[HN Gopher] Reasonable expectation of effectiveness for large do...
___________________________________________________________________
Reasonable expectation of effectiveness for large dog lifespan
extension
Author : beefman
Score : 178 points
Date : 2023-11-28 16:27 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (loyalfordogs.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (loyalfordogs.com)
| oatmeal1 wrote:
| A wonderful solution to a problem that shouldn't exist. Just ban
| breeding.
| asylteltine wrote:
| Sorry you don't like dogs
| NegativeK wrote:
| 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.
| hobotime wrote:
| You can side step a lot of nonsense by selecting breeders
| of hunting dogs. Good health and robustness are key
| consideration along with sociability.
| radicaldreamer wrote:
| Same with herding dogs, many reputable breeders do a lot
| to prevent health issues like genetic testing, very early
| training etc.
| flir wrote:
| 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).
| wewtyflakes wrote:
| How about not breeding dogs to their own detriment? I
| suspect dogs will have no problems self-selecting mates
| and having pups.
| flir wrote:
| Will there be selection pressure, too? I imagine you'd
| end up with something a lot like the dingo - a
| lightweight opportunistic hunter/scavenger.
| graphe wrote:
| What about food animals? That's what domestication does.
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| >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.
| obmelvin wrote:
| 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.
| medalblue wrote:
| 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."
| parineum wrote:
| What's your point? Are you against that they used deductive
| reasoning on an existing data set?
| com2kid wrote:
| 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.
| debacle wrote:
| 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.
| com2kid wrote:
| 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.
| mdekkers wrote:
| > ... "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.
| burnished wrote:
| 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.
| tlb wrote:
| 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.
| duskwuff wrote:
| > 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.
| vlod wrote:
| 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.
| kcb wrote:
| 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.
| wewtyflakes wrote:
| This seems fine.
| csdvrx wrote:
| EDIT: bad copy paste causing an out of context quote of the
| original article removed to avoid wasting space
| DonaldPShimoda wrote:
| 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!
| sparrish wrote:
| 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?
| astura wrote:
| I think that you don't start reducing IGF-1 until after the dog
| has reached it's full adult size.
| DonaldPShimoda wrote:
| 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.
| llm_nerd wrote:
| This is given to adult dogs, reducing the hormone when it no
| longer is relevant for growth.
| angry_moose wrote:
| 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).
| sfteus wrote:
| I think the idea is you let the dog grow to full size, then
| begin this treatment after they have finished growing.
| burnished wrote:
| 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.
| zoogeny wrote:
| 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.
| zoklet-enjoyer wrote:
| Gonna have to get this "for my dog"
| nkozyra wrote:
| 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/
| loeg wrote:
| 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.
| londons_explore wrote:
| 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.
| collegeburner wrote:
| 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.
| ribosometronome wrote:
| I see I'm not the only one who wants to recreate the Canadian
| House Hippo by starting them out young on Loy-001
| darknavi wrote:
| 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.
| mhb wrote:
| Yes. And why should the FDA's tentacles infiltrate and delay
| this activity?
| ygjb wrote:
| 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.
| Finnucane wrote:
| The majority of snake-oil salesmen in the world don't come
| under the FDA's jurisdiction.
| thfuran wrote:
| Well, they don't let you sell snake oil in their
| jurisdiction, so that's to be expected.
| PawgerZ wrote:
| I wonder why
| mrguyorama wrote:
| 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
| jrockway wrote:
| What is the actual poison that's used for a teething
| remedy?
| mrguyorama wrote:
| Belladonna
| lIl-IIIl wrote:
| If the snake oil salesperson claims their product is used
| to treat or cure any disease, then it's absolutely under
| FDA jurisdiction.
| darknavi wrote:
| Your phrasing implies some nefarious intent behind the FDA.
| What about the FDA do you not like?
| mhb wrote:
| 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...
| Finnucane wrote:
| 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.
| jrockway wrote:
| 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.)
| jzb wrote:
| 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...
| efields wrote:
| I've been in a family with large dogs, my wife grew up with large
| dogs, and we put our large dog down this year after many
| wonderful years. (What constitutes large? IDK but ours was
| 70lbs).
|
| 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...
| pech0rin wrote:
| 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.
| annoyingnoob wrote:
| 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/
| ryandrake wrote:
| 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.
| zemvpferreira wrote:
| 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.
| TylerE wrote:
| 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.
| sethhochberg wrote:
| 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
| TylerE wrote:
| 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).
| doubled112 wrote:
| 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?
| oooyay wrote:
| 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.
| RowanH wrote:
| 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.
| jdgoesmarching wrote:
| 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.
| mbreese wrote:
| 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.
| BolexNOLA wrote:
| 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!
| tlarkworthy wrote:
| 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.
| swatcoder wrote:
| 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.
| efields wrote:
| 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.
| lijok wrote:
| > 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.
| ChuckMcM wrote:
| 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.
| NickC25 wrote:
| 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.
| kridsdale1 wrote:
| 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.
| coolbreezetft22 wrote:
| 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..
| 1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote:
| "It's widely observed that ~20min of sniffing exhausts a dog
| as much as ~60min of hard physical exercise."
|
| Is a snuffle mat sufficient.
| gwbas1c wrote:
| 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.
| jstarfish wrote:
| > 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.)
| qgin wrote:
| This is the first time the FDA (any part) has allowed a drug for
| the indication of longevity / lifespan. That's a big deal.
| aredox wrote:
| 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.
| ShamelessC wrote:
| Yeah especially for this community. Won't have to swap blood
| with a blood boy anymore!
| subroutine wrote:
| 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.
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| Yes, I certainly hope someone eventually does a real trial that
| actually looks at lifespan.
| sethbannon wrote:
| 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.
| tomohawk wrote:
| What happens when [insert your least favorite political figure
| here] gets to live to 500?
|
| 500 years of Putin - that would be fun.
| sethbannon wrote:
| 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?
| jrockway wrote:
| 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.)
| LeifCarrotson wrote:
| 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?
| aredox wrote:
| Would you support paying the cost of providing everyone
| with your life-expanding drug? Because that's never
| discussed
| aredox wrote:
| "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...
| paxys wrote:
| 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%.
| graphe wrote:
| 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.
| lIl-IIIl wrote:
| You have to go back 1881 to tsar Alexander II to find an
| assassinated Russian leader.
| graphe wrote:
| 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.
| taylodl wrote:
| 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.
| lijok wrote:
| Lets see how long David Sinclair lives for. Dude will live
| to be 200.
| dfxm12 wrote:
| 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.
| graphe wrote:
| 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.
| dubcanada wrote:
| 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.
| whythre wrote:
| 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?
| mrguyorama wrote:
| 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!
| agloe_dreams wrote:
| 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.
| concordDance wrote:
| 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.
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| >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.
| radicaldreamer wrote:
| 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.
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| 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
| taylodl wrote:
| 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.
| Eumenes wrote:
| Keeping alive dying humans via cocktail of pharmaceuticals is a
| thriving trillion dollar business, now we can do it with pets,
| yay!
| mrguyorama wrote:
| Don't worry, the veterinary medicine world is working overtime
| to replicate the ~profit~ _efficiency_ of our human medicine
| system!
| Eumenes wrote:
| This dog lived nearly 30 years with exercise and a healthy
| diet: https://www.dailypaws.com/pet-news-entertainment/feel-
| good-s...
| puzzledobserver wrote:
| 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/.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-11-28 23:00 UTC)