# Fixing Dogs Shortens Lifespan?



## Todd (Jan 13, 2010)

hey guys, here's an email i received from an animal publication regarding fixing dogs and the effect this may have on their lifespan. just was curious to hear what you all think.

Dec 5, 2009
DVM NEWSMAGAZINE


West Lafayette, Ind. -- We know that women tend to live longer than 
men, but a new study shows that the same may be true in dogs, 
especially if a female dog's ovaries are not surgically removed 
early in life.

A study conducted at the Gerald P. Murphy Cancer Foundation compared 
the medical histories, ages and causes of death in 119 long-lived 
rottweilers with a longevity of at least 13 years with 186 
rottweilers with a normal longevity of about 9 years. The study 
was published in the December issue of the journal Aging Cell.

"Like women, female dogs in our study had a distinct survival 
advantage over males," said the lead researcher David J. Waters, 
associate director of Purdue University's Center on Aging and the 
Life Course and a professor in the Department of Clinical Sciences. 
"But taking away ovaries during the first four years of life 
completely erased the female survival advantage. We found that 
female rottweilers that kept their ovaries for at least six years 
were four times more likely to reach exceptional longevity compared 
to females who had the shortest lifetime ovary exposure."

This study's findings are in line with those of a study conducted 
earlier this year at the John Wayne Cancer Institute in Santa Monica, 
Calif., of 29,000 who had hysterectomies because of benign uterine 
disease. Although those women whose ovaries were removed before 
50 years of age were protected against ovarian, uterine and breast 
cancer, increased mortality from other causes was noted compared 
with those who had their ovaries for at least 50 years.

Both studies call into question the automatic removal of the ovaries 
when hysterectomies are performed in dogs and women. 

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////

P.S. So do you NOT spay your dog?

Well good question. I have always said what I was
taught that the benefit of spaying is to PREVENT
things like Mammary Cancer.

Now I would wonder about spaying ( and neutering) the larger breeds 
later in life- such as after 2 years of age. Clearly we are in a 
learning phase- Talk to your own Veterinarian, and point him or her
to the article.

P.P.S. Knowing that there are MANY things your pet has to deal with, 
I do advise giving some type of supplement allowing them to BETTER 
fight and PREVENT disease. 

Ensure that you have ingredients for Arthritis, Allergies, 
Vomiting/Diarrhea, and Immune Supportive products ( ie Antioxidants 
protecting against free radical damage) 

One such supplement is here- and you can get it for 50% OFF with 
3 Fr.ee bonuses now:

Dr. Jones' Ultimate Canine Health Formula: All Natural Nutritional Supplement For Dogs




Heal Your Pet At Home!

Best Wishes,

Dr Andrew Jones, DVM


----------



## Todd (Jan 13, 2010)

too late for me, my dog was fixed years ago. with your advice, i may reconsider if i ever get another dog.


----------



## DaneMama (Jun 27, 2008)

I've read that study, and I didn't find it conclusive in regards to all dogs in general. Its too multifactorial and vague to be conclusive in my opinion.

I will always spay and neuter animals that I own. The pro's far outweigh the con's.


----------



## spookychick13 (Jan 26, 2010)

I don't buy it for one second.

It didn't even bring pyometra into the discussion!


----------



## jdatwood (Apr 13, 2009)

Plus the author is pushing his supplement at the end...


----------



## Todd (Jan 13, 2010)

jdatwood said:


> Plus the author is pushing his supplement at the end...


i understand he's pushing his supplement at the end, but what does that have to do with fixing your dog?


----------



## jdatwood (Apr 13, 2009)

Todd said:


> i understand he's pushing his supplement at the end, but what does that have to do with fixing your dog?


To me it means that his "article" is biased since he's using it to sell his supplement....


----------



## Todd (Jan 13, 2010)

jdatwood said:


> To me it means that his "article" is biased since he's using it to sell his supplement....


again, i understand that he may be trying to sell his supplement, but fixing dogs doesn't really have anything to do with his supplement. he may be bias, but he still could be trying to help while selling his product as a source of income at the same time. just not sure why the article would be bias considering it doesn't have anything to do with his supplement.


----------



## jdatwood (Apr 13, 2009)

Just my opinion on it Todd. I think anyone trying to convey information that closes it out with an ad that lines their pockets with $$ is biased in everything they do


----------



## spookychick13 (Jan 26, 2010)

Two of the veterinarians I know...the one I work for now and the one I worked for previously are completely against advertising for their services in general.
They both told me they found advertising for health care (human or otherwise) completely inethical. They prefer to be selected by word of mouth and happy clients.

Neither of them pushed anything on clients at all, either. Surgery, food, even medications. They both believed in informing the owner and leaving all the medical decisions up to them.


----------



## Todd (Jan 13, 2010)

spookychick13 said:


> Two of the veterinarians I know...the one I work for now and the one I worked for previously are completely against advertising for their services in general.
> They both told me they found advertising for health care (human or otherwise) completely inethical. They prefer to be selected by word of mouth and happy clients.
> 
> Neither of them pushed anything on clients at all, either. Surgery, food, even medications. They both believed in informing the owner and leaving all the medical decisions up to them.


what you say makes a lot of sense. pet food companies like iams advertise all the time when in reality they have very poor products. I have actually implemented this concept into my every day life. when i see any product, whether it be for dogs or humans, advertised on television, the first thing that comes into my mind is that it is complete bull_****(let's all start cleaning up our language here, ok? RFD)_. I mean, just think about it. these companies seem to spend most of their revenue on advertising rather than quality products. now, back to pet food. iams spends its money on commercials and couldn't care less what it puts in its products, while companies like evo dont advertise on tv, for they are more interested in quality products/positive word of mouth.


----------

