I'm quite sure that underlies the reasoning of many.The dog food companies designated that any dog over a certain weight is considered large breed so they can sell dog food. Which is why many Lab people don't buy into the LB puppy food idea. They don't consider Labs to be a large breed.
But I don't think it's that simple.
For one thing, dogs under that weight eat dog food, too, and the companies want to sell their product to those owners, just as much.
I just Googled weight criteria large breed dogs and looked only at the articles in scientific journals and found that many used 25 kg (55 lbs) at adult weight as the criteria for "large breed" while a few used 50 lbs. (22.7 kg). Neither, of course, is "correct" but the criteria must be clearly specified.
Since some of the articles were studying conditions (e.g., heart, circulation) not directly concerned with nutrition or growth, it's hard for me to see how the dog food companies had any influence on the criteria.
And the detrimental effect of too high an intake of Calcium on the joint development of large and giant breed dogs during puppyhood has been so often studied and confirmed by so many independent investigators, that it's extremely doubtful to me that "Large Breed Puppy Food" formula is just hype and an advertising ploy by the dog food giants to sell more food. Certainly "large breed adult" food or "adult food for Labradors" is hype and ploy since such claims lack the scientific nutritional studies and consensus that exists for LBP formulas.
There does exist contradictory nomenclature for adult weight standards between the Labrador Retriever Club of America and scientific studies of dog health and functioning. LRCA considers Labs as "medium breed dogs" while most (or all?) scientific studies in the area of dog health consider Labs as meeting their criteria of "large breed".
It really doesn't matter just as long as you remember that each has their own criteria and do not say the results of scientific studies on dogs with adult weights over 55 (or 50) lbs doesn't apply to Labs because the study authors called their Labs "large breed" while you consider them to be "medium breed".
Pounds are pounds, kilograms are kilograms and, at least to me, consistent results of 10+ studies is "weighty" evidence. Anyone is free to dismiss that, of course, but they do so based on their own personal preferences and not on any scientific evidence.
Puff [YF, AKC field line (from competing HT/FT breeder) 62 lbs, dob: 8-'01]
Bess [BF, AKC bench line (from competing show breeder) 55 lbs., 1967-1981] "Poor Bess, the Wonder Dog":
Wow, I was under the impression that 70 pounds was pretty much right within standard (as far as weight) for a male lab. ???Originally Posted by rayluckgoo
Riley is about 83 pounds now (almost 19 months old) and very lean...he is also over 26 inches at the shoulder (thanks, I'm sure to his BYB and early neuter.) The funny thing is, even though I guess I know he's tall and a pretty big boy, I never consider him "big" unless I see him with other dogs. I wonder if this is the case with most people and their dogs...he's just my dog so I don't think twice about his size.
I don't consider Angus big. He's about 75 now, but his weight was almost 80lb once, and dropped to 70 while his cast was on and he wasn't exercising & eating as much. His breeder breeds to standard though...none of his labs are oversized. The only times I think of Angus as large is when we are with friends who have smaller breed, like a sheltie...then he looks like a tank . He is blocky though, and solid...people usually estimate his weight higher than 70-75. He has a nice waist & his vet says that under 75 is good for his build & height. As long as he's healthy that's all that matters to me.
not sure if it made a difference, but we waited until he was a year old to neuter as per our breeder's advice.
I would generally agree with Bob that large breed puppy foods aren't a gimmick. They do serve a purpose. Now that same purpose can be achieved with some adult foods, but for the majority of Lab owners that don't pay attention to how much calcium and the AAFCO statement, I think a general recommendation of a LB Puppy food is wise. While Labs may or may not be classified as large breeds based on their size, they do fit in that category based on physiology. They do exhibit many of the same growth-related problems and susceptibility to excess calcium as "true" large breed dogs.
Shane was just at the vet's office. He is 81 lbs. I really didn't think he weighed that much! Does he look overweight?
Summerlin's Inspired by Armani CD (Shane)
Not at all. He is gorgeous, too.Does he look overweight?
Beautiful dog. Reminds me of my Lily.Originally Posted by Shane23
She too went to the Vet once and weighed in at 77 lbs and looked NOTHING like it. She was very lean, just full of muscle.
Shane certainly does not look over weight to me.
That made me smileOriginally Posted by ks02
Our last dog, Crash, topped out at 130. He was probably 27 inches or so, although I never measured him. But it was like that with him...I always thought of him as a little baby. People invariably had the same first words when meeting him: "WOW. That's a BIG DOG." He never seemed big to me, really.
Now, the boys, who are 65 and 70 pounds, seem TINY in comparison to Crash. It is so hard for me to think of them as a "large breed."
Anything under 20 lbs is a cat in my book.
Connie and "The Boys":
Angus, Yellow Lab, CGC, RE, CD
Simon, d.b.a. Flat Coated Retriever, CGC, RE, CD
Gone ahead, but forever in my heart:
Crash, Pit Bull x Rottweiler x Golden Retriever
Weight wise he's okay but he just barely makes the height standard and in the show ring it's very noticeable that he's the smallest dog in the ring. He'll be two this month and he still looks very much a puppy.Wow, I was under the impression that 70 pounds was pretty much right within standard (as far as weight) for a male lab.