Owning dog or cat could preserve some brain functions as we age, study says
Cats and dogs may be exercising more than just your patience: they could be keeping parts of your brain ticking over too. In a potential breakthrough for preventive health, researchers have found that owning a four-pawed friend is linked to slower cognitive decline by potentially preserving specific brain functions as we grow older.
Interestingly, the associations differ depending on the animal: dog owners were found to retain sharper memory, both immediate and delayed, while cat owners showed slower decline in verbal fluency.
When it comes to slower cognitive decline in their owners, however, it seems that not all pets are created equal: fish and birds, while charming companions, showed no significant link.
'Pet ownership has been linked to a positive influence on cognitive functioning and cognitive decline in late adulthood,' said Adriana Rostekova, a researcher and lead author of the article, which was published in Nature. 'However, there is limited understanding of how different species of pets are associated with these outcomes.'
Rostekova, who works at the lifespan developmental psychology research group at the University of Geneva, used data from eight waves of the Survey of Health and Retirement in Europe to examine the relationship between pet ownership and cognitive decline over an 18-year period among adults aged 50 and older.
She specifically looked at the distinct role of owning dogs, cats, birds and fish. 'The key novelty of our study was that we found notable differences between the species,' she said.
Rostekova hypothesised that because keeping fish or birds showed no meaningful link to changes in cognitive decline, the overall pattern of pet ownership may be driven primarily by having a cat or dog rather than pet ownership in general.
'Several explanations may help explain the absence of this association in fish and bird owners, despite the reports of their ownership' positive influence on wellbeing in ways that are usually associated with cognitive benefits,' she added.
'A fish or bird's short lifespan may potentially limit the level of emotional connection one is able to develop with the pet fish,' she said. 'Bird ownership may negatively affect the owner's sleep quality due to the increased noise levels, which has been shown to be associated with cognitive decline.'
Rostekova added: '[It is] further possible that interaction with dogs and cats provides unique cognitive stimulation, which may be less pronounced in other, less demanding pets.'
Other research has found evidence of an increase in prefrontal brain activation and stronger attentional processes and emotional arousal caused by interaction with a dog.
There is further evidence of increased activation of the prefrontal cortex and the inferior frontal gyrus when interacting with cats, which is speculated to be linked to the characteristic, hard-to-predict temperament of the animal.
'There is also a possibility of increased social stimulation facilitated by cats and dogs, which may be linked to the slower cognitive decline experienced by their owners: an increased frequency of social interactions when accompanied by a dog – or for cats, a substitute for a social network,' said Rostekova.
As the NHS grapples with an ageing population and rising dementia rates, experts say the findings could reshape how we think about healthy ageing – and the animals we choose to age alongside.
Andrew Scott, the author of The Longevity Imperative and a cat owner (although also a dog lover), said: 'We tend to think of health as being about disease and hospitals but as we live longer and need to focus on preventive measures that keep us healthy for longer, we will discover that the health system extends well beyond doctors and hospitals.
'It is about how we live our life. What is nice about this study is it suggests a fun and meaningful way of keeping healthy and engaged. A lot of things we are recommended to do for our health aren't always fun or companionable (does anyone fast as a family?). Having a pet can be fun and if it keeps you healthy that's a great bonus.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
44 minutes ago
- Telegraph
More sugar than chocolate: The best and worst alcohol-free beers for your health
What a time to be alive if you're a teetotaller. Alcohol-free and low-alcohol beers (which typically contain up to 0.5% ABV – around the same amount of alcohol you would find in a ripe banana), are big business. No longer an insipid, metallic-tasting booby prize for designated drivers, the thirst for them is insatiable – with the market worth £380 million in 2024 – and encompasses a dizzying range of stouts, porters and craft wheat beers. However, before you knock them back with joyful abandon, it's worth having a closer look at the label, as many contain a lot more sugar and calories than you may think. There's that attractive-looking bottle of alcohol-free stout which contains more sugar than a Galaxy chocolate bar and enticing blonde beers with more calories than a packet of salty crisps. Which are the best options and the ones to avoid then? From Guinness to Lucky Saint, we rank the leading brands and speak to the experts about how much is safe to drink. The best and worst alcohol-free beers for your health Rated by Sam Rice, Telegraph nutrition expert Nøgne Ø Svart/Hvit Milk Stout Innis & Gunn 0.0% lager Leffe Blonde 0% Abbey Ale Madrí Excepcional 0% Brewdog Punk IPA Alcohol Free Guinness 0.0 Lucky Saint Alcohol Free Lager 7. Nøgne Ø Svart/Hvit Milk Stout Ingredients: water, malted barley, lactose, hops, yeast Wowzers, this wholesome-looking bottle contains a whopping 23g of sugar, the highest by far of those tested. The clue is in the name; lactose is the sugar found in milk, and it has been added here to give the stout its characteristic creamy mouthfeel. Yeast cannot ferment lactose, so it remains in the finished beer, providing a distinct sweetness. A 330ml bottle contains 23g of sugar, equal to a 42g bar of Galaxy chocolate. I think I know which I'd choose, but if you like this beer, then, like Galaxy, it's probably best kept as a treat. Verdict: One point for the fact that it's alcohol free. 6. Innis & Gunn 0.0% lager Ingredients: water, barley, oats, hops. A simple ingredients list is always a great start when it comes to nutrition, but sadly, that's where the good news ends, as this beer is the second-highest in sugar, 4.5g per 100ml, compared with the minuscule 0.1g in Lucky Saint. One 440ml can contains two thirds of the recommended daily sugar intake set by the NHS, which is 30g. Unless you absolutely love this for the taste, which is a valid reason to drink anything, I'd probably choose something else. Verdict: Just the one point for being alcohol-free. 5. Leffe Blonde 0% Abbey Ale Ingredients: water, barley malt, maize, barley, sugar, hops, natural aromas. What this beer gives with one hand – it's pretty low in sugar – it takes with the other; it's the highest in calories of the beers featured, with almost three times that of the Brewdog Punk AF. Blonde ales are an unfiltered beer style known for being high in silicon, or more specifically, orthosilicic acid, which helps the body to build and maintain healthy bones, and may help guard against conditions such as osteoporosis. Each 250ml bottle contains 100 calories, so a couple of those and you're consuming more calories than a standard bag of Walker's ready salted crisps. Verdict: An extra half a point for the silicon. 4. Madrí Excepcional 0%. Ingredients: water, barley malt, wheat, barley, glucose syrup, sucrose, natural flavourings, hops. This beer sits right in the middle of the pack for calories and sugar, so if you love that cool, crisp Spanish cerveza-style lager, then this might be the one for you. But before you pop the top, the addition of glucose syrup, sucrose, and natural flavourings raises a nutritional red flag – we are entering UPF territory here. Verdict: The additives let this down. 3. Brewdog Punk IPA Alcohol Free Ingredients: water, lactose, malted barley, hops, yeast, malted oats, malted wheat, lactic acid. While Brewdog Punk IPA was the lowest in calories, just edging out Lucky Saint, it was much higher in sugar, presumably due to the lactose. This is a method for adding body to beer after the alcohol has been removed. With 6g of sugar per 330ml, this would add up pretty rapidly if you were to enjoy a few cans in the sun. Sometimes, even alcohol-free beers should be enjoyed in moderation. Verdict: Shame about the sugar. 2. Guinness 0.0 Ingredients: water, malted barley, barley, roasted barley, fructose, natural flavourings, hops, yeast I'm reliably informed by beer connoisseurs (my husband!) that Guinness 0.0 is the closest to the real thing of all the zero-alcohol beers. This is likely because it is brewed in the same manner as regular Guinness, utilising a cold filtration method to remove the alcohol. This preserves the flavour as well as plant compounds called polyphenols from the barley, which act as antioxidants in the body to protect cells against cancer-causing compounds called free radicals. Polyphenols are also prebiotics, which feed our good gut bacteria, and they can even help improve circulation and blood pressure. Guinness famously contains energy-boosting iron, too. A 440ml can contains only as many calories as a single Hobnob biscuit, which is half the calories of regular Guinness, and it's also very low in sugar. A win in my book. Verdict: One of the best on the market. 1. Lucky Saint Alcohol Free Lager Ingredients: water, malted barley, hops, yeast. This is the alcohol-free lager I have in my fridge at home. It has a delicious fruitiness and a paltry 53 calories and 0.3g of sugar per can. This simple, unfiltered beer is made with just four ingredients and no additions, such as aromas or flavourings. You'll also be getting a hit of plant polyphenols for some extra gut goodness. Bravo Lucky Saint, you win! Verdict: Not much wrong with this. FAQs How much is safe to drink? A recent study by a research team from University of California San Diego, Knappschaft Kliniken in Germany and the University of the Basque Country in Spain, which was published in the journal Nutrients, suggests that even two bottles of non-alcoholic beer a day is enough to increase blood sugar levels. The authors conclude: 'The consumption of non-alcoholic beverages has unfavourable effects on metabolism, mainly driven by their calorie and sugar contents.' The researchers indicated a long-term risk of Type 2 diabetes and obesity. The study, however, was limited. The cohort was restricted to 44 healthy young men who drank either two 330ml bottles of alcohol-free beer or water every day for four weeks. The team conducted regular tests to check for changes in glucose and lipid metabolism, liver enzymes, body composition, and the composition of the men's gut microbiome – and compared the results between the alcohol free beer drinkers and the water drinkers, so it was not surprising these drinkers fared worse. Nevertheless, consuming alcohol-free beers with high levels of calories and sugar, over time and at volume could have more serious implications for health. What are the main health risks? Clearly, 'the biggest benefit to alcohol-free beer is cutting out the alcohol and typically they add fewer calories to your diet,' says Matt Coulshead, the research and development manager at Gaba Labs, which specialises in neuropsychopharmacology and synthetic chemistry. But the main problem is that the sugar and calorie content varies widely between the different types of beers. The research findings revealed that mixed beer – alcohol-free beer with added lemon or orange soda, for example, raised long-term blood sugar levels and fats in the bloodstream, and wheat beer increased insulin and blood fats. And some lagers, such as one 440ml can of Innis & Gunn 0.0% lager beer, contains 20g of sugar, two thirds of the recommended daily intake. (The NHS recommends that adults consume no more than 30g of added sugar a day, approximately 7tsp.) It's not all bad news, however. According to the NHS, it is not usually a serious problem if your blood sugar is slightly high for a short time – it is when it is sustained that high blood sugar can raise the risk of pre-diabetes and Type 2 diabetes. Dr Federica Amati, the head nutritionist and global head of communications at Zoe, explains: 'If you consume these products every so often, they're unlikely to do much harm – or good. However, if you're having several cans every day, we don't really know what effects they might have, but it's unlikely to be neutral. These drinks are still providing liquid calories, which we know contribute to worse metabolic health outcomes compared with drinking water, tea or coffee, for example. 'Consuming any sugar and energy in liquid is more harmful for health,' says Dr Amati. 'This is because you can consume them quickly, and we know that the speed you eat – or in this case, drink – increases the risk of weight gain. One can every now and then is only contributing a small amount to our overall dietary pattern, but I wouldn't make this my main drink of choice. It's worth noting that low-alcohol beers do still contain some alcohol. It's in small amounts, but it may still have some negative effects.' The verdict: are non-alcoholic beers really bad for you? Dr Amati concludes: 'In nutrition, the most important question is 'what is it replacing?' If you swap standard beer for non-alcoholic beer, it's absolutely a healthier option. No question. If you swap regular fizzy pop for low-alcohol beer, that's probably a little better. But if you swapped low-alcohol beer for water or kombucha, that's even healthier. 'As with any soft drinks, moderation is key. But if you love the taste of beer, and it's replacing regular beer, you're making a solid choice.'
BBC News
an hour ago
- BBC News
Too late to fix Guernsey hospital project black hole, says deputy
The new president of Guernsey's Health and Social Care Committee (HSC) has conceded there was "no political oversight" of the first phase of the hospital modernisation week the BBC revealed the project to build a new critical care unit was delayed because of problems with the building work. Deputy George Oswald, who was a non-States member of the last HSC committee, said "the States does not handle big budget projects well". "I think the problem is lack of resourcing, we try and do things on the cheap probably because we know we're a small island with a small community and not a lot of money," he said. HSC said "sadly but unavoidably, the CCU would continue to be delayed until essential remedial works have been completed" but it did not give a Rihoys and Son said the work to extend the hospital had been BBC understands work is under way to fix the defects by contractors Rihoys and Son, which was commissioned to work on the full hospital modernisation was negotiating with Rihoys about how this work would be funded. Speaking about the problems, Oswald said: "We don't invest in the technical experts we need right at the beginning to ensure the project goes the right way. "I think that was very apparent in phase two."Last year it was revealed officers knew about a potential £30m overspend for phase 2 of the hospital modernisation project. It led to an inquiry which found no problems with the way the States managed big building projects and a review of the hospital project by a UK firm, which has not been publicly released. 'Technologically difficult' Oswald said: "That has now been resolved but possibly too late to influence the problem with the black hole we had and as far as I'm aware certainly didn't involve it at stage one. "It was all sourced in-house because that was the cheapest option but building hospitals and commissioning hospitals is an expensive and technologically difficult thing to do."The NHS is littered with examples of where hospital builds have gone wrong to the detriment of both the local population and also sometimes to the detriment of the builders who got themselves involved in it."
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
More than 1.4m claiming mental health benefits
A record 531 people a day were granted welfare benefits for mental health problems, analysis of last year's Personal Independence Payment (Pip) figures reveals. In the 2024-25 financial year, Department for Work and Pensions staff approved 193,890 such cases for England and Wales – equivalent to one application being rubber-stamped every three minutes. The full extent of those claiming Pip due to mental health illness could in fact be much higher because the Government data do not include those who successfully appeal an initial rejection of their claim. The latest statistics for the month of April also reveal that a total of 1.4 million people were in receipt of a Pip payment due to mental health issues. That figure represents a 70 per cent increase compared to a similar monthly snapshot taken in January 2020 when 848,882 such payments were approved. That April data includes 407,000 cases approved for 'mixed anxiety and depression', 62,000 for 'anxiety disorders' and 83,000 for ADHD, alongside a variety of other illnesses ranging from autism to personality disorders. Meanwhile, one in 10 of the country's 38 million working-age people is in receipt of some kind of health benefit. In November 2024, 3,943,677 people aged between 16 and 64 were claiming some form of payment for disability or sickness. Reform UK's Richard Tice MP said: 'The level of waste and corruption in this country is at an all-time high, with a total lack of oversight, massive overspending, and no accountability from this Labour government. 'This country needs to be run more like a business and less like a charity with unlimited funding. It's always the hard-working British taxpayer who ends up paying the price. 'Reform will slash government spending by scrapping net zero, ending DEI practices, and securing our borders. By doing so, we will free up funds to focus on what truly matters: improving public services and easing the burden on the working class.' Helen Whately, the shadow work and pensions secretary, said: 'This week, the Prime Minister was forced into a humiliating climbdown on welfare by socialist Labour MPs. 'Runaway welfare spending has to be brought under control, but unbelievably we're now left with a Bill that will end up costing the taxpayer more. 'Starmer is in office, but not in power. And without someone able to take difficult decisions, this country is doomed.' The analysis comes just days after Labour backbenchers forced Rachel Reeves to back down on her plans to cut the benefits bill. The Chancellor had hoped to impose more stringent disability criteria for Pip claimants to help fill a black hole in the Government's spending forecasts. But on Thursday, she was forced into a £3 billion U-turn to placate rebel MPs. As part of the deal, the restriction will only affect new claimants, while those already on the benefit will continue to receive it. The move has raised the prospect of tax rises in the autumn budget. There has been speculation that the fiasco surrounding the reversal and its financial repercussions may have contributed to Ms Reeves' tears in the House of Commons on Wednesday. Analysis of Government data shows that since January 2020, the number of Pip cases for mental health problems has soared considerably faster than for other ailments. Overall Pip claims have increased by 55 per cent, whilst those citing mental health have increased by 70 per cent. Last year, the government spent £26.5 billion on the benefit, including around £3.5 billion for anxiety, ADHD and depression alone. By 2029-30, the total cost is expected to approach £35 billion, according to the Department for Work and Pensions. Telegraph analysis found that around 8.5 per cent of the working-age population are on either Pip or its immediate predecessor, the disability living allowance (DLA). This is up from 4.4 per cent in 2002. Once other disability benefits are included, such as attendance allowance or employment and support allowance, this increases to 10.3 per cent of the working-age population being on some form of sickness or disability support. Of particular concern is the rise in disability benefits being awarded to young adults. Around 5.8 per cent of people aged 16 to 30 now claim either Pip or DLA, up from just 1.7 per cent in 2002. More than one in 25 young adults (4.4 per cent) are claiming for mental health. The vast range of Pip payments, including obscure ones, has also caused concern. In April alone, a total of 10 payouts were awarded for 'Munchausen syndrome', 67 for food intolerance, 16 for 'old age' and almost 17,000 for alcohol and drug misuse. In 2024-25, an average of 2,656 new registrations for Pip were made everyday in England and Wales, with about 1,262 of those claims then being approved. Of those, an average of 531 a day were for psychiatric disorders, 341 for bone and joint issues and 121 for neurological disorders.
