So I was amazed when my friend quoted a recent study that was published in 2006 from the University of Turku in Finland showing that pet owners have a higher BMI, higher cholesterol, more back pain, are in need of more exercise and in general are in a “poor” state of health compared to the non owners. How can this be I responded? So I quickly went to my laptop and searched for pet owner’s health. A study from the American Journal of Preventive Medicine popped up which was also published in 2006 (Volume 30, Issue 2, Pages 131-136 February 2006) by Shane G. Brown and Ryan E. Rhodes seem to prove my point: “those who owned a dog participated in more mild to moderate physical activity than those who did not.” Another study popped up from Health Promotion Journal of Australia (April 2008, Volume 19, No.1) which showed that “dog ownership may offer some protection from overweight among young children.” And finally one last study to help prove my point, from Preventing Chronic Disease: National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Washington, D.C., USA: 2006, by Ham and Epping which concluded that, “walking a dog may contribute to a physically active lifestyle and should be promoted as a strategy that fits within the framework set forth by the Task Force on Community Preventive Services for Physical Activity.”

I went back to my learned friend and showed him all of the articles that I had so quickly printed. How can there be a conflict? So many studies pointing to the beneficial effect of pets on their owners while others show no actual benefit and the 2006 University of Turku study demonstrating an adverse effect of pet ownership with more weight gain, back pain, a higher cholesterol and general poor health. What it may come down to is the motivation of the individual to stay in good shape whether he or she has a pet or not. With the increasing degree of urbanization, and more people moving in to the city, the amount and distance of pet walking is considerably less than it was years ago. And within this urban environment, the amount of exercise that is required has also dropped. Every possible convenience or necessity for living can be found close to your home. We take a car ride to go one block or more as opposed to walking. So it’s only natural to see this decrease in physical activity have an effect on our animal’s physical activity as well. But I will also suggest that there is an unconditional emotional attachment that develops between an animal and his or her owner. This positive relationship can help preserve the balance between stress and medical illness on one side and good health on the other. The intangible elements of this bond are hard to measure and it is my belief and opinion that some study results are skewed due to the inability to measure this attachment. Is one day’s happiness measurable? Is the ability of an animal to relieve stress measurable? Can the look on your pets face when you tell him or her that they are going for a walk be calculated? Or the feeling when your dog or cat lays down next to you and sighs, and licks your foot or hand as if they are saying thanks for taking care of me-is that a measurable scientific variable?

I don’t think so. There is a lot about animal-human interaction that we don’t know and can’t possibly measure at this time. Maybe we will be able to in the future. For the present, let’s just agree to say that there is something wonderful about having a pet. In my opinion, they are definitely helpful to our health-both physical and mental, and they are definitely helpful to our behavior. We can only hope that whatever joy and health benefit they impart to us, it is returned to them in every way!