Dog owners who dwell on work stress may pass anxiety to their pooch: study
If your job has you feeling tense, your dog might be feeling it too.
A new study published in Scientific Reports finds that stress from work can affect your dog at home.
Advertisement
The research, led by Tanya Mitropoulos and Allison Andrukonis, shows that when dog owners dwell on work problems after hours, a habit known as 'work-related rumination,' their pets show more signs of stress.
Researchers surveyed 85 working dog owners.
They measured job stress and how often people kept thinking about work during their free time.
Then they asked how stressed owners thought their dogs were and also tracked actual behaviors linked to canine stress, like whining, pacing or restlessness.
Advertisement
The study found that owners with higher job stress had dogs who showed more stress-related behaviors.
That link stayed strong even when the researchers accounted for other stress in the home.
3 A new study revealed that dogs can be affected by their owners' stress levels.
sauseyphotos – stock.adobe.com
Interestingly, owners didn't always realize their dogs were stressed.
Advertisement
It was a pup's behavior that told the story.
The big factor driving the connection? Rumination.
Owners who mentally took work home were more likely to have stressed-out dogs.
Thinking about work off the clock seemed to spread stress from humans to pets.
Advertisement
3 Dog owners in the study didn't realize their dogs were stressed.
Rido – stock.adobe.com
This idea is known as 'crossover,' when one person's stress spills over to others in a home.
Previous research has shown this happens between spouses, and now there's evidence it can happen between people and their pets too.
Dogs are especially sensitive to their owners' moods. Scientists call this 'emotional contagion,' the idea that dogs can pick up on human feelings through tone of voice, body language and other subtle cues.
When an owner is distracted or irritable from work stress, the dog notices. Over time, this can affect the dog's well-being.
The study also suggests another explanation.
3 Researchers suggest pet owners try to avoid dwelling on work-related topics at home.
Tatyana Gladskih – stock.adobe.com
When people are focused on work problems, they may become less patient, more distant or less consistent with routines like walks and feeding.
Advertisement
That kind of change in care can also increase stress in dogs.
The authors point out that Americans overwhelmingly see their pets as part of the family.
That makes it even more important to understand how our behavior affects them.
Advertisement
In the study's words, 'employed dog owners might benefit from avoiding work-related ruminations when at home to protect the well-being of man's best friend.'
Putting work aside when you walk through the door doesn't just help your own health.
It helps your dog, too.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Americans say they care about getting enough protein and avoiding food dyes. Their eating habits say otherwise.
Americans are fed a lot of information about what counts as healthy food. We wanted to know if these nutritional values are really as important to Americans as the headlines suggest, so, with the help of YouGov, we polled more than 1,500 U.S. adults in April 2025. The results: Most people agree that protein is important, and food dyes should be banned. And yet, a much smaller share of Americans are checking food labels for these ingredients. So what gives? We spoke to experts about whether Americans really value the nutritional concerns that make headlines, and what you can do to better align your ideals with your dietary habits. We asked Americans about whether they consider nutritional information when they choose what to eat and, if so, what factors they prioritize (meaning: calories, sodium, etc.). Then we zoomed in on two nutritional topics that have gotten a lot of buzz lately: protein and red dyes. Protein has been having a moment, partly because it's what some experts have dubbed 'the last macronutrient standing' amid the bad raps of fats and carbs. Its connection to muscle building and weight loss — especially in conjunction with GLP-1 medications like Ozempic — has been a further boon to protein. Americans seem to have taken note. A large majority (85%) of respondents to the Yahoo News/YouGov poll said that protein is very or somewhat important to them when choosing what to eat. Yet among the two-thirds of respondents who said they check nutritional labels, only 13% said that protein is the factor they pay most attention to when choosing what to eat. And only about a quarter of respondents said they're eating more protein now than they were a year ago. We found the same pattern when it comes to food dyes. More than two-thirds (65%) of respondents to our poll said they approve of U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s move to ban many artificial colorings. But only 37% of respondents said they actively avoid food dyes, and just 27% said they always or usually check food labels for the ingredients (another 24% said they sometimes check). If we're so aware of what we should be including or avoiding in our food, but don't necessarily act on it, are we just too lazy to make healthy choices? Not exactly. For example, 66% of the respondents to our survey make the effort to check nutritional information. But the most commonly considered factor was calorie content (16%), which isn't necessarily a good indicator of whether a food is healthy, according to recent research. While it might seem fairly easy to check foods for their content of other nutrients, calculating out how much we need of each of these (protein, vitamins, etc.) gets complicated, fast. 'There's a lot of evidence that people don't take actions that are in their best interests based on their knowledge,' says Dr. Dariush Mozaffarian, director of Tufts University's Food Is Medicine Institute. 'People have an aspirational image of what they would like to do, and then [there's] what they do in real life.' This phenomenon is known as the intention-action gap. 'And for nutrition, it's doubly or triply complicated by the beliefs and intentions and knowledge also being a huge source of confusion for people,' says Mozaffarian. Picture yourself at the grocery store or in the drive-through line. What's on your checklist? Protein? Food dyes? Calories? Whole grains? And how much is enough, or too much, and what even qualifies as a whole grain anyway? Does a Whopper meal count as paleo? 'That confusion dramatically increases the gap between aspirations and actions,' says Mozaffarian. It also takes time — a lot of it. 'Our lives are all busy, and just because we would like to do something doesn't mean we will actually get around to doing it,' Teresa Fung, an adjunct professor of nutrition at Simmons University and Harvard University, tells Yahoo Life. And with new diet trends and hyped ingredients and priorities cropping up all the time, it can be hard to stay focused on the things that really matter for your personal diet. Fung is glad that people are aware of issues like food additives, 'but hopefully it's not at the expense of other things,' she says. 'If it's just for a few months that I'm paying attention to [any one food issue] and then a year from now I'm not,' that's not helpful, she adds. However, some public health experts, including Mozzaffarian, believe that certain foods 'just shouldn't be on the shelf,' he says. Specifically, he notes that poor quality diets and ultra-processed foods are linked to health conditions such as heart disease, type 2 diabetes and metabolic syndrome (a collection of related health problems common among overweight and obese people). 'It's not an information problem, it's a product problem,' Mozzaffarian says. Until food is better regulated, nutrition labels are still key to making healthy choices, says Mozaffarian. Grocery shopping and cooking at home go a long way to help you take control of your health, instead of eating packaged, restaurant or fast foods. And, perhaps counterintuitively, 'if you want to eat healthier, buy more products without labels,' Mozaffarian says, meaning whole foods like fruits, vegetables and eggs. When it comes to protein, most people actually don't need to stress too much about whether they're eating enough of it. 'The typical American diet already has enough protein, so if people are already doing it, they don't really need to take the additional action' of checking labels for protein content, she says. Fung also suspects that, like most single-nutrient eating trends, the protein obsession will fade. 'It happens all the time: There are always new discoveries, and people focus on them until they're no longer new, then we wait for the next shiny new thing,' she says. That's another strategy: If the food rules you're trying to follow are super trendy, they probably aren't that sustainable, or essential, Fung adds. However, in some cases, there's a grain of truth to nutritional trends, and some exceptions are worth making. For example, perimenopausal and menopausal women really do need to up their protein intake. And the majority of Americans don't eat enough fiber, so the ongoing fibermaxxing trend actually is dietitian-approved. Fung and Mozaffarian acknowledge that, even if you aren't trying to keep up with the latest food fad, it takes a lot of time and energy to eat the way you aspire. 'It's like another job you have to do after you come home from your job,' says Fung. She says that if you can afford it, buying precut vegetables that are bagged and washed can save time and make it just a little easier to cook at home. She also advises making one or two simple changes at a time if you're trying to improve your diet. 'Pick two things you want to change, and they have to be things that are changeable within your resources and that you can change for the long haul,' says Fung. 'Healthy dietary habits are never extreme.' She adds: 'Health is a long-term project.'
Axios
2 hours ago
- Axios
Accidental death data threatened by Trump CDC cuts
The CDC center that provides a window into how Americans are accidentally killed could see much of its work zeroed out under the Trump administration 2026 budget after it was hit hard by staff cuts this spring. Why it matters: Unintentional injuries are the leading cause of death for Americans younger than 45, and the data the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control churns on fatal car accidents, drug overdose deaths, firearm injuries and even dog bites help inform public health strategies. The Trump budget targets the CDC with more than $3.5 billion in proposed cuts and lists the injury center under "duplicative, DEI or simply unnecessary programs" that can be conducted more effectively by states. Where things stand: The center was hit by layoffs under HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s reorganization of federal health agencies, losing about 200 staffers in April who primarily worked on violence prevention and unintentional injuries. That crippled key data repositories, such as a web-based injury statistics system called WISQAR and the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS), with few data scientists and other technicians left to crunch the numbers, current employees and advocates say. "Those are existing in name only from here on, because the staff who have the expertise and the know-how and the access to the databases and all of that were RIF'd," Sharon Gilmartin, executive director of the Safe States Alliance, told Axios. Trump's 2026 budget request would eliminate funding for both data repositories and the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS). Between the lines: Also potentially at risk is the CDC's federal surveillance report of drowning statistics, which found the number of drowning deaths among kids 4 and younger increased 28% during the pandemic, between 2019 and 2022. That information revealed COVID-era patterns, such as kids spending more time at home or distracted parents juggling remote work with child care, that may have increased their risk, Katie Adamson, vice president of health partnerships and policy for YMCA, told Axios. That kind of data, as well as $5 million in funding for drowning prevention programs such as swimming lessons, from groups like the YMCA, has been cut. "Why wouldn't the federal government have a role in [addressing] the leading cause of death in our babies?" Adamson said. The cuts extend beyond the CDC to grantees around the country who use the data to implement prevention strategies, said one CDC official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk to the press. Among the uses of funding specifically eliminated in the president's budget is money for a network of 11 Injury Control Research Centers at universities around the country that assist in researching the most efficient prevention programs based on the data collected by the CDC. The work includes a University of Michigan study of the effectiveness of anonymous tip lines at schools. Over four years, it identified more than 1,000 opportunities for mental health intervention, with dozens of weapons recovered from schools and several students with school shooting plans. "The return on investment for preventing these kinds of injuries and deaths is enormous," the official said. "If you care about saving dollars, you should be investing in the kind of work that the CDC injury center has historically done. It's not duplicative, it's unique." The other side: HHS has indicated plans for some of the work would be transferred within the planned Administration for a Healthy America. "HHS and CDC remain firmly committed to maintaining the availability of high-quality public health data essential to injury prevention and response nationwide," an HHS spokesman said. "As part of Secretary Kennedy's broader vision to streamline HHS operations and improve government efficiency, the CDC's critical work will continue to inform data-driven strategies that protect the health and safety of the American people." Yes, but: It's not that easy to just shift the work of the injury center and its complex data infrastructure, including laboratory work and response work, to another agency, the CDC official said. "Everybody's really worried around here. We've already lost the world's experts in a lot of these topics and a lot of incredible work in every one of these areas. It's not easy to just turn that back on or rebuild," the CDC official said.
USA Today
3 hours ago
- USA Today
Medicaid handouts only create dependency. Able-bodied adults should work.
Does Medicaid need an overhaul? Does Republicans' proposed $800 billion cuts go too far – or not far enough? Readers respond in USA TODAY's Opinion Forum. With the deadline for President Donald Trump and Republicans' "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" on the horizon, Americans are turning their attention to a major provision of the budget bill: changes to Medicaid. The bill calls for sweeping changes, including cuts of nearly $800 billion to the program, a mandatory work requirement of 80 hours per month, and an overhaul of the current Medicaid and Medicare systems – consolidating them for the purpose of centralized enrollment. Additional changes include banning federal funding for gender-affirming care and transitioning procedures and reducing the amount of federal funding allotted to states for noncitizens. As Congress debates these provisions before a final vote in the Senate, Americans are sounding off – largely in support of the program. More than 71 million Americans benefit from Medicaid, and new polls from KFF Health found 83% of respondents have a favorable view of Medicaid. More than half of respondents who are enrolled in Medicaid say changes to the program will make it "very difficult" to afford medications (68%), see a health care provider (59%) or get alternate insurance coverage (56%). A June 11 Quinnipiac University poll found half of American voters polled said funding for Medicaid should go up, not down, while an Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll released June 16 found that 50% of Americans think we spend too little on Medicaid. But we wanted to hear from you, our USA TODAY readers, directly. We asked what changes, if any, you want to see to the program and how Medicaid has impacted your life or the lives of those you know. Do the proposed cuts go too far? Or not far enough? Here's what you told us for our Opinion Forum. I couldn't have made it as a mom ‒ or cancer survivor ‒ without Medicaid As a Stage 3 breast cancer survivor, mother to a son with profound disabilities and a full-time working member of society, I've had to navigate the unimaginable. Without Medicaid, I could not have managed any of it. The program covers our son's in-home care, and it gave me the ability to focus on both my treatment and career. For families like mine, Medicaid is not a luxury ‒ it is the foundation that holds everything together. Proposed cuts threaten the care millions rely on. We must protect Medicaid so parents are not forced to choose among their health, their job and their children's needs. — Caroline Johnson, Louisville, Kentucky Able-bodied people should be working. Entitlements weren't meant to last forever. As I understand it, the only people who would be cut from Medicaid are able-bodied adults who would need to work a minimum number of hours a week to keep receiving it. I don't believe that disabled people, older folks and children would be affected. Also, illegal migrants would be kept off, because American taxpayers are not responsible for paying their way. We have enough American citizens who need help. Those who are not supposed to get these entitlements should be cut. These entitlement programs were never meant to be a way of life. They were supposed to be a safety net only for those who really needed them. Able-bodied adults should work. There is pride in working for what you need or want. Handouts only cause dependency, which is not good for anyone. Every citizen who is able should strive to be independent. The same should go for food stamps. It should only be for the really needy disabled, elderly and children with low incomes. — Renee Bertoni, Holley, New York Real government waste is MAGA's excess I am a retired Health and Human Services Department worker. I think this administration is so shortsighted about Medicaid and food assistance cuts for working families and individuals. If low-income people and working families have inadequate food and no medical coverage, it hinders their ability to work and function in society. All people deserve medical coverage and nutritious foods! I don't think I will ever support Republicans again. This is supposed to be a government for the people, by the people and of the people. These MAGA supporters are all lacking in human decency. Yes, I believe they will cut more and more because they are focused on self-indulgence. Increase taxes for the wealthy who have too much and know that "trickle-down economics" is just a buzz phrase. It doesn't work. Big cuts were made to the federal work force with no strategy and no concern for talented and dedicated employees, along with lots of publicity for fake fraud claims that didn't exist. The minions are hard at work trying to sell the public on their distorted strategy: more for them and less for everyone else. Let's think about the waste of the Trump military parade. That's what's shameful. — Joyce Schulz, Tawas City, Michigan As an ER doctor, I saw what cuts to Medicaid would cost us all As an emergency physician, I cared for uninsured patients who were signed up for Medicaid insurance in the emergency department. Medicaid health insurance allowed these patients to follow up with primary care doctors and providers who otherwise could not afford to care for uninsured people. Studies show that adding Medicaid insurance saves lives. And taking away Medicaid insurance leads to worse health outcomes. I am very concerned that any cuts to Medicaid insurance would lead to avoidable illness and even death for newly uninsured patients. Primary care physicians and specialists cannot afford to care for patients who lose their Medicaid health care coverage. Also, rural hospitals and rural clinics would lose a significant portion of their financial support from Medicaid. Primary care providers and rural hospitals would be forced to close their doors, leaving uninsured patients without access to care. I am afraid that Republican politicians will choose tax cuts for the rich over Medicaid health insurance for the poor. I think that Republican politicians should have their own government health insurance taken away from them. Why should taxpayers pay for the health insurance of these well-off Republicans who are voting to take away Medicaid from poor people? — Gary Young, Sacramento, California I've worked hard to get everything I have. Democrats don't seem to see people like me. I don't see the problem with having work requirements. If you can work, why not? As a taxpayer, I pay for my own medical insurance. I am single and have no dependents. I have no fault with us having a Medicaid program for the elderly, children and disabled, but that should be it unless you are working and need a short-term helping hand. I have been working full-time since I was 22, so I don't understand people having an issue with a work requirement to get medical coverage. I think we have to cut spending across the board. I hear Democrats talking about taking things away, but I don't seem to hear anything from them about how to cut spending. We are over $36 trillion in debt. If spending is not controlled, our country could go bankrupt, and then no one would have any programs to use. What is the Democrats' plan to get the debt under control? They had the past four years to do it, and you see where we are. I'm tired of the talk about these cuts going to the billionaires. We don't know for sure where it's going, and you can't understand how tired of this rhetoric people are. Additionally, I would like to see the cuts to the U.S. Agency for International Development and Department of Education all codified so these programs do not exist. There seems to have been a bit of waste and abuse over many years that needs to be dealt with. I make under $70,000 a year, so I have worked hard to get where I am. I was a Democrat for over 35 years, and about five years ago, I went Republican, as parties seem to have switched. I believe that the Democrat Party is full of elitists who feel we poor peons will do what they tell us, rather than realizing a lot of peons can think for ourselves and should not be condescended to and not told we are bad peons if we disagree with them. — Teresa Loy, Tucson, Arizona My brother was saved by Medicaid. Many more would die without it. My brother had AIDS/HIV and AIDS-related cancer. He was too sick to work and relied on Medicaid for all his medical benefits, both physical and mental. He eventually worked for the nonprofit Hope and Help in Orlando. He was a mentor to others, a champion, an activist, an orator and a published writer. He died in August 2020. All his efforts and the efforts of many would die in vain without their medication that was available through Medicaid. I'm extremely worried. The effects aren't self-contained, and the negative effects would permeate into an already strained system. Medical insurance is unaffordable in this country's economy, and it only gets worse. The Republicans need to vote according to the wants and needs of their constituents and reinstall empathy in their party. Maybe that will resonate and 'trickle down.' We have to limit tax cuts for the wealthiest. And here's a novel idea: Let's go back to a time when employers paid for employees' health care and pensions. Those two items can't be supported by today's salaries. — Karen O'Donnell, Lake Mary, Florida
