4.4 Article

Once-daily feeding is associated with better health in companion dogs: results from the Dog Aging Project

Journal

GEROSCIENCE
Volume 44, Issue 3, Pages 1779-1790

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11357-022-00575-7

Keywords

Canine; Canine cognitive dysfunction; Feeding frequency; Healthy aging; Time-restricted feeding

Funding

  1. National Institute on Aging, a part of the National Institutes of Health [U19AG057377, R24AG073137]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study investigates the impact of feeding frequency on the health of companion dogs, finding that feeding once daily is associated with better cognitive function and multiple health domains. Further research using longitudinal data is needed to establish a causal effect.
A variety of diets have been studied for possible anti-aging effects. In particular, studies of intermittent fasting and time-restricted feeding in laboratory rodents have found evidence of beneficial health outcomes. Companion dogs represent a unique opportunity to study diet in a large mammal that shares human environments. The Dog Aging Project has been collecting data on thousands of companion dogs of all different ages, sizes, and breeds since 2019. We leveraged this diverse cross-sectional dataset to investigate associations between feeding frequency and cognitive function (n = 10,474) as well as nine broad categories of health conditions (n = 24,238). Controlling for sex, age, breed, and other potential confounders, we found that dogs fed once daily rather than more frequently had lower mean scores on a cognitive dysfunction scale, and lower odds of having gastrointestinal, dental, orthopedic, kidney/urinary, and liver/pancreas disorders. Therefore, we find that once-daily feeding is associated with better health in multiple domains. Future research with longitudinal data can provide stronger evidence for a possible causal effect of feeding frequency on health in companion dogs.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available