02-044 · EVIDENCE B · SOURCE-SENSITIVE

Count dog walks as exercise if you already want a dog; do not get one just to live longer

本来就想养狗的,把每天遛狗算进走路量,别为了长寿专门去养狗

Source cost

Dog ownership brings ongoing food, veterinary, licensing, care, and daily time costs for the animal's lifetime.

Source return

Some observational studies associate dog ownership with lower mortality, but better-adjusted studies find little or no difference. The evidence does not show that getting a dog causes longer life.

Evidence grade

B

THE LOW-ROI DETOURSatire, not advice

Move “Count dog walks as exercise if you already want a dog; do not get one just to live longer” to Future Me's calendar

The excuse

I can spend longer deciding whether to start than the small action would take.

What feels good now

Today I keep a little money, a few minutes, a bit of persistence and avoid interrupting my default routine.

What the source says

The source summarizes the return this way: “Some observational studies associate dog ownership with lower mortality, but better-adjusted studies find little or no difference. The evidence does not show that getting a dog causes longer life.” Evidence grade B. The original states the population, caveats, and sources; this is not a personal forecast.

THE ENGLISH EDITION

Original recommendation and evidence

Source commit a994b6a0c905

44. Count dog walks as exercise if you already want a dog; do not get one just to live longer

Cost: Dog ownership brings ongoing food, veterinary, licensing, care, and daily time costs for the animal's lifetime.

In plain terms: Some observational studies associate dog ownership with lower mortality, but better-adjusted studies find little or no difference. The evidence does not show that getting a dog causes longer life.

Applicability and limits: The source treats the association as disputed and notes substantial confounding. Consider a dog for reasons that account for its welfare and long-term care, not as a longevity treatment.

Translation note: This concise English edition was prepared for this site; the full Chinese source and its original evidence remain available below.

Read the complete Chinese source and notes

44. 本来就想养狗的,把每天遛狗算进走路量,别为了长寿专门去养狗

成本: 养狗是一直要花的钱,狗粮、疫苗、驱虫、看病、办证都要掏,要一直管到狗老死。每天要抽时间遛狗,出差旅行要找人照看。难在要天天坚持,养了就不能想停就停。国内没有官方统计养一只狗要花多少钱,这里不写数字。

说人话: 养狗的人同期死亡的概率平均低约四分之一,心梗、中风之后养狗的人低得更多。但扣掉其他差别以后,英国和挪威的大研究都看不出差别,养猫也看不出关联。所以别为了长寿专门养狗,本来想养的,把每天遛狗当成走路。

收益: 把 10 项跟踪研究合起来算,约 384 万人,平均跟了 10.1 年。养狗的人死亡风险低约 24%(RR 0.76,95% CI 0.67–0.86,这是可信范围)。心血管死亡低约 31%(RR 0.69,0.67–0.71)。得过冠心病的人里,家里有狗的低约 65%(RR 0.35,0.17–0.69)。作者写明,这个汇总没有扣除其他因素。瑞典全国约 343 万人的登记研究扣除了收入、婚姻等因素。独居的人养狗,死亡风险低约 33%(HR 0.67,0.65–0.69)。和别人同住的低约 11%(HR 0.89,0.87–0.91)。瑞典心梗之后的病人里,独居养狗的死亡风险低约 33%(HR 0.67,0.61–0.75),和伴侣或孩子同住的低约 15%(HR 0.85,0.80–0.90)。缺血性中风之后分别低约 27%(HR 0.73,0.66–0.80)和 12%(HR 0.88,0.83–0.93)。反方:英国 6 批健康调查共 59352 人,平均跟了 11.5 年。全部校正后,养狗和死亡没有关联(HR 1.03,0.98–1.09),和心血管死亡也没有(HR 1.07,0.96–1.18)。挪威一项研究跟了中位 18.5 年,养狗的人死亡风险几乎一样(HR 1.00,0.91–1.09)。那里养狗的人活动量也不比别人多。瑞典双胞胎登记里有 34202 人能问到生活习惯,在他们身上,养狗和心血管病、死亡风险低的关系没能重复出来。澳大利亚一项研究 15735 人跟了 4 年,养狗的人死亡风险低约 23%(OR 0.77,0.59–0.99),其中一部分能用活动量多来解释。养猫、养鸟、养鱼都看不出和死亡有关。美国心脏协会 2013 年的声明说,养宠物尤其是养狗,用来降心血管风险「可能合理」,这是最弱一档的推荐。同一份声明明确反对主要为了降心血管风险去领养、救助或买宠物。

证据等级: B

来源: Kramer CK, Mehmood S, Suen RS (2019). Dog ownership and survival: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes, 12(10), e005554. <https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.119.005554>;Mubanga M, Byberg L, Nowak C, 等 (2017). Dog ownership and the risk of cardiovascular disease and death – a nationwide cohort study. Scientific Reports, 7, 15821. <https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-16118-6>;Mubanga M, Byberg L, Egenvall A, Ingelsson E, Fall T (2019). Dog ownership and survival after a major cardiovascular event: a register-based prospective study. Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes, 12(10), e005342. <https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.118.005342>;Ding D, Bauman AE, Sherrington C, 等 (2018). Dog ownership and mortality in England: a pooled analysis of six population-based cohorts. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 54(2), 289-293. <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2017.09.012>;Torske MO, Krokstad S, Stamatakis E, Bauman A (2017). Dog ownership and all-cause mortality in a population cohort in Norway: the HUNT study. PLoS ONE, 12(6), e0179832. <https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0179832>;Taniguchi Y, Ikeuchi T, Yong J (2024). Dog, cat, bird, fish, and other pet ownership and mortality: evidence from the HILDA cohort. PLoS ONE, 19(8), e0305546. <https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0305546>;Mubanga M, Byberg L, Egenvall A, 等 (2019). Dog ownership and cardiovascular risk factors: a nationwide prospective register-based cohort study. BMJ Open, 9(3), e023447. <https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-023447>;Levine GN, Allen K, Braun LT, 等 (2013). Pet ownership and cardiovascular risk: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation, 127(23), 2353-2363. <https://doi.org/10.1161/CIR.0b013e31829201e1>

备注: 争议。上面全是跟踪记录,没有分组对照,所以推不出「为了长寿去养狗」。会养狗的人可能本来就更健康、更爱动,有病或残疾的人可能本来就不太会养狗,这些差别扣不干净。汇总里那个 24% 没扣任何因素,能问到生活习惯的几项研究里,差别都没了。瑞典另一项研究里,养狗的人开始吃降压药、降脂药的反而略多一点,所以就算死亡风险真的低,也不是靠血压血脂降下来的。能落地的只有一件事:已经养了或本来就想养的,把每天遛狗算进走路的量,够不够看本节第 11 条(每天走到 7000–8000 步)。牵绳、打疫苗、狗伤人要赔的事见第 8 节第 30 条(养狗必须牵绳)。家里老人遛狗怎么握绳防摔,见第 17 节第 10 条(老人遛狗)。收益量级按汇总的 24% 机械定为大,但这个数没扣混杂。本条受益人主要是你自己。

Author's scope notes: 争议。上面全是跟踪记录,没有分组对照,所以推不出「为了长寿去养狗」。会养狗的人可能本来就更健康、更爱动,有病或残疾的人可能本来就不太会养狗,这些差别扣不干净。汇总里那个 24% 没扣任何因素,能问到生活习惯的几项研究里,差别都没了。瑞典另一项研究里,养狗的人开始吃降压药、降脂药的反而略多一点,所以就算死亡风险真的低,也不是靠血压血脂降下来的。能落地的只有一件事:已经养了或本来就想养的,把每天遛狗算进走路的量,够不够看本节第 11 条(每天走到 7000–8000 步)。牵绳、打疫苗、狗伤人要赔的事见第 8 节第 30 条(养狗必须牵绳)。家里老人遛狗怎么握绳防摔,见第 17 节第 10 条(老人遛狗)。收益量级按汇总的 24% 机械定为大,但这个数没扣混杂。本条受益人主要是你自己。

YOUR PRIVATE LIST

Choose what to do with this idea

Related source entries

Original content by eternity4719 under CC BY 4.0. English translation is credited in the source notes. HowToLiveWorse adds a clearly labeled satirical response.

Full source and adaptation notes