Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-tq7bh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-24T03:38:17.579Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Diet restriction and ageing in the dog: major observations over two decades

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 December 2007

Dennis F. Lawler*
Affiliation:
2 Research South, Nestle Research Center St Louis (NRC-STL), Checkerboard Square, St. Louis, MO 63164, USA
Brian T. Larson
Affiliation:
2 Research South, Nestle Research Center St Louis (NRC-STL), Checkerboard Square, St. Louis, MO 63164, USA
Joan M. Ballam
Affiliation:
2 Research South, Nestle Research Center St Louis (NRC-STL), Checkerboard Square, St. Louis, MO 63164, USA
Gail K. Smith
Affiliation:
Department of Clinical Studies, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA
Darryl N. Biery
Affiliation:
Department of Clinical Studies, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA
Richard H. Evans
Affiliation:
Veterinary Pathology Services, Aliso Viejo, CA 92656, USA
Elizabeth H. Greeley
Affiliation:
Department of Pathobiology, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61801, USA
Mariangela Segre
Affiliation:
Department of Pathobiology, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61801, USA
Howard D. Stowe
Affiliation:
College of Veterinary Medicine (emeritus), Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48823, USA
Richard D. Kealy
Affiliation:
2 Research South, Nestle Research Center St Louis (NRC-STL), Checkerboard Square, St. Louis, MO 63164, USA
*
*Dr Dennis F. Lawler, fax +1314 982 5857, email dennis.lawler@rdmo.nestle.com
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This report reviews decade two of the lifetime diet restriction study of the dog. Labrador retrievers (n 48) were paired at age 6 weeks by sex and weight within each of seven litters, and assigned randomly within the pair to control-feeding (CF) or 25 % diet restriction (DR). Feeding began at age 8 weeks. The same diet was fed to all dogs; only the quantity differed. Major lifetime observations included 1·8 years longer median lifespan among diet-restricted dogs, with delayed onset of late life diseases, especially osteoarthritis. Long-term DR did not negatively affect skeletal maturation, structure or metabolism. Among all dogs, high static fat mass and declining lean body mass predicted death, most strongly at 1 year prior. Fat mass above 25 % was associated with increasing insulin resistance, which independently predicted lifespan and chronic diseases. Metabolizable energy requirement/lean body mass most accurately explained energy metabolism due to diet restriction; diet-restricted dogs required 17 % less energy to maintain each lean kilogram. Metabonomics-based urine metabolite trajectories reflected DR-related differences, suggesting that signals from gut microbiota may be involved in the DR longevity and health responses. Independent of feeding group, increased hazard of earlier death was associated with lower lymphoproliferative responses to phytohaemagglutinin, concanavalin A, and pokeweed mitogen; lower total lymphocytes, T-cells, CD4 and CD8 cells; lower CD8 percentages and higher B-cell percentages. When diet group was taken into account, PWM responses and cell counts and percentages remained predictive of earlier death.

Information

Type
Full Papers
Copyright
Copyright © The Authors 2007
Figure 0

Table 1 Proximate analysis of diets fed to control and diet-restricted dogs

Figure 1

Fig. 1 Survival curves for diet-restricted (—) and control (–·–) feeding groups. Kealy et al., J Am Vet Med Assoc 220, 1315–1320, 2002. Reprinted with permission.

Figure 2

Fig. 2 Body weights (a) and body condition scores (b) of diet-restricted (●) and control-fed (○) dogs. Values are means with their standard errors depicted by vertical bars. Kealy et al., J Am Vet Med Assoc220, 1315–1320, 2002. Reprinted with permission.

Figure 3

Fig. 3 Fat body composition (a) and lean body composition (b) of diet-restricted (●) and control-fed (○) dogs. Values are means with their standard errors depicted by vertical bars. Kealy et al., J Am Vet Med Assoc220, 1315–1320, 2002. Reprinted with permission.

Figure 4

Table 2 Z-values from Cox regression model for body composition and prediction of time of death

Figure 5

Table 3 Insulin and glucose response to intravenous glucose challenge of 9–12-year control-fed (CF) and diet-restricted (DR) Labrador retriever dogs (from Larson et al.(8))

Figure 6

Table 4 Selected Spearman rank-order correlations to insulin sensitivity

Figure 7

Fig. 4 Clinical chemistry variables (serum means): TAG (a) and cholesterol (b) of diet-restricted (●) and control-fed (○) dogs. Values are means with their standard errors depicted by vertical bars.

Figure 8

Fig. 5 Variables for assessment of protein status (serum means): urea nitrogen (a), total protein (b) and albumin (c) of diet-restricted (●) and control-fed (○) dogs. Values are means with their standard errors depicted by vertical bars.

Figure 9

Table 5 Gonadal steroidogenesis in intact diet-restricted (DR) and control-fed (CF) male dogs

Figure 10

Fig. 6 Bone mineral content (a) and bone mineral density (b) of diet-restricted (●) and control-fed (○) dogs. Values are means with their standard errors depicted by vertical bars.

Figure 11

Fig. 7 Mean serum ionized calcium (a) and parathyroid hormone (b) of diet-restricted (●) and control-fed (○) dogs. Values are means with their standard errors depicted by vertical bars.

Figure 12

Table 6 Types of neoplasms diagnosed in forty-eight diet-restricted (DR) and control-fed (CF) dogs, by diagnosis, feeding group and cause of death v. not cause of death