Cat Ownership Correlated With Heart Health 406
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..."
Global Warming Correlated with Pirate Number (Score:2, Insightful)
Correlation is not causation. (Score:1, Insightful)
Reasons? (Score:3, Insightful)
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 (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Lies, Damn Lies And Statistics (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Sigh... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Correlation is not causation. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Correlation is not causation. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Correlation is not causation. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Makes Sense (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hmmm (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Ownership?? (Score:3, Insightful)
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 level as inanimate objects.
Re:My cats (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Global Warming Correlated with Pirate Number (Score:2, Insightful)
I am so tired of this freshman science bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
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 when your alergic to them... (Score:2, Insightful)
Maybe Type A personalities don't like Cats. (Score:3, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
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.