Correlation does not imply causation.
From a mental health POV, having dogs has definitely helped me maintain routine, reduce emotional escalation and kept me aware of how I am accountable to keep them going too.
Sometimes you can get so stuck in your ways, thinking in the moment you need to panic to survive. It takes a cute animal reacting to that to make you realise there’s other ways to be.
tl;dr - Dogs teach us to be better people.
Is having a cat associated with a higher risk?
Depends on its mood and the day, really.
I expect the causality goes both ways, for example maybe you wouldn’t consider having a dog because your stressful job takes up too much of your time, or you don’t have the money to pay for dog food and vet bills, or you live in a tiny apartment in the city and it would be cruel to keep a dog there, or you don’t have the time or energy to take a dog on walks, or you just don’t like going on walks or you’re afraid to go outside, or you can’t cope with raising a dog because of some health issue, or you have terminal cancer. In which case it’s the dog-incompatible situation that’s the issue rather than lack of dog.
People are unlikely to get a dog if they expect to die soon, or are generally unhealthy and unable to walk it which is also more likely if you are going to die within 10 years.
Waking up early and going on walks is good for your health
Does this dog buff stack? If I get 5 dogs, wil? I have a ~100 % immunity for the next ten years? Is there a cooldown? /j
5x 24 = 120. You’re not just immortal for the next 10 years, you have 1 in 5 chance to revive the death as well.
What if someone else on the list dies before my designated time. Does the list reset?
Behold I am the great immortal and moderately effective necromancer. Fear the power of dogs!
Does the size of dog affect the buff? The average dog gives 24%, but does a 200lbs mastiff give more than a 4lbs chihuahua? Less?
From events over the last few weeks, I can definitively state that owning a dog large enough to drag you down icy steps is NOT conducive to longer life and can be quite painful
As always, a good study ends with: ‘Further study is needed on this subject.’
I think it would, but the chance of breaking a limb tripping over a dog does increase!
It decreases with a larger dog…
There was a study a while back that associated grip strength with one’s grip on sanity, and many people confused the cause. If someone has something to do, they’ll have stronger hands. If they have a healthy diet that supports their physique, they’ll have stronger hands. If they lack a debilitating injury or disability, they’ll have stronger hands. If they have ambient time to devote to exercise, they’ll have stronger hands.
Unequivocally do I love my dog, but I try to avoid conflating associated privileges with results.
Just riffing off the headline here, but owning a dog is directly associated with engaging in the act of walking a dog, and walking is pretty well established to be good for overall health. There’s no reason to assume there isn’t causation when there very well could be
There genuinely might be something to it, but this strikes me as another “wine is healthy, ignore the healthcare and self care culture behind the European curtain” type situation. Until something more concrete comes out, I’m just gonna pet my pal for fun and stress relief and monke brain grooming instinct alleviation.
Soft hands typed that post.
I’ve already made arrangements with the local kill shelter to give me fifty dogs that were scheduled for execution. This weekend I’m going to the city to visit hospice facilities, to save some lives, two at a time.
To hold that many leashes you need quite a lot of grip strength
Since I’ve just read the headline and they are always the peak of the important information I was just going to get myself 100 dogs making myself 240% less likely to die making me immortal for 10 years.
240%? Please take note who is responsible for the zombie uprising this year.
My doctor was very glad when I adopted a new dog after mine had died 18 months before. I have a good doctor.
-
walking dogs is good exercise.
-
dogs are excellent security and help reduce certain anxieties.
-
walking an invisible, imaginary dog probably has the same health benefits as a real dog for most people.
It’s really hard to pick up the invisible imaginary poop though.
I find it pretty easy. I never see any lying around that I’ve missed.
I bet ghosts hate you though.
Yesterday I learned about #3. It’s called “hobby dogging”.
For more information, search for this with safe search off and add “UK”
Plus walking a dog in your neighborhood probably results in increased social interaction and less isolation, probably a plus for long-term health too.
There are studies as well about the germs dogs bring into the house is actually beneficial in the long run, especially for newborn babies (breastfed ones I think)
I choose to believe 3, because it’s amusing.
Then please walk your dog already!
Does pocket pikachu count?
-
People likely to die in 10 years probably don’t often choose to adopt dogs.
I’m not so confident. My grandma got a dog to fill the hole in her life left by my grandpa’s death. Nine years later I inherited a dog. (TBH, she was already on the deep slide into dementia when Grandpa died and losing her partner of 5 decades didn’t help.)
What I’m saying is old folks sometimes do things we wouldn’t expect.
People who drink wine live longer.
It’s not the wine that’s extending people’s lives, it’s the healthcare and lower stress from having enough money to afford wine.
I’m guessing wine-drinking countries also have good diets. Seeing as it’s mostly around the Mediterranean and thereabouts. E.g. people of Caucasus are traditionally known for longevity while being pretty hardcore drinkers of wine and other stuff during celebrations, but they also have kingly cuisines and live in resort climates.
Living under a bridge but still got that thunderbird money. Trolls regenerate, brother.
Source for the first claim?
A random magazine comparing average lifespan of different countries.
Another possible explanation would be that most of the high lifespan countries had universal healthcare.
I doubt any efforts went into fact checking as the magazine just used the fact to promote wine drinking.
AFAIK part of the problem is that the people who don’t drink alcohol include those who no longer drink any, but used to, i.e. recovering alcoholics or people with other health issues.
For any drug but alcohol, studies wouldn’t mix previous consumers in with those who never consumed any of it, but here, afaik, funding from booze companies complicates the situation.
That… doesn’t sound very compelling.
Alcoholism is associated with disease and death, and wine is just another form of alcohol.
That’s correct. It’s an example of why assuming that “correlation = causation” can lead to some bad decisions.
Drinking wine and living longer are correlated, but it is not likely that one causes the other. It is more likely that there is something else (such as disposable income) that causes both.
In a similar way, ice-cream sales and drownings peak at the same time every year. The ice-cream is not causing people to drown, and neither are drowning people buying a significant amount of ice-cream. Both can be attributed to the higher temperatures of summer.
Drinking wine and living longer are correlated, but it is not likely that one causes the other. It is more likely that there is something else (such as disposable income) that causes both.
Higher income leads to better food options, having time to exercise (and actually doing it), making use of healthcare services, coupled with the fact that these people likely only drink that 1-2 glasses of wine each night, and outside of social events, may not drink any other alcohol. so yeah, it’s less about the wine than it is all the other socioeconomic factors that drive the sort of lifestyle that person would have.
Yeah, I remember reading in my psych textbook that ice cream consumption was correlated with homicidal behaviour, which is obviously not causal.
I bet it’s a mix of walking more and them making you happier.
I bet is all the assassins the dog repeal everyday without the owner knowing
Is that what she was barking at? Now I’m sorry I told her to shut up
This guy dogs
Yeah, as the other comment says, these are almost always correlations, not causations. Poor people are almost certainly less likely to own a dog. I’m sure the exercise helps, but I’d bet on it not being the largest factor.
Some people also just hold on to life until their dog dies of old age.
I bet it’s a mix of being younger and having more money.
Exactly this.
The news loves this kind of stuff.
[Thing Associated with not being poor or chronically ill is Linked to Thing associated with not being poor or chronically ill]
And then they love the narrative that [thing that’s hard to afford] is actually the reason not just a correlate.
My cats would like a word.
So if I had 5 dogs, does that mean my risk of dying falls to -20% making me immortal? 🤔
Presumably (if this worked this way at all) it’d be multiplicitive, not additive. Each one decreases your risk by a relative 24%. The first makes it 86%, the second makes it 74%, the third makes it 64%, etc. You get diminishing returns for each dog you add.
Hello, dog store? Can I please get one thousand of your fines dogs?
You are a dog.
