Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Fando1234 t1_ja3lz0z wrote

I don't understand this graph...

The average life span of a human is around 80ish in the western world. But my dog would have be about 17 to reach that, which is much older than even small dogs generally live.

Wasn't the whole idea originally that you take average human life span and divide by average dog life span?

I get that they've made this non linear to account for the fact a dog develops differently. But according to this your dog can still have pups well into their 60s and 70s.

Plus my one year old dog would be around the same age as me. And he has a stupid amount of energy and I feel like a slow, creaking, falling apart old man.

22

OldWorldBluesIsBest t1_ja3xvua wrote

i was taught 1 year is 7 dog years

for some reason this graph wants me to believe 1 year is TWENTY dog years, but somehow 5 is 60, and after a point they just stop aging and become immortal i guess?

goofy ass graph and its not even consistent. this looks like if a kid had to make his own graph about how old he thinks dogs are

10

jrm19941994 t1_ja40soo wrote

dogs are fertile at 1, humans are not fertile at 7.

agree the graph makes no sense though.

3

OldWorldBluesIsBest t1_ja45v7h wrote

yeah i think at any rate giving different species some equivalent age doesnt really work. but i find 1 to 7 to work better than whatever this graph was

2

TheRealestWeeMan t1_ja459z0 wrote

The 1 year = 7 dog years thing is a decent approximation for converting the age of an older dog to a human age. However, dogs develop at a higher rate in their first year or so than in their later years. Your conclusion is pretty accurate

2

_b33p_ t1_ja3negp wrote

It doesn't make sense. You can probably just leave it at that 😂. Only thing that kind of makes sense is the age of death.

0

Michael90_Denmark t1_ja3tkjp wrote

You don’t need to understand it. There is a dog on the image, that’s all we need.

0