16 ms·
Reasonable expectation of effectiveness for large dog lifespan extension
- lawrenceyan 3y agoI hope life extension technology develops at a pace quickly enough that I can give it to my dad as a birthday gift.
- Eumenes 3y agoKeeping alive dying humans via cocktail of pharmaceuticals is a thriving trillion dollar business, now we can do it with pets, yay!
- mrguyorama 3y agoDon't worry, the veterinary medicine world is working overtime to replicate the ~profit~ efficiency of our human medicine system!
- Eumenes 3y agoThis dog lived nearly 30 years with exercise and a healthy diet: https://www.dailypaws.com/pet-news-entertainment/feel-good-stories/bobi-worlds-oldest-dog https://www.dailypaws.com/pet-news-entertainment/feel-good-s...
- oatmeal1 3y agoA wonderful solution to a problem that shouldn't exist. Just ban breeding.
- asylteltine 3y agoSorry you don’t like dogs
- NegativeK 3y agoI 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 3y agoYou can side step a lot of nonsense by selecting breeders of hunting dogs. Good health and robustness are key consideration along with sociability.
- radicaldreamer 3y agoSame with herding dogs, many reputable breeders do a lot to prevent health issues like genetic testing, very early training etc.
- NegativeK 3y agoI 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.
- flir 3y agoLogically 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).
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- obmelvin 3y agoI'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 3y agoFrom 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 3y agoWhat's your point? Are you against that they used deductive reasoning on an existing data set?
- com2kid 3y agoWolves 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 3y agoThe 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 3y ago
- com2kid 3y agoI 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 3y ago> … "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.
- com2kid 3y ago> 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.
- mdekkers 3y agoI 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.
- burnished 3y agoIronically 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 3y agoWolves 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 3y ago> 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 3y agoThe 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 3y agoSo 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 3y agoThis seems fine.
- csdvrx 3y agoEDIT: bad copy paste causing an out of context quote of the original article removed to avoid wasting space
- DonaldPShimoda 3y agoI 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 3y ago[deleted]
- sparrish 3y agoI 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 3y agoI think that you don't start reducing IGF-1 until after the dog has reached it's full adult size.
- DonaldPShimoda 3y agoIt'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 3y agoThis is given to adult dogs, reducing the hormone when it no longer is relevant for growth.
- angry_moose 3y agoThis 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).
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- sfteus 3y agoI think the idea is you let the dog grow to full size, then begin this treatment after they have finished growing.
- burnished 3y ago
- zoklet-enjoyer 3y agoGonna have to get this "for my dog"
- nkozyra 3y agoI'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/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8844108/
- loeg 3y agoThe 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 3y agoEven 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.
- scotty79 3y agoBut tall people also have shorter lives, right?
- collegeburner 3y agoyou 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.
- darknavi 3y agoTo 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.
- Finnucane 3y agoI'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 3y agoThe 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.)
- calamari4065 3y agoAh, 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
- l8_to_catch_up 3y agoActually, 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.
- efields 3y agoI'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 3y agoI 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 3y agoDifferent 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/ https://www.akc.org/dog-breeds/australian-shepherd/ (see Personality then Energy Level) [1] https://www.akc.org/dog-breeds/great-pyrenees/ https://www.akc.org/dog-breeds/great-pyrenees/
- qgin 3y agoThis is the first time the FDA (any part) has allowed a drug for the indication of longevity / lifespan. That's a big deal.
- aredox 3y agoIt'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.
- jjk166 3y agoThis 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.
- smt88 3y agoExcept it can't, at least not reasonably quickly, because human lifespan takes 8x as long to verify as a large dog's does.
- jjk166 3y agoThat 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.
- smt88 3y ago> 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.
- subroutine 3y agoAs 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 3y agoYes, I certainly hope someone eventually does a real trial that actually looks at lifespan.
- sethbannon 3y agoThis 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 3y agoWhat happens when [insert your least favorite political figure here] gets to live to 500? 500 years of Putin - that would be fun.
- sethbannon 3y agoSo 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 3y agoMy 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 3y agoOr 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 3y agoWould you support paying the cost of providing everyone with your life-expanding drug? Because that's never discussed
- aaron695 3y ago[dead]
- taylodl 3y agoIt 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.
- Johnny555 3y ago> 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.
- puzzledobserver 3y agoI 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/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3651517/.
- DFHippie 3y agoThat'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.
- blueyes 3y agoThe 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.
- Metacelsus 3y ago>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.
- robwwilliams 3y agoFunny 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/ https://mkaeberlein.com/off-label-rapamycin/
- kilroy123 3y agoDo you recommend any other biohacker blogs or people to follow? I know YouTube shut down several biohacker channels.
- philg_jr 3y agoPeter Attia, but he is focused on things that are well studied and concentrates on the low hanging fruit, eg. mental health, diet, and exercise.
- theatraine 3y agoJosh Mitteldorf's blog is good for life extension updates: https://joshmitteldorf.scienceblog.com/ https://joshmitteldorf.scienceblog.com/
- klipt 3y ago> 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.