Food for thought....A closer look at the amounts we feed our dogs

[Beanwood]

According to the articles below, the amount we feed our dogs can almost predict joint and general health in our dogs.. Well, I guess we know that, but when glancing at an article below, then spent just a few minutes digging around...

The data below is a study using Labrador Retrievers. Basically, what they did is take 2 groups one being a "control" and the other being the "treatment" arm. From each litter of puppies, one puppy of a pair went into the control group and the sibling went into the treatment group. The dogs were raised through adulthood and every year (but one) their hips were evaluated for evidence of dysplasia. The only difference between the control and treatment groups was how much they were fed.

The results are very interesting.

In Labradors that were fed the normal amount of food, more than half had evidence of hip dysplasia by 6 years of age and most by about 12 years. In the treatment group that was fed less, half of the dogs were still free of dysplasia at 12 years old.

The dogs in the two groups were litter mates, which excludes to some extent confounding genetic variables between groups. This is interesting when considering the information I have read that states around 15% - 40% of HD is due to genetic factors. (ref needed) Limiting factors are, of course, they were raised under strict laboratory conditions, small numbers.
But can you can change outcomes by changing a dog's diet, weight, tailored exercise/physio regime or even adding supplements? Can influencing positively other environmental variables for instance influence disease outcomes? I guess though once mechanical changes have occurred in the joint then it becomes more difficult. The study itself was simply powered to look at the influence of diet.

Study commentary

Study

Another study looking at 25% food reduction in 48 Labrador Retrievers and health outcomes

Effects of diet restriction on life span and age-related changes in dogs

 

[Selina27]

Very interesting, I wonder what it means by "normal" amounts ? It says that they were fed adlib?

 

[Beanwood]

Very interesting, I wonder what it means by "normal" amounts ? It says that they were fed adlib?

Good question.

I have found this quote:

"When dogs were3.25 years old, adjustments were incorporated into the feeding protocol to pre-
vent development of obesity. Body weight and body condition scores were monitored throughout the study. A 9-point scale for body condition
score was used."

(15) Lifelong diet restriction and radiographic evidence of osteoarthritis of the hip joint in dogs.

 

[Beanwood]

@Selina27

oops wrong quote!

Mean
±
SD
body weights were
24.2
±
3.79 kg for
the restricted-fed group and 33.7±6.02 kg for the control-fed group after 8 years of age, as reported. Mean body weight of the restricted-fed dogs was 26% less than mean body weight of the control-fed dogs through 12 years of age. Mean body condition score in the restricted-fed group was 4.6, compared with 6.7
in the control-fed group, as reported.

(15) Lifelong diet restriction and radiographic evidence of osteoarthritis of the hip joint in dogs.

 

[Aitch]

It is interesting but there are so many variables. It would have to have much tighter controls to be viable.

 

[Jacqui-S]

I agree it is interesting, but also feel that the uncontrolled variables are huge - in particular exercise levels, spread of exercise over the week and type of exercise are significant factors I believe.
I'm sure that lower weight has to be a factor, but one of many, and weight itself is so closely tied into exercise risks too.

 

[Oberon]

It is interesting but there are so many variables. It would have to have much tighter controls to be viable.

But in this experiment one causal variable was isolated - body weight. Every other thing was held constant across the two groups (type of food, living arrangements, lifestyle (they all lived in a research facility), vet care), and rigorous efforts were made to mininmise genetic differences by using matched pairs. So the only real ‘variable’ was in fact weight, and so the researchers could be pretty confident that the differences in joint outcomes that they saw were weight related.

It’s true that there are many things that cause hip displaysia (genes, injury, excessive repetitive impact on joints) but this study was able to do a pretty good job of ruling out those things and isolating the effects of weight.

 

[Jacqui-S]

they all lived in a research facility)

Ah, of course, I missed that bit.
Fair do's.

 

[Oberon]

It’s true that you still can’t say whether it was the food quantity per se, or secondary effects of that..e.g..body fat ratio, simply being heavier, the resulting extra strain on joints, some other knock on effect of high body fat..... So the exact causal mechanism isn’t isolated. But I reckon it’s safe to conclude from this study that feeding too much and having a dog that is overweight is a really bad thing for hip joints.

 

[Jacqui-S]

feeding too much and having a dog that is overweight is a really bad thing for hip joints.

Which of course we all knew. Nice to have the "evidence" even though a teeny trial.

 

[snowbunny]

@Selina27
Mean ± SD body weights were 24.2 ± 3.79 kg for the restricted-fed group and 33.7±6.02 kg for the control-fed group after 8 years of age, as reported. Mean body weight of the restricted-fed dogs was 26% less than mean body weight of the control-fed dogs through 12 years of age. Mean body condition score in the restricted-fed group was 4.6, compared with 6.7
in the control-fed group, as reported.

(15) Lifelong diet restriction and radiographic evidence of osteoarthritis of the hip joint in dogs.

That's very interesting that the weights were what most people would consider very low for the treatment group and "normal" for the control group. Of course, we don't know anything about the structure of the dogs in question; I'd be interested to know if they were selected from groups of similarly-sized breeding pairs, or if there was a range of "Stanley to Pongo" sized dogs. I'd be interested to know more about gender differences, too; I'm assuming they were all the same sex, or had an equal distribution of the sexes across the two groups.

 

[Beanwood]

hat's very interesting that the weights were what most people would consider very low for the treatment group and "normal" for the control group. Of course, we don't know anything about the structure of the dogs in question;

The mean body condition score was 4.6 in the active group and 6.7 in the control group. Note this was "mean" score and small numbers.

Body Condition Score

I have the entire study downloaded if anyone wants me to pm the study.

 

[MellowYellow]

Interesting indeed.