How old is your dog? When you think of your pup’s age, do you think of it in dog years or human years? Well, whatever your answer is – you’re wrong! A whole @ss study has been done to prove that the 1:7 (one human year equals seven dog years) is inaccurate and that we have no idea how old Fido is.

For years pet owners have gone by the rule that if you multiply your dog’s age by 7, you will get their true age — so if your dog is 8 years old, their physiological age is likely closer to 56.

Science is here to say that equation isn’t quite right. A new study by researchers at the University of California San Diego School of Medicine, which was recently published in the Cell Systems journal, has found this practice won’t give you your pooch’s true age because dogs age differently than humans.

Since dogs and humans age at different rates, creating a formula isn’t as simple as the established 1:7 ratio suggests. The new methylation-based formula the study’s researchers have created is “the first that is transferrable across species” and “may provide a useful tool for veterinarians, and for evaluating anti-aging interventions.”

Using blood samples from 105 different Labrador retrievers of varying ages, the study’s researchers mapped how the patterns of the canines’ methyl groups shifted as they aged. This new research allowed the study to create a graph that can be used to match up the age of your dog with the comparable human age, and the comparison is not 1:7.

This research revealed that dogs when compared to humans, age rapidly when they are young. Per the release’s example, “a one-year-old dog is similar to a 30-year-old human. A four-year-old dog is similar to a 52-year-old human. Then by seven years old, dog aging slows.” The graph formula created by the study reflects these differences.

[From People]

Without trying to sound too much like a know-it-all, I remember the 1:7 being dispelled when I was a kid. I was told that ratio worked out to an average that approximated the pet’s age (we used 1:7 for both dogs and cats, tells you how lazy we were). When I’d heard it, they put the first year of the pet’s life at 15 pet years and the number of years descended in value each subsequent human year but I think that was for cats. This new study stresses that factoring an animal’s physiological age cannot be commuted across species.

The point of all of this seems to be pointed towards the anti-aging products out there for dogs. Veterinary scientists think folks are getting unnecessary products for their doggos based on an assumed human age. The study, whose graphs are posted below, encourages people to consider their dog’s age more in life stages than actual numbers: Juvenile, Adolescent, Mature and Senior. That makes much more sense to me than trying to calculate my pups’ actual age based on a declining set of numbers and some Lab’s blood work. Plus, my dogs are much like the men in my life, their age has nothing to do with how they act. If my pooches are supposed to be mature by their current dog age, nobody told them that!

Why did they use poor Tom Hanks as the human comparison model in this graph? Is he just the default for any information these days?

And since I shameless refer to my pups in this post, it’s only natural that I should shameless post their photos (please forgive me, I haven’t seen these guys in over a week and my husband is supplying me with daily pics to feed my addiction.)

Photo credit: Lum3n and Chevanon Photography from Pexels, Cell Systems Journal, UC San Diego Health and my husband