Reasonable expectation of effectiveness for large dog lifespan extension(loyalfordogs.com)
loyalfordogs.com
Reasonable expectation of effectiveness for large dog lifespan extension
https://loyalfordogs.com/posts/loyal-announces-historic-fda-milestone-for-large-dog-lifespan-extension-drug
196 comments
> A mile a day is not enough for a big dog. Big dogs need regular activity, preferably throughout the day.
This applies to working dogs (which is what an aussie shepherd is), not big dogs.
> Failure to exercise a large dog properly leads to bad behavior, which is hard to correct
This is correct
> because they _really want something to do_. So many people, not providing enough training nor enough job for their dog resort to using harnesses and other restraints when in public, and then when they have company over the dogs are reactive until they are put in the place where they can be out of the way.
This is arriving at the wrong diagnosis. Yes, a tired dog is a happy dog and not exercising your dog enough will lead to all sorts of issues, but reactivity (what you're describing) is not addressed by merely working your dog out more. If your dog is showing reactivity, rarely is it just a lack of exercise.
> I strongly feel most people with large dogs, especially in suburbs and cities, are doing those animals a disservice
A dog can be effectively exercised via a combination of physical activity and exercising their nose. It's widely observed that ~20min of sniffing exhausts a dog as much as ~60min of hard physical exercise. This is one of the first things a competent dog trainer will teach you with regards to exercise - if you're busy, hide a treat and send the dog searching. There are also, plenty of jobs you can teach a dog to keep them busy around the house, for example, fastidiousness. Teach a dog it's their job to ensure certain items are in a certain place at all times, and it will keep them mentally engaged throughout the day. This is ofcourse much easier done with some breeds (Akitas for example) than others.
This applies to working dogs (which is what an aussie shepherd is), not big dogs.
> Failure to exercise a large dog properly leads to bad behavior, which is hard to correct
This is correct
> because they _really want something to do_. So many people, not providing enough training nor enough job for their dog resort to using harnesses and other restraints when in public, and then when they have company over the dogs are reactive until they are put in the place where they can be out of the way.
This is arriving at the wrong diagnosis. Yes, a tired dog is a happy dog and not exercising your dog enough will lead to all sorts of issues, but reactivity (what you're describing) is not addressed by merely working your dog out more. If your dog is showing reactivity, rarely is it just a lack of exercise.
> I strongly feel most people with large dogs, especially in suburbs and cities, are doing those animals a disservice
A dog can be effectively exercised via a combination of physical activity and exercising their nose. It's widely observed that ~20min of sniffing exhausts a dog as much as ~60min of hard physical exercise. This is one of the first things a competent dog trainer will teach you with regards to exercise - if you're busy, hide a treat and send the dog searching. There are also, plenty of jobs you can teach a dog to keep them busy around the house, for example, fastidiousness. Teach a dog it's their job to ensure certain items are in a certain place at all times, and it will keep them mentally engaged throughout the day. This is ofcourse much easier done with some breeds (Akitas for example) than others.
Our lab totally preferred "searching for the treat" exercise way more than "run around" exercise :-)
The killer though was while camping and taking him on a hike for 5 miles and him sniffing all the sniffs? Totally wiped him out.
The killer though was while camping and taking him on a hike for 5 miles and him sniffing all the sniffs? Totally wiped him out.
Our (yellow) lab too. Her daily exercise was an hour long walk in the woods followed by 20-30 minutes at the dog park near the woods; and any activity post that was just following my mom around the house. But on rainy or snowy days where we couldn't take her out, the "search for the treat" or "kitchen floor patrol during dinner prep" seemed to engage her just fine.
She broke down towards the end (hip issues) but managed 13 years before taking a final nap. I miss her dearly.
She broke down towards the end (hip issues) but managed 13 years before taking a final nap. I miss her dearly.
try that with a coonhound and tracking training. 3+ hours nose work and the dog is fine but I am dragging my ass through the fields (damm you comfy office chair). Drive an hour home, the doggo is zzzzzzzzing away in the back seat so that when we get home she is rested and ready for a snufflewalk though the neighborhood.
I've been working with a trainer for our bichon frise (small dog) and they taught me this exact thing about the sniffing, which I've been trying to do more of. The dog are still reactive when visitors come to our home or they see other dogs on walks but making progress..
Sniffing is giving the doggie neural net as much work to do as complex text reading does for ours, I always assume. People can get tired from a fully sedentary day if they’re doing mental work.
The universe of smell data that humans are blind to is fully stimulating to dogs.
The universe of smell data that humans are blind to is fully stimulating to dogs.
I let my late pug dogs sniff every pole they came across while out and about until they were no longer interested. From what I understood they could get an idea of dogs in the area, what their age/sex (breed perhaps), get a real mental map of the area.
During their golden years I would take them out in the car at least once a day to some part of a neighborhood they'd never been to as I figured it filled them with all sorts of interesting 'experiences' even if they could only manage a few blocks.
During their golden years I would take them out in the car at least once a day to some part of a neighborhood they'd never been to as I figured it filled them with all sorts of interesting 'experiences' even if they could only manage a few blocks.
"It's widely observed that ~20min of sniffing exhausts a dog as much as ~60min of hard physical exercise."
Is a snuffle mat sufficient.
Is a snuffle mat sufficient.
I think it's better than nothing, but probably not equivalent to something like scent training. The way my dog breaths when searching for a scent is really pretty crazy. Imagine trying to inhale sharply twice a second. Just performing the physical act is tiring for me.
If you haven't tried scent training, I highly recommend it. There's plenty of information online about it and it's really simple. You can even take a dog treat, put it in front of your dog, and say "find it." Keep moving the treat back until you get it out of sight. Then move on to hiding it in the couch, etc. My dog can find a tiny, 1 cm square of rubber in a huge grassy field. It's impressive.
If you haven't tried scent training, I highly recommend it. There's plenty of information online about it and it's really simple. You can even take a dog treat, put it in front of your dog, and say "find it." Keep moving the treat back until you get it out of sight. Then move on to hiding it in the couch, etc. My dog can find a tiny, 1 cm square of rubber in a huge grassy field. It's impressive.
[deleted]
That’s a working dog thing, not a large dog thing. A buddy of mine (a vet, actually) has 3 Great Danes that are total couch potatoes. There are plenty of large dogs that were bred for companionship and maybe a bit of light guarding.
Greyhounds are another… yes they can run incredibly fast for a half mile or so… and then they’re done. No stamina at all.
Greyhounds are another… yes they can run incredibly fast for a half mile or so… and then they’re done. No stamina at all.
I can't help but chuckle a little bit when I'm out on the NYC streets with my dog and we pass a great dane - such great temperament for small apartments, such a wildly awkward size for small apartments
I keep threatening to dog nap one of his. About my favorite temperament of any dog. One of his bonded to me at first sight, and basically doesn’t leave my side on the rare occasion I get to visit in person (he lives 5 hours away).
I have a Mastiff/St Bernard/Lab cross and she's quite happy to chase a stick a couple times and then carry it home.
Alright that was fun, can we go back to napping?
Alright that was fun, can we go back to napping?
Correct, that is a working dog point. A caveat to that is that the word "job" is different when used with dogs. It means repeated activity that they have access to. Some examples: https://www.labradortraininghq.com/simply-the-rest/jobs-for-...
My pit/greyhound mix has all the behaviors of a working dog. She likes routine, she'll herd you if she wants something, and she can run for miles for fun without breaking a sweat. She has security around the yard and the house, though it took a while to train her to replacing barking with pointing and to not engage in obnoxious/hazardous behavior while doing security. She does still need play time on top of that, but she'll bring you the rope when she's ready.
My pit/greyhound mix has all the behaviors of a working dog. She likes routine, she'll herd you if she wants something, and she can run for miles for fun without breaking a sweat. She has security around the yard and the house, though it took a while to train her to replacing barking with pointing and to not engage in obnoxious/hazardous behavior while doing security. She does still need play time on top of that, but she'll bring you the rope when she's ready.
heh, because dogs don’t sweat (except through their paws, iirc)
We've got a greyhound cross... about 80% of the speed, 300% of the endurance of an OG Grey. Still is absolutely done for the day after his morning hour at the beach. Doesn't spark back up until about 8hrs later.
Not to disparage your experience but it sounds like you're warning people about the reality of owning a work-directed breed, not a large dog. Small hunting dogs are equally miserable stuck in apartments all day. My little Podengo can go on 4-hour hikes without tiring.
Folks, don't get working dogs if you don't have a job for them to do.
Folks, don't get working dogs if you don't have a job for them to do.
Where are we drawing the 'working dog' line?
Does a Labrador retriever count? Terriers?
Does a Labrador retriever count? Terriers?
Yes, a Labrador requires a lot of daily exercise and is more similar to a working dog. A Great Dane, though — which is much larger, but not a working dog — requires very minimal exercise. But Great Danes have very short lifespans; on average they die between 7-10 years old.
I'm hopeful that LOY-001 works (the article even specifically calls put Great Danes as a research target); I'd love to have a Great Dane since they're so easy-going, but the thought of losing one after such a short time has put me off.
I'm hopeful that LOY-001 works (the article even specifically calls put Great Danes as a research target); I'd love to have a Great Dane since they're so easy-going, but the thought of losing one after such a short time has put me off.
My point was that labradors are ridiculously popular, you are not going to stop people getting them because they don't have retrieval work for them to do. And that's mostly fine, a lab that gets a 30-40m walk (especially off-lead) every day and isn't over-fed is fine IMO. I just think 'working dog' is ill-defined (most breeds are technically, so colloquially it generally means a dog that you use for work, which makes the advice tautological) and so it's not really helpful advice.
Completely agree. We are chihuahua owners because we have realistic expectations of the time and energy we have to spend on them. I hate that big dogs are so trendy in the US because most owners I see aren’t even close to meeting their dogs’ energy needs. No shit your designer husky who was bred to pull sleds in Alaska is tearing up your suburban couch, this is effectively imprisonment for them.
Don’t get me started on organizations like the AKC that still promote breeding medical issues into dogs to achieve the proper nose shape or whatever so rich people can have tasteful eugenics as a hobby. It’s all very stupid.
I highly implore anyone considering a dog to be honest about what you can support, challenge your assumptions about why you love big dogs, and above all consider adopting over purchasing. I can forgive a lot of the rant above if the alternative was a big dog living in a shelter. That said, we’d have less big dogs in shelters if they weren’t so fetishized by inexperienced owners in the first place.
Don’t get me started on organizations like the AKC that still promote breeding medical issues into dogs to achieve the proper nose shape or whatever so rich people can have tasteful eugenics as a hobby. It’s all very stupid.
I highly implore anyone considering a dog to be honest about what you can support, challenge your assumptions about why you love big dogs, and above all consider adopting over purchasing. I can forgive a lot of the rant above if the alternative was a big dog living in a shelter. That said, we’d have less big dogs in shelters if they weren’t so fetishized by inexperienced owners in the first place.
This is a great and very insightful comment, but I find it funny how all your concerns also apply to the challenges many face with care of humans of all sizes (including themselves and their kids).
A lot of people try to get by on one brief walk in the evening to offset 8 hours of abstract/alien and sedentary desk work, while minimizing core human tasks like handling food or physically building things, and then puzzle over why they're so depressed, reactive, or otherwise neurotic. What you saw in your dogs lives is exactly what many people would do well to see in their own.
A lot of people try to get by on one brief walk in the evening to offset 8 hours of abstract/alien and sedentary desk work, while minimizing core human tasks like handling food or physically building things, and then puzzle over why they're so depressed, reactive, or otherwise neurotic. What you saw in your dogs lives is exactly what many people would do well to see in their own.
Totally! What kicked my ass out of deep depression was 1) I finally worked my way up to moving my body up to a daily exercise I enjoy, 2) found a hobby I could periodically enjoy with others.
> Failure to exercise a large dog properly leads to bad behavior, which is hard to correct because they _really want something to do_. So many people, not providing enough training nor enough job for their dog resort to using harnesses and other restraints when in public, and then when they have company over the dogs are reactive until they are put in the place where they can be out of the way.
This is definitely true...in a single-dog household.
Treat it like dog ADHD. Working/fighting dogs don't want to sit still. Trapping them in an apartment all day, alone, will make them miserable. Would you be happy in solitary confinement?
But-- in my experience (huskies), stimulation appears to be just as effective as the vaunted exercise goals. Crazy as it sounds (and it is a lot of additional work and expense), getting a second husky keeps the first one busy. While she was left alone, she tore everything up and acted out a lot. Now they wrestle with each other all day, terrorize the cats together, and crash on the couch. A constant supply of new toys also helps.
(FWIW they're both rescues; I would never recommend huskies in small spaces, especially not around cats, as a conscious choice-- they're wolves in kabuki mask. Apparently everyone bought huskies because of Game of Thrones and dumped them on the streets once they became difficult. They're wolves. I'm having to build indoor chicken runs for the cats to traverse the house safely.)
This is definitely true...in a single-dog household.
Treat it like dog ADHD. Working/fighting dogs don't want to sit still. Trapping them in an apartment all day, alone, will make them miserable. Would you be happy in solitary confinement?
But-- in my experience (huskies), stimulation appears to be just as effective as the vaunted exercise goals. Crazy as it sounds (and it is a lot of additional work and expense), getting a second husky keeps the first one busy. While she was left alone, she tore everything up and acted out a lot. Now they wrestle with each other all day, terrorize the cats together, and crash on the couch. A constant supply of new toys also helps.
(FWIW they're both rescues; I would never recommend huskies in small spaces, especially not around cats, as a conscious choice-- they're wolves in kabuki mask. Apparently everyone bought huskies because of Game of Thrones and dumped them on the streets once they became difficult. They're wolves. I'm having to build indoor chicken runs for the cats to traverse the house safely.)
Back in the day, Jon Katz (of Slashdot/Slate fame) wrote a book (and several articles) about his experiences with a temperamental Border Collie. Working dogs want to work, so in order to make the dog happy, they had to effectively buy it sheep. It was only after shepherding the sheep was the dog truly happy. Hundreds of years of selective breeding can’t be easily ignored.
I’ve often thought about this with my dogs… when they are being bad, it’s because I didn’t let them run enough or give them enough exercise or attention.
I’ve often thought about this with my dogs… when they are being bad, it’s because I didn’t let them run enough or give them enough exercise or attention.
I dont think what you are describing is a large dog. I believe this is more geared towards great danes and the like which are more around 150ish or more pounds. Those dogs require much less exercise and are actually great apartment
dogs.
I think a lot of people also, don’t appreciate how expensive a big dog can be. It means larger doses of medication‘s, more pounds of food, everything is just bigger and more expensive per day.
My wife and I had a 7 pound Yorkie from our local SPCA that died pretty recently. As a little dog, especially a Yorkshire terrier, he definitely had his medical bills. But outside of those expenses, our month-to-month costs were almost negligible. A $25 bag of food would last 8-10 weeks. Any medication we got him we broke in half or sometimes even quarters, because they literally didn’t make doses small enough for him, which meant any course of any medication was pretty cheap.
I mostly bring this up because a lot of people assume little dogs are incredibly expensive because of medical issues. They are not wrong per se, and breed matters a lot here, but there are plenty of small and healthy mutts that need good homes and your monthly budget for them is going to be much lower than what you need for some of larger dogs. Plenty of breeds are hypoallergenic, only need short walks, and are overall just not very demanding. Something to consider!
My wife and I had a 7 pound Yorkie from our local SPCA that died pretty recently. As a little dog, especially a Yorkshire terrier, he definitely had his medical bills. But outside of those expenses, our month-to-month costs were almost negligible. A $25 bag of food would last 8-10 weeks. Any medication we got him we broke in half or sometimes even quarters, because they literally didn’t make doses small enough for him, which meant any course of any medication was pretty cheap.
I mostly bring this up because a lot of people assume little dogs are incredibly expensive because of medical issues. They are not wrong per se, and breed matters a lot here, but there are plenty of small and healthy mutts that need good homes and your monthly budget for them is going to be much lower than what you need for some of larger dogs. Plenty of breeds are hypoallergenic, only need short walks, and are overall just not very demanding. Something to consider!
>Plenty of breeds are hypoallergenic
Hypoallergenic dogs are literally a lie, there's no such thing.
https://archive.nytimes.com/well.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/1...
Hypoallergenic dogs are literally a lie, there's no such thing.
https://archive.nytimes.com/well.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/1...
It would be more accurate to say there is no such thing as a 100% hypoallergenic dog. But it is well known that different dogs trigger the allergy more intensely than others, so if you get a dog that is considered “hypoallergenic” to use the common vernacular, you are less likely to have many if any symptoms. This largely depends on the individual’s allergies.
I could’ve been more precise with my language I suppose.
I could’ve been more precise with my language I suppose.
Read the article I posted, this is "well known," but it's also, simply, a lie. No such dog breed exists. Your language is not imprecise, you are just spreading outright lies.
>In fact, there may be no such thing as a low-allergy or allergy-free dog, according to a new report. The study found that the quantities of dog allergens in homes with supposedly hypoallergenic breeds are no different from those in homes with dogs widely considered non-hypoallergenic.
>Previous studies have examined dog skin and hair to determine the amount of allergens they contain, and have found wide variations among individual animals, but no consistent differences by breed.
>“I have no idea where this whole concept came from,” said Christine Cole Johnson, the senior author of the study, to be published online in The American Journal of Rhinology and Allergy. “It’s been around for a long time, and maybe people associated it with shedding. I think it’s just a legend.”
>In fact, there may be no such thing as a low-allergy or allergy-free dog, according to a new report. The study found that the quantities of dog allergens in homes with supposedly hypoallergenic breeds are no different from those in homes with dogs widely considered non-hypoallergenic.
>Previous studies have examined dog skin and hair to determine the amount of allergens they contain, and have found wide variations among individual animals, but no consistent differences by breed.
>“I have no idea where this whole concept came from,” said Christine Cole Johnson, the senior author of the study, to be published online in The American Journal of Rhinology and Allergy. “It’s been around for a long time, and maybe people associated it with shedding. I think it’s just a legend.”
Look man, if you want to have a conversation about this I am down, but you need to stop saying that I am lying. I am happy to accept that I could be wrong about this, but that is not the same as lying. Just ease off the gas a little here.
Chihuahuas are old breeds, they are healthy, cross-bred Chihuahua even more so. Low feed costs, tired easily and if under 20lbs they can ride in cabin on plane trips.
Different dog breeds have different levels of energy. Australian Shepherds are high energy dogs [0], while a Great Pyrenees is a medium energy dog [1]. I'd bet the shepherd in your dog is where the high energy comes from. My ex has a Bernese Mountain Dog, he is pretty mellow and only needs a mile a day or so, he wears out pretty quickly. Best to understand the breed characteristics before you get a dog, go and meet some and see how they behave, get a dog that matches your lifestyle.
[0] https://www.akc.org/dog-breeds/australian-shepherd/ (see Personality then Energy Level)
[1] https://www.akc.org/dog-breeds/great-pyrenees/
[0] https://www.akc.org/dog-breeds/australian-shepherd/ (see Personality then Energy Level)
[1] https://www.akc.org/dog-breeds/great-pyrenees/
Even within the breed there can be huge variations. We're serial Dachshund owners, and our last Dachshund required daily walks (more like him pulling the walkers by his neck) and even then, he'd have to blow off steam every 4 hours or so just turbo-ing around in circles in the yard. Our current Dachshund basically sleeps all day and will only go for a walk if we force her. Zero energy couch potato.
Dogs have radically different sleep habits to humans, and on average sleep 12 to 14 hours a day in 45 minute bursts. In the wild dogs[0] are crepuscular, meaning they're most active in the twilight hours anyway. Spending the middle of the day at home isn't a huge problem if there are enough hours of activity at the start and end.
I grew up with a lab/kelpie cross, on a 10 acre block with cattle and sheep on it, and he was fine snoozing most of the day because he could run around in the morning and afternoon until exhaustion every day. The other animals kept him active, and we walked him twice a day for a few kilometres total at the same time as other dogs were out for a walk.
[0] "In the wild" meaning feral dogs
I grew up with a lab/kelpie cross, on a 10 acre block with cattle and sheep on it, and he was fine snoozing most of the day because he could run around in the morning and afternoon until exhaustion every day. The other animals kept him active, and we walked him twice a day for a few kilometres total at the same time as other dogs were out for a walk.
[0] "In the wild" meaning feral dogs
I grew up in rural Australia, an unpopular opinion of mine, is that large dogs should never live in apartments, I think it is cruel. (whether they are "couch" potatoes or not)
My unpopular opinion is that people should never live in apartments because they are cruel.
Listen to your dog.
Find yourself a plot of trees and fields. Walk through them every day. Stand out in snow and rain. Listen to the noise the weather makes. Plant something you can eat every year. Pee on a tree. Make friends with a crow.
Life is too short to spend it surrounded by asphalt, cement, and tall buildings.
Listen to your dog.
Find yourself a plot of trees and fields. Walk through them every day. Stand out in snow and rain. Listen to the noise the weather makes. Plant something you can eat every year. Pee on a tree. Make friends with a crow.
Life is too short to spend it surrounded by asphalt, cement, and tall buildings.
I genuinely can't tell if you're trolling or not.
I feel that people in dense living situations have cut themselves off from what I call the "emotional wild." Living with a dog's sense of the world is healing in many ways.
The next time you have a strong, but not dangerous, precipitation event, go somewhere you can't hear cars, wear protective gear (rain/cold) and stand out in the weather. As the scandies say, there is no bad weather, only bad clothing.
Listen.
Find your sound. I like the hiss of hard snow falling through pine trees.
Smell.
Take in the smells of the world around you as if you were smelling the nuances of a fine-cooked meal. Let your nose be your eyes and see how a dog sees.
Feel
Notice what the weather feels like when you are surrounded by it.
When you get back home, don't stop noticing sounds and smells. It will give you a better direction than staying in your head.
The next time you have a strong, but not dangerous, precipitation event, go somewhere you can't hear cars, wear protective gear (rain/cold) and stand out in the weather. As the scandies say, there is no bad weather, only bad clothing.
Listen.
Find your sound. I like the hiss of hard snow falling through pine trees.
Smell.
Take in the smells of the world around you as if you were smelling the nuances of a fine-cooked meal. Let your nose be your eyes and see how a dog sees.
Feel
Notice what the weather feels like when you are surrounded by it.
When you get back home, don't stop noticing sounds and smells. It will give you a better direction than staying in your head.
That literally sounds like my worst nightmare on multiple levels; but I’m glad it works for you.
You should practice what you preach, and throw away everything in your life that was made or designed by someone living in a city.
I had a Bernese Mountain Dog, about 120 lbs (55 kg) of floof. We never lived in a property with a yard or garden, it was always either a townhouse or apartment.
I understand what makes you think that big dogs in an apartment can be cruel, but I think that it's identifying the wrong problem.
Dogs need the right type of exercise and stimulation. Some of this is breed specific, the Aussie/Great Pyr mix up thread would probably have needs closer to my parent's Border Collie who needed (and got) double digit miles per day of movement. A Bernese Mountain Dog has lower energy needs.
As apartment dwellers we made sure that he walked many times a day, often in wilderness areas (an advantage of the PNW), but also often in dog parks, beaches, etc.
I've seen people who have gardens/yards assume that allowing their dog access to the yard is sufficient, rarely if ever walking them.
The key, as with almost all dog or pet issues, is the owner attitude, and has little to do with apartment vs house
I understand what makes you think that big dogs in an apartment can be cruel, but I think that it's identifying the wrong problem.
Dogs need the right type of exercise and stimulation. Some of this is breed specific, the Aussie/Great Pyr mix up thread would probably have needs closer to my parent's Border Collie who needed (and got) double digit miles per day of movement. A Bernese Mountain Dog has lower energy needs.
As apartment dwellers we made sure that he walked many times a day, often in wilderness areas (an advantage of the PNW), but also often in dog parks, beaches, etc.
I've seen people who have gardens/yards assume that allowing their dog access to the yard is sufficient, rarely if ever walking them.
The key, as with almost all dog or pet issues, is the owner attitude, and has little to do with apartment vs house
I agree that many people get dogs that are not suited for their lifestyle and it is a shame. I don’t think having a harness on a dog in public is a problem though. I have 2 Australian cattle dogs and they are great off leash but not sociable to other dogs. One is friendly or indifferent to strangers but wary of children because she didn’t have exposure to young children growing up or even now. The other is deaf and is nervous about other people.
We go out on long hikes in the timberlands when possible and they aren’t leashed and they’re great about being mindful of where I am and don’t stray too far and come back if I stop. That said they still have their harnesses on, for safety (people hunt there, blaze orange) but also there are unexpected situations that can happen.
Day to day they spend a 1-2 hours of active play in the backyard as well as intermittent play inside. If they aren’t getting enough exercise in they let you know it.
My biggest problem with the oldest one (9) is that the wear and tear on her body from being very active shows and she has a stupid pain tolerance. It is hard to try to engage her in low impact play when she is limping but still happy to sprint across the yard to catch a ball.
For truly big dogs, like a Pyrenees, their later years are really sad because their back tends to just give out on them and they have a ton of trouble just getting up and moving around.
The worst part of dogs is that they don’t live long enough but I’m also not personally interested in artificially extending my dogs lifespan, just making sure they aren’t suffering in their older age.
We go out on long hikes in the timberlands when possible and they aren’t leashed and they’re great about being mindful of where I am and don’t stray too far and come back if I stop. That said they still have their harnesses on, for safety (people hunt there, blaze orange) but also there are unexpected situations that can happen.
Day to day they spend a 1-2 hours of active play in the backyard as well as intermittent play inside. If they aren’t getting enough exercise in they let you know it.
My biggest problem with the oldest one (9) is that the wear and tear on her body from being very active shows and she has a stupid pain tolerance. It is hard to try to engage her in low impact play when she is limping but still happy to sprint across the yard to catch a ball.
For truly big dogs, like a Pyrenees, their later years are really sad because their back tends to just give out on them and they have a ton of trouble just getting up and moving around.
The worst part of dogs is that they don’t live long enough but I’m also not personally interested in artificially extending my dogs lifespan, just making sure they aren’t suffering in their older age.
My wife adopted a border collie a few years before we met. It was bred to be a working dog, but it lived a happy 14 years.
We didn't work it very hard, other than (almost) daily walks and occasional play. Mostly the dog just liked to be held and was very affectionate.
> I'd probably never get a big dog again unless I have a job for them to do.
My sister has a giant Bernese mountain dog, and it was bred to be a giant couch potato.
We didn't work it very hard, other than (almost) daily walks and occasional play. Mostly the dog just liked to be held and was very affectionate.
> I'd probably never get a big dog again unless I have a job for them to do.
My sister has a giant Bernese mountain dog, and it was bred to be a giant couch potato.
[deleted]
Funny that the first several dozen comments I read don’t comment at all on the OP. Dog stories are irresistible ;-)
Let me do that in case anyone cares about the science.
The treatment is a proprietary drug to inhibit IGF1 signaling. If applied early in life (puppy stage) this would reduce growth rates and result in smaller adult body size. Lots of data on life and health extension via trimming back insulin-IGF signaling. But to the best of my knowledge, this should not be particularly effective later in life.
Later in life (1 year old pet mouse, 5 year old dog, 60 year old human) you would want to treat with intermittent rapamycin or other mTOR-C1 complex inhibitors.
This works very well in male and female mice and is now being tested by Matt Kaeberlein and many colleagues in dogs and humans.
There is a vibrant community of biohackers—-mostly rididulously healthy and relative rich and well informed humans older than 40, who are testing rapamycin at a mean dose of about 5 mg once per week. No marked negatives except what you would expect—somewhat less vigorous immune responses. You don’t want to take rapamycin if you are a 60-year-old kindergarten teacher!
See Matt’s site: https://mkaeberlein.com/off-label-rapamycin/
Let me do that in case anyone cares about the science.
The treatment is a proprietary drug to inhibit IGF1 signaling. If applied early in life (puppy stage) this would reduce growth rates and result in smaller adult body size. Lots of data on life and health extension via trimming back insulin-IGF signaling. But to the best of my knowledge, this should not be particularly effective later in life.
Later in life (1 year old pet mouse, 5 year old dog, 60 year old human) you would want to treat with intermittent rapamycin or other mTOR-C1 complex inhibitors.
This works very well in male and female mice and is now being tested by Matt Kaeberlein and many colleagues in dogs and humans.
There is a vibrant community of biohackers—-mostly rididulously healthy and relative rich and well informed humans older than 40, who are testing rapamycin at a mean dose of about 5 mg once per week. No marked negatives except what you would expect—somewhat less vigorous immune responses. You don’t want to take rapamycin if you are a 60-year-old kindergarten teacher!
See Matt’s site: https://mkaeberlein.com/off-label-rapamycin/
What I would like to know is how big the effect size is. NYT published a detailed article and it looks much more cautious than other news outlets: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/28/science/longevity-drugs-d...
According to Celine, they will be eventually "claiming at least one year of healthy life span extension", so it looks like the effect will be moderate. Still interesting.
Dairy raises IGF-1 levels. This is why I think that getting too hooked on dairy products beyond age 50 is not a good idea.
According to Celine, they will be eventually "claiming at least one year of healthy life span extension", so it looks like the effect will be moderate. Still interesting.
Dairy raises IGF-1 levels. This is why I think that getting too hooked on dairy products beyond age 50 is not a good idea.
All diary or just american antibiotic and growth hormone-filled diary?
Is that the same for lactose-free dairy?
I think so, as cheese that is in practice lactose free due to long fermentation does raise IGF too.
> The treatment is a proprietary drug to inhibit IGF1 signaling. If applied early in life (puppy stage) this would reduce growth rates and result in smaller adult body size.
So make large dogs live longer by turning them into smaller dogs, essentially?
It's funny that we humans seem to be sexually selecting ourselves to be taller and taller even though that seems to also cause shorter lifespans.
So make large dogs live longer by turning them into smaller dogs, essentially?
It's funny that we humans seem to be sexually selecting ourselves to be taller and taller even though that seems to also cause shorter lifespans.
Is there any published research of controlled trials?
> mostly rididulously healthy and relative rich and well informed humans older than 40
That reads like promotion. Also, how is wealth implicated here?
> mostly rididulously healthy and relative rich and well informed humans older than 40
That reads like promotion. Also, how is wealth implicated here?
probably because biohacking has a reputation for being rather expensive
A nbc news clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wc5CRvzzywU
A nbc news clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wc5CRvzzywU
Do you recommend any other biohacker blogs or people to follow? I know YouTube shut down several biohacker channels.
Josh Mitteldorf's blog is good for life extension updates: https://joshmitteldorf.scienceblog.com/
Peter Attia, but he is focused on things that are well studied and concentrates on the low hanging fruit, eg. mental health, diet, and exercise.
This is the first time the FDA (any part) has allowed a drug for the indication of longevity / lifespan. That's a big deal.
Yeah especially for this community. Won't have to swap blood with a blood boy anymore!
It's not. As explained in the article, big dogs'short lifespan is an anomaly brought on by breeding for one trait (size). This has no application whatsoever to human lifespan.
This specific drug won't affect human lifespan, but the regulatory process that approved it can be used to approve other drugs, which is the big deal.
Except it can't, at least not reasonably quickly, because human lifespan takes 8x as long to verify as a large dog's does.
That was never a requirement nor an option. Of course we're not going to know we have a working life-extension drug until someone's life actually gets extended. The point is once we get to that point, you can now get FDA approval for that drug as a life-extender rather than as a treatment for a specific condition.
> Of course we're not going to know we have a working life-extension drug until someone's life actually gets extended.
That means each stage of trials for each drug would be 10+ years at best, possibly longer. With that time horizon, it's unlikely we'll get an approved life-extension drug in the next 50 years.
That means each stage of trials for each drug would be 10+ years at best, possibly longer. With that time horizon, it's unlikely we'll get an approved life-extension drug in the next 50 years.
There are three phases to drug trials. Phases 1 and 2 would not need to run long enough for people to live longer, they would only need to run long enough to confirm the drug isn't dangerous and does something (such as suppression of some gene related to aging). Only the Phase 3 trial, which proves efficacy, would need to run long enough to see people's lives extended, and even then it only needs to show some statistically significant improvement over the baseline, which is currently zero. Most drugs take 10-15 years to pass clinical trials, so unless this is a drug that needs to be administered in youth it should be pretty typical. Different drugs can be tested in parallel (though obviously lessons learned take time to be incorporated).
That all being said, I'd prefer a drug in 50 years to never. Maybe I won't personally benefit, but if my future grandchildren get a wonder drug, I'd still consider that a big win.
That all being said, I'd prefer a drug in 50 years to never. Maybe I won't personally benefit, but if my future grandchildren get a wonder drug, I'd still consider that a big win.
Just to clarify what I meant, it's the regulatory aspect. The FDA wouldn't even accept a new drug application for the indication of "longevity" or "lifespan" or anything like that. It wasn't considered a valid target / disease.
This is huge. Yes it's in dogs but for the first time the FDA has said lifespan extension is an acceptable endpoint for a therapeutic! This could help open the floodgates for longevity therapeutics and will be written about in the history books.
What happens when [insert your least favorite political figure here] gets to live to 500?
500 years of Putin - that would be fun.
500 years of Putin - that would be fun.
So this is a common argument against longevity -- that dictators would remain in power for even longer.
A simple counterpoint: imagine a world were we all did live until 500 years old. And there were some bad dictators in that world. If you lived in that world, would you suggest cutting everyone's lifespan to 80 years old to diminish the power of those dictators?
A simple counterpoint: imagine a world were we all did live until 500 years old. And there were some bad dictators in that world. If you lived in that world, would you suggest cutting everyone's lifespan to 80 years old to diminish the power of those dictators?
Or pretend you lived in a world where dictators often live to 80 years of age or more (easy to do, because that is the world you live in).
Would you support cutting everyone's lifespan to 20 to diminish the power of those dictators?
Would you support cutting everyone's lifespan to 20 to diminish the power of those dictators?
Would you support paying the cost of providing everyone with your life-expanding drug? Because that's never discussed
Do you support paying the cost of providing healthcare for age-related conditions to everyone who does not get the life-expanding drug? People living healthier and longer is extremely economically beneficial for all.
My take is that if the cancer doesn't get you, the angry subjects will. Right now, medical science is what imposes term limits on dictators. But it's likely that humanity will impose their own, like they have in less dictatorial regimes. (Everyone's worried about dictators, but I'm just sitting here thinking about the Supreme Court.)
I guess the fear is that only dictators would live for 500 years. But that’s still an argument for longevity research I think. If living to 500 years is a war crime, only war criminals will live to 500 years, and all that.
I see nothing wrong with letting dictators live forever, and stay in power forever, if that's what their people want.
If the people don't like the dictator, it's entirely in their power to remove the dictator. How exactly can one person stay in power over an entire nation of millions? It's only because the people there tolerate it.
If the society needs a lifespan limit to limit the damage dictators can do, the problem isn't the lifespan.
If the people don't like the dictator, it's entirely in their power to remove the dictator. How exactly can one person stay in power over an entire nation of millions? It's only because the people there tolerate it.
If the society needs a lifespan limit to limit the damage dictators can do, the problem isn't the lifespan.
> It's only because the people there tolerate it.
Or they're too poor to leave for greener pastures. Dictators are in power not because their people tolerate them, but because they don't have a choice in many cases. There's exceptions, but generally the stigmatized term "banana republic" aptly describes many of these places dictators control for a reason.
Or they're too poor to leave for greener pastures. Dictators are in power not because their people tolerate them, but because they don't have a choice in many cases. There's exceptions, but generally the stigmatized term "banana republic" aptly describes many of these places dictators control for a reason.
>Dictators are in power not because their people tolerate them, but because they don't have a choice in many cases.
They absolutely do: they can rise up and revolt. How is a dictator going to stop them? He's one person. How exactly does one person stay in power over millions? No dictator in history has ever been a Marvel-comics-style supervillain with fantastical powers. Dictators stay in power because their people tolerate them.
They absolutely do: they can rise up and revolt. How is a dictator going to stop them? He's one person. How exactly does one person stay in power over millions? No dictator in history has ever been a Marvel-comics-style supervillain with fantastical powers. Dictators stay in power because their people tolerate them.
I think the issue is as you get older, you amass more wealth and power but you amass less open mindedness. You become more conservative, set in your ways.this would permeate every process and institution in our lives.
I can't imagine a world where everyone will live for 500 years because there is zero chance that's how such a magic drug will be distributed. Life is the most valuable commodity we have, and it will absolutely be hoarded by the top 1%.
By that logic things critical to life like water and food would be extremely expensive while useless things like diamonds or gold bars would be cheap.
What benefit would the rich derive by hoarding life extension drugs? Other people taking the same drug as you doesn't make your dose any less effective, nor vice versa.
What benefit would the rich derive by hoarding life extension drugs? Other people taking the same drug as you doesn't make your dose any less effective, nor vice versa.
Even if they could profit by hoarding such drugs, what's going to prevent people from manufacturing the same thing elsewhere?
It's just like software "piracy": once the information gets out, there's no way to stop it. Drugs aren't that difficult to manufacture, which is why lots of pharmaceuticals are manufactured, ignoring patent protections, in places like India.
It's just like software "piracy": once the information gets out, there's no way to stop it. Drugs aren't that difficult to manufacture, which is why lots of pharmaceuticals are manufactured, ignoring patent protections, in places like India.
You don't need to do some crazy speculation to reach this conclusion. People in the richest countries in the world are dying because they can't afford a shot of insulin or an ambulance or the most basic preventative care. Why will life extending drugs be any different? The only concern will be to maximize profit and not much else.
[deleted]
The rich aren't hoarding insulin, pharma companies are exploiting a specific US patent law loophole to make everyone overpay. Outside of the US, insulin is cheap.
"Everyone's" lifespan?
Is your longevity drug going to be offered for free? Are you going to use taxes to pay for everyone's right to live?
Your scenario is a pure strawman - we all know that in the current social and economic system, anti-aging drugs are just going to worsen inequality...
Is your longevity drug going to be offered for free? Are you going to use taxes to pay for everyone's right to live?
Your scenario is a pure strawman - we all know that in the current social and economic system, anti-aging drugs are just going to worsen inequality...
Is your longevity drug going to be offered for free?
They'll almost certainly be cheaper than the costs of treating the effects of aging.
Are you going to use taxes to pay for everyone's right to live?
We do this already.
we all know that in the current social and economic system, anti-aging drugs are just going to worsen inequality
This is extreme zero-sum thinking. Has chemotherapy worsened inequality?
They'll almost certainly be cheaper than the costs of treating the effects of aging.
Are you going to use taxes to pay for everyone's right to live?
We do this already.
we all know that in the current social and economic system, anti-aging drugs are just going to worsen inequality
This is extreme zero-sum thinking. Has chemotherapy worsened inequality?
> They'll almost certainly be cheaper than the costs of treating the effects of aging.
Will they really reduce the medical costs of aging when you take into account the longer lifespan?
To borrow an argument from a different branch of the thread: if everyone lived to be only 20, would you expect that medical expenses would be more than they are today, or less?
Will they really reduce the medical costs of aging when you take into account the longer lifespan?
To borrow an argument from a different branch of the thread: if everyone lived to be only 20, would you expect that medical expenses would be more than they are today, or less?
Anybody who withholds large scale distribution of these drugs while taking the drugs themselves is just painting a huge target on their back.
No rational person is going to respect intellectual property rights for these sorts of substances and if they're relatively easy to produce then people will make them themselves.
Anyone who tries to stop the production and distribution of them will basically be killing people with more steps and people don't take too kindly to that.
These people may be living twice as long with these drugs while others die, but that doesn't make them immortal.
No rational person is going to respect intellectual property rights for these sorts of substances and if they're relatively easy to produce then people will make them themselves.
Anyone who tries to stop the production and distribution of them will basically be killing people with more steps and people don't take too kindly to that.
These people may be living twice as long with these drugs while others die, but that doesn't make them immortal.
0 worries.
Russsia has a rich cultural history of assassinations. The long lived single party in Japan with the oldest population isn't immune to the disease of assassination either.
Russsia has a rich cultural history of assassinations. The long lived single party in Japan with the oldest population isn't immune to the disease of assassination either.
You have to go back 1881 to tsar Alexander II to find an assassinated Russian leader.
If you ignore Putin's political assassinations, the assassinations during eras such as the red terror https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Terror where Lenin and trosky were killed, and Nikolas II's 1918 assassination as well as the whole royal Russian family, sure.
Russia has a rich culture of assassination.
Russia has a rich culture of assassination.
None of those examples are of a Russian leader being assassinated.
Putin didn't kill any Russian leader, he is one.
Nicholas II has abdicated the throne so he wasn't in power when he was killed. Lenin was shot but survived. Trotsky was never in power.
All your examples flow from top to bottom, that is the leader of the country likely ordered them.
But your "zero worries" argument rests on bottom up assassination, and Aleksander II is the most recent one.
Putin didn't kill any Russian leader, he is one.
Nicholas II has abdicated the throne so he wasn't in power when he was killed. Lenin was shot but survived. Trotsky was never in power.
All your examples flow from top to bottom, that is the leader of the country likely ordered them.
But your "zero worries" argument rests on bottom up assassination, and Aleksander II is the most recent one.
I do wonder, let's think about that. People can change, 500 years is a long time. One could argue living that long may tame or completely change him. Get bored of doing what you did the past 200 years and try something else.
We do have to understand that humans are humans after all. Eventually you will get bored of the same nonsense day in and day out and do something else.
We do have to understand that humans are humans after all. Eventually you will get bored of the same nonsense day in and day out and do something else.
This seems incredibly naive. You seem to think a longer lifespan will somehow make a brutal tyrant more caring, but I think the cruel will likely just get more monstrous with age. A long life means power must be held that much more tightly: what good is your near-immortality if rebels or rivals dethrone and kill you?
Ah yes, surely the Robber Barons would have eventually got "bored" of being in control of all money and politics. Surely that would eventually be something they don't want!
Just as silly as the people who somehow think a billionaire can't be bought and so make better politicians. Surely they became a billionaire because they have a reasonable relationship with money right? Surely you or I can relate to how they think of money!
Just as silly as the people who somehow think a billionaire can't be bought and so make better politicians. Surely they became a billionaire because they have a reasonable relationship with money right? Surely you or I can relate to how they think of money!
Consider that if people lived to a mere 250 years old, we'd probably be living among people who thought slavery was good for the enslav -- nevermind.
You have people in the present that think that. Culture doesn't need the cultivators alive. Prophet's messages are carried on long after they die.
Why are we focusing on the negative examples? Would you not want George Washington to live to 500? Lots of bad political figures were stopped by good political figures who would also benefit from life extension.
This seems the exception that proves the rule- Washington was good in no small part because he stepped down. He did not rule America as king, even when he had the popularity to claim the throne. He served his stint as president, and then stepped aside.
An immortal Washington would not want to be the permanent head of state.
An immortal Washington would not want to be the permanent head of state.
Maximum human lifespan is still roughly 120 years. All the advances in medical science over the past century has been about getting more people to live longer. The actual maximum lifespan hasn't budged.
This is a plot point in Cyberpunk 2077.
A main executive/dictator is 158 years old due to medical advancements. The inability of his son to escape from his shadow leads to murder.
500 years of putin but no ageing would still be a net positive. Ageing is really bad in terms of both emotional cost on others and the financial cost.
[deleted]
>first time the FDA has said lifespan extension is an acceptable endpoint for a therapeutic!
Oncology would like a word...(where lifespan extension is the expected endpoint)
If anything, the shock point is that the FDA allowed the claim without lifespan as a study endpoint/outcome, using only proxy measures.
I certainly hope someone does a follow up study to see if or how much lifespan is actually extended.
Oncology would like a word...(where lifespan extension is the expected endpoint)
If anything, the shock point is that the FDA allowed the claim without lifespan as a study endpoint/outcome, using only proxy measures.
I certainly hope someone does a follow up study to see if or how much lifespan is actually extended.
The reason is that this is an animal medicine so the study endpoints are much more lax than would be allowed for a medicine targeting a human indication.
Perhaps, there have been a few recent human approvals based solely on proxy endpoints as well.
Imo, all such studies, human or animal should require large post approval RCTs
Imo, all such studies, human or animal should require large post approval RCTs
To be honest I didn't know the FDA oversaw anything related to pet medication.
Cool product to learn about, large dogs are a blast a it would be lovely to have them live longer with us.
Cool product to learn about, large dogs are a blast a it would be lovely to have them live longer with us.
There's a brief post here that is interesting [1] -- I'm unclear when FDA approval is actually required because not all drugs for animals seem to require approval.
There's probably some cross-over too because some drugs are used in humans and pets. Gabapentin, for example, is something we use for our cats and a senior dog with arthritis. It also has uses for Restless Leg Syndrome.
But there's a possible treatment for FIP (a usually fatal disease in cats) that is undergoing approval by the FDA. Why an approval is required I don't know. [2]
While I'm reluctant to test unproven drugs on my pets, we had to say goodbye to a young cat in 2018 because he had FIP and this treatment wasn't available to us at the time. I'd have paid damn near anything to have given him a chance.
[1] https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/medicines-you...
[2] https://www.vet.cornell.edu/departments-centers-and-institut...
There's probably some cross-over too because some drugs are used in humans and pets. Gabapentin, for example, is something we use for our cats and a senior dog with arthritis. It also has uses for Restless Leg Syndrome.
But there's a possible treatment for FIP (a usually fatal disease in cats) that is undergoing approval by the FDA. Why an approval is required I don't know. [2]
While I'm reluctant to test unproven drugs on my pets, we had to say goodbye to a young cat in 2018 because he had FIP and this treatment wasn't available to us at the time. I'd have paid damn near anything to have given him a chance.
[1] https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/medicines-you...
[2] https://www.vet.cornell.edu/departments-centers-and-institut...
I'd guess for a lot of meds it's mainly a matter of establishing dosing requirements. I've gotten prescriptions for my cats that were just the same drugs you'd get, but in smaller quantities.
The opposite is also interesting. Think about all the drugs that work in rats but not humans. If you have pet rats, they're probably invincible! (More likely is that there is no money in treating pet rats, so actually there aren't any drugs just for them.)
Ah, I see you've never kept pet rats.
There is heaps and gobs of money in treating these guys. They only live a few years and are as personable as dogs. People regularly pay crazy amounts of money for intensive surgeries to take out tumors and fix their varying other ailments.
If someone managed to extend rat lifespans by even a year or two, there'd be a line of people at their door just begging to throw money at them. You'd think rat owners would be more blasé about death, but it couldn't be further from the truth.
Really though, for most illnesses they just get human drugs on a much smaller scale. My vet prescribes metacam when they're very sick, which is also what I got after my last surgery. They get the same antibiotics I've taken previously. Apart from the parasite drugs, I don't think my rats have ever been prescribed something I haven't taken before.
After all, there is a reason we use rats to model drugs in humans
There is heaps and gobs of money in treating these guys. They only live a few years and are as personable as dogs. People regularly pay crazy amounts of money for intensive surgeries to take out tumors and fix their varying other ailments.
If someone managed to extend rat lifespans by even a year or two, there'd be a line of people at their door just begging to throw money at them. You'd think rat owners would be more blasé about death, but it couldn't be further from the truth.
Really though, for most illnesses they just get human drugs on a much smaller scale. My vet prescribes metacam when they're very sick, which is also what I got after my last surgery. They get the same antibiotics I've taken previously. Apart from the parasite drugs, I don't think my rats have ever been prescribed something I haven't taken before.
After all, there is a reason we use rats to model drugs in humans
Actually, lab rats are special genetic lines that are too different from pet rats, so it's untested if the drugs that extend the life of lab rats will also work on pet rats.
Not even other rats benefit from animal experiments.
Not even other rats benefit from animal experiments.
Yes. And why should the FDA's tentacles infiltrate and delay this activity?
Your phrasing implies some nefarious intent behind the FDA. What about the FDA do you not like?
Not nefarious. Its incentives cause it to overvalue safety relative to avoidable mortality and morbidity.
You could do worse than starting here: https://www.propublica.org/article/heres-why-rapid-covid-tes...
You could do worse than starting here: https://www.propublica.org/article/heres-why-rapid-covid-tes...
Not the OP, but the FDA evaluates safety and efficacy. They tend to put more focus on the safety vs the efficacy, so its risk reward may be overly conservative if you are dying. Its also an organization that is susceptible to political influence and bribery. For example look into the approval of Oxycontin and the lack of approval of European sunscreens.
Because of the long history of snake-oil salescreeps, and the ongoing degree of utter bullshit of people selling crystals, essential oils, and other shams to separate desperate and hopeful people from their money?
Regulators and regulations have problems, but the entire reason we have them is due to unregulated corruption that caused massive harm before the regulators were created.
Regulators and regulations have problems, but the entire reason we have them is due to unregulated corruption that caused massive harm before the regulators were created.
The majority of snake-oil salesmen in the world don't come under the FDA's jurisdiction.
Well, they don't let you sell snake oil in their jurisdiction, so that's to be expected.
If the snake oil salesperson claims their product is used to treat or cure any disease, then it's absolutely under FDA jurisdiction.
That's funny, I was just having this same conversation yesterday from my local guy who sells mercury radium soda pop.
All you have to do is sell your snake oil as a """supplement""" instead of a medicine and you evade basically all regulation. You can sell actual poison to actual children as a "homeopathic" remedy for teething in babies, as long as you say "all our health promises we make on the front of the bottle aren't backed by the FDA".
Edit: Removed probably dumb and wrong rant about controlled pharmaceuticals
Edit: Removed probably dumb and wrong rant about controlled pharmaceuticals
I wonder why
As they say, the devil is in the details. I'm interested in reading the actual clinical trial whenever it gets published. In particular I'm curious about this so-called "accelerated aging model", and whether this drug actually extended lifespans or are claims based solely on owner and vet reported health observations...
> Our interventional studies with LOY-001 showed that the drug improved clinically-relevant aging parameters. We assessed these in laboratory studies using a dog model that represents accelerated aging. We then correlated those results with quality of life scores in the observational study, as independently measured by dog owners, and health outcomes as measured by veterinarians. This was key to show that the biological benefits of the drug are linked to clinically relevant outcomes.
> Our interventional studies with LOY-001 showed that the drug improved clinically-relevant aging parameters. We assessed these in laboratory studies using a dog model that represents accelerated aging. We then correlated those results with quality of life scores in the observational study, as independently measured by dog owners, and health outcomes as measured by veterinarians. This was key to show that the biological benefits of the drug are linked to clinically relevant outcomes.
Yes, I certainly hope someone eventually does a real trial that actually looks at lifespan.
I get the impression that large animal species (whales, elephants, humans, other apes) on the whole live longer than smaller animal species (rabbits, dogs, cats, etc.).
I also get the impression that within each species, large individuals seem to live shorter lives than smaller individuals (dogs, in particular). Up to about 6 feet or so, humans might be an exception, perhaps because being taller is associated with better childhood nutrition? But even among humans, above 6.5 feet or so, I think expected lifespan begins to fall?
Am I mistaken, or otherwise: Isn't this inversion kind of curious?
I also found this paper from 2013 that appears to make a similar claim: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3651517/.
I also get the impression that within each species, large individuals seem to live shorter lives than smaller individuals (dogs, in particular). Up to about 6 feet or so, humans might be an exception, perhaps because being taller is associated with better childhood nutrition? But even among humans, above 6.5 feet or so, I think expected lifespan begins to fall?
Am I mistaken, or otherwise: Isn't this inversion kind of curious?
I also found this paper from 2013 that appears to make a similar claim: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3651517/.
That's been my impression. You want to be a small member of a large species. It's certainly true that human giants seldom live long lives and centenarians tend to be short and light.
I don't get it. So you reduce IGF-1 growth hormone and the dog doesn't get as big... so it lives longer like smaller dogs. Why not just get a smaller dog from the start?
Don't people who want large breed dogs want LARGE dogs?
Don't people who want large breed dogs want LARGE dogs?
This seems like something you start them on later in life. The IGF-1 hormone spurs growth when they are young, but its continued presence after they stop growing greatly increases their chances of health issues like cancer later in life. So if you start them on it at ~2 years old, they'll still grow to normal size but it will reduce the prevalence of cancers.
(at least that seems to be the theory).
(at least that seems to be the theory).
This is given to adult dogs, reducing the hormone when it no longer is relevant for growth.
How did you come to this conclusion? The treatment appears intended to be given over the lifespan of the animal and not just during adolescence (not sure when you would start this therapy).
The very fine article suggests that over production of this hormone causes accelerated aging over the lifespan of the animal, I didnt go through exhaustively but I saw no indication that the drug was intended to make dogs smaller.
The very fine article suggests that over production of this hormone causes accelerated aging over the lifespan of the animal, I didnt go through exhaustively but I saw no indication that the drug was intended to make dogs smaller.
It's not completely clear to me (maybe I skimmed too much), but I don't think the drug is meant to be administered during the early years of the dog's life. They let it grow to the normal size, but then begin reducing the expression of IGF-1... I think. So size should not be impacted, but lifespan is extended.
I have a golden retriever but he is a bit smaller than average. He isn't tiny, still around 65 lbs, which is the low end of the established breed size. If I bring him to the dog park he is about 85% the size of other retrievers.
He was a breeder stud for a long while. I get compliments on him frequently, especially on his smaller size.
He was a breeder stud for a long while. I get compliments on him frequently, especially on his smaller size.
I think the idea is you let the dog grow to full size, then begin this treatment after they have finished growing.
I think that you don't start reducing IGF-1 until after the dog has reached it's full adult size.
[deleted]
[deleted]
>Our interventional studies with LOY-001 showed that the drug improved clinically-relevant aging parameters. We assessed these in laboratory studies using a dog model that represents accelerated aging. We then correlated those results with quality of life scores in the observational study, as independently measured by dog owners, and health outcomes as measured by veterinarians. This was key to show that the biological benefits of the drug are linked to clinically relevant outcomes.
OK, but did it actually make them live longer? As far as I know they haven't done that study yet.
OK, but did it actually make them live longer? As far as I know they haven't done that study yet.
Gonna have to get this "for my dog"
I'm not sure suppressing IGF-1 will have the same effect. Two nearby points from the article:
> This is unusual — very few if any other animals have such an extreme lifespan variation within the same species.
> Part of this lifespan disparity comes from the process of selective breeding that “created” these dog breeds.
And from wiki:
> A 2022 review found that both high and low levels of IGF‐1 increase mortality risk, whilst a mid‐range (120–160 ng/ml) is associated with the lowest mortality.[1]
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8844108/
> This is unusual — very few if any other animals have such an extreme lifespan variation within the same species.
> Part of this lifespan disparity comes from the process of selective breeding that “created” these dog breeds.
And from wiki:
> A 2022 review found that both high and low levels of IGF‐1 increase mortality risk, whilst a mid‐range (120–160 ng/ml) is associated with the lowest mortality.[1]
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8844108/
Even if it doesn't work for humans, I'm sure this company will earn a lot of money from people like OP who will be buying it "for my dog, wink wink" for 10+ years before it's proven not to work for humans.
The 2022 review is associative. It could be (and seems likely) a 3rd variable (such as thyroid defects) result in high/low IGF-1 levels and also cause higher mortality.
But tall people also have shorter lives, right?
you don't actually want to nuke your IGF-1. it's important for metabolism, maintaining muscle tissue (also important for health in old age), and general quality of life. this is a lifespan versus healthspan thing, sort of like a lesser version of why eunuchs live longer.
we're increasingly seeing that mTOR/PPAR/metabolism aren't great targets for antiaging because you can't square the circle of worse quality of life over those increased years.
we're increasingly seeing that mTOR/PPAR/metabolism aren't great targets for antiaging because you can't square the circle of worse quality of life over those increased years.
I see I'm not the only one who wants to recreate the Canadian House Hippo by starting them out young on Loy-001
It depresses me that some of our dogs have better healthcare than millions of our citizens.
Mind you, I'm a dog lover. My Big Guy died last year aged 10 due to cancer. The thing people don't talk about is the little dogs get old enough to develop chronic health conditions. The last year and a half or so of my Jack Russel's life wasn't the best - her heart failure had reached stage 3, she had cataracts and was practically blind, she'd become largely incontinent. A longer life isn't all it's cracked up to be.
Mind you, I'm a dog lover. My Big Guy died last year aged 10 due to cancer. The thing people don't talk about is the little dogs get old enough to develop chronic health conditions. The last year and a half or so of my Jack Russel's life wasn't the best - her heart failure had reached stage 3, she had cataracts and was practically blind, she'd become largely incontinent. A longer life isn't all it's cracked up to be.
> It depresses me that some of our dogs have better healthcare than millions of our citizens.
And also that they have easier access to euthanasia than most people. When my dog was suffering from terminal cancer, even the vet recommended euthanasia and it was easy to find a provider to come to my home to perform it there.
And also that they have easier access to euthanasia than most people. When my dog was suffering from terminal cancer, even the vet recommended euthanasia and it was easy to find a provider to come to my home to perform it there.
I hope life extension technology develops at a pace quickly enough that I can give it to my dad as a birthday gift.
EDIT: bad copy paste causing an out of context quote of the original article removed to avoid wasting space
I think you wanted to include the word "reducing" at the beginning of that quote. As it is, it's kind of hard to make sense of!
[deleted]
Keeping alive dying humans via cocktail of pharmaceuticals is a thriving trillion dollar business, now we can do it with pets, yay!
Don't worry, the veterinary medicine world is working overtime to replicate the ~profit~ efficiency of our human medicine system!
This dog lived nearly 30 years with exercise and a healthy diet: https://www.dailypaws.com/pet-news-entertainment/feel-good-s...
The amount of negative energy on this page is astonishing. I assumed HN was a gathering place for technologists and builders, but it really seems like it's a place for carpers who hate what's new.
A wonderful solution to a problem that shouldn't exist. Just ban breeding.
Wolves and wild dogs are large, by modern dog standards, and don't live very long. Selective breeding created the smaller breeds, which live longer. So maybe you want to ban wild animals instead.
> Wolves and wild dogs are large, by modern dog standards, and don't live very long.
Typical lifespan of a wolf in captivity is ~15 yr (up to 20 in some cases), which is excellent for a "dog" that size.
Typical lifespan of a wolf in captivity is ~15 yr (up to 20 in some cases), which is excellent for a "dog" that size.
I agree with what I presume your overall premise is, that the breeding standards in the US have traditionally focused on aesthetics over health, and that "award winning show dogs" can have all sorts of horrible health problems that lead to an early, painful death.
And then there are puppy mills, which are on the polar opposite of the "fancy breed purity" spectrum, but equally horrific.
My overall inclination is pacifism and to focus on loving everyone, but I'd probably be OK with a discreet Tonya Harding'ing to the kneecaps of people running puppy mills.
It is sad that a combination of greed and elitism have doomed so many dogs in America to suffering.
And then there are puppy mills, which are on the polar opposite of the "fancy breed purity" spectrum, but equally horrific.
My overall inclination is pacifism and to focus on loving everyone, but I'd probably be OK with a discreet Tonya Harding'ing to the kneecaps of people running puppy mills.
It is sad that a combination of greed and elitism have doomed so many dogs in America to suffering.
> … "award winning show dogs" can have all sorts of horrible health problems that lead to an early, painful death.
There are a few breeds that have serious health problems, but the vast majority don’t.
I have an award winning show dog, and he’s strong, healthy, and happy. We are responsible in researching the right pairing for matings. We use pedigree research, DNA tests, and inbreeding coefficient calculators to ensure healthy offspring.
Responsible breeders exist, and in fact are a majority.
There are a few breeds that have serious health problems, but the vast majority don’t.
I have an award winning show dog, and he’s strong, healthy, and happy. We are responsible in researching the right pairing for matings. We use pedigree research, DNA tests, and inbreeding coefficient calculators to ensure healthy offspring.
Responsible breeders exist, and in fact are a majority.
> Responsible breeders exist, and in fact are a majority.
Are responsible breeders creating the majority of new puppies though?
If a random person goes to a random breeder and buys a dog, what are the odds that breeder is ethical and following best practices?
I'd bet it is less than 50%.
> There are a few breeds that have serious health problems, but the vast majority don’t.
My complaint was mostly focused on breeds where the breed standard is by definition unhealthy.
> We use pedigree research, DNA tests, and inbreeding coefficient calculators to ensure healthy offspring.
And the asshole outside of the city limits breeding puppies in his backyard is doing no such thing, but is still selling "pure bred poodles" that will have horrible behavioral problems and awful health.
Are responsible breeders creating the majority of new puppies though?
If a random person goes to a random breeder and buys a dog, what are the odds that breeder is ethical and following best practices?
I'd bet it is less than 50%.
> There are a few breeds that have serious health problems, but the vast majority don’t.
My complaint was mostly focused on breeds where the breed standard is by definition unhealthy.
> We use pedigree research, DNA tests, and inbreeding coefficient calculators to ensure healthy offspring.
And the asshole outside of the city limits breeding puppies in his backyard is doing no such thing, but is still selling "pure bred poodles" that will have horrible behavioral problems and awful health.
I apologise for not making it clear enough that I separate “award winning show dog” breeders from “puppy mill” breeders. There is a special place in hell for those that run puppy mills. The same goes for the buyer though. It isn’t hard to figure out if you are buying from a responsible breeder. There is typically a long waiting list (we waited nearly two years for our boy) and there is a long “who are you and can you properly look after a dog” process before you even get on the list.
At the end of the day, puppy mills exist because people buy from them.
Responsible breeders work hard with the respective breed groups to improve the health standards, and a lot of work is underway to introduce new bloodlines and standards to unhealthy breeds. That is not to say that all breeders are good breeders, or care much about dogs’ health, but there is a definitive push for change going on towards improving the standards.
At the end of the day, puppy mills exist because people buy from them.
Responsible breeders work hard with the respective breed groups to improve the health standards, and a lot of work is underway to introduce new bloodlines and standards to unhealthy breeds. That is not to say that all breeders are good breeders, or care much about dogs’ health, but there is a definitive push for change going on towards improving the standards.
I'm pretty sure this targeted at the fact that larger dogs in general live shorter lives than small dogs. I don't think this has anything to do with the genetic issues caused by some breeding.
From the article, "In large- and giant-breed dogs, breeding for size caused these dogs to have highly elevated levels of IGF-1, a hormone that drives cell growth. High IGF-1 effectively drives these dogs to grow large when they’re young, but high IGF-1 levels in adult dogs are believed to accelerate their aging and reduce their healthy lifespan."
What's your point? Are you against that they used deductive reasoning on an existing data set?
Wolves in captivity can live up to 16 years. In the wild, 12 years. One presumes that 11 year old wild wolves don't have the health problems that plague 11 year old large dog breeds.
Giant dog breeds humans have made rarely have such long life spans, with dogs like Saint Bernards, Great Danes and Irish Wolfhounds living 8 to 10 years.
That is living indoors, with access to regular medical checkups, and without parasites.
FWIW Wolves are huge, up to 160lb.
Giant dog breeds humans have made rarely have such long life spans, with dogs like Saint Bernards, Great Danes and Irish Wolfhounds living 8 to 10 years.
That is living indoors, with access to regular medical checkups, and without parasites.
FWIW Wolves are huge, up to 160lb.
The breeding for all dog species is very poor. It is rare to find a breeder that even knows what they're doing let alone one who actually is trying to build a strong breeding stock for the future.
Wolves in the wild are lucky to make it to 7 years. A 12 year old wild wolf is exceptionally rare.
Wolves in the wild are lucky to make it to 7 years. A 12 year old wild wolf is exceptionally rare.
Fair, 12 years is the upper bound with 7-8 being more typical.
But 7 to 8 years is the upper bound of many large dog breeds who are pampered and have excellent medical care.
There are many large dog breeds that will never make it to 12, but a pampered wolf will.
My overall point is that even for the overall category of "large canine", we've reduced the lifespan of domesticated dog breeds.
But 7 to 8 years is the upper bound of many large dog breeds who are pampered and have excellent medical care.
There are many large dog breeds that will never make it to 12, but a pampered wolf will.
My overall point is that even for the overall category of "large canine", we've reduced the lifespan of domesticated dog breeds.
The parent is getting down-voted but just wanted to point out (the obvious) that there so many rescue dogs available looking for a good home.
We picked up our mostly black lab rescue (plus other 'stuff') as a puppy and mostly likely doesn't have some of the health problems that breeds can have.
I'm glad that I never went with my initial idea of getting a British bulldog. I see them wheezing and it just makes me sad.
We picked up our mostly black lab rescue (plus other 'stuff') as a puppy and mostly likely doesn't have some of the health problems that breeds can have.
I'm glad that I never went with my initial idea of getting a British bulldog. I see them wheezing and it just makes me sad.
[deleted]
Ironically the breeding you are complaining about was done long ago as part of the formation of working breeds, and a non-drug intervention to increase life span might instead be breeding them to be smaller.
So how exactly do you want dogs to continue? Just wild dogs mating? Would that not just over time result in losing the traits that make dogs desirable companions.
This seems fine.
Sorry you don’t like dogs
I once asked a veterinarian what breed has the lowest medical costs due to congenital defects, and they said chihuahuas. The reason: anesthesia and medications are dosed by weight. They then went on to list the medical issues each breed is susceptible to. It took a while.
The article explicitly calls out why this research is helpful: because we, as humans, have bred large dogs to die early as a side effect of their size.
It's really hard for me to understand why people are okay paying a dog breeder to perpetuate significant health problems. Plenty of owners are ignorant, but plenty of people fully understand that the Irish Wolfhound that they're going to purchase and grow to love will quite possibly die of old age in seven years, and that paying even a responsible breeder who's trying to minimize this problem will _still_ result in more dogs that die too young purely for our preferences.
The article explicitly calls out why this research is helpful: because we, as humans, have bred large dogs to die early as a side effect of their size.
It's really hard for me to understand why people are okay paying a dog breeder to perpetuate significant health problems. Plenty of owners are ignorant, but plenty of people fully understand that the Irish Wolfhound that they're going to purchase and grow to love will quite possibly die of old age in seven years, and that paying even a responsible breeder who's trying to minimize this problem will _still_ result in more dogs that die too young purely for our preferences.
You can side step a lot of nonsense by selecting breeders of hunting dogs. Good health and robustness are key consideration along with sociability.
Same with herding dogs, many reputable breeders do a lot to prevent health issues like genetic testing, very early training etc.
I expected working dogs to actually be largely free of genetic issues, which is why I asked -- but somehow we've _still_ managed to give them a bunch of problems.
And that's discounting the fact that most people simply don't have the will or the time to give a working dog the attention and stimulation that it needs to not be a neurotic mess.
And that's discounting the fact that most people simply don't have the will or the time to give a working dog the attention and stimulation that it needs to not be a neurotic mess.
Logically applies to the small dogs too - they're still going to die, and they're only here because of our preferences. It's about where you, personally, want to draw that line, and different people have different thresholds.
(Rabbits and fancy goldfish have similar "live pretty, die young" problems. Probably a whole host of other animals - anything we've bred for shortened heads is likely to have breathing problems - including the Chihuahua).
(Rabbits and fancy goldfish have similar "live pretty, die young" problems. Probably a whole host of other animals - anything we've bred for shortened heads is likely to have breathing problems - including the Chihuahua).
How about not breeding dogs to their own detriment? I suspect dogs will have no problems self-selecting mates and having pups.
Will there be selection pressure, too? I imagine you'd end up with something a lot like the dingo - a lightweight opportunistic hunter/scavenger.
>I suspect dogs will have no problems self-selecting mates and having pups.
This is a funny thought. I suppose dogs will drive themselves to social events, get jobs, and financially support their offspring.
This is a funny thought. I suppose dogs will drive themselves to social events, get jobs, and financially support their offspring.
Selecting breeding is what made dogs into creatures useful for people somehow, whether for working (herding etc) or as pets. Without breeding, you just get wild animals unsuited for human companionship.
However, I still agree with you: I think selective breeding of dogs is wrong. If they don't make good companion animals as they are naturally, then maybe people shouldn't try to turn them into such animals.
However, I still agree with you: I think selective breeding of dogs is wrong. If they don't make good companion animals as they are naturally, then maybe people shouldn't try to turn them into such animals.
[deleted]
What about food animals? That's what domestication does.
I'd probably never get a big dog again unless I have a job for them to do.
She was an Australian shepherd / Great Pyrenees mix. A working dog, and for the first half of her life boy did we have to work her to get her happy. A mile a day is not enough for a big dog. Big dogs need regular activity, preferably throughout the day.
Failure to exercise a large dog properly leads to bad behavior, which is hard to correct because they _really want something to do_. So many people, not providing enough training nor enough job for their dog resort to using harnesses and other restraints when in public, and then when they have company over the dogs are reactive until they are put in the place where they can be out of the way.
Now, obviously this is anecdotal experience mixed with real world knowledge acquired through a dog trainer we have a long relationship with. But after all of this, I strongly feel most people with large dogs, especially in suburbs and cities, are doing those animals a disservice. Is your dog home alone for 8 hours a day? Woof…
Extending the life of an animal that is not performing the job it was literally bred to do is denying its nature. I'm not saying this to be convinced otherwise or that I'm 100% right, but now that I'm outside of the sphere of dog ownership I feel like I want to reflect in context of this otherwise incredible breakthrough.
Of course, keeping a dog alive longer with muscles and joints that have not been used properly throughout its life probably makes for a lucrative longterm pet care market opportunity…