the second step from the bottom so you almost trip and fall to your death for example. I am sure if it could figure out how to flush the toilet when I was in the shower it would be doing it.

I am 100% convinced that cats hate humans. I am certain that if my cat was scaled up to large dog size I would be eaten within 24 hours.

Re:

[Ihlosi (895663)]

I am certain that if my cat was scaled up to large dog size I would be eaten within 24 hours.

In other news, people who keep lions or tigers are unlikely to die of heart attacks, because their pets can sense who in the herd is weak and sick.

Re:

[QuickFox (311231)]

One solution might be to get both a cat and a dog.

Contrary to some people's beliefs, cats and dogs will get along very nicely once they get to know each other. The easiest way to achieve this is to let them grow up together from a very young age.

Re:My cats

[plague3106 (71849)]

Siamese have a bad rap, just because they can be loud. We have two in our house, and they are the friendlist most loyal cats. They love being around us and love human attention.

Hmmm

[thedeadswiss (573599)]

Does this mean that I can use my health insurance to pay for cat food?

Re:Hmmm

[elrous0 (869638)]

No, but if you live in the U.S. you may have to EAT cat food to afford health insurance.

Reasons?

[PhrostyMcByte (589271)]

Anyone who owns a cat has had the groggy middle of the night lights-off walk to the kitchen to get a drink, only to step on their cat's tail and get that nice shot of a adrenaline pumping through their arteries. Maybe it strengthens their heart, or trains their reactions to not get so damned surprised by things that their heart could stop.

Then again if things like this happen often enough to have effect, maybe they just shouldn't have a cat :)

Pseudo-science

[Futurepower(R) (558542)]

The story is about a common kind of mistake that shows how important it is to understand the scientific method. Someone does a study and finds that there is a statistical correlation between one phenomenon and another. Then there is a claim that one of the phenomena is the cause of the other. Actually, however, they can both be related to something else that is not understood.

Single people die earlier than married people. The reason does not appear to be that marriage prolongs life. Apparently those who have no strong ties to another person when they are 50 or older are likely to be alone because of some huge stress in their lives. It is the stress that kills, not being unmarried.

Not necessarily pseudo-science

[mysticgoat (582871)]

Correlation does not mean causation.

Right.

Yet in TFA's case, there were also these statements:

1. The stress-cardiovascular disease link is well-documented in scientific literature, and the affection and pleasure pets give humans is a known stress-buster.

2. "We certainly expected an effect, because we thought that there was a biologically plausible mechanism at work. But the magnitude of the effect was hard to predict."

3. She pointed to multiple studies that have found that animal companions "have a calming effect in regard to mental stressors."

So after RTFA, there is ample cause to believe that the statistics were analyzed within the context of a hypothesis that the reporter did not explicitly state.

Finding a strong correlation that must exist if the hypothesis is true generally increases confidence in the hypothesis.

Why wasn't the hypothesis reported in the story? More than likely, because it was framed as a null hypothesis [wikipedia.org], and those can be hard to dummy down to the general public's limited understanding of the scientific method— at least within the framework of articles like TFA. These are written to report newsworthy events, not to teach high school science.

I am so tired of this freshman science bullshit

[keineobachtubersie (1244154)]

"The story is about a common kind of mistake that shows how important it is to understand the scientific method. Someone does a study and finds that there is a statistical correlation between one phenomenon and another. Then there is a claim that one of the phenomena is the cause of the other. Actually, however, they can both be related to something else that is not understood."

It's not a mistake at all, and your example is terrible.

First, what you're talking about is called a Confounding Variable http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confounding_variable [wikipedia.org]

Second, you're making the typical mistake of assuming that because confounding variables are sometimes present that they are ALWAYS present, or not controlled for. Do you know what confounding variables were controlled for in this study before you make the assumptions you have? No you do not.

Third, that ridiculous "correlation does not equal causation" mantra that is so often tossed about is designed like so many other easily remembered but relatively useless memes. It's not a scientific principle, it's a caution, nothing more.

The fact is, most of the time, correlation has some effect on causation. If nothing else, it indicates a relationship worth examining.

"Apparently those who have no strong ties to another person..."

This makes me ask, why denounce his study then do exactly what you denounced it for?

I can't tell you how tired I am of people getting modded insightful for misunderstanding then regurgitating something that most people who discuss this subject should understand at a base level.

There's nothing remotely insightful about restating "correlation does not equal causation".

Except you're completely wrong

[keineobachtubersie (1244154)]

Dogs have similar effects on health.

http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=3035327 [americanheart.org] [americanheart.org]
http://www.naturalnews.com/021483.html [naturalnews.com] [naturalnews.com]
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/33677.php [medicalnewstoday.com] [medicalnewstoday.com]
http://www.webmd.com/hypertension-high-blood-pressure/features/health-benefits-of-pets [webmd.com] [webmd.com]

Please stop using studies like these to reinforce your prejudices.

The truth about cats

[DrVomact (726065)]

It may be simpler than that - it may be that there is nobody else in the house to call 911 when you suffer an accident.

Call 911? Heck, my cats can do that and perform CPR while administering Last Rites, just in case.

Seriously...my theory is that cats help reduce vermin about the house, thus contributing to the health of their designated care-providers. (Heaven forfend that anyone should ever think he owns a cat.) My house used to be overrun with those huge cockroaches that they call "palmetto bugs" here in Texas. After I got the cats, no more roaches (but fat and happy cats). They go after anything that wiggles, scuttles, or flies around. (Though their success rate on flying prey leaves something to be desired. Hmm note to self: must look into breeding flying cats.)

The association between humans and cats has been a long and mutually beneficial one. The only major issue to trouble this partnership was the invention of doors by an unknown carpenter circa 3800 B.C. (oddly enough, the unlucky inventor suffered a fatal fall down a steep stairway soon after filing the patent). Ever since, cats have been sitting in front of doors and meowing. Most people think the cat wants out (or in), but not so: the cat is demanding that all doors everywhere be permanently removed. A closed door is an offense to all cat-kind.

Lies, Damn Lies And Statistics

[blcamp (211756)]

I like cats, and my family has had pet cats in the past, but I just can't give this "survey" very much legitimacy.

I could find a similar "survey audience" of beer drinkers, sex addicts, computer geeks (never mind, I'm already here!), root canal patients, or ANY group, and come up with whatever "favorable result" I want.

Just my opinion and observation, but it seems to me more like an agenda piece than an honest scientific exercise.

Reminds me of something

[Espectr0 (577637)]

I don't remember the exact words. If anyone remembers better, please post.

Catbert, evil director of human resources.

Catbert: Did you know that petting a cat results in lower blood pressure?

(employee begins to rub catbert's tummy)

Catbert: HA HA, IT'S A HEALTH BENEFIT! NOW I WILL CUT DOWN EVERYONE'S SALARY!!!

Sigh...

[Xelios (822510)]

Maybe it's just me, but these "Study finds x could decrease your risk of y by z%" news stories seem to be getting a little out of hand. "The team tracked the death rates for all causes and (surprise!) found some correlation in the statistics". What's next? Study finds people who paint their walls white decrease their risk of brain cancer by 20%? Seems like they'll publish anything just to publish something.

I mean, if this is all it takes to have a career in research then maybe I picked the wrong field. I'd be happy to run some statistics through a data miner for a university salery and grant money.

Hmm?

[Canosoup (1153521)]

Does this include looking at hundreds of Lolcat pictures a day?

Beneficial side-effect of toxoplasma?

[gregor-e (136142)]

Cats are notorious as reservoirs of Toxoplasma gondii [wikipedia.org], a parasitic protozoa that infects an estimated one-third of the world's population. This parasite causes behaviorial changes in rats that are infected, damping their fear response to the odor of cats, making Toxoplasma less a parasite for the cat and more of a synergist. In humans, Toxoplasma are thought to influence behavior enough that varying infection rates between cultures is thought to explain cultural differences of character. Perhaps they also have a beneficial side-effect on cardiovascular health, explaining the correlation between cat ownership and this observation?

Ownership??

[Nonillion (266505)]

You mean Guardianship. Humans need to discard the notion that "animals" are nothing more than property. You don't own an animal anymore than you would own your children. They have personalities, wants and needs just like us humans. I have three cats, they are family members, not some inanimate objects that act like they're alive.

Re:

[yivi (236776)]

And yet you say "I have three cats", and not "three cats live with me" or something of the sort.

If you are going to be ridiculously politically correct, please go all the way.

Thanks and regards.

I.-

Re:

[Corf (145778)]

Sure would be swell, wouldn't it? Except that legally, in the US, humans DO own pets... so the terminology becomes more practical. Here's the AKC's take on the subject. [akc.org] They support use of the word "owner." Pets do have financial as well as emotional value, and terminology must reflect that to effectively preserve both. Summed up at the bottom of the page:

The AKC believes that the term guardian may in fact reduce the legal status and value of dogs as property and thereby restrict the rights of owners,

Re:

[SirGarlon (845873)]

I would also point out that ownership of animals is not legally the same as ownership of inanimate objects. If I want to smash my TV with a hammer, I'm perfectly entitled to do so; cruelty to animals is a crime. In fact, I have a legal obligation to provide food, water, sanitation, and shelter to my pets. So the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (where I live) has already discarded the notion that animals are "nothing more than property". That is, they're legally considered property, but not on the same lev

Legality

[dreamchaser (49529)]

Legally they are owned property. You can spout animal rights rhetoric all you want. They are animals, not people. They are property. Do they have the 'right' to be treated humanely and not be abused? Damn straight. Are they our equals in the eyes of the law? No, nor should they be.

Disclaimer= I *own* and have *owned* numerous pets. They've all been treated very well, loved and cared for and fed. They have also all been my *property*.

Yes, we know

[smooth wombat (796938)]

It came up eleven days ago [slashdot.org].

Besides, as one of the posters to my journal already noted, cats age people like people age wine and cheese.

Not Worth It

[Kristopher Johnson (129906)]

Given a choice between an early death or living with a cat, I'll take death.

CAT joke DOG joke

[kcdoodle (754976)]

Q: How do you make a cat sound like a dog?
A: Spray him with lighter fluid. One match and he goes WOOF.


Q: How do you make a dog sound like a cat?
A: Dip him in liquid nitrogen and cut him in a band-saw. He goes MMMMMEEEEOOOWWW.

(Funnier with good sound effects.)
I know this killed my karma, but I had to share these.

Maybe Type A personalities don't like Cats.

[guidryp (702488)]

Correlation doesn't equal causation.

It could simply be that most hard driving type A folks destined for heart attacks, have less interest in Cats. Giving them a Cat wouldn't lower their actual risk.

Cat ownership may have nothing to do with it. It just may be that calm easy going folks buy more cats, and hard drivers don't. In the absence of the cats their rate of heart attack may be unchanged, you would just need another mechanism to identify them.

To the correlation-doesn't-mean-causation crowd

[schweini (607711)]

May i point out that the reverse (causation implies correlation) DOES hold true, and that the whole 'it's just a correlation!' shouting doesn't actually prove whether the study is bogus or not? It still is an interesting data-point, and as a cat-surviver myself, i can only attest to many calming effect a cat, and to a lesser effect a dog might be having on their slave and master, correspondingly. I'm not saying that cats directly reduce the risk of a heart attack, but i think it's interesting that it might be a relatively strong factor playing into the combination of stuff you can do to increase your life expectancy. It might be something as simple as the happiness or the pride that a cat can couse when she decides to honor you with her presence, and starts to purr.
And besides - weren't there a couple of studies that showed that pets in hospital have benificial effects on the patients?

Nobody OWNS a cat

[Dekortage (697532)]

Let's get this straight. Cats only condescendingly permits us to live in the same house with them. They own us. You die less from heart attacks because it's cheaper for them to keep you alive than to find another pet human.

not in China

[peter303 (12292)]

Cat cleanup [dailymail.co.uk] before Olympics. Dont click if you love cats.

Re:Global Warming Correlated with Pirate Number

[Mutant321 (1112151)]

The study doesn't make any assertions about a mechanism that might cause cats to have a direct influence on human health. It merely points out that there is a statistically significant correlation. This could be a bizarre coincidence, or it might be something that we had no idea about before. Either way, it's warrants further investigation.

Re:Global Warming Correlated with Pirate Number

[morgan_greywolf (835522)]

This could be a bizarre coincidence, or it might be something that we had no idea about before.

There have been previous studies that included dogs and other pets that have found similar correlations. The basic idea that many believe is the cause of such correlations is that having a loving pet helps to reduce stress, which, of course, has been proven to reduce the chance of heart attack and stroke.

So, IOW, anything you might do to relieve stress -- pet your cat (or other pet), exercise (good one with additional proven health and heart benefits), shoot your mother-in-law, etc, is good for your heart.

Re:

[khallow (566160)]

Obviously, we must find out... for Science!

Re:Correlation is not causation.

[tverbeek (457094)]

Clearly this proves that people with heart problems choose not to buy cats.

Brilliant!

[TaoPhoenix (980487)]

OMGawd, that's devastating.

"The following 5000 families who did not currently have a pet were given a cat. How many of them had heart attacks compared to the control sample?"

Then you can make a Reality Show out of it.

Re:Correlation is not causation.

[JrOldPhart (1063610)]

Bargain cat scans.

Re:Correlation is not causation.

[fosterNutrition (953798)]

How is that a troll? The parent points out the rather important fact that many, including (arguably) the summary, seem to miss: The study has shown a correlation between cat ownership and decreased risk of heart problems. That does not mean that cats are good for your heart, only that there is a connection. It could be something entirely different, like that (warning: the following hypothetical scenario is sourced right out of my arse) people who like cats tend to be calmer people who stress their hearts less.

Re:

[Skater (41976)]

I see "correlated" in the title of the story, plus I see the word "could" in the summary. I do not see anywhere that the summary or title says that there is definite causation. Perhaps that's why the GP was modded Troll.

Re:Makes Sense

[Tinfoil (109794)]

Dogs are dumb, slobbering beasts that make you take them outside to take a shit.

Rather than shitting in (hopefully) a single location and forcing you to clean it up on a near daily basis lest it offend their senses and they decide the clean, but unfolded, laundry would be a better target?

I do have cats, and I tend to think I would rather have cats than dogs. Besides, that is what I have a human spawn for.

Puppies/Human Larvae are cute.
One must be ever vigilant to protect your property from puppies/spawn
One must clean up the little.... treats left behind.
Neither listen well to verbal commands
Neither will shovel the drive or mow the lawn

Clearly children are nothing more than hairless dogs that have developed the ability to walk upright.

Re:Makes Sense

[Mikkeles (698461)]

Perhaps. But, when you are swept away by a raging flood, your dog will try to save you; your cat will watch you drown and go looking for a new meal-ticket!

Re:Cats vs Dogs flamewar on /.?

[Bloke down the pub (861787)]

I think we need to get it into terms we can understand.

Cats suck, because they use emacs. Dogs rule because they use vi.

Re:Cats vs Dogs flamewar on /.?

[Z34107 (925136)]

Cats suck, because they use emacs. Dogs rule because they use vi.

Actually, cats use cat. Maybe some echo redirection.