Is love good for your heart?

⏱ 3 min read, 2 min video

Falling in love can make your heart beat faster. But is love actually good for your heart? In this short video, cardiologist Dr. Sandra Ofori explains what research says about relationships, social connection, stress, and cardiovascular health.

 

 

View or download transcript.

What the research says

When we ask whether ‘love’ is good for the heart, the strongest research looks at social connection, loneliness, and relationship quality, with romantic relationships being just one part of the picture. Most findings are associations rather than proof that relationships directly cause better heart outcomes; benefits likely operate in relation to stress, daily habits, and access to support.1

Social connections and longevity

People who stay socially connected tend to live longer and enjoy better overall health than those who are isolated. Large studies show that individuals with strong social ties have about a 50% greater chance of living longer compared with those with weaker connections.1

This pattern also appears in heart health research. People who experience loneliness or have very limited social contact face a higher risk of heart disease and stroke—about 29% higher for heart disease and 32% higher for stroke. (These are relative risks; absolute risk depends on age and baseline cardiovascular health.) 2

Together, these findings highlight how powerful social connections can be. Supportive relationships, whether with friends, family, neighbours, or community groups, play an important role in long‑term cardiovascular health.1

Relationship quality matters

It’s not just having relationships—it’s having supportive and high‑quality ones. In ambulatory (24‑hour) blood‑pressure monitoring, adults in happy marriages had lower blood pressure and healthier overnight blood pressure dipping compared with those who were single, whereas adults in low‑quality marriages had higher blood pressure, even higher than that of singles.3

Beyond relationship quality, marital status has also been linked with cardiovascular outcomes. In a large meta‑analysis, being unmarried (never married/divorced/widowed) was associated with higher odds of cardiovascular disease overall (≈42%), and higher odds of death from coronary heart disease and stroke, compared with being married (associations, not proof of cause).4 These findings align with additional recent analyses showing consistent associations between unmarried status and higher risks of cardiovascular and all‑cause mortality across diverse populations (associations only).5

Broader reviews also show that higher‑quality relationships are linked to healthier physiological patterns associated with cardiovascular risk, while distressed relationships are associated with greater stress responses.6

Oxytocin and vasopressin: What role do they play?

Oxytocin and vasopressin are naturally occurring hormones that help shape how we connect with others. They influence bonding, social communication, and how rewarding we find close relationships. Vasopressin also helps regulate fluid balance and blood pressure, showing how systems involved in bonding overlap with those that affect the heart more directly.7

Overall, these hormones appear to support connection in ways that may help reduce stress, but translating this biology into proven cardiovascular benefit is not straightforward.7

Chronic stress, conflict and heart risk

Stress is part of everyday life. But when stress continues for long periods, it can affect the body in ways that increase the risk of heart‑related problems. Imaging research links heightened activity in stress‑related brain regions with a higher chance of future cardiovascular events, likely through inflammatory pathways.9

Real‑world studies also associate higher psychosocial stress with cardiovascular risk. In a large international analysis (INTERSTROKE), stress at home or work and recent stressful life events were linked with higher odds of acute stroke, with smaller effects among people reporting a greater sense of control.10

Conflict within close relationships can add another layer. In laboratory studies, hostile or highly charged conflict has been associated with higher inflammatory markers across the day, one plausible pathway by which chronic relationship strain could influence long‑term health.11

What this means for healthy aging

Love and supportive relationships aren’t a substitute for physical activity, nutritious eating, good sleep, or medical care, but they can be a meaningful part of caring for your health. High‑quality social connection is consistently linked with lower stress, healthier day‑to‑day habits, and better long‑term cardiovascular outcomes. We don’t yet have strong evidence that ‘fixing loneliness’ by itself reduces heart attacks or strokes, but improving connection can enhance well‑being and support the behaviours that matter for cardiovascular risk.1,2,12

Tell us what you think

Give us your feedback on this content by answering a few questions. Your participation will help us improve this resource.   Take the survey.


Get the latest content first. Sign up for free weekly email alerts.
Subscribe
Author Details
Author Details

References

1. Holt‑Lunstad J, Smith TB, Layton JB. Social relationships and mortality risk: a meta‑analytic review. PLoS Med. 2010;7(7):e1000316. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000316.

2. Valtorta NK, Kanaan M, Gilbody S, Ronzi S, Hanratty B. Loneliness and social isolation as risk factors for coronary heart disease and stroke: systematic review and meta‑analysis. Heart. 2016;102(13):1009‑1016. doi:10.1136/heartjnl-2015-308790.

3. Holt‑Lunstad J, Birmingham W, Jones BQ. Is there something unique about marriage? The relative impact of marital status, relationship quality, and network social support on ambulatory blood pressure and mental health. Ann Behav Med. 2008;35(2):239‑244. doi:10.1007/s12160-008-9018-y.

4. Wong CW, Kwok CS, Narain A, et al. Marital status and risk of cardiovascular diseases: a systematic review and meta‑analysis. Heart. 2018;104(23):1937‑1948. doi:10.1136/heartjnl-2018-313005.

5. Hashem SM, Khosravi MJ, Kazemi A, et al. The association between marital status and the risk of cardiovascular, cancer, and all‑cause mortality: an updated systematic review and meta‑analysis. JRSM Cardiovasc Dis. 2025;14:20480040251396281. doi:10.1177/20480040251396281.

6. Robles TF, Slatcher RB, Trombello JM, McGinn MM. Marital quality and health: a meta‑analytic review. Psychol Bull. 2014;140(1):140‑187. doi:10.1037/a0031859.

7. Rigney N, de Vries GJ, Petrulis A, Young LJ. Oxytocin, vasopressin, and social behavior: from neural circuits to clinical opportunities. Endocrinology. 2022;163(9):bqac111. doi:10.1210/endocr/bqac111.

8. Berendzen KM, Sharma R, Mandujano MA, et al. Oxytocin receptor is not required for social attachment in prairie voles. Neuron. 2023;111(6):787‑796.e4. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2022.12.011.

9. Bot I, Kuiper J. Stressed brain, stressed heart? Lancet. 2017;389(10071):770‑771. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(17)30044-2.

10. Reddin C, Murphy R, Hankey GJ, et al; INTERSTROKE investigators. Association of psychosocial stress with risk of acute stroke. JAMA Netw Open. 2022;5(12):e2244836. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.44836.

11. Wilson SJ, Bailey BE, Jaremka LM, et al. When couples’ hearts beat together: synchrony in heart rate variability during conflict predicts heightened inflammation throughout the day. Psychoneuroendocrinology. 2018;93:107‑116. doi:10.1016/j.psyneuen.2018.04.017.

12. Santosa A, Rosengren A, Ramasundarahettige C, et al. Psychosocial risk factors and cardiovascular disease and death in a population‑based cohort from 21 countries. JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4(12):e2138920. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.38920.

AI Disclosure

The image featured in this video post was created using AI tools and refined by our design team.

DISCLAIMER: These summaries are provided for informational purposes only. They are not a substitute for advice from your own health care professional. The summaries may be reproduced for not-for-profit educational purposes only. Any other uses must be approved by the McMaster Optimal Aging Portal (info@mcmasteroptimalaging.org).

Many of our Blog Posts were written before the COVID-19 pandemic and thus do not necessarily reflect the latest public health recommendations. While the content of new and old blogs identify activities that support optimal aging, it is important to defer to the most current public health recommendations. Some of the activities suggested within these blogs may need to be modified or avoided altogether to comply with changing public health recommendations. To view the latest updates from the Public Health Agency of Canada, please visit their website.