Poodle Forum banner

1 - 10 of 10 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,275 Posts
Discussion Starter #1

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,917 Posts
I was going to say the same thing, it’s even worse for small dogs. A 5 year old german shepard might be 53 years old, but certainly not a toy poodle who can live up to 15-20 years old.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,558 Posts
I read a study a few years back where it also had a new formulation for dog to human years.

It said that for the first two years, 1 month = 1 year. After that, it’s approximately 4 yrs per year. So at 2, a dog would equal 24 human years.

Zeke is 6 years old, so according to this, in human years he would be 40.

It makes sense to me... for instance a 9 month old puppy would equal a 9 year old kid. At 3 months old, like a 3 year old kid.

I tried the calculator from the OP, and it says Zeke would be 59.3 years lol. He really is much closer in activity and mentality of a 40 year old. He isn’t as wildly active as he was a couple of years ago, but still has the heart and playfulness of a young dog.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,697 Posts
No way is Buck, nearly 56+ @ 5. I found a study discussing how different breeds/sizes age. Sorry I don’t have the link handy. My recollection is that poodles stay “younger” longer, maybe because they are slow to mature in the case of Spoo’s, or that they have the ‘young as you feel’ attitude. Joie de vivre=a poodle:)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
932 Posts
WaPo weighs in with another study

There are graphics in the article including a graph comparing 3 different methods.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/11/28/scientists-have-come-up-with-better-way-convert-your-dogs-age-human-years/?hpid=hp_hp-more-top-stories-2_dogshow-435pm:homepage/story-ans

Also a link to the original study
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2019/11/19/829192.full.pdf

Scientists have come up with a better way to convert your dog’s age to human years
Researchers say the seven-to-one rule falls short, and turn to Tom Hanks and a Labrador retriever to show us how

New research suggests the counting in dog years is not as straightforward as it might seem. (Elaine Thompson/AP)

By
Christopher Ingraham
November 28, 2019 at 7:00 a.m. CST
My dog Winston, a 1-year-old pit bull mix, is a sleek, muscular beast at the peak of his physical abilities.
According to the well-known rule by which we convert one dog year into seven human years, Winston is about the same developmental age as my 6-year-old twins. But in contrast to Winston’s athleticism, the twins are clumsy, cuddly little goofballs with a lot of growing up to do.
Now, new research by a team of geneticists and biologists at the University of California, San Diego and elsewhere explains the discrepancy. The scientists say they’ve devised a far more accurate formula for the human-canine conversion — one that front-loads the aging process for dogs and accounts for such variables as breed size — by boring into the effects of aging on their respective DNAs.
By their calculation, Winston isn’t 7; he’s pushing 30.

People have been interested in converting dog years into human years since at least the 13th century. An inscription in London’s Westminster Abbey from the year 1268 uses a dog year calculation as a steppingstone in a prediction of the end of the world:
If the reader wisely considers all that is laid down, he will find here the end of the primum mobile; a hedge (lives for) three years, add dogs and horses and men, stags and ravens, eagles, enormous whales, the world: each one following triples the years of the one before.
Dogs live for nine years on average, or three times the life of a hedge, while the human life span works out to nine times the life of a dog, or 81 years. The calculation assigns our 4.5 billion-year-old planet a life span of 19,683 years, a discrepancy that gives some sense of the accuracy of the whole endeavor.
The next big innovation in dog math didn’t arrive until the mid-20th century, when the seven-to-one rule became widespread for reasons that aren’t entirely clear, but which probably had to do with the simple fact that human life expectancy at the time was about 70 years, while dogs lived to be about 10.

It was clear from the get-go that the formula is overly simplistic. Dogs mature faster than people: They can produce their first litter of puppies before they’re a year old, while the typical human 7-year-old is still years away from puberty.
There’s also the problem of radically different life spans: Small dogs like the Cairn Terrier can expect to live twice as long (14 years) as a large breed like the Great Dane (7 years).
Acknowledging these realities, the American Kennel Club offers a dog-year conversion table on its website that front-ends the aging process and accounts for dog size. By this calculation, Winston is approaching 15 in human years, which makes more intuitive sense. But can that conversion be improved?
The UCSD team thinks so. Their work zeroed in on a process called methylation, which reflects the chemical changes happening in a creature’s DNA as it ages.

The researchers collected DNA samples from 104 Labrador retrievers over a 16-year period. They compared changes in their DNA samples against DNA previously collected from 320 humans between the ages of 1 and 103.
They specifically looked for similarities in the methylation process between the two sets and found that the DNA profiles evolved in similar ways across the life span of both species. “If you look at the methylomes of 2-year-old Labs and you ask what are the closest human methylomes? The answer is that the best matches are in humans about 40 years old,” said UCSD’s Trey Ideker, the leader of the laboratory running the study. “That is just what the data show, no more, no less.”
Plot the two DNA profiles against each other and you get a curve showing the relationship between dog years and human years. Since Labrador retrievers are perhaps the most universally loved breed of dog, Ideker and the team illustrated their findings using the human equivalent: Tom Hanks.
Chart via Wang et al., 2019
Chart via Wang et al., 2019
According to the DNA analysis, a 1-year-old Lab is equivalent to a “Big”-era Hanks, while a 4-year-old mirrors the actor’s star turn in “The Da Vinci Code.” By age 9, a Lab has obtained the approximate gravitas of Hanks starring as Ben Bradlee in “The Post.”
The study’s dog-year equation front-loads even more of a dog’s developmental aging into its first year. That’s readily apparent when compared with the more linear approaches of the other estimates.
Image without a caption
In the new equation, a 2-year-old Lab is the same genetic age as a 41-year-old human. If you’ve ever watched a young dog sprint across a field in a matter of seconds you may question whether this comparison is any more accurate than previous ones.

When this question was posed to Ideker via email, he asked if I was “implying that a 40 year old is not energetic??!?!? This 47 year old begs to differ. Rather than get depressed that your 2 year old dog is a 40 year old human — why not rejoice that your 40 year old human is a 2 year old dog!”
On a more serious note, he said that those figures were simply what the DNA analysis showed. “This molecular characterization may or may not capture the entire experience of aging,” he added. “Our curve is based on one particular molecular measurement, albeit the first really quantitative one. But this story is clearly just beginning — the full verdict on dog-human aging is definitely not yet in and likely will not be for some time.
 
1 - 10 of 10 Posts
Top