Physical activity and sport-specific training patterns in Swedish sporting and working trial dogs—A questionnaire survey

Introduction

Besides offering companionship, dog sports are popular activities with dogs (1). Furthermore, dog ownership is associated with increased general physical activity in humans (2). Human participants in dog sports have varying backgrounds and purposes, from casual leisure to occupational devotion, and participation is at local to international level (3). Sporting and working trials are becoming popular parts of the canine industry and veterinary professional are regularly treating these dogs in clinic. Therefore, understanding the work load and demands requested from canine athletes is essential for being an effective veterinary professional (4–6). In dog sports, handlers navigate the dogs through physically and mentally demanding tasks, e.g., heelwork, obstacles to overcome, searching for people in the forest and objects to retrieve (4). The physical requirements vary among disciplines, where disciplines such as agility and protection involve tasks that require muscle strength and power, while rally obedience has lower physical impact (4, 7, 8). Other disciplines, like searching and tracking people demand cardiorespiratory and muscular endurance from the dog (9–11).

When participating in sports and working trials, dogs need to be prepared for sport-specific tasks (12–14). Physical fitness, as well as sport and field specific training, are thus integral parts of performance in trials and competitions. Physical fitness includes cardiorespiratory (i.e., aerobic and anaerobic capacity) and neuromuscular (i.e., muscle strength, mobility, balance) components. Body composition (i.e., lean and fat body mass) and nutritional prerequisites, need to be optimized for the dog to reach full athletic performance (15–17).

In the fields of rehabilitation and physical education and training, physical activity and physical conditioning exercises are described according to the “F.I.T.T.”-principle (i.e., frequency, intensity, time (duration), and type of exercise) to facilitate exercise prescription (18, 19). Current definitions of canine physical activity are vague. In human literature, physical activity has been recognized as any bodily movement produced by the contraction of skeletal muscles that results in an increase in caloric expenditure over resting energy requirement (19, 20). Physical conditioning exercise is done to improve and/or maintain physical fitness components, and is per definition a type of physical activity consisting of planned, structured, and repetitive bodily movement (13, 15, 19, 20). Sport-specific training in dogs is another type of conditioning, an associative learning process, with regards to learning relevant tasks related to a sport or working discipline (21).

Understanding of how dogs' physical activity patterns are related to their health, well-being, injury and disease in various life stages and performance is increasingly important to canine welfare (22). However, science-based guidelines for achieving health and sport-specific benefits from physical activity in dogs are still sparse. A unified way of reporting physical activity in dogs is essential to facilitate future studies on relationships to canine health and well-being.

Consensus with regards to how to define physical activity patterns in dogs has yet to be established.

The lack of a definition may lead to different procedures to capture and express physical activity in dogs, and even more specifically in working and performing canine athletes. Physical activity pattern can be defined as a way in which physical activities, including physical conditioning exercise, and periodization of sport-specific training are repeated over time (20, 23, 24). A few studies have investigated canine physical activity at various intensities or according to duration (25–28). Durations of physical activity at various intensities have been assessed in privately owned free-ranging dogs, farm dogs, and family dogs by measurements recorded from an accelerometer device (25). Intensity and time-related categories based on canine gaits and duration per day have been described in previous studies. With regards to gait, one study defined walk as light exercise and trot and faster gaits as moderate to vigorous exercise (26), and a second study defined slow walk on a lead as light to moderate activity, and running off leash as vigorous physical activity (27). With regards to time, three time-related categories have been used to describe daily duration of physical activity, i.e., <1 h per day (“low”), 1–3 h per day (“moderate”), and >3 h per day (“high”) (29–31).

Although there are several questionnaires validated to measure and monitor levels of physical activity in humans (32), there are no validated owner-reported instruments to capture physical activity and sedentary behaviors in various dog populations. Dog owner-reported measures of physical activity may provide important contextual information (28, 33–40). Hence, estimations of physical activity patterns may be based on subjective means (32, 41), e.g., owner-reported questionnaires (28), owner-reported logs and direct observation, and/or be based on measurements from an objective device, e.g., accelerometer (42, 43), pedometer (44–46), heart rate monitor (47) or smart devices (48, 49).

Recently, several studies have been published on daily physical activity and sport-specific training parameters and their associations to injury in agility dogs (33–35, 39, 40, 50–54). There is however a lack of research focusing on physical activity patterns in sporting and working trial dogs from other disciplines. Canine sporting competitions and working dog trials have been organized by the Swedish Working Dog Association (SWDA) since 1918 (55, 56). The SWDA is a non-profit members' association organized under the Fédération Cynologique Internationale (FCI), the world governing body for canine sporting disciplines (57). The implementation of sporting and working trial disciplines are similar in many countries and international competitions under the same rules are applied, e.g., in obedience classes.

The objective of this study was to explore physical activity patterns, including physical conditioning exercise and sport-specific training, and management routines among sporting and working trial dogs participating in various disciplines in Sweden.

Materials and methods

Dogs and data collection

This research was an online survey with a cross-sectional and descriptive study design. Data were collected for eligible dogs via a questionnaire distributed electronically to handlers of dogs competing in agility, obedience, rally obedience, mondioring, working trials (i.e., messenger, patrol, protection, search, tracking, International Utility Dog trials, International Nordics Style and BH-VT exams) organized by the Swedish Working Dog Association (SWDA) (55, 58).

Participation in the internet-based questionnaire was not restricted to geographic location or type of dog. Inclusion criteria were: dog born 2005 or later; participating in a sport discipline and/or working trial organized by the SWDA at any level at least once; owner access to the internet; and willingness and ability to complete an online survey in Swedish. Participation was initiated when the respondent clicked an embedded hyperlink that directly accessed the appropriate survey. The respondent could fill in the questionnaire for several additional dogs.

Questionnaire

An online survey was developed by veterinarians, veterinary physiotherapists, a statistician, and experienced obedience and working trial judges. The questionnaire was tested in a pilot group of dog handlers and adjusted accordingly prior to publishing. The final version of the questionnaire contained mainly close-ended multiple choice questions in Swedish. The results from a qualitative content analysis of narrative data from open-ended questions in the survey have been published elsewhere (59). The survey was distributed by means of an internet survey site (Google Forms, Google LLC, Mountain View, CA, USA) to facilitate data collection. The survey was initiated on February 1, 2019 and remained open for 2 months until April 3, 2019. Recruitment strategies included advertisements with the survey link at the internet sites of the SWDA (02/01/2019 and 03/25/2019) and the Swedish Kennel Club (03/27/2019), and social media groups. Survey participation, i.e., responding to an anonymous online questionnaire, was entirely voluntary.

Based on the F.I.T.T.-principle, items in the questionnaire were targeting various components of physical activity (15, 18, 19). Frequencies, two levels of intensity, time (duration) and types of physical activities and sport-specific training were reported by respondents. Duration of physical activity was divided into low-moderate and vigorous level of intensity, respectively (27, 41, 60). Low to moderate intensity was represented by one item targeting daily physical activity, e.g., walks, and vigorous intensity was targeted by physical activities resulting in hard panting, e.g., off-leach, running, swimming (26, 27, 41, 60). In addition, the questionnaire also included items about the dogs' characteristics, such as age, weight, sex, breed, health history, and management routines, e.g., surfaces used for physical activity and sport-specific training, frequency and type of warm-up activity. In questions concerning types of physical activity, surfaces used, and types of warm-up activities the respondents were given an opportunity to add information in open-field boxes. Table 1 shows the details of the topics and variables relevant for this study.

TABLE 1

Table 1. Questions and variables regarding demographics, health history, physical activity, sport-specific training, and management.

Data analysis and statistical methods

Descriptive baseline characteristics were summarized using frequencies and proportion (%) in categorical data and for continuous data distributions were manually inspected. Mean and standard deviation (SD) was calculated for normally distributed variables and median and inter quartile range (IQR) for non-normally distributed data. Variables regarding demographics, health history, physical activity, sport-specific training and management are described in Table 1.

Working trial disciplines including mondioring were further combined into four categories, i.e., messenger, protection, search, tracking. These are defined in detail in Supplementary Table 1. We further calculated the total number of disciplines a dog participated in.

Sport specialization was defined as competing in only one discipline and training that sport for ≥ 10 months per year. This is analogous with sport specialization in human adolescents (23, 61).

Total work load per week was calculated as assigning the middle of time point in the interval for duration of daily physical activity, duration of vigorous physical conditioning exercise, and duration of sport-specific training, per week. Thus, an interval of 0–1 h yielded a training time of 30 min, 1–2 h was set to 90 min, and so on, except for the daily physical activity category of <15 min per day, which was assigned 0 min. The mean total work hours per week was calculated as [(duration of daily physical activity per day × 7) + duration of vigorous physical conditioning exercise + duration of sport-specific training per week]/60.

Physical conditioning exercise to improve or maintain canine fitness, was categorized as “cardiorespiratory”, “musculoskeletal”, or a “combination” of both (4, 13, 15, 19, 20). Cardiorespiratory activities included aerobic and/or anaerobic endurance, e.g., intervals in gallop, galloping in sand, trot or gallop off-leash with handler riding bike. Musculoskeletal activities included muscular endurance, strength, power, stability, balance, mobility or agility, such as parkour, drag weight, weight vest during walking, jumping technique exercises, balance training exercises, tricks, static stretching, walking in snow and on uneven surfaces, underwater treadmill training, or cavaletti. Activities requiring both cardiorespiratory and musculoskeletal components of physical fitness, e.g., hill climbing, running, agility, swimming, canicross, bikejioring, off-leash exercise in the forest, treadmill, were categorized as a “combination”.

Warm-up activities were categorized as “general”, “sport specific”, “mobility”, “passive” and “other” analogous with components previously described in human and canine literature (15, 22, 24, 62, 63). General warm-up activities aiming at increasing body temperature included locomotion in walk and/or trot. Sport-specific warm-up activities included movements and tasks that were to be performed in the upcoming discipline, e.g., heelwork, jumping, bite work, off-leash search for objects, intervals in gallop. Mobility warm-up activities included dynamic and/or static stretching with a purpose to increase flexibility, e.g., play, tricks, walking in circles or with increased active joint range of motion, locomotion off-leash, short intervals in canter. Passive warm-up included massage and/or warm blanket, and “Other” warm-up included unspecified physical warm-up and/or mental preparation.

Main surfaces used for physical activity, physical conditioning exercise and sport-specific training were categorized into 15 different categories, specified in Supplementary Table 2.

Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the possible influence of recall bias on inconsistencies in reported frequency of sport-specific training over the year. In the first sensitivity analysis we excluded all dogs that did not participate in sport-specific training during the past year. A second sensitivity analysis was performed in which all deceased dogs were excluded.

Ethical consideration

This research was conducted as online reported data from handlers of sporting and working trial dogs, without subjecting the dogs to any kind of stress or suffering. The respondents were informed and free to choose whether to participate in the study. All respondents were debriefed in writing about the content and purpose of the study. In the first paragraph of the online questionnaire it was stated that by completing and submitting the online questionnaire the respondents were providing their informed consent. No personal or sensitive data were collected from the respondents and all data on sporting and working dogs were anonymous. Respondents could possibly withdraw their responses only by contacting the responsible researcher (A.E.) with descriptive data about their dog. Otherwise, the responses could not be traced back to detect individual responses.

Results

Cohort characteristics

A total of 1615 survey answers were received. Out of these, 29 were excluded due to incomplete responses on sport participation. Four dogs were further excluded due to inconsistencies between reported participation in dog training activities and reported training time, resulting in 1582 unique dogs included in the analysis. Full characteristics are presented in Table 2. The age category 4–6 years was the most common (n = 428, 27.1%). Of all dogs, n = 692 (44%) were intact females, n = 205 (13%) spayed females, n = 518 (33%) intact males and n = 167 (11%) neutered males. The median weight was 23 kg (IQR 14 kg, n missing = 6). Most dogs were from FCI group 1 (Sheepdogs and Cattle dogs) (n = 895, 57%), while group 8 (Retrievers, Flushing dogs, Water dogs) and group 2 (Pinscher and Schnauzer—Molossoid and Swiss Mountain and Cattle dogs) were second and third most common (n = 232 (15%) and n = 200 (13%), respectively). The distribution across the FCI breed groups can be seen in Table 2. The five most common breeds were German Shepherd Dog (n = 205, 13%), Border Collie (n = 133, 8%), Belgian Shepherd, Malinois (n = 111, 7%), Australian Shepherd (n = 86, 5%) and Australian Kelpie (n = 76, 5%). See Supplementary Table 3 for the distribution across all breeds. Only a small proportion of the dogs did not have an FCI evaluation for hip dysplasia (n = 256, 16%) or elbow dysplasia (n = 418, 26%), but n = 189 (12%) of the dogs were reported to have hip dysplasia and n = 65 (4%) elbow dysplasia (Table 2). Moreover, n = 1229 (78%) had participated in any of the official mental evaluations available in Sweden and n = 844 (53%) had participated in structural conformation evaluation performed by an official judge, e.g., at open dog show.

TABLE 2

Table 2. Demographics and characteristics of sporting and working trial dogs (n = 1582).

The year prior to the study, n = 1329 (84%) of the dogs, had been trained for competition. Over half of the dogs (n = 919, 58%) had ever suffered from an injury. The proportion of injured dogs varied slightly across the disciplines with the highest proportion in agility dogs (n = 276, 64%) and the lowest in obedience (n = 441, 56%).

Physical activity patterns

Almost one third of the dogs (n = 453, 29%) received <1 h per day of physical activity, e.g., walks, and only 3% (n = 51) were never exercised off leash. Trot was reported as the primary self-selected gait in 57% (n = 907) of the dogs and gallop in 32% (n = 499). A fifth (n = 319, 20%) of the dogs never played with other dogs. The majority of the dogs (n = 1328, 84%) had more than 1 h of vigorous physical exercise per week (Table 3).

TABLE 3

Table 3. Physical activity including physical conditioning exercise reported in the full cohort of competition dogs (n = 1582) and stratified by participation in various disciplines.

Almost three quarters of the participants (n = 1119, 71%) added physical conditioning exercise to improve and/or maintain their dogs' physical capacity in sports. Nearly half of the participants (n = 732, 46%) were addressing musculoskeletal components of physical capacity through physical conditioning activities (Tables 4, 5).

TABLE 4

Table 4. Sport-specific training and physical conditioning exercise in the full cohort of competition dogs (n = 1582) and stratified by participation in various disciplines.

TABLE 5

Table 5. Sport-specific training and physical conditioning exercise stratified by working trial disciplines.

With regards to sport-specific training, 60% (n = 953) received at least 3 h of training per week and only a very small portion (n = 35, 2%) trained their specific discipline less than once per week (Tables 4, 5).

There was variability in the number of disciplines participated in through the whole cohort, with a range from one to five. Most commonly reported was one discipline (n = 767, 48%) and two disciplines (n = 541, 34%). Three dogs (2%) were competing in five disciplines, 50 dogs (3%) in four disciplines and 221 dogs (14%) in three disciplines. Of the dogs practicing only one discipline, 38% (n = 294) were considered specialized since they were actively training that discipline for ≥10 months per year. Among the agility dogs, 20% (n = 84) were specialized, while for the other disciplines, the proportions of specialized dogs were around 10%.

Minimum and maximum total work load per week, i.e., daily physical activity, vigorous physical conditioning exercise and sport-specific training combined, were 0.5 and 49 h per week, respectively. Median total work load was 16.5 h (IQR 9.0) per week in the full cohort and in general there was a higher total work load for dogs in the working trial disciplines (Tables 4, 5).

In addition to various sporting and working trial disciplines there were also interactions with other physically demanding activities. Dogs from all disciplines participated to some extent in canicross (Figure 1). Regardless of primary discipline, almost all dogs also participated in obedience, with the exception of agility where only 70% of the agility dogs participated. For tracking, 35% of the agility dogs, 56% of the rally obedience dogs, and 79% of the obedience dogs participated. In contrast, dogs competing in agility, obedience and rally obedience never participated in protection, search, rescue or patrol activities (Figure 1). Participation and gradient proportions of interaction in various disciplines and other physically demanding activities over the year are illustrated in Figure 1. Frequency of selected types of activities (i.e., tracking, search, mushing, obedience, messenger, utility dog protection, Swedish schutzhund, mondioring, protection related to police K9 or guard dog duty, hunting, game tracking, search and rescue, freestyle, patrol, racing, herding, agility, nose work, rally obedience, drag weight/weight pull), over the year is further defined in Table 1.

FIGURE 1

Figure 1. Heat map of participations and interaction in various sporting and working trial disciplines 662 (y-axis) and other physically demanding activities (x-axis) over a year in Swedish sporting 663 and working trial dogs. Gradient proportions of frequency are displayed as colors ranging from yellow (low) to red (high) are shown in the key. IGP, Internationale Gebrauchshunde Prüfungsordnung.

Sporting and working dog management

Three quarters of the dogs (n = 1202, 76%) participated in warm-up exercises prior to competition and training. Nearly half of the dogs (n = 781, 49%) had warm-up sessions lasting 1–10 min. The most common component of physical warm-up was general exercises (n = 1400, 89%), and in additionally 45% (n = 711) mobility warm-up exercises was performed, and 18% (n = 288) were targeting sport-specific activities. Passive methods prior to training and competition, i.e., massage and/or warm blankets, were used in 4% (n = 57), and other un-specified warm-up techniques and/or mental preparation were reported in 5% (n = 74) of the dogs (Table 6). Data regarding frequency, duration and content of warm-up stratified by working disciplines are presented in Table 7.

TABLE 6

Table 6. Frequency, duration and content of warm-up activity prior to competition and training in the full cohort of competition dogs (n = 1582) and stratified by participation in various disciplines.

TABLE 7

Table 7. Frequency, duration and content of warm-up stratified by working trial disciplines.

Main surfaces used for physical activity were natural grass (n = 1434, 90%), gravel (n = 1209, 76%), snow (n = 1147, 72%), forest (n = 1481, 934%), and asphalt (n = 808, 51%). For sport-specific training the most commonly used surfaces were natural grass (n = 1578, 99.5%), gravel (n = 1141, 72%), snow (n = 1126, 71%), forest (n = 1218, 77%), asphalt (n = 638, 40%), turf (n = 897, 57%), and indoor venue floorings (n = 581, 37%) (Table 8). Indoor home flooring and concrete were never used for physical activity. The categories are specified in Supplementary Table 2.

TABLE 8

Table 8. Main surfaces used for physical activity and sport-specific training in competition dogs (n = 1582).

Sensitivity analysis

Excluding dogs that did not participate in sport-specific training during the past year or dogs that were deceased did not change the results.

Discussion

This study provides detailed insight into physical activity patterns and sport-specific training in sporting and working dogs participating in agility, obedience, rally obedience, and working trial disciplines. Important demographic and descriptive data on physical activity and sport-specific patterns are presented together with information on management routines utilized by dog handlers. To our knowledge, no other studies have been conducted on these topics in dogs competing in obedience, rally obedience, and working trial disciplines.

The competition dogs in our cohort were typically 2–6 years of age and out of FCI breed groups 1, 2, and 8. In contrast to recent studies on flyball and agility dogs, where only 28 and 22% of the dogs were sexually intact (37, 40), 77% of the competing dogs in our study were unaltered. One obvious explanation is cultural differences between countries, but there may also be practical and economical explanations influencing decisions whether or not to neuter or spay a competition dog. In Sweden, neutering for reasons other than medical was prohibited by law until 1988. From a breeding perspective there are several arguments against neutering and spaying dogs. For example, the genetic diversity narrows with fewer dogs in the gene pool and potentially important individuals are lost to the gene pool if neutered (64). There are also differences in regulations for participation in sports between countries, making it more or less viable to keep a female dog intact. In Sweden, intact female dogs in heat may participate in various sporting and working disciplines such as agility, bikejoring, canicross, freestyle, international utility dog disciplines, heelwork to music, herding, mondioring, rally obedience, and obedience. In other disciplines, like the SWDA disciplines, bitches in season are not allowed to compete, but the entry fee is refunded if the dog is in heat. SWDA trials were adopted as a tool to evaluate breeding characteristics, e.g., physical and mental capacities, and workability, in working breeds, and incentives to keep females intact were thus needed. National regulations in other countries may, and do, differ with possible effects on the composition of the competing dog population.

As many as 77% of the dogs had an official mental evaluation through participation in behavior and personality tests. The large proportion can be explained by the mandatory requirement for passing a test prior to competing in the Swedish national working trial disciplines. There seems to be a growing interest from Swedish breeders and dog owners in obtaining behavior and personality assessment in their dogs (65). Altogether, undergoing behavior and personality assessments, structural and conformational evaluations, and hip and elbow dysplasia screenings indicate that handlers of sporting and working trial dogs are compliant to breed-specific health screening programs initiated by breed clubs and the Swedish Kennel Club.

Previous studies on physical activity have shown that agility dogs in USA were walked for ≤2 h per week (39) while agility dogs in Finland were walked for 1.5 h per day (34). Our study confirms the longer duration of walks in Nordic agility dogs compared to American. We further extend these studies by reporting physical activity patterns of several additional disciplines. With regards to previously reported time-based levels of activity, sporting and working trial dogs in our sample exhibited moderate to high durations and moderate to vigorous intensities of physical activity (31). However, the level of intensity of the physical activity is difficult to study using self-reported data. To target intensity we designed questions addressing normal gaits of the dogs in order to capture low to moderate and vigorous levels of physical activity, as previously suggested (26, 27). To further separate vigorous intensity from low to moderate, the respondents were provided with a description of vigorous intensity as physical activity resulting in hard panting. This description is in line with a perceived exertion scale for dogs (60). For agility dogs, it has been reported that 49% were walked mostly, or always, on leash (34). One explanation for this could be to prevent the dogs from galloping and implement variability to the time spent in physical activity. Another explanation for using leash could be laws in some countries that require dogs to stay on a leash while in public. There may also be a lack of readily available free areas to be off leash and a need to protect dogs from road traffic accidents. In our study, we found a higher proportion of dogs spending more than half of their time off leash, and almost all dogs preferred the faster gaits, trot or gallop, as self-selected gaits.

We further observe that more than half of the dogs received vigorous physical conditioning exercise for more than 2 h per week and a slightly higher proportion had weekly regular play sessions with other dogs. In general, we did not notice any differences across disciplines with regards to duration and intensity in physical activity patterns. Adding sport-specific training, we observed a higher total work load in hours per week for dogs participating in messenger trials. We note that this is in line with previous findings that large high drive dogs generate more physical activity with their owners (66). One possible explanation to the moderate to high levels of activity with regards to duration of physical activity, could be the law Outdoor Access Right that gives people the right to freely roam the natural property in Sweden. Hence, the opportunity to walk, cycle, ride, ski, and camp on any land, with the exception of private gardens, near a dwelling house or land under cultivation. Another potential explanation for the moderate to high levels of activity in our sample is that the Swedish Animal Welfare Law (67) regulates the management of pet and competition dogs. For example, dogs are not allowed to be held in crates or on leash indoors, and dog owners have to walk their dogs at least every 6 h during the day.

Sport-specific training was typically conducted several times per week or daily, and lasted for at least 3 h every week in 60% of the dogs in the full cohort. Previous studies have presented conflicting information regarding the duration of weekly training in agility dogs (34, 52). Our findings show that in agility, nearly half of the dogs trained for 3 h or more per week, which is a marked increase of sport-specific training when compared to Finnish and American dog populations where the dogs were reported to train 18 min and <2 h per week, respectively (34, 39). There is increased access to indoor training facilities in Sweden lately, which has increased the availability of agility training over all four seasons, and it should be noted that compared to other disciplines, the total work load for the Swedish agility dogs did not differ. Our study further expands the knowledge on physical activity and sport-specific patterns also in obedience, rally obedience, and working trial dogs, which have not been reported previously. We observe that almost all dogs, regardless of major sport discipline, participated in obedience and tracking activities. In comparison, only 24% of Finnish competitive agility dogs participated in additional physically demanding activities (34). Possible explanations for the differences between the studies could be that our present study targeted dog owners active in SWDA, with local clubs traditionally organizing various types of competitions and thus agility handlers with an interest also in other dog sports, while the Finnish study collected data on primarily agility focused handlers with (potentially) less interest in other sports.

We further observe a higher proportion of injured dogs in our study compared to previous reports of 8–42% injured dogs (39, 50, 51, 53, 68), while we found 58% of the dogs ever being injured. Possible explanations could be differences in the definitions of injuries between the studies, whether or not injuries were confirmed by a veterinarian or not, and if the reported injuries were sports-related or if occurred in another context. More research is needed on risk and protective factors associated to injuries in sporting and working trial dogs.

Warm-up and physical conditioning exercise for the dogs were established routines among dog handlers in our study. However, cardiorespiratory conditioning alone was generally performed only occasionally or not at all. Regular warm-up, prior to training or competition, seemed to be especially well established amongst handlers of agility dogs. These results are in line with data previously reported in agility dogs, indicating that the vast majority performed warm-up activities prior to training or competition (34, 54).

Differences across disciplines regarding surface types used for physical activity and sport-specific training were observed in this study. Clearly, outdoor surfaces, e.g., natural grass, forest, gravel, snow, and asphalt, were mainly used for physical activity. Sport-specific training was also practiced outdoors, but indoor facilities, artificial turf, and other indoor venue surfaces were used as well. Field surfaces and possible relationships with sport-related injuries and performance have been extensively evaluated in human and equine science, but is still a severely unexplored topic in canine athletes.

The design of this study entails certain strengths. The survey approach made it possible to reach out to several sport disciplines covered by the main organization, the Swedish Kennel Club. The full cross-sectional data set was collected over a specific period in time and the information about the opportunity to participate in the study could reach all dog handlers with access to internet at the same time. In this way, we obtained large amount of detailed information about physical activity patterns, sport-specific training, sport specialization, and management of sporting and working trial dogs. We further conducted sensitivity analyses to examine the internal validity of our study. There are also limitations in our study. First, participation was anonymous and did not collect any demographic information about the dog handlers, or about their experience as dog handlers or dog trainers. Second, we did not include any variable on functional recovery following the dogs' participation in physical activity and/or sport-specific training. There is also the possibility of recall bias, i.e., a deviation between the self-reported and the true value of the measurement, a problem well known in questionnaire studies. The use of interval categories for self-reported physical activity, used in this study, is one way of achieving more accuracy in the data (41, 60). However, 30–37% of the dogs participating in the present study spent 3 h or more per week in vigorous physical conditioning exercise. In order to fully reflect the actual time spent in vigorous physical conditioning exercise in future studies, the authors recommend to further specify the higher durations into several categories. For example, add 3–4, 4–5, 5–6, and >6 h.

In conclusion, in a cohort of Swedish sport and working trial dogs, we observe physical activity at moderate to high durations at moderate to vigorous intensities. Most dogs received physical conditioning exercise, but not all dogs were warmed up before training and competition. Our study provides veterinary professionals and dog trainers with valuable insights on the physical exposures and management routines of sporting and working trial dogs.

Data availability statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, upon reasonable request.

Ethics statement

In accordance with the national animal ethical guidelines provided by the Swedish codes of statutes: SFS 2018:1192 and SJVFS 2019:9, ethical review and approval was not required for this animal study. The participants were informed about the content and purpose of the study, that responding was entirely voluntary, and that all data was anonymous. Respondents provided informed consent for their dogs to participate when they chose to proceed and submit the electronic questionnaire. Written informed consent was obtained from the owners for the participation of their animals in this study.

Author contributions

All authors listed have made a substantial, direct, and intellectual contribution to the work and approved it for publication.

Funding

This research was funded by AGRIA and Swedish Kennel Club joint research fund. Grant number N2019-0020. The funder AGRIA was not involved in the study design, collection, analysis, interpretation of data, the writing of this article, or the decision to submit it for publication.

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to the dog handlers who participated in this research and to Karin Östensson and Maria Laurén for discussing the concept of this study in the beginning.

Conflict of interest

Author AE was employed by Djurkliniken Gefle IVC Evidensia. Authors AH and CK were self-employed at EmpowerPhysio and Veterinär Catarina Kjellerstedt, respectively.

The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher's note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Supplementary material

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fvets.2022.976000/full#supplementary-material

References

1. Farrell J, Joey M, Hope AE, Hulstein R, Spaulding SJ. Dog-sport competitors: what motivates people to participate with their dogs in sporting events? Anthrozoös. (2015) 28:61–71. doi: 10.2752/089279315X1412935072201

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

2. Westgarth C, Christley RM, Jewell C, German AJ, Boddy LM, Christian HE. Dog owners are more likely to meet physical activity guidelines than people without a dog: an investigation of the association between dog ownership and physical activity levels in a UK community. Sci Rep. (2019) 9:5704. doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-41254-6

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text

3. Gillespie DL, Leffler A, Lerner E. If it weren‘t for my hobby, I'd have a life: dog sports, serious leisure, and boundary negotiations. Leisure Stud. (2002) 21:285–304. doi: 10.1080/0261436022000030632

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

4. Zink MC, Dyke JBV. Canine sports medicine and rehabilitation, 1st edn. Hobroken, NJ, USA: Wiley-Blackwell. (2013). doi: 10.1002/9781118783443.ch1

CrossRef Full Text

5. Bloomberg M, Dee J, Taylor R. Canine sports medicine and surgery. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders. (1998).

Google Scholar

6. Bockstahler B, Levine D, Maierl J, Millis D, Wittek K. Essential facts of physical medicine, rehabilitation and sports medicine in companion animals, 1st edn. Babenhausen, Germany: VBS GmbH. (2019).

7. Söhnel K, Rode C, de Lussanet MHE, Wagner H, Fischer MS, Andrada E. Limb dynamics in agility jumps of beginner and advanced dogs. J Exp Biol. (2020) 223:jeb202119. doi: 10.1242/jeb.202119

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

8. Hyytiäinen HK, Blomvall L, Hautala M, Lappalainen AK. Reliability of a new bite force measure and biomechanics of modified long attack in police dogs. Animals. (2021) 11:874. doi: 10.3390/ani11030874

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

9. Diverio S, Barbato O, Cavallina R, Guelfi G, Iaboni M, Zasso R, et al. A simulated avalanche search and rescue mission induces temporary physiological and behavioural changes in military dogs. Physiol Behav. (2016) 163:193–202. doi: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2016.05.006

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

10. Rovira S, Munoz A, Benito M. Effect of exercise on physiological, blood and endocrine parameters in search and rescue-trained dogs. Vet Med. (2008) 53:333–46. doi: 10.17221/1860-VETMED

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

11. Spoo JW, Zoran DL, Downey RL, Bischoff K, Wakshlag JJ. Serum biochemical, blood gas and antioxidant status in search and rescue dogs before and after simulated fieldwork. Vet J. (2015) 206:47–53. doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2015.07.002

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

12. Hall NJ, Johnston AM, Bray EE, Otto CM, MacLean EL, Udell MAR. Working dog training for the twenty-first century. Front Vet Sci. (2021) 8:646022. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2021.646022

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text

13. Ramos MT, Farr BD, Otto CM. Sports medicine and rehabilitation in working dogs. Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract. (2021) 51:859–76. doi: 10.1016/j.cvsm.2021.04.005

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

14. Robbins PJ, Ramos MT, Zanghi BM, Otto CM. Environmental and physiological factors associated with stamina in dogs exercising in high ambient temperatures. Front Vet Sci. (2017) 4:144. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2017.00144

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

15. Farr BD, Ramos MT, Otto CM. The Penn vet working dog center fit to work program: a formalized method for assessing and developing foundational canine physical fitness. Front Vet Sci. (2020) 7:470. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2020.00470

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

16. Otto CM, Cobb ML, Wilsson E. Editorial: working dogs: form and function. Front Vet Sci. (2019) 6:351. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2019.00351

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

17. Zink C, Schlehr MR. Working dog structure: evaluation and relationship to function. Front Vet Sci. (2020) 7:559055. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2020.559055

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

18. Lee HS, Lee SH, Kim JW, Lee YS, Lee BC, Oh HJ, et al. Development of novel continuous and interval exercise programs by applying the FITT-VP principle in dogs. Sci. World J. (2020) 2020:3029591. doi: 10.1155/2020/3029591

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

19. American college of sports medicine. ACSM's Guidelines for Exercise Testing and Prescription. Philadelphia, PA: Wolters Kluwer/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins Health (2014).

Google Scholar

20. Caspersen CJ, Powell KE, Christenson GM. Physical activity, exercise, and physical fitness: definitions and distinctions for health-related research. Public Health Rep. (1985) 100:126–31.

PubMed Abstract | Google Scholar

21. Pearce JM. Animal Learning & Cognition, 3rd edn. London: Psychology Press (2008). p. 440.

Google Scholar

22. Fuglsang-Damgaard L, Harrison A, Vitger AD. Altered muscle activation in agility dogs performing warm-up exercises: an acoustic myography study. Comparat Exercise Physiol. (2021) 17:251–62. doi: 10.3920/CEP190076

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

23. Jayanthi NA, Post EG, Laury TC, Fabricant PD. Health consequences of youth sport specialization. J Athl Train. (2019) 54:1040–9. doi: 10.4085/1062-6050-380-18

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

24. McGowan CJ, Pyne DB, Thompson KG, Rattray B. Warm-up strategies for sport and exercise: mechanisms and applications. Sports Med. (2015) 45:1523–46. doi: 10.1007/s40279-015-0376-x

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

25. Griss S, Riemer S, Warembourg C, Sousa FM, Wera E, Berger-Gonzalez M, et al. If they could choose: how would dogs spend their days? Activity patterns in four populations of domestic dogs. Appl Animal Behav Sci. (2021) 243:105449. doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2021.105449

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

26. Michel KE, Brown DC. Determination and application of cut points for accelerometer-based activity counts of activities with differing intensity in pet dogs. Am J Vet Res. (2011) 72:866–70. doi: 10.2460/ajvr.72.7.866

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

27. Morrison R, Reilly JJ, Penpraze V, Pendlebury E, Yam PS. A 6-month observational study of changes in objectively measured physical activity during weight loss in dogs. J Small Anim Pract. (2014) 55:566–70. doi: 10.1111/jsap.12273

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

28. Lee H, Collins D, Creevy KE, Promislow DEL. Dog aging project consortium. age and physical activity levels in companion dogs: results from the dog aging project. J Gerontol Ser A. (2022) 77:1986–93. doi: 10.1093/gerona/glac099

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

29. Butterwick RF, Hawthorne AJ. Advances in dietary management of obesity in dogs and cats. J Nutr. (1998) 128:2771S−5S. doi: 10.1093/jn/128.12.2771S

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

30. Bermingham EN, Thomas DG, Cave NJ, Morris PJ, Butterwick RF, German AJ. Energy requirements of adult dogs: a meta-analysis. PLoS ONE. (2014) 9:e109681. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0109681

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

31. Nutritional Guidelines - FEDIAF. Available online at: https://fediaf.org/self-regulation/nutrition.html#guidelines (accessed May 1, 2022).

32. Lee PH, Macfarlane DJ, Lam TH, Stewart SM. Validity of the international physical activity questionnaire short form (IPAQ-SF): a systematic review. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. (2011) 8:115. doi: 10.1186/1479-5868-8-115

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

33. Pechette Markley A, Shoben AB, Kieves NR. Internet survey of risk factors associated with training and competition in dogs competing in agility competitions. Front Vet Sci. (2022) 8:791617. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2021.791617

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

34. Inkilä L, Hyytiäinen HK, Hielm-Björkman A, Junnila J, Bergh A, Boström A. Part I of finnish agility dog survey: training and management of competition-level agility dogs. Animals. (2022) 12:212. doi: 10.3390/ani12020212

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

35. Sellon DC, Martucci K, Wenz JR, Marcellin-Little DJ, Powers M, Cullen KL, et al. survey of risk factors for digit injuries among dogs training and competing in agility events. J Am Vet Med Assoc. (2018) 252:75–83. doi: 10.2460/javma.252.1.75

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

36. Pinto KR, Chicoine AL, Romano LS, Otto SJG. An Internet survey of risk factors for injury in North American dogs competing in flyball. Can Vet J. (2021) 62:253–60.

PubMed Abstract | Google Scholar

37. Montalbano C, Gamble LJ, Walden K, Rouse J, Mann S, Sack D, et al. Internet survey of participant demographics and risk factors for injury in flyball dogs. Front. Vet. Sci. (2019) 6:391. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2019.00391

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

38. Lafuente P, Whyle C. A retrospective survey of injuries occurring in dogs and handlers participating in canicross. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol. (2018) 31:332–8. doi: 10.1055/s-0038-1661390

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

39. Kerr ZY, Fields S, Comstock RD. Epidemiology of injury among handlers and dogs competing in the sport of agility. J Phys Act Health. (2014) 11:1032–40. doi: 10.1123/jpah.2012-0236

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

40. Pechette Markley A, Shoben AB, Kieves NR. Internet-based survey of the frequency and types of orthopedic conditions and injuries experienced by dogs competing in agility. J Am Vet Med Assoc. (2021) 259:1001–8. doi: 10.2460/javma.259.9.1001

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

41. Olsson SJG, Ekblom Ö, Andersson E, Börjesson M, Kallings LV. Categorical answer modes provide superior validity to open answers when asking for level of physical activity: a cross-sectional study. Scand J Public Health. (2016) 44:70–6. doi: 10.1177/1403494815602830

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

42. Lee AH, Detweiler KB, Harper TA, Knap KE, de Godoy MRC, Swanson KS. Physical activity patterns of free living dogs diagnosed with osteoarthritis. J Anim Sci. (2021) 99:skab204. doi: 10.1093/jas/skab204

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

43. Yam PS, Penpraze V, Young D, Todd MS, Cloney AD, Houston-Callaghan KA, et al. Validity, practical utility and reliability of Actigraph accelerometry for the measurement of habitual physical activity in dogs. J Small Anim Pract. (2011) 52:86–91. doi: 10.1111/j.1748-5827.2010.01025.x

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

44. Chan CB, Spierenburg M, Ihle SL, Tudor-Locke C. Use of pedometers to measure physical activity in dogs. J Am Vet Med Assoc. (2005) 226:2010–5. doi: 10.2460/javma.2005.226.2010

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

45. Rhodes RE, Murray H, Temple VA, Tuokko H, Higgins JW. Pilot study of a dog walking randomized intervention: Effects of a focus on canine exercise. Prevent. Med. (2012) 54:309–12. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2012.02.014

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

46. Warren BS, Wakshlag JJ, Maley M, Farrell TJ, Struble AM, Panasevich MR, et al. Use of pedometers to measure the relationship of dog walking to body condition score in obese and non-obese dogs. Br J Nutr. (2011) 106:S85–9. doi: 10.1017/S0007114511001814

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

47. Hederstedt S, McGowan C, Essner A. The immediate effect of parachute-resisted gallop on heart rate, running speed and stride frequency in dogs. Animals. (2021) 11:1983. doi: 10.3390/ani11071983

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

48. Šimaityte M, Petrenas A, Kravčenko J, Kaldoudi E, Marozas V. Objective evaluation of physical activity pattern using smart devices. Sci Rep. (2019) 9:2006. doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-38638-z

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

49. Colpoys J, DeCock D. Evaluation of the fitbark activity monitor for measuring physical activity in dogs. Animals. (2021) 11:781. doi: 10.3390/ani11030781

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

50. Inkilä L, Hyytiäinen HK, Hielm-Björkman A, Junnila J, Bergh A, Boström A. Part II of finnish agility dog survey: agility-related injuries and risk factors for injury in competition-level agility dogs. Animals. (2022) 12:227. doi: 10.3390/ani12030227

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

51. Evanow JA, VanDeventer G, Dinallo G, Mann S, Frye CW, Wakshlag JJ. Internet Survey of Participant Demographics and Risk Factors for Injury in Competitive Agility Dogs. VCOT Open. (2021) 04:e92–8. doi: 10.1055/s-0041-1735843

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

52. Dinallo GK, Poplarski JA, Deventer GMV, Eirmann LA, Wakshlag JJ. A survey of feeding, activity, supplement use and energy consumption in North American agility dogs. J Nutr Sci. (2017) 6:1–5. doi: 10.1017/jns.2017.44

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

53. Cullen KL, Dickey JP, Bent LR, Thomason JJ, Moëns NMM. Internet-based survey of the nature and perceived causes of injury to dogs participating in agility training and competition events. J Am Vet Med Assoc. (2013) 243:1010–8. doi: 10.2460/javma.243.7.1010

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

54. Cullen KL, Dickey JP, Bent LR, Thomason JJ, Moëns NMM. Survey-based analysis of risk factors for injury among dogs participating in agility training and competition events. J Am Vet Med Assoc. (2013) 243:1019–24. doi: 10.2460/javma.243.7.1019

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

55. Swedish Working Dog Association. Svenska Brukshundklubben. Available online at: https://brukshundklubben.se/ (accessed May 13, 2022).

Google Scholar

56. Activity report 2020. Farsta: Swedish Working Dog Association; 2021. Available online at: https://brukshundklubben.se/Documents/1_startdelen/7_om_oss/kongress/2021/Verksamhetsber%C3%A4ttelse%202020.pdf.

57. Fédération Cynologique Internationale. Available online at: http://www.fci.be/en/ (accessed Feb 4, 2022).

58. Activity Report 2018. Stockholm: Swedish Working Dog Association. (2019). Available online at: https://www.brukshundklubben.se/Documents/1_startdelen/7_om_oss/kongress/2019/Handlingar/Versamhetsberattelse_2018_webben.pdf (accessed January 7, 2022).

59. Essner A, Kjellerstedt C, Hesbach AL, Svensson K, Igelström H. Dog handler beliefs regarding barriers and facilitators to canine health promotion and injury prevention in swedish working dog trials and competitions. Vet Sci. (2022) 9:242. doi: 10.3390/vetsci9050242

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

60. Swanson KDJ, Harper T a. M, McMichael M, Fries RC, Lascola KM, Chandler C, et al. Development of a perceived exertion scale for dogs using selected physiologic parameters. J Small Anim Pract. (2019) 60:247–53. doi: 10.1111/jsap.12978

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

61. Jayanthi N, Schley S, Cumming SP, Myer GD, Saffel H, Hartwig T, et al. Developmental training model for the sport specialized youth athlete: a dynamic strategy for individualizing load-response during maturation. Sports Health. (2022) 14:142–53. doi: 10.1177/19417381211056088

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

62. McIntyre C. Warm-Up and Cool Down of the Canine Athlete—An Evidence-Based Approach to Improving Performance and Preventing Injury. Erin, Ontario, Canada: McIntyre Canine Rehabilitation (2019).

63. Pinto R, Horan E, Penney K, Parker S, Shmon C. proceedings of the 10th international symposium on veterinary rehabilitation and physical therapy; and the summit of the American association of rehabilitation veterinarians; and the American college of veterinary sports medicine and rehabilitation, A13: the effect of a dynamic warm-up protocol on performance in agility dogs. Acta Vet Scand. (2019) 61:6. doi: 10.1186/s13028-019-0439-3

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text

64. Dawson JK, Howell TJ, Ruby MB, Bennett PC. Throwing the baby out with the bath water: could widespread neutering of companion dogs cause problems at a population level? Front Vet Sci. (2019) 6:241. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2019.00241

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

65. Forkman B, Spraggon A. BPH—Vad anser användarna?. Copenhagen, Denmark: Department of Veterinary Animal Sciences, University of Copenhagen. (2021). p. 14. Available online at: https://www.skk.se/sv/uppfodning/mentalitet/beteende-och-personlighetsbeskrivning-hund-bph/BPH--Utvardering/ (accessed May 16, 2022).

Google Scholar

66. Lim C, Rhodes RE. Sizing up physical activity: The relationships between dog characteristics, dog owners' motivations, and dog walking. Psychol Sport Exerc. (2016) 24:65–71. doi: 10.1016/j.psychsport.2016.01.004

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

67. Animal Welfare Act - SFS 2018:1192. Available online at: www.government.se/information-material/2020/03/animal-welfare-act-20181192/ (accessed Sep 26, 2021).

68. Levy M, Hall C, Trentacosta N, Percival M. A preliminary retrospective survey of injuries occurring in dogs participating in canine agility. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol. (2009) 22:321–4. doi: 10.3415/VCOT-08-09-0089

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar