FDA lists dog food brands linked to DCM

[Tanaqui]

2 hours ago, Spy Car said:

Why do all the companies that make dog food with carbohydrates also make cat food with carbohydrates? They are obligate carnivores. There are starches and other plant based foods in cat rations. A lot. Why?

As to PMR with dogs, the proof is in the pudding.

I think any observer with reasonable vision could ascertain the difference in condition of a PMR raw fed dog and one fed a high-carb kibble. Not a close call.

Bill

 

So you don't have a citation. Got it. You just expect us to believe your word on the basis of you saying it an awful lot.

[Spy Car]

33 minutes ago, Tanaqui said:

 

So you don't have a citation. Got it. You just expect us to believe your word on the basis of you saying it an awful lot.

Wrong. As I told you, you can find this verified in the the report entitled the "Nutrient Requirements of Dogs and Cats" (2006) published by the National Research Council.

Check it out.

Dogs have no essential need for carbohydrates. None.

Bill

[Spy Car]

1 hour ago, dsmith said:

I purchased some Science Diet shortly after posting. It's what he was on as a puppy so at least I'm familiar with the brand. Fortunately he already had a vet appointment scheduled for tomorrow and they didn't feel I needed to rush in today. On his last visit the vet thought his heart was slightly enlarged from an x-ray that was taken where he could see some narrowing of the trachea, but he was not showing any symptoms at all. It's just in the last 2 weeks that I've noticed he's been a little more tired. I'm a nervous wreck until tomorrow.

Science Diet formulas are notorious low in fat and protein. Such formulations will zap a growing puppy of their energy levels.

I hope you get good news with regard to the heart. I'd be skeptical of "the cure."

What is the formula you've been give called?

Bill

[Spy Car]

23 minutes ago, kand said:

I see at the end of this publication, the authors state that there appears to be no absolute requirement for carbohydrates as long as they get sufficient protein. Elsewhere in the publication though, they cite many studies of negative effects on dogs fed carbohydrate-free diets, including significantly higher stillborn rates, depressed body mass in pregnant dogs, ketosis, and (surprisingly to me), higher obesity rates. They say that female dogs “require carbohydrates for optimal reproductive performance and survivability of pups.” The take home to me seems to be be that dogs can do okay without carbohydrates as long as they have a high protein diet, but that they may do even better with some carbohydrates included. 

I suggest you have the wrong take away. Eating carbs cuts a dogs stamina and vitality in a profound way. It actively de-tunes their condition. There is nothing positive that comes with disrupting fat metabolism by feeding carbs. 

PMR fed dogs get plenty of protein and (critically) fat. Fat metabolism is dogs, with fat as the primary energy source and protein as the secondary source (and carbs eliminated), is optimal. The author's contention that PMR fed dogs are prone to obesity is ridiculous. That is an absorb contention that flying in the face of reality. Has the author never met a PMR fed dog? I think not.

Bill

 

 

 

 

[Tanaqui]

So now you're saying that you don't trust the source that you (finally) provided because it says things about carbs and weight gain that you disagree with?

[JessieC]

5 hours ago, Spy Car said:

I suggest you have the wrong take away. Eating carbs cuts a dogs stamina and vitality in a profound way. It actively de-tunes their condition. There is nothing positive that comes with disrupting fat metabolism by feeding carbs. 

PMR fed dogs get plenty of protein and (critically) fat. Fat metabolism is dogs, with fat as the primary energy source and protein as the secondary source (and carbs eliminated), is optimal. The author's contention that PMR fed dogs are prone to obesity is ridiculous. That is an absorb contention that flying in the face of reality. Has the author never met a PMR fed dog? I think not.

Bill

 

Bill, your source did not show that carbohydrates are detrimental to dogs, quite the opposite.

My understanding is that "PMR" diets are not recommended by animal health experts. I think it's a fad diet along the lines of "paleo" for humans, to be honest. 

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/canine-corner/201703/dog-owners-are-wrong-about-the-health-benefits-raw-diets?page=1

https://www.avma.org/KB/Policies/Pages/Raw-or-Undercooked-Animal-Source-Protein-in-Cat-and-Dog-Diets.aspx

[ktgrok]

5 hours ago, Spy Car said:

I suggest you have the wrong take away. Eating carbs cuts a dogs stamina and vitality in a profound way. It actively de-tunes their condition. There is nothing positive that comes with disrupting fat metabolism by feeding carbs. 

 

 

 

 

I've seen the study on stamina in dogs on the high protein, high fat, low carb diet. To then say that ALL health parameters are better in ALL dogs because stamina and V02 max were higher in some dogs fed this diet is not a foregone conclusion, it is your opinion. There is more to health than this. 

 

[JessieC]

Hi everyone, Here is an informative link for understanding the DCM issue. I hope it helps some dog owners!

https://taurinedcm.org/good-canine-nutrition-demands-good-science/?fbclid=IwAR1fxyeYYrfbN4lSDHyVFD6Z8-hRWSM9-rbMGde_cze2rxfo-iHA28s_4_c

[Spy Car]

3 hours ago, Ktgrok said:

I've seen the study on stamina in dogs on the high protein, high fat, low carb diet. To then say that ALL health parameters are better in ALL dogs because stamina and V02 max were higher in some dogs fed this diet is not a foregone conclusion, it is your opinion. There is more to health than this. 

 

Different tests measure different heath aspects. Tests that prove (beyond a shadow of a doubt) that dogs have dramatically better aerobic capacity when fed a high-fat (as opposed to high-carb) diet are not designed to prove ALL health parameters. LOL.

But there are many other studies (and people's real world experiences) that together give a big picture. It isn't a matter of "opinion" but an established advantage to reducing or eliminating carbs in a canine diet.

In contrast to all the studies that prove the advantages of a high-fat/high-protein diet over a high-carb diet, I'm aware of ONE that show ANY advantage to dogs that comes from eating carbs. Only downsides.

The science shows the disadvantage of feeding dogs carbs.

Bill

 

 

[ktgrok]

8 minutes ago, Spy Car said:

Different tests measure different heath aspects. Tests that prove (beyond a shadow of a doubt) that dogs have dramatically better aerobic capacity when fed a high-fat (as opposed to high-carb) diet are not designed to prove ALL health parameters. LOL.

But there are many other studies (and people's real world experiences) that together give a big picture. It isn't a matter of "opinion" but an established advantage to reducing or eliminating carbs in a canine diet.

In contrast to all the studies that prove the advantages of a high-fat/high-protein diet over a high-carb diet, I'm aware of ONE that show ANY advantage to dogs that comes from eating carbs. Only downsides.

The science shows the disadvantage of feeding dogs carbs.

Bill

 

 

I have not seen any studies showing longevity is increased, for instance. And the NRC seems to say that carbohydrates are helpful during gestation and whelping, and anecdotal evidence from many including raw feeders has shown that some dogs struggle to keep enough weight on without carbs. 

[Spy Car]

4 hours ago, JessieC said:

 

Bill, your source did not show that carbohydrates are detrimental to dogs, quite the opposite.

My understanding is that "PMR" diets are not recommended by animal health experts. I think it's a fad diet along the lines of "paleo" for humans, to be honest. 

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/canine-corner/201703/dog-owners-are-wrong-about-the-health-benefits-raw-diets?page=1

https://www.avma.org/KB/Policies/Pages/Raw-or-Undercooked-Animal-Source-Protein-in-Cat-and-Dog-Diets.aspx

I never said the NRC report said carbs were detrimental. They did not take a stand on this question. What they said is that carbohydrates are not essential in a canine diet.

There is NOTHING that dogs derive from carb/plant sources that they can't get (in a more optimal form) from animal products. 

You may think feeding canines in a fashion at resembles the diet that they were shaped by evolution to thrive on is a "fad" and that it is better to feed them with cereal-based products that were only invented after WWII, but some of us know better.

The results speak for themselves.

Clean white teeth (in contrast to 60% of kibble fed dogs having periodontal disease), lean muscular boy types (vs typically obese dogs), proven dramatic increases in endurance and energy deliver, better coat and condition, and great lab work.

A millennia of success is hardly a "fad." Feeding cereals to dogs is the fad. These are unnatural convenience foods that have health consequences.

Bill

Edited August 7, 2019 by Spy Car

[Spy Car]

2 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

I have not seen any studies showing longevity is increased, for instance. And the NRC seems to say that carbohydrates are helpful during gestation and whelping, and anecdotal evidence from many including raw feeders has shown that some dogs struggle to keep enough weight on without carbs. 

I'm also not aware of longevity studies on this point. I don't know that any have been done.

People can have very strange ideas about how much weight is healthy for a dog to carry in the United States where the average dog is morbidly obese.

It is very easy to keep dogs at an optimal weight (with strong muscle development) on a PMR diet. Developing an obese body type is difficult.

Bill

[ktgrok]

3 minutes ago, Spy Car said:

I never said the NRC report said carbs were detrimental.

 

A millennia of success is hardly a "fad." Feeding cereals to dogs is the fad. These are unnatural convenience foods that have health consequences.

Bill

Ok, so the detrimental thing is back to your opinion. 

As for a fad - really? Dogs have been eating grains since humans domesticated dogs!! Or since dogs domesticated themselves, depending on how you look at it. We can find records of royal hunting dogs from the middle ages that talk about feeding them mostly oatmeal and bread, with some milk and blood. I don't think your definition of "fad" and mine are the same, lol. 

[ktgrok]

Just now, Spy Car said:

I'm also not aware of longevity studies on this point. I don't know that any have been done.

People can have very strange ideas about how much weight is healthy for a dog to carry in the United States where the average dog is morbidly obese.

It is very easy to keep dogs at an optimal weight (with strong muscle development) on a PMR diet. Developing an obese body type is difficult.

Bill

Right. so there are no studies on such things, so it is your opinion that raw feeding is better in regards to such things. We certainly know that dogs (most of whom eat grains) live longer than wolves, who mostly don't. Now, there are plenty of factors in there, but to tout grain free as the best diet for all health issues is to speak beyond the science. 

As for it being easy to keep a dog at optimal weight, there are plenty of dedicated raw feeders who would disagree with you. I spent quite some time in the raw community and it was a common issue with certain "hard keepers". 

[Spy Car]

1 minute ago, Ktgrok said:

Ok, so the detrimental thing is back to your opinion. 

As for a fad - really? Dogs have been eating grains since humans domesticated dogs!! Or since dogs domesticated themselves, depending on how you look at it. We can find records of royal hunting dogs from the middle ages that talk about feeding them mostly oatmeal and bread, with some milk and blood. I don't think your definition of "fad" and mine are the same, lol. 

Kibble was invented following WWII when manufactures discovered they could use the same machinery they used in manufacturing human cereal to extrude kibble.

Never before had dogs been fed the amount of carbohydrates that came with this "fad." Prior many (most) dogs were fed on cans of horse meat.

The consequences of kibble diets are clear. It is why people have jumped on the "grain free" bandwagon in hopes of reducing the negative consequences if so many carbohydrates. That grain-free formulas simply switched carb sources and added potentially problematic ingredients like pea protein, shows that it isn't a satisfactory solution.

Botton line, when a species is fed an inappropriate diet that there will be consequences.

Bill

 

[ktgrok]

Just now, Spy Car said:

Kibble was invented following WWII when manufactures discovered they could use the same machinery they used in manufacturing human cereal to extrude kibble.

Never before had dogs been fed the amount of carbohydrates that came with this "fad." Prior many (most) dogs were fed on cans of horse meat.

The consequences of kibble diets are clear. It is why people have jumped on the "grain free" bandwagon in hopes of reducing the negative consequences if so many carbohydrates. That grain-free formulas simply switched carb sources and added potentially problematic ingredients like pea protein, shows that it isn't a satisfactory solution.

Botton line, when a species is fed an inappropriate diet that there will be consequences.

Bill

 

The canned horsemeat was, I believe, a product of WWI, when canning became important for shipping food to soldiers, and then a market for canned products at home had to be created. So that bit of time would be the fad, strictly speaking. Before that, and for many people during that time, plenty of grains were fed. In fact, even the canned meat was generally mixed with biscuits - carbohydrates - because it was known not to be a complete source of food. 

Dogs that ate no grains would be an anomaly, not the rule. 

[Spy Car]

Just now, Ktgrok said:

Right. so there are no studies on such things, so it is your opinion that raw feeding is better in regards to such things. We certainly know that dogs (most of whom eat grains) live longer than wolves, who mostly don't. Now, there are plenty of factors in there, but to tout grain free as the best diet for all health issues is to speak beyond the science. 

As for it being easy to keep a dog at optimal weight, there are plenty of dedicated raw feeders who would disagree with you. I spent quite some time in the raw community and it was a common issue with certain "hard keepers". 

I did not make a claim that PMR dogs have greater longevity, did I? 

I do not have the data points. 

My goal is to promote optimal health while my dog is alive.

Bill

[Spy Car]

10 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

The canned horsemeat was, I believe, a product of WWI, when canning became important for shipping food to soldiers, and then a market for canned products at home had to be created. So that bit of time would be the fad, strictly speaking. Before that, and for many people during that time, plenty of grains were fed. In fact, even the canned meat was generally mixed with biscuits - carbohydrates - because it was known not to be a complete source of food. 

Dogs that ate no grains would be an anomaly, not the rule. 

The contention that adding carbs to animal products makes rations "complete" is a completely false premise. There are no essential need carbohydrates in a canine diet. You are stating falsehoods. Talk about "opinions" not backed by the facts. 

Carbs crowd out critical protein and fat and carbs disrupt fat-metabolism. 

The past 100 years (and even 1000 tears) is a blip in evolutionary time. Canines have consumed animal products for eons. 

Bill

 

 

Edited August 7, 2019 by Spy Car

[ktgrok]

8 minutes ago, Spy Car said:

I did not make a claim that PMR dogs have greater longevity, did I? 

I do not have the data points. 

My goal is to promote optimal health while my dog is alive.

Bill

But you have your own idea of what optimal health is. For others, it may be different, and we don't have the data, as you said, to know much about how raw effects that in many ways. 

2 minutes ago, Spy Car said:

The contention that adding carbs to animal products makes rations "complete" is a completely false premise. There are no essential need carbohydrates in a canine diet. You are stating falsehoods. Talk about "opinions" not backed by the facts. 

Carbs crowd out critical protein and fat and carbs disrupt fat-metabolism. 

The past 100 years (and even 1000 tears) is a blip in evolutionary time. Canines have consumed animal products for eons. 

Bill

 

 

I said they were added to the canned horsemeat the tyou mentioned, because that product was not complete. Are you trying to tell me that a can of horsemeat of unknown composition, with no bone, unknown amounts of organ, etc IS a complete diet? Seriously? That product was not complete. People mixed it with various things, all grain based. That is fact. Not opinion. That is what was done. "Complete" food was later introduced in kibble form, and at some point "complete" canned foods, but the original canned foods were designed as a supplement not a full meal. That is not a "falsehood" and to basically call me a liar is pretty low.

Dogs are not the same as all other canines. Dogs in particular have been eating grains for a lot longer than 100 or 1,000 years. Not sure exactly how many thousands of years something has to continue before it is no longer a "fad" diet??

[ktgrok]

To clarify although yes, kibble as we know it is a fairly recent thing dogs eating grains is NOT recent, and by no definition of the word, a fad.

[Familia]

May I jump in and ask, “What should I feed my cats?”  Commercially speaking. 

Edited August 7, 2019 by Familia
Failed to remember the other cat!

[Spy Car]

49 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

To clarify although yes, kibble as we know it is a fairly recent thing dogs eating grains is NOT recent, and by no definition of the word, a fad.

As opposed to canines living primarily on animal products? A kibble diet is a recent invention.

The carbohydrate portion of modern dog diets is extreme and dogs sufferer direct and totally predictable consequences as a result.

Bill

[ktgrok]

4 minutes ago, Spy Car said:

As opposed to canines living primarily on animal products? A kibble diet is a recent invention.

The carbohydrate portion of modern dog diets is extreme and dogs sufferer direct and totally predictable consequences as a result.

Bill

We are referring to dogs, not all canines. And you are arguing a point I already stated, myself, kibble is fairly recent. That does NOT equate to dogs eating carbohydrates being a fad, which is what you said. 

Thousands of years, throughout domestication, does not = fad. 

And I notice that when you claimed I was lying, and I disputed it, you simply dropped the point. Very classy. 

[ktgrok]

32 minutes ago, Familia said:

May I jump in and ask, “What should I feed my cats?”  Commercially speaking. 

Canned cat food with mostly meat ingredients. Most of us can't afford to only feed canned, so when supplementing with dry stick with a company that has a history of science and research, and consider your cat's needs in particular. But as much should be canned as possible. 

[Spy Car]

45 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

We are referring to dogs, not all canines. And you are arguing a point I already stated, myself, kibble is fairly recent. That does NOT equate to dogs eating carbohydrates being a fad, which is what you said. 

Thousands of years, throughout domestication, does not = fad. 

And I notice that when you claimed I was lying, and I disputed it, you simply dropped the point. Very classy. 

Dogs and wolves are members of the same species.

Dogs have not had thousands of years of eating kibble. Kibble is a post-war invention.

I never claimed you were lying. 

All the veterinary literature shows advantages to high-protein/high-fat diets for dogs and zero advantages (and many disadvantages) to a high-carb diet.

Bill

 

 

Edited August 7, 2019 by Spy Car

[Spy Car]

44 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

Canned cat food with mostly meat ingredients. Most of us can't afford to only feed canned, so when supplementing with dry stick with a company that has a history of science and research, and consider your cat's needs in particular. But as much should be canned as possible. 

Look at canned cat food and you will see that most are jammed with carbohydrates and plant based protein sources despite the fact that cats are obligate carnivores.

The situation with kibbles is worse yet.

Bill

[Spy Car]

1 hour ago, Ktgrok said:

But you have your own idea of what optimal health is. For others, it may be different, and we don't have the data, as you said, to know much about how raw effects that in many ways. 

I said they were added to the canned horsemeat the tyou mentioned, because that product was not complete. Are you trying to tell me that a can of horsemeat of unknown composition, with no bone, unknown amounts of organ, etc IS a complete diet? Seriously? That product was not complete. People mixed it with various things, all grain based. That is fact. Not opinion. That is what was done. "Complete" food was later introduced in kibble form, and at some point "complete" canned foods, but the original canned foods were designed as a supplement not a full meal. That is not a "falsehood" and to basically call me a liar is pretty low.

Dogs are not the same as all other canines. Dogs in particular have been eating grains for a lot longer than 100 or 1,000 years. Not sure exactly how many thousands of years something has to continue before it is no longer a "fad" diet??

Any diet that is deficient to start with is not make "complete" by adding starches. That is illogical reasoning.

Dogs to need a proper balance of minerals and vitamins. These are not provided by carbohydrates.

All necessary nutrients for proper canine nutrition are found in animal products in a more optimal form and ones that don't have the negative side-effects of feeding carbohydrates.

Tests done today on modern dogs show very clearly that carb-burning is not optimal. Most kibble fed dogs are obese and have rotten teeth. This is directly attributable to diet.

Bill

[Spy Car]

Just now, kand said:

Wait.  Are we switching to discussing a high carb diet for dogs now? Because I thought we were talking about whether dogs need to be completely carb-free, or not. I’m not seeing anyone here argue that high carb is the ideal. 

The source you linked did indeed cite multiple studies showing advantages in dogs fed some carbohydrates vs carbohydrate free.

I’m not a carb-evangelist at all and am no fan of the big five dog food corporations, but it's strange how you keep telling everyone else here that what they are saying is just their opinion and they are wrong or confused, yet you keep stating your opinions as fact without backing them up with any citations. The one citation you gave was quoted back to you as not  agreeing with you, and then you said they were wrong.  If you want to have a real discussion about this, you need to give us something solid to go on, other than because you say so. 

You are creating straw men. The NRC says that carbohydrates are not essential to canines. That is the limit of my claim about the NRC's findings. And it is true.

Please post sources that show any advantage to feeding carbohydrates. I've read the veterinary literature on the subject very widely and have never seen an advantage to feeding carbs substantiated. I'm happy to read any studies you can point to.

Bill

[Tanaqui]

Quote

You are creating straw men. The NRC says that carbohydrates are not essential to canines. That is the limit of my claim about the NRC's findings. And it is true.

 

No, they don't! Not unless you are carefully cherrypicking.

Quote

Please post sources that show any advantage to feeding carbohydrates. I've read the veterinary literature on the subject very widely and have never seen an advantage to feeding carbs substantiated. I'm happy to read any studies you can point to.

 

Why bother when the source you picked already showed multiple advantages?

Quote

Tests done today on modern dogs show very clearly that carb-burning is not optimal. Most kibble fed dogs are obese and have rotten teeth. This is directly attributable to diet.

 

"Kibble" and "carbs" are not synonymous terms. That's like saying that for humans, eating a slice of bread or a bowl of rice everyday is equivalent to eating nothing but cake and chips.

[Spy Car]

7 minutes ago, Tanaqui said:

 

No, they don't! Not unless you are carefully cherrypicking.

 

Why bother when the source you picked already showed multiple advantages?

 

"Kibble" and "carbs" are not synonymous terms. That's like saying that for humans, eating a slice of bread or a bowl of rice everyday is equivalent to eating nothing but cake and chips.

 

Yes they do. It is in every plain language in the full report that dogs have no essential needs for carbohydrates.

That requires NO cherry picking. I'd suggest you read the report before opining with fallacious comments.

I never said that carbs and kibble were synonymous terms. All kibble diets contain carbohydrates as their base (it is a necessity of manufacturing). Some more some less, but avoiding carbs is impossible when feeding kibble to dogs or cats.

Bill 

[Spy Car]

Just now, CuriousMomof3 said:

Where is the link, besides your anecdotal evidence about your dog's coat and weight, between "no essential need for . . . " and " bad for them"   That's the leap I'm not following. 

I understand that you can feed a dog without carbs.  But I'm not sure how you went from the fact that you can, to the fact that you have to.  

The answer needs to be found by plowing deeply into the voluminous studies that compare high-protein/high-fat diets with high carb diets.

There are scads of them. Most paid for my pet food companies. Most done with canine athletes: sled dogs, racing greyhounds, hunting dogs, etc, but studies have also been done on "couch potato" dogs as well. All the literature shows the advantage of a high-protein/high-fat diet relative to a high-carb diet.

Below 26% protein (where a majority of kibble formulas fall) dogs are highly prone to muscle tears and have difficulty with repair of torn muscle fibers.

I suggest people do their own due diligence.

Bill

[Spy Car]

6 minutes ago, kand said:

Talk about straw man.  I’ve seen no one here advocate a high carbohydrate diet for dogs. Yet that’s what you keep going back to.  Do you think you are the only one here who has read any studies? 

It is a straw man to suggest reading the scientific literature on the subject? LOL.

Come on man!

Most kibble rations are very high-carb, which is why most dogs suffer ill effects from their diets.

The improvements in condition between a dog fed PMR vs kibble is very obvious in the real world.

Bill

 

 

[Pawz4me]

1 hour ago, Spy Car said:

The answer needs to be found by plowing deeply into the voluminous studies that compare high-protein/high-fat diets with high carb diets.

There are scads of them. Most paid for my pet food companies. Most done with canine athletes: sled dogs, racing greyhounds, hunting dogs, etc, but studies have also been done on "couch potato" dogs as well. All the literature shows the advantage of a high-protein/high-fat diet relative to a high-carb diet.

Below 26% protein (where a majority of kibble formulas fall) dogs are highly prone to muscle tears and have difficulty with repair of torn muscle fibers.

I suggest people do their own due diligence.

Bill

So there are "voluminous" studies.

"Scads" of them.

But you won't provide a link to even one. You never have, in all the many times this has been discussed. You just repeat your opinion over and over and claim it's fact, or try to change the goal posts or start straw man arguments when your contentions are refuted. Wash, rinse, repeat.

I think everyone who's ever spent significant time on a message board has at some point heard some version of "do your own due diligence." And knows that it means the poster can't back up his claim with any credible sources.

It really is okay to feed your dog however you choose simply because *you* believe it's the best way. Various methods of raw feeding are certainly considered legitimate choices by almost anyone who knows anything about feeding dogs, even if the veterinary world overwhelmingly disagrees. There's nothing wrong with doing it just because *you* think it's best. Most people who are truly confident in their own choices aren't threatened because others choose otherwise for their dogs.

[ktgrok]

2 hours ago, Spy Car said:

.

Dogs have not had thousands of years of eating kibble. Kibble is a post-war invention.

I never claimed you were lying. 

All the veterinary literature shows advantages to high-protein/high-fat diets for dogs and zero advantages (and many disadvantages) to a high-carb diet.

Bill

 

 

1. For the third time, at least, NO ONE claimed dogs have eaten kibble for thousands of years. NO ONE. I and others said they had been eating carbohydrates for thousands of years. We said it multiple times. I even very very specifically stated that kibble was a recent thing, but that carbohydrates in dog diets was not. But rather than acknowledge the truth of that statement you redirect to kibble, which we all already acknowledged was recent.

2 hours ago, Spy Car said:

Look at canned cat food and you will see that most are jammed with carbohydrates and plant based protein sources despite the fact that cats are obligate carnivores.

The situation with kibbles is worse yet.

Bill

Totally untrue. Like, wow, the level of wrong here is startling, considering the level of confidence you use when speaking of something you obviously know nothing about. Here is the information on regular old Friskies cat food, hardly anything special. It's almost all meat and water. As is the case for pate canned cat food in general. (the shredded kind usually has more wheat in it). On an as fed basis it is 4% carbohydrate, approximately, depending on flavor. https://www.chewy.com/friskies-classic-pate-variety-pack/dp/104095

2 hours ago, Spy Car said:

Any diet that is deficient to start with is not make "complete" by adding starches. That is illogical reasoning.

Dogs to need a proper balance of minerals and vitamins. These are not provided by carbohydrates.

All necessary nutrients for proper canine nutrition are found in animal products in a more optimal form and ones that don't have the negative side-effects of feeding carbohydrates.

Tests done today on modern dogs show very clearly that carb-burning is not optimal. Most kibble fed dogs are obese and have rotten teeth. This is directly attributable to diet.

Bill

Again, the complete level of inaccuracy is amazing. You do know that grains, like corn, wheat, barley, etc HAVE minerals and vitamins, right? Also essential amino acids and fatty acids. Some of which can be lacking in certain meats. You can rotate meats, and add organs and bones and such, that is an option, but another option is to add grains in order to help balance the food. 

1 hour ago, Spy Car said:

 

Yes they do. It is in every plain language in the full report that dogs have no essential needs for carbohydrates.

That requires NO cherry picking. I'd suggest you read the report before opining with fallacious comments.

I never said that carbs and kibble were synonymous terms. All kibble diets contain carbohydrates as their base (it is a necessity of manufacturing). Some more some less, but avoiding carbs is impossible when feeding kibble to dogs or cats.

Bill 

Being able to survive without something doesn't mean it is optimal not to include it. 

And if kibble and carbs are not synonymous, which I agree, why do you keep coming back to "kibble is recent" when we say that dogs have eaten carbohydrates for thousands of years? 

1 hour ago, Spy Car said:

The answer needs to be found by plowing deeply into the voluminous studies that compare high-protein/high-fat diets with high carb diets.

There are scads of them. Most paid for my pet food companies. Most done with canine athletes: sled dogs, racing greyhounds, hunting dogs, etc, but studies have also been done on "couch potato" dogs as well. All the literature shows the advantage of a high-protein/high-fat diet relative to a high-carb diet.

Below 26% protein (where a majority of kibble formulas fall) dogs are highly prone to muscle tears and have difficulty with repair of torn muscle fibers.

I suggest people do their own due diligence.

Bill

1. I've probably read more veterinary literature, and attended more lectures on veterinary nutrition, than you have. 

2. The literature you reference is regarding stamina, which is only ONE aspect of health. 

 

[Spy Car]

1 minute ago, Pawz4me said:

So there are "voluminous" studies.

"Scads" of them.

But you won't provide a link to even one. You never have, in all the many times this has been discussed. You just repeat your opinion over and over and claim it's fact, or try to change the goal posts or start straw man arguments when your contentions are refuted. Wash, rinse, repeat.

I think everyone who's ever spent significant time on a message board has at some point heard some version of "do your own due diligence." And knows that it means the poster can't back up his claim with any credible sources.

It really is okay to feed your dog however you choose simply because *you* believe it's the best way. Various methods of raw feeding are certainly considered legitimate choices by almost anyone who knows anything about feeding dogs, even if the veterinary world overwhelmingly disagrees. There's nothing wrong with doing it just because *you* think it's best. Most people who are truly confident in their own choices aren't threatened because others choose otherwise for their dogs.

It isn't my job to do other people's homework, especially when those people are rude and officious. I DID my due diligence. Read the scientific literature or don't. No skin off my teeth. I am accurately synthesizing the known literature, I'm not asking anyone to accept my word for it if they are not so inclined. So search yourself. There is and overwhelming evidence to validate the claim that high-carb diets dramatically undermine stamina. You way off base here and may wish to apologize if you trouble yourself to do a little homework.

*Sigh*

I chose the method of raw feeding that I do because it delivers the 1.2:1 ratio of calcium for phosphorus that authorities have established as optimal. It also delivers all other known vitamins, minerals, amino acids, and fats for a dog to thrive. I'm not "winging it" here.

Bill

 

[Spy Car]

1 minute ago, kand said:

I have no idea why any of us are even bothering. You aren’t reading very carefully and your disrespect is obnoxious. No, the straw man isn’t suggesting people read the scientific literature. Many of us have cited literature for you and told you we have read it. The straw man is that you keep coming back saying the studies show a high carb diet is inferior to a high protein/fat one. That isn’t the argument anyone is refuting though. We’re talking about whether it’s acceptable to include some carbs. Not about high-carbs. That’s the straw man. 

I know you think you’re 100% right, and I don’t expect there’s anything anyone could say or show you that would ever change your mind. I have exactly zero issue with how you feed your dog, personally, but the fact some people have come to different conclusions than you doesn’t mean they are too dumb or lazy to read and understand the literature. 

My disrespect? Gimme a break.

No one has linked a study that shows advantages to feeding carbs. I'd happily read any such study. Do you have one?

There are dozens and dozens of studies on high-protein/high-fat vs high carb diets. Try Google Scholar. Easily provable.

Modern dog kibble doesn't include "some" carbohydrates, it is the major source of energy in those formulas. 

People are switching foods and having anxiety to avoid the rare possibility of DCM linked to diet, while missing the bigger picture that comes with feeding dogs an unnatural diet.

Dogs did not evolve to thrive on eating plants. The difference in condition when dogs are fed a balanced diet of animal products at PMR ratios isn't subtle.

Bill

 

 

 

 

[ktgrok]

54 minutes ago, Spy Car said:

There is and overwhelming evidence to validate the claim that high-carb diets dramatically undermine stamina.

Which does NOT equate to being better in all ways for all dogs in all situations. Stamina is not a synonym for health. There are plenty of marathon runners who have heart attacks, for example. Just one example of how "health" is more complicated than "stamina". 

Oh, and in another post you said you had never claimed I lied. Which is in itself a lie. You said what I was saying was a falsehood Falsehood does = lie. Whereas thousands of years does not = fad, and stamina does not = health. 

[Spy Car]

7 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

Which does NOT equate to being better in all ways for all dogs in all situations. Stamina is not a synonym for health. There are plenty of marathon runners who have heart attacks, for example. Just one example of how "health" is more complicated than "stamina". 

Oh, and in another post you said you had never claimed I lied. Which is in itself a lie. You said what I was saying was a falsehood Falsehood does = lie. Whereas thousands of years does not = fad, and stamina does not = health. 

Aerobic capacity is the way human athletes are tested for their level of fitness. When VO2 Max scores in humans are low, it is indicative of poor general health. Same with dogs.

Does good fitness cover every aspect of health? Of course not.

Please provide the studies that show any advantages to feeding dogs carbohydrates. I love to see such a study. 

Suppressing a dog's fitness by feeding a high carb diet (which is what most dogs consume) undermines their general health. I'm incredulous that you are arguing otherwise.  

It isn't the only issue. But it is a huge issue. Tooth decay, obesity, unstable blood sugars, and bad coats are other negative factors in feeding carbs

Bill

 

[ktgrok]

I've fed my dogs over the years both no carb, raw diets and kibble. I have not seen a difference in their coat, vitality, etc either way. 

[Spy Car]

2 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

I've fed my dogs over the years both no carb, raw diets and kibble. I have not seen a difference in their coat, vitality, etc either way. 

Really? Because I've had raw feeders who did not know my dog from Adam spot him as a raw fed dog and I've have the same experience the other way around when I've asked people if their dogs were raw fed.

Not subtle differences in the PRM raw dogs that I've seen. Easy to tell.

Bill

[Pawz4me]

12 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

I've fed my dogs over the years both no carb, raw diets and kibble. I have not seen a difference in their coat, vitality, etc either way. 

Same, except I've also done home-cooked.

I had one particularly high energy dog who didn't do well at all on raw. His muscle tone/overall body condition deteriorated very noticeably and improved dramatically on kibble/canned (with grain) and some healthy additions. But for the majority of dogs I haven't noticed any appreciable difference. 

Edited August 7, 2019 by Pawz4me
stray apostrophe

[ktgrok]

3 minutes ago, Spy Car said:

Really? Because I've had raw feeders who did not know my dog from Adam spot him as a raw fed dog and I've have the same experience the other way around when I've asked people if their dogs were raw fed.

Not subtle differences in the PRM raw dogs that I've seen. Easy to tell.

Bill

You must be more astute than the average person, because I've met plenty of dogs and never been able to tell. 

Also, my dog actually looks his best on, gasp, Pro Plan, lol. Albeit the higher protein/fat formulation. I believe it is a 30/20 protein/fat ratio. So go figure. 

Either way, for various reasons, dogs have been fed carbs for as long as they have been domesticated, and in many time periods fed more carbs than some dogs get now (again, see historical records of dogs fed bread and milk, gruel and some blood, etc). 

there is also the fact that fad diets or not, dogs are living longer. 

[ktgrok]

1 minute ago, Pawz4me said:

Same, except I've also done home-cooked.

I had one particularly high energy dog who didn't do well at all on raw. His muscle tone/overall body condition deteriorated very noticeably and improved dramatically on kibble/canned (with grain) and some healthy additions. But for the majority of dog's I haven't noticed any appreciable difference. 

OH yeah, I've done home cooked for various dogs over the years as well. And yes, have one dog that did not do great without carbs. Too much fat made him sick, and without the extra calories he couldn't wouldn't eat enough to keep weight on. 

Edited August 7, 2019 by Ktgrok

[JessieC]

1 hour ago, Spy Car said:

 

No one has linked a study that shows advantages to feeding carbs. I'd happily read any such study. Do you have one?

There are dozens and dozens of studies on high-protein/high-fat vs high carb diets. Try Google Scholar. Easily provable.

 

It's really obnoxious that you request a study from us and claim there are dozens of studies on your side, but every link we send you is ignored and you have not provided a single study to back up your point. You ask us for studies, ignore what we share, then tell us to go find the studies you have read on Google Scholar.

I'm going with what the consensus of experts in veterinary health, including my own veterinarian, recommend. I am feeding my dog Purina Pro Plan because it's been well-researched with long-term studies, and developed by animal nutrition experts.

Here are some articles for those who are interested. The first discusses the raw food/all meat diets The two others discuss the health benefits of carbohydrate/grains in the canine diet.

https://bmcvetres.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12917-019-1824-x

https://www.americanveterinarian.com/journals/amvet/2017/june2017/health-benefits-of-functional-foods

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0034528816303332

Edited August 8, 2019 by JessieC
Added links

[moonflower]

2 hours ago, kand said:

Talk about straw man.  I’ve seen no one here advocate a high carbohydrate diet for dogs. Yet that’s what you keep going back to.  Do you think you are the only one here who has read any studies? 

 

I don't know about the studies, but it does seem like most people in the thread are talking about high carb diets for dogs, relatively speaking

That is to say, they're not just saying feed carbs to pregnant or lactating dogs, or feed carbs to puppies, or feed 10% carbs, or something, but that it is fine to feed kibble, which is mostly carbs.

I know zero about dog feeding for the record.

[Spy Car]

19 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

You must be more astute than the average person, because I've met plenty of dogs and never been able to tell. 

Also, my dog actually looks his best on, gasp, Pro Plan, lol. Albeit the higher protein/fat formulation. I believe it is a 30/20 protein/fat ratio. So go figure. 

Either way, for various reasons, dogs have been fed carbs for as long as they have been domesticated, and in many time periods fed more carbs than some dogs get now (again, see historical records of dogs fed bread and milk, gruel and some blood, etc). 

there is also the fact that fad diets or not, dogs are living longer. 

Living longer but sicker lives.

Modern veterinary care can extend life, but it focused on sickness care not wellness care. It is a human caused problem fueled by bad diets.

Bill

[Spy Car]

3 minutes ago, kand said:

I don’t personally think high carb makes sense for dogs. But I thought I and several others were addressing the specific assertion Bill made that dogs should be fed NO carbohydrates. That’s what my links are refuting, anyway. 

Dogs have no nutritional need for carbohydrates in their diet. 

They thrive on a balanced diet of animal products.

Bill

[Spy Car]

9 minutes ago, moonflower said:

 

I don't know about the studies, but it does seem like most people in the thread are talking about high carb diets for dogs, relatively speaking

That is to say, they're not just saying feed carbs to pregnant or lactating dogs, or feed carbs to puppies, or feed 10% carbs, or something, but that it is fine to feed kibble, which is mostly carbs.

I know zero about dog feeding for the record.

If a person can feed a kibble formula that is at least 30 protein and 20 fat (with no other worrisome ingredients) they will be doing their dog a kindness versus the typical low-protein/low-fat alternatives (assuming no other special dietary needs). 

Bill

[ktgrok]

13 minutes ago, kand said:

I don’t personally think high carb makes sense for dogs. But I thought I and several others were addressing the specific assertion Bill made that dogs should be fed NO carbohydrates. That’s what my links are refuting, anyway. 

And I was refuting the ridiculous idea that feeding a dog grains is a "fad". Totally false.

And the idea that the pate canned cat food I recommended was mostly grains - which was also false.  I have no idea where he got that information, but it's not true. And if he's so sure of that, but wrong, it's hard to rely on his other claims. 

3 minutes ago, Spy Car said:

If a person can feed a kibble formula that is at least 30 protein and 20 fat (with no other worrisome ingredients) they will be doing their dog a kindness versus the typical low-protein/low-fat alternatives (assuming no other special dietary needs). 

Bill

At least three of the brands that are considered not to be linked to DCM have high protein formulas. If anyone is interested look for "sport" or "performance" on the bag. 

Edited August 8, 2019 by Ktgrok

[Spy Car]

21 minutes ago, JessieC said:

 

It's really obnoxious that you request a study from us and claim there are dozens of studies on your side, but every link we send you is ignored and you have not provided a single study to back up your point. You ask us for studies, ignore what we share, then tell us to go find the studies you have read on Google Scholar.

Whatever, I'm done. Like I  said, I'm going with what the consensus of experts in veterinary health, including my own veterinarian, recommend. I am feeding my dog Purina Pro Plan because it's been well-researched with long-term studies, and developed by animal nutrition experts.

Hardly obnoxious. Any Goggle Scholar search will bring hours and hours worth of reading materials that will bear out the superiority of fat-metabolism in proving energy for dogs.

In contrast, I've never seen a single study that shows any advantage for feeding dogs in the general population carbohydrates. I've looked. So if you have a study. I'm open to reading it.

Bill