Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Dog ownership associated with decreased cardiovascular risk

ahajournals.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–17 of 17 posts

Re: Dog ownership associated with decreased cardiovascular risk

#11

Post by krageon »

hirundo wrote: post #2

Does owning a dog make people more active, or are more active people more likely to get a dog? I'd bet both. I guess randomly assigning dogs to people and measuring their long term health changes was beyond the budget. And tough to make double blind.

Definitely made me more active than I was before. I was running about once a week before I got a dog (which is significantly less movement than recommended, so I would count that as sedentary) and with one I have to go on 3-4 walks a day, of 20m or more. Hitting the recommended movement goal with a life setup like that is very easy and no longer going on walks is not an option because that would be sad for your dog.

Re: Dog ownership associated with decreased cardiovascular risk

#12

Post by jamexcb »

I wish people start realising that locking a animal inside a flat is the same as imprison a Dolphin/Elefant/etc... I really don't understand the dual criteria. And how much garbage/waste they "do" and cities has to deal with it. Buy a bicycle! go buy bread/coffee across town. Healthy Cheaper and Cleaner. Or play pokemon!

Re: Dog ownership associated with decreased cardiovascular risk

#13

Post by k_bx »

jamexcb wrote: post #12

I wish people start realising that locking a animal inside a flat is the same as imprison a Dolphin/Elefant/etc... I really don't understand the dual criteria. And how much garbage/waste they "do" and cities has to deal with it. Buy a bicycle! go buy bread/coffee across town. Healthy Cheaper and Cleaner. Or play pokemon!

Locking a wild animal? Yes. Locking a domesticated one, the one that co-evolved with humans, gaining some features (like facial expression) specifically in a context of coexistence? I’m not that sure.

Please see two evolutionary biologists mentioning some of the relevant points starting at 17:54 here https://youtu.be/CS3w9zOGvmw

Re: Dog ownership associated with decreased cardiovascular risk

#14

Post by saargrin »

krageon wrote: post #11
hirundo wrote: post #2

Does owning a dog make people more active, or are more active people more likely to get a dog? I'd bet both. I guess randomly assigning dogs to people and measuring their long term health changes was beyond the budget. And tough to make double blind.

Definitely made me more active than I was before. I was running about once a week before I got a dog (which is significantly less movement than recommended, so I would count that as sedentary) and with one I have to go on 3-4 walks a day, of 20m or more. Hitting the recommended movement goal with a life setup like that is very easy and no longer going on walks is not an option because that would be sad for your dog.

if only you can rely on people feeling sad enough for their dog to beat their couch potato laziness

Re: Dog ownership associated with decreased cardiovascular risk

#16

Post by jamexcb »

k_bx wrote: post #13
jamexcb wrote: post #12

I wish people start realising that locking a animal inside a flat is the same as imprison a Dolphin/Elefant/etc... I really don't understand the dual criteria. And how much garbage/waste they "do" and cities has to deal with it. Buy a bicycle! go buy bread/coffee across town. Healthy Cheaper and Cleaner. Or play pokemon!

Locking a wild animal? Yes. Locking a domesticated one, the one that co-evolved with humans, gaining some features (like facial expression) specifically in a context of coexistence? I’m not that sure. Please see two evolutionary biologists mentioning some of the relevant points starting at 17:54 here https://youtu.be/CS3w9zOGvmw

Cows/sheeps/etc... they also are domesticated. You don't close them in a apartment. And those that are closed for food production you have n groups asking for better conditions for animals. If you buy an egg in Europe that egg is classified if was coming from a chicken in freedom or if was in a cage. Same thing. Why people with cats use hormones ex:feliway so the cat's can be calm? It's because they are OK? Do you take hormones if you are ok? I Don't think so.

I think you got the wrong video! They are talking about if a dog can read expressions from humans with masks.

Re: Dog ownership associated with decreased cardiovascular risk

#17

Post by krageon »

saargrin wrote: post #14
krageon wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Definitely made me more active than I was before. I was running about once a week before I got a dog (which is significantly less movement than recommended, so I would count that as sedentary) and with one I have to go on 3-4 walks a day, of 20m or more. Hitting the recommended movement goal with a life setup like that is very easy and no longer going on walks is not an option because that would be sad for your dog.

if only you can rely on people feeling sad enough for their dog to beat their couch potato laziness

I'd say that if not doing right by your pets doesn't make you feel sad you should not be allowed to care for anything, least of all something as dependent as a pet.
Post reply on HN