Gundog Training Forum

Ah it seems my learned friend is mixing Nurture and Nature again
Whilst being totally correct about the influence of `limiting exercise' in pups will do little to correct, and at the most delay the effects of`genetic' disorders. The excess wear and tear on soft bones and joints in the young pup is likely to create strains and stresses which may not have of occurred if the pup, not the owner, was free to self regulate the exercise. Once we use a `walk' as exercise the pup is faced with doing that exercise that we have created with little `natural' choice in the matter.
And, yes I would agree the pup does need to have exercise in order to create good muscle and general health, both physically and mentally. Once again it is about striking the right balance. I would rather the `five minute ' rule was pushed whether or not scientifically proven, than the walk till the pup drops scenario of the pup self regulating, to, what I see is becoming, `I read it on t'interweb, so it must be right' new generation of fact learning dog owners.
I know I'm writing to a much more sophisticated crowd on here. But you never know who might drop in ..... not those with an advertising link within three posts of course

Must admit im not a particularly knowledgeable about the training of gundogs although I'm presently trying to train 2.I dont really see that this subject as anything to do with training so ill dip a toe in.

I have though, for many years been interested in coaching sport and the science of skill acquisition and physical development in growing children. Most of what we thought about children doing weights and excercise has been proven to be totally wrong and based on a false logic. Just because the thinking regards prepubescent children has been disproved does not mean that the thinking regards dogs is equally wrong, but I see little actual evidence to prove it is correct, probably because there are very few actual studies and the thinking is based an anecdotal evidence. Once anyone believes something to be true it is very difficult to get them to change their mind.

I did come across this which is not an example of proof of anything, but it is somewhat evidenced and based on reasonable assumptions, obviously my beliefs somewhat influence my opinions https://www.vetlessons.com/risk/exercise

Interesting article, but very `cherry picked' evidence on which to base the argument, and still mixed the nature and nurture aspects of effects. I'm not saying the five minute thing is accurate either, just that the message of being on that side of the argument does seem to, in common sense terms, carry some weight. And what is the authors response to that stance:
”It's a guideline created to discourage irresponsible exercise." At first glance, this answer might seem moderate and sensible. At second glance, it’s anything but. This is a perfect example of what’s termed a slippery slope fallacy. How would it sound if we applied the same argument to diet? For example, imagine a friend suggested feeding your dog one carrot per month of age. When you counter that a 100% carrot diet is unbalanced, this is what they might say: “It's only a guideline to stop you feeding grapes and chocolate." It might be easier to accept this guideline fallacy if exercise restriction was safe, but it isn't."
When you have to substantiate your argument with a completely different comparison ( and it wasn't the only one in the article) it does tend to weaken the point you are trying to make in my humble opinion.
My more critical response would be that my Thesis submitted for my HND contained more relevant facts in its title than this article, and that was just three lines long. ( Don't ask, it was 40ish years ago but I do remember it was to do with intestinal parasite burden of sheep and cattle, epidemiology, blah, blah, blah ) You know when science was real science, research was real research, you had to dust off books in the library, and send off for peer reviewed papers and then come at it from different perspectives before making your conclusion. What passes for science these days seem to be opinion based on hear say, just someone else's hear say based on similarities of results on completely different experiments. It is of course proven to be safe, and even effective because it has been tested on eight mice with no ill effects ... well they were fine when they were moved to Lahaina, Maui last July for a well earned retirement. ( just some topical humour there )

munstyman wrote: ↑Thu Jan 11, 2024 8:14 pm Interesting article, but very `cherry picked' evidence on which to base the argument, and still mixed the nature and nurture aspects of effects. I'm not saying the five minute thing is accurate either, just that the message of being on that side of the argument does seem to, in common sense terms, carry some weight. And what is the authors response to that stance:
”It's a guideline created to discourage irresponsible exercise." At first glance, this answer might seem moderate and sensible. At second glance, it’s anything but. This is a perfect example of what’s termed a slippery slope fallacy. How would it sound if we applied the same argument to diet? For example, imagine a friend suggested feeding your dog one carrot per month of age. When you counter that a 100% carrot diet is unbalanced, this is what they might say: “It's only a guideline to stop you feeding grapes and chocolate." It might be easier to accept this guideline fallacy if exercise restriction was safe, but it isn't."
When you have to substantiate your argument with a completely different comparison ( and it wasn't the only one in the article) it does tend to weaken the point you are trying to make in my humble opinion.
My more critical response would be that my Thesis submitted for my HND contained more relevant facts in its title than this article, and that was just three lines long. ( Don't ask, it was 40ish years ago but I do remember it was to do with intestinal parasite burden of sheep and cattle, epidemiology, blah, blah, blah ) You know when science was real science, research was real research, you had to dust off books in the library, and send off for peer reviewed papers and then come at it from different perspectives before making your conclusion. What passes for science these days seem to be opinion based on hear say, just someone else's hear say based on similarities of results on completely different experiments. It is of course proven to be safe, and even effective because it has been tested on eight mice with no ill effects ... well they were fine when they were moved to Lahaina, Maui last July for a well earned retirement. ( just some topical humour there )

So where’s the peer reviewed science in support of the 5 minute rule? And why the pressing need to separate nature and nurture, both of which, I would think, have relevance here. And why does common sense suddenly sit on the side of the 5 minute rule! You don’t even use the 5 minute rule yourself!!

Sorry, they were rhetorical questions. But when you and I started in dogs we didn’t have, or need, such guidelines. We used common sense and raised strong, healthy dogs. There were fools that overdid it and generally got away with it and I’m sure there are a few similar fools out there today but they’re hardly the type to take sensible advice in any event. The trouble with ‘rules’ is that some people follow them to the nth degree, wrap their pups in cotton wool and become scared of exercising them, which is as detrimental to their growth plates and well-being as excessive exercise. You mention cherry picking evidence but the main evidence put forward in support of the 5 minute rule is the infamous X-ray of a puppy along with the scaremongering rubbish about the growth plates floating in thin air! I still see it crop up every time this topic is raised, even though the false claims have repeatedly been repudiated by vets and physios. Common sense lies only in the eyes of the beholder, perhaps.

I read that article which was suppose to dismiss the 5 minute rule with science and yet the only `science' presented was about `nature' i.e what the pup or young human is born with, which we all know we can do little about for that pup or young human. The five minute rule is about nurture, what we can do to limit artificial damage, by over stressing young growing tissue, bones and joints. Whilst nature , i.e. breeding is important, that is not what this article set out to prove or rather dismiss. As such that article was shoddy, sorry but it was stunningly bad imo. And believe me I was actually hoping for some useful ` scientific' information which would add something to the debate, instead it may me doubt further what purports to be science from `experts' these days.
I see the five minute rule as restating common sense, I've already said I don't see it as a hard and fast rule. ( Even the article refers to it being more commonly used as a `guide' as a defense. ) Common sense was around along time before science proved it right or wrong, so personally I won't stray from what is common sense just because it is another mans opinion, it has to be backed up with facts and proven alternative.
I tend to look at common sense as somewhere in the middle of two extremes and hence `balanced' . In this issue the two extremes are no exercise ( no socialising/ no play/ locked in a crate ) To Over exercising, jumping, Long hikes, and unsupervised `playing' with large adult dogs that are let us say a little too enthusiastic in their `play'. The five minute rule ( guide ) is some what in the middle, therefore meets that criteria of common sense, rather than this article that implies the no harm of that latter, without backing it up with substantial `science' or proof. I consider that to be as dangerous as the No exercise `rule' and I despair of advise like this coming from a Vet.
Dogs lives are relatively short, and as such we will get to see `effects' of our rearing much quicker than those same effects resulting in our species later in life. Therefore making links with human physiology is far less conclusive as the time difference is much greater. This , again is why I did not think this article met with the basic level of science as it relied more on conjecture and opinion with any base being of a tiny and specific sample size. ( Which we should all know by now is NOT science ) We get to see dogs in their later lives within a short memory period, and we get to see many others and have accounts from their owners so, even if the links we draw from these `life histories' may also contain tenuous links, we can find common themes which effect how we manage any perceived problems with our rearing practices.
I have no problem with other opinion differing from my own, in fact any discussion is better than a doctrine . I don't follow the five minute rule but I did listen to those that preached it ( of sorts ) when I was new to rearing my first pup. Once I had a little more experience I adjusted it to suit my dogs, but it made me cautious of potentials issues so I let it form a starting point for my `common sense ' approach that I use now. After that this has simply been some thing that works for me and mine. As the saying goes "if it ain't broke don't try and fix it"
If 100 Labrador owners come forward and tell me they had there pups running marathons and jumping five bar gates as six month olds and lived to fifteen without any joint or skeletal problems. I'll reconsider my thoughts on the matter, as anecdotal as it might be, that sample size on its own meets more of a scientific standard than that article. Just saying

If 100 Labrador owners come forward and tell me they had there pups running marathons and jumping five bar gates as six month olds and lived to fifteen without any joint or skeletal problems. I'll reconsider my thoughts on the matter, as anecdotal as it might be, that sample size on its own meets more of a scientific standard than that article. Just saying

Hmmm. Marathons! Five bar gates! That’s as extreme as the other end of the scale! Nothing common sense about that.

There is no science, there are only opinions. some of those opinions are expressed through badly written articles and some are expressed through well written articles, the eloquence of the debate is almost an irrelevance to the truth, it is however relevant to how many people believe it to be true.

.

If you think about it the five minute rule isn't so bad as a generalisation. At 3 months old, the time most pups get out and about, 15 minute walks are probably all they can cope with anyway. At 6 months a 30 minute walk is much the same as the average adult dog will get. The occasional longer walk wont hurt. It all falls apart when we start to consider different breeds and sizes of dog; smaller dogs mature much quicker than big dogs, heavier built dogs should possibly have less exercise than lighter, whippety dogs when young, etc., etc..
What really gets my goat is owners who keep their little darlings on extending leads but that's a whole other topic and we've already digressed from the current one.

SoupDragon wrote: ↑Sat Jan 13, 2024 7:05 am There is no science, there are only opinions. some of those opinions are expressed through badly written articles and some are expressed through well written articles, the eloquence of the debate is almost an irrelevance to the truth, it is however relevant to how many people believe it to be true.

.

… and in the land of public opinion, confirmation bias reigns supreme.

What is often forgotten is that science isn't there to prove anything, which brings us back to (informed) opinion.

SoupDragon wrote: ↑Sat Jan 13, 2024 7:05 am There is no science, there are only opinions. some of those opinions are expressed through badly written articles and some are expressed through well written articles, the eloquence of the debate is almost an irrelevance to the truth, it is however relevant to how many people believe it to be true.

.

I'm beginning to understand how these authors of such articles are getting away with it if what your saying is truly what you believe.
The definition of science:
Science is the pursuit and application of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence.
The definition of opinion:
An opinion is a belief or attitude about something that isn't necessarily based on facts

My point, and issue about that particular article is that opinion is being misrepresented as fact backed by science, when it clearly is not. If it had been presented as an `alternative' opinion I would have accepted it as such. There is a part of me that does not like the idea that someone reading that article could then go on and cause suffering because they took it as ` science based fact ' , is also tempered by those taking the ` no exercise' advise based on the misinterpretation of the `five minute' rule.
Whilst equally wrong, one is using a qualification to add substance, and imo , with that qualification comes a certain expected responsibility when publishing an article to make the distinction between opinion and fact.

Hmmm. Marathons! Five bar gates! That’s as extreme as the other end of the scale! Nothing common sense about that.

I guess you missed the point about data sample size then, for thee who context is very important