PET POWER
A few weeks ago, I saw a TV interview with Bernie Siegel, MD, founderof Exceptional Cancer Patients (ECaP), an advocacy group for peoplefacing cancer and other chronic illnesses, in which he discussed theeffects of pets on heart attack victims in Australia. After one year,6% of the patients who owned a dog had died, compared with a 25%mortality rate in those who did not own a dog. I thought that was apretty remarkable statistic, especially after he said that someone inAustralia calculated that if everyone in Australia were given a dog,it would save $145 million per year in health-care costs. I don'tknow how that cost compares with the cost of dog food, but it suresounded impressive.
For years, we've all heard about the therapeutic effects of pets inhealing, depression and stress reduction. I decided to look at someof the scientific data on how pets affect us. I called Karen Allen,PhD, a research scientist at the School of Public Health at the StateUniversity of New York at Buffalo. Dr. Allen's work focuses on theeffects of pets on human stress reactions.
PEOPLE OR PETS -- WHICH ARE BETTER FOR STRESS?
Dr. Allen has conducted several studies that address such intriguingquestions as...
* Which is better -- to have your best friend or your pet present instressful situations?
* Which is better -- to have your spouse or your pet present instressful situations?
* How do pets affect blood pressure (a common measure of stressresponse) in people who already are taking blood pressure loweringmedication?
* Can newly acquired pets affect stress?
In one study, Dr. Allen looked at women performing mental arithmeticproblems alone... then with their best female friends present... andfinally, with their dogs present. Interestingly, with the friendspresent, the subjects experienced large increases in blood pressure(compared with when they worked alone). However, when the dogs werepresent, insignificant increases -- or none at all -- occurred inblood pressure.
"One study participant suggested that we compare the effect of herdog's presence with the effect of her husband's presence," recalledDr. Allen. She and her colleagues laughed at the idea at first butthen decided to test it out. In this study, in addition to performingmental arithmetic, participants were asked to hold their hands undercold water and endure it to test both "active coping" and "passivecoping" responses.
Once again, and in both active and passive coping trials,participants experienced dramatic stress responses in the presence ofanother person versus only slight increases in blood pressure in thepresence of a pet. The consistent results led Dr. Allen to concludethat pets clearly are a preferred source of social support.
An interesting result of the study was that when the pets and thespouses were both present, the effect of the dogs cancelled out thestress that the presence of spouses generated.
PET/PEOPLE PREFERENCE?
One valid criticism Dr. Allen encountered was the notion that thepets really had produced no effect at all. Pet owners generally arehealthier, happier and better adjusted than those who do not own pets-- therefore, their blood pressure is less likely to rise understress.
To test whether a pet would affect people who did not previously ownone, Dr. Allen designed a study in which half of the participantswere randomly selected to adopt a cat or dog from an animal shelter.The study participants, all stockbrokers who lived alone, describedtheir work as extremely stressful. In addition, they all had highblood pressure (greater than 160/100)... and they were all scheduledto begin drug therapy with lisinopril, a medication that successfullyreduces resting blood pressure.
Once again, participants performed mental arithmetic as the stressprovoker, but in addition they were asked to give speeches toimaginary clients whose money they had lost. As predicted, lisinoprillowered the resting blood pressure of all participants. However,while doing the mental arithmetic or giving the speeches, thepet-owning participants' blood pressure increased by less than halfof their petless counterparts.
HOW DOES THIS HAPPEN?
Dr. Siegel has seen firsthand the extraordinary effects animals canhave. "People's physiology, their body chemistry, literally changeswhen pets are around," he says. Levels of the stress hormone cortisolgo down, immune function improves and, perhaps more significantly,serotonin and oxytocin levels increase. These are the same hormonesthat are elevated in a woman after giving birth, which promotebonding with the new baby.
But why do these chemical changes occur?
Dr. Siegel thinks that the bottom line is the unconditionalacceptance and connection that animals consistently provide. Inaddition, he notes, the responsibility of pet ownership can giveone's life meaning, especially in the absence of other closerelationships. "I've worked with cancer patients who literally couldnot die because they had dogs and cats who had to be taken care of,"Siegel says. "These people hung on to life until they were sure thattheir pets would be provided for."
Dr. Siegel explains that an important reason why we feel a closeconnection to our pets is that they can be incredibly intuitive.Often, if a person were sick in bed, a dog would come and sit besidehim/her, whereas if he were just taking a nap, the dog would not showthe same level of concern and interest. Animals respond to feelings,to what is really going on with their owners.
"Animals have an incredible ability to be completely there andcompletely devoted," Dr. Siegel says. "How many of us can say that weare totally devoted to someone else's well-being? Animals are, and werespond positively to that."
Carole Jackson
Bottom Line's Daily Health News
