# Any of you know of any studies relating to pet food?



## Questdriven (Nov 25, 2009)

I'm well aware of the Iams study, as well as a few others, but more specifically I'm looking for studies that prove that ingredients don't matter so long as you have the right nutrients. If you know of a study but cannot link to it, please tell me everything you do know about it and where (online or outside of cyber life) I may look it up. I plan on asking my dog's vet next time my dogs need to go there. Which probably won't be until they are due for their next check-up, unless Cookie's new sore ceases to heal or begins getting worse.

I had some reservations about making this post since there is someone here who might take offense to it--I mean no offense. I'm only trying to learn more to give my dogs the very best. While I'm a big believer in meat-based diets and raw feeding, I also realize the important of looking at the other side whenever possible.


----------



## Jordan S (Nov 21, 2009)

i do think the iams study proved it wrong as both diets both the corn and the chicken where 32% protein so they both had the same nutrients.


----------



## Questdriven (Nov 25, 2009)

Jordan S said:


> i do think the iams study proved it wrong as both diets both the corn and the chicken where 32% protein so they both had the same nutrients.


While I would agree to a point, I am also looking for varification from other sources. The study is great--but unfortunately I wouldn't consider anything from any dog food company as much as I would other sources. Also, while the Iams study does (arguably) prove that animal proteins are best, it doesn't try any other protiens such as pork, beef, fish, etc. But then most meat-based foods do use chicken for the bulk of the meat content.

I would also say that my experience with the raw diet and that my dogs have done better on it than on other foods proves that a meat-based diet is best--to me, anyways, since I've seen the results firsthand. But again, no one will--or should--convert over completely based on good testimonies. (Although testimonies on the raw diet from many varied people are what convinced me to give raw a chance.)


----------



## FurForSale (Nov 24, 2009)

Hi, when I started fostering, I found several studies that weren't done by the dog food companies. I discount the validity of any "study" that could indeed effect said company's bottom line. I will attempt to find what I saved of those for reference bu tit may take awhile. I have had a computer crash since that time and things still arent where they were put.


----------



## Questdriven (Nov 25, 2009)

Oh, I understand. My computer gave me so much trouble in October I had to get a completely new one. (Which fortunately, I was going to do anyways since I needed a faster computer and I already had what I needed.) I had most of my information copied from old to new harddrives, but everything was, some still is, out of place. One thing that I could not copy was my bookmarks, so I had to redo those.


----------



## Pai (Apr 23, 2008)

Here are the only dog food ingredient studies I have bookmarked:

The Use of Sorghum and Corn as An Alternative to Rice in Dog Food

Prediction of Energy Digestibility in Complete Dry Foods For Dogs & Cats

I haven't actually found any that say high-fiber foods are equal to high-meat foods. Ingredients do matter, because just because a kibble has 'complete' nutrition in it's recipe doesn't mean the _metabolism of the animal_ can access those nutrients fully. Testing for 'crude protein' and such would turn up high score in a 'food' made out of leather scraps and rubber. The tests used to assess pet food do not actually measure _edibility_ of the food, it just measures the _chemical balances._ Which is how we ended up with Melamine in dog food in '07 -- because putting that into food makes the 'crude protein' levels go up and look better on the chemical analysis results. Only the side effect is that it can _kill_ whoever eats it...

Conversely, as a fiber source, I don't have a problem with corn. Some dogs are allergic to it, however, and too many food brands use it as a major _protein source_, instead of a _fiber source_. That is what I think is wrong with most modern pet foods.


----------



## Pudlmom (Mar 25, 2009)

I would recommend a book called Food Pets Die For by Ann Martin. She wrote a second one, too, I believe, but I don't know the name of it.


----------



## Michiyo-Fir (Jul 25, 2009)

I have a study on feeding different protein sources, same calories on the effect of weight loss in dogs.

http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/content/full/134/8/2087S

It showed that high protein low carb dog food helped a dog lose weight faster and keep more lean muscle than one fed a high carb food.


----------



## Foyerhawk (May 7, 2009)

Hmmm, and here I thought Atkins was a quack  (just kidding, DH has lost 50 pounds on Atkins and can now halve his blood pressure pills, and is like a new person!).

Naturally, my fat foster (well failed foster lol) is getting grain free, low carb food.


----------



## Pai (Apr 23, 2008)

Michiyo-Fir said:


> I have a study on feeding different protein sources, same calories on the effect of weight loss in dogs.
> 
> http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/content/full/134/8/2087S
> 
> It showed that high protein low carb dog food helped a dog lose weight faster and keep more lean muscle than one fed a high carb food.


You think that the reason why something like half of all U.S. pets are overweight might have something to do with food ingredients?


----------



## Labsnothers (Oct 10, 2009)

Obesity has nothing to do with the ingredients. It relates to ignorance of how to determine how much to feed and proper body condition.


----------



## Questdriven (Nov 25, 2009)

Thanks, everyone.
I ordered that book by Ann Martin along with several others a week or two ago--should be getting them soon. I can't wait!



Labsnothers said:


> Obesity has nothing to do with the ingredients. It relates to ignorance of how to determine how much to feed and proper body condition.


Well, I wouldn't say _nothing_, since some ingredients are higher in calories than others. But obesity can be easily prevented by the owner in most cases. Not like they can blame it on the food when it was in their power to educate themselves and regulate the dog's diet.


----------



## Jordan S (Nov 21, 2009)

Obesity depends soley on the calorie intake.


----------



## Labsnothers (Oct 10, 2009)

Getting back on topic here. ''but more specifically I'm looking for studies that prove that ingredients don't matter so long as you have the right nutrients. ''

As I have often suggested, such information is tough to find. Pia offered a couple of links that show how dogs use energy from corn:

http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/content/short/132/6/1704S
extruded sorghum and corn are good alternatives to rice as the primary cereal grain in dog foods.

http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/content/full/136/7/2041S

Neither one has any suggestion that foods containing corn can't be as good for a dog as ones without it. Both studies looked at the available energy. 

It was interesting that the rice based diet produced slightly larger stools, but with a lower dry weight. Is it possible the larger, softer stools corn based foods are known to produce may have a higher water content than the meat and rice based foods? I have seen a huge difference between regular Purina and Pro Plan. 

http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/content/full/134/8/2087S

This is the only study I have ever seen showing any difference between different diets. Of course, with people, different studies seem to have different results. I wouldn't be surprised if there are conflicting studies for dogs too. 

Bottom line, as I have said, there is no proof ''better'' ingredients produce healthier dogs. Please don't waste any more of my time with that Iams joke. All it proves to me is the lack of critical thinking skills of anybody accepting it.


----------



## Questdriven (Nov 25, 2009)

Labsnothers said:


> It was interesting that the rice based diet produced slightly larger stools, but with a lower dry weight. Is it possible the larger, softer stools corn based foods are known to produce may have a higher water content than the meat and rice based foods? I have seen a huge difference between regular Purina and Pro Plan.


I don't think so, because raw meat is roughly 70% water--a much higher water percentage than kibble has--and a raw-fed dog normally produces teeny tiny (and very dry) stools that disappear within a few days. (Not to mention they don't stink nearly as badly.)
So while a kibble-fed dog does seem to have more moisture in it's excreta in my experience, that's obviously not the sole reason (nor a much of a determining factor, it would appear) for the the size of said excreta.



Labsnothers said:


> Of course, with people, different studies seem to have different results. I wouldn't be surprised if there are conflicting studies for dogs too.


I'm sure there are. There are many factors. Such as how many studies aren't done correctly...which is why I like to know exactly how the study was conducted.



Labsnothers said:


> Bottom line, as I have said, there is no proof ''better'' ingredients produce healthier dogs.


According to who? I dunno, I've seen both of my dogs develop healthier lives just by switching to better foods and have known many other individuals who have said the same so I'm inclined to think meat-based is best. I realize that personal experience is not quite the same as a well-conducted study, however, so I'm looking for any studies I can on the subject. Just because they're not easy to find, or that few know about them and/or say they don't exist, doesn't mean they're not there. I'm going to do all I can to find all the studies there are relating to pet food.


----------



## nico8 (Jul 16, 2009)

Labsnothers said:


> Bottom line, as I have said, there is no proof ''better'' ingredients produce healthier dogs. Please don't waste any more of my time with that Iams joke. All it proves to me is the lack of critical thinking skills of anybody accepting it.


Hahaha and you've _clearly_ shown that your critical thinking skills are light years ahead of all of ours. You're a joke...but you make me laugh every now and then so I guess that's the point, right?


----------



## Kathyy (Jun 15, 2008)

How about looking through Donald Strombeck's Home Prepared Dog and Cat Diets? Page 30-31 are about biological value of plant and animal proteins.

Page 23 is about how high carbohydrate diets can cause physiological damage and signs of disease.

Many, many foot notes for further study.

I prefer to eat whole fresh foods. No matter how complete and balanced and wholesome energy bars and vitamin supplement claim to be manufacturers do not know all there is to know about nutrition and dog food manufacturers are only trying to make money off factory floor sweepings.


----------



## Sloth (Jul 29, 2008)

I read an article in Bark a few months ago, where they interviewed people who were trying to write a book pretty much on this very subject. The people were frustrated because they couldn't find ANY definitive non-biased studies showing the effects of different ingredients. Pet food companies wouldn't finance studies that would put them in a bad light, and nobody else capable of such studies seemed interested. In the end, they said all that really matters is the dog's apparent health, and how YOU feel about their diet.


----------



## Pai (Apr 23, 2008)

Kathyy said:


> I prefer to eat whole fresh foods. No matter how complete and balanced and wholesome energy bars and vitamin supplement claim to be manufacturers do not know all there is to know about nutrition and dog food manufacturers are only trying to make money off factory floor sweepings.


This is very true. Just because something is 'edible' doesn't make it FOOD. I mean... a _Twinkie_ is edible... but how much nutritional value does it have? Barely anything at all. I would say a Twinkie is not 'real food', since they're just made to taste nice, not to _live_ on.


----------



## Labsnothers (Oct 10, 2009)

Sloth said:


> I read an article in Bark a few months ago, where they interviewed people who were trying to write a book pretty much on this very subject. The people were frustrated because they couldn't find ANY definitive non-biased studies showing the effects of different ingredients. Pet food companies wouldn't finance studies that would put them in a bad light, and nobody else capable of such studies seemed interested. In the end, they said all that really matters is the dog's apparent health, and how YOU feel about their diet.


I suspect the studies are out there, just hard to find for free. I know some of the service dog schools have done studies on different brands. They have thousands of dogs to put on different diets and compare results at only a small administration cost. I only know they have gone ahead with different common brands. There may be some good stuff in the JAVMA, but it isn't available on line for free. I don't even know of a good index to it.


----------



## Questdriven (Nov 25, 2009)

Labsnothers said:


> I suspect the studies are out there, just hard to find for free. I know some of the service dog schools have done studies on different brands. They have thousands of dogs to put on different diets and compare results at only a small administration cost. I only know they have gone ahead with different common brands. There may be some good stuff in the JAVMA, but it isn't available on line for free. I don't even know of a good index to it.


How much about these studies do you know?
Do you know which brands any of them have tried? Have they ever tried anything besides kibble, like homecooked or raw? How long did they try each food for? How many dogs was the study done on? Any other details you may know? Is the *direct* goal of their studies to find the very best, or do the studies just relate to that goal?




Kathyy said:


> How about looking through Donald Strombeck's Home Prepared Dog and Cat Diets? Page 30-31 are about biological value of plant and animal proteins.
> 
> Page 23 is about how high carbohydrate diets can cause physiological damage and signs of disease.
> 
> Many, many foot notes for further study.


I'll see about checking that out. Thanks!



nico8 said:


> Hahaha and you've _clearly_ shown that your critical thinking skills are light years ahead of all of ours. You're a joke...but you make me laugh every now and then so I guess that's the point, right?


Hey, nico. I've seen you write rhetorical things to Labnothers quite a bit in past threads. I don't intend nor desire to start an argument, just wanted to say that I understand your frustration. Assuming that 'nothers is indeed the same person I know on another website, I too have experienced frustration with this user--much of it self-inflicted.
That said, all keeping this up will do is frustrate yourself and others further. On another site, I was constantly nipping at Labnothers' heels. It didn't do any good. Frustrated me, frustrated him I sure--though he said nothing of it, and frustrated others, too. What convinced me to quit was when another member got hostile with me for my bad attitude. I'm glad that they did so. While I feel that I made valid points in my posts against this user, the way I went about sharing my thoughts on the matter was wrong. There's a time and season for everything. I spoke out of turn.
I disagree with most of what Labnothers posts, but that doesn't give me the right to begin breaking down everything he says.
Please don't feel that I'm judging you. I mean, who the kriff am I? I'm the last person with the authority to do judge anyone. I'm just trying to help you with what I learned from experience. I apologize if I'm offending you or anyone else in any way--that is not my intention.

Perhaps I'm speaking out of turn once again here. _If so_, I apologize and ask that a mod deletes the portion of my post that is in reply to yours.


----------



## shets114 (Sep 10, 2008)

http://www.dealoz.com/book_isbn_0945837054.htm

Buy this book, read it and you can learn for yourself.


----------



## Labsnothers (Oct 10, 2009)

I will change my mind when I see some real evidence. Not silly junk like the Iams thing. 


I will keep an eye on this thread, but I have challenged people on other forums countless times to come up with scientific proof to back their claims. The one study on the carbs and weight loss is the closest thing yet.

I am having trouble posting again.

This thread is almost a week old, but perhaps other have been having a life too and haven't posted what they have. I do a couple links even though I don't feel they are that good, 
http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/content/full/134/8/2141S#top

http://www.ddgs.umn.edu/articles-companion/2004-Hill- Alternative proteins in--.pdf


----------



## DobManiac (Aug 12, 2007)

*Weight Loss in Obese Dogs: Evaluation of a High-Protein, Low-Carbohydrate Diet *
http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/content/short/132/6/1685S

*Comparison of corn gluten meal and meat meal as a protein source in dry foods formulated for cats*
http://avmajournals.avma.org/doi/abs/10.2460/ajvr.2002.63.1247

*Applications of chemically defined diets to the solution of nutrition problems*
http://www.springerlink.com/content/p023543433q2682n/ 

*Protein in the Nutrition of the Growing Dog1*
http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/content/abstract/58/3/415

*Metabolic responses to exhaustive exercise in racing sled dogs fed diets containing medium, low, or zero carbohydrate*
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/30/3/409

The Nutritional Requirements of Exercising Dogs
http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/content/full/128/12/2686S)

*Preliminary assessment of the risk of Salmonella infection in dogs fed raw chicken diets*
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC339295/

These studies are more generally related to canine nutrition as opposed to actual pet food brands. I hope you find it helpful. I especially like the couple on high protein and fat diets with working dogs. The salmonella study on the other hand annoyed me a bit. It seems common sense to me that dogs fed a raw diet would have a higher chance of shedding salmonella in their stool. I don't see the problem when not even a single dog got sick.


----------



## Questdriven (Nov 25, 2009)

Thank you *all* for your help. I haven't read all of the links yet, but I'm going to.


Labsnothers said:


> I will change my mind when I see some real evidence.


Same here.
'Nothers, as much as I disagree with you on many subjects, I can say that you are a constant reminder to me of the importance of common sense and that in my past talks with you, I learned to an even greater extent just how important it is to tell people to look at both sides and think for themselves. For this, I thank you.


----------



## Questdriven (Nov 25, 2009)

I'm still going through the links everyone gave. I prefer to go through them slowly so that I have time to mull them over in my head.



Pai said:


> Ingredients do matter, because just because a kibble has 'complete' nutrition in it's recipe doesn't mean the _metabolism of the animal_ can access those nutrients fully. Testing for 'crude protein' and such would turn up high score in a 'food' made out of leather scraps and rubber. The tests used to assess pet food do not actually measure _edibility_ of the food, it just measures the _chemical balances._ Which is how we ended up with Melamine in dog food in '07 -- because putting that into food makes the 'crude protein' levels go up and look better on the chemical analysis results. Only the side effect is that it can _kill_ whoever eats it...
> 
> Conversely, as a fiber source, I don't have a problem with corn. Some dogs are allergic to it, however, and too many food brands use it as a major _protein source_, instead of a _fiber source_. That is what I think is wrong with most modern pet foods.


I just wanted to say that I thought I got what you were saying here before, but as of now I *really* get it. Basically it finally clicked with me that one can carefully formulate a dog food until they're black and blue, but if some of the ingredients are not digestible then the dog is going to miss out on some of the nutrients he was supposed to get. That's what makes a certain ingredient/food species-appropiate...digestibility. I can't believe I didn't realize that before! Yay for light bulb moments.

I must admit, despite the benefits I have seen my dogs experience from being fed raw, I've been sitting here thinking "What if I'm wrong and so and so is right?". My quest for studies was in a way a quest for something to give me assurance that I'm on the right path here when it comes to what my dogs eat, and if I wasn't, something to get me there.
But now I actually do realize that, yes, smaller stool equals more digestion which is pointer that the dog is getting the right nutrition. Now I have my assurance. Don't get me wrong, I'm still interested in studies, but now I'll no longer have to sit around being worried and confused about what I feed my dogs.
Here, whoever is reading this, have a cookie for reading my silly babbling.



ETA:
As to what is considered "normal" or "good" health for dogs these days, we must keep in mind that by the time kibble became popular and people became more interested in their dog's health, people were placing their ideas of what was normal on the dogs who were being fed kibble. It's a point of view. It seems to me that veterinary science as most people know it seems to have settled for less. There are many, many dogs doing better on their raw diets than most dogs do on kibble. There are exceptions, of course. Some dogs cannot eat raw because of allergies.
I mean, it's just odd if you ask me. It could be argued that if dogs really were doing better on raw, that all or most vets would recommend that instead of kibble. (Which I find overly optimistic. Really, you think human nature is that good? That everyone wants to do what is right, or that everyone who is "in charge" has noble intentions?) But there's where it ties into one of my conspiracy theories of the people in charge encouraging poor health for people and their pets so that they can make more money treating illnesses, or perhaps to encourage a global crisis.


----------



## Labsnothers (Oct 10, 2009)

Yes, I too need more time to read through some of the more recent links. 

Yes, digestibility is an important factor. That is part of why an ingredient list tells you nothing. How an ingredient is processed means all the difference between so much roughage and a usable source of protein and energy. 

Any one ingredient may or may not be good depending on what other ingredients is is combined with.


----------



## Questdriven (Nov 25, 2009)

Labsnothers said:


> That is part of why an ingredient list tells you nothing.


Partly true. If someone looks at the label and knows nothing or little about the ingredients used, the list of course does them no good. For someone who knows about the ingredients and their digestibility, however, the list helps a lot.


----------



## Labsnothers (Oct 10, 2009)

No, you can't tell how digestible a grain is without knowing how it has been processed.


----------



## Questdriven (Nov 25, 2009)

Ah, okay. Although I prefer grain-free...even though I can't afford it.


----------



## Foyerhawk (May 7, 2009)

I could eat McDonalds every day (and sometimes I do) and be the vision of health (in fact, I am!). But, that doesn't mean it's the best diet, or that I should not improve my eating habits. Just because dogs can do okay on crappy food doesn't mean it's "best" for them.


----------



## Questdriven (Nov 25, 2009)

Foyerhawk said:


> I could eat McDonalds every day (and sometimes I do) and be the vision of health (in fact, I am!). But, that doesn't mean it's the best diet, or that I should not improve my eating habits. Just because dogs can do okay on crappy food doesn't mean it's "best" for them.


Being a rawbie and loving it, I agree with you. In fact, I myself have a bad habit of eating too much crappy food, like sweets and fast food. I do okay with a lot of these. But when I do manage to eat a more balanced and healthful diet for more than a few days, I feel better. It's interesting to note that the things I'm speaking of that I define as "feeling better" are things that no one but myself would notice unless I told someone. I sometimes wonder what dogs are feeling that they cannot tell us.


----------



## Foyerhawk (May 7, 2009)

Me too! The argument, "Well they do just fine eating this cheap crap" doesn't fly with me. Babies can do just fine on formula, but breastfed babies are easy to indentify, and generally healthier. How can anyone think formula is better than breastmilk? (Well, pretty much no one does... ). Formula is great if you need it. But it'll never come close to the real food babies are intended and born to eat.


----------



## Labsnothers (Oct 10, 2009)

I hate the Mac Donalds comparison. The cheaper foods are more like eating a healthy quiche or casserole rather than a fine steak dinner.


----------



## Questdriven (Nov 25, 2009)

Labsnothers said:


> I hate the Mac Donalds comparison. The cheaper foods are more like eating a healthy quiche or casserole rather than a fine steak dinner.


*shrug* I will grant that most brands of kibble are probably better for dogs than fast food is for people. Kibble could also be compared to eating a TV dinner (some brands of which are better than others) compared to fresh foods. Ah well, take your pic. Everyone one is entitled to their own opinions.


----------



## flipgirl (Oct 5, 2007)

What if the mother of the breast-fed baby drinks and smokes and eats like crap? No one can tell me that that doesn't transfer to the baby's milk. My nephew is living proof - if my sister-in-law ate milk products or tomatoes, he would have tummy trouble but when she stopped his tummy trouble stopped. I'm agreeing with your argument as long as the mom eats and drinks the proper foods and drink.

Well, I guess there are some people or dogs that could survive (by survive I mean be breathing and moving) on cheap crap and granted, some dogs just can't do the premium stuff. Who am I to say because I spend more money on cat food that my cats are healthier? However, the only reason my cats aren't on raw is because they won't eat it.

My point is, it's not really the amount of money you spend, in my opinion, it's how pure and fresh the food you feed your dog is. I'm no expert on nutrition but I feel the less processed, less chemicals and less preservatives and extraneous ingredients there are in the food, the better it is. Sure there is debate on which ingredients are extraneous such as corn and other grains, but even with those ingredients, the fresher they are, the more whole they are (i.e. the whole grain as opposed to the gluten), the better they are. The closer to nature the food is, the healthier your pet will be. Have you ever eaten real pure food? Don't you find that you feel much better than if you ate a bowl of cereal that is boxed and preserved with BHT? I know when I eat McDonalds (no unfortunately I am not the picture of health as you guys may be) I feel like crap.

Just my simple opinion....not based on a study or anything.


----------



## Foyerhawk (May 7, 2009)

Well, I will never agree that foods like Pedigree or regular Purina Dog Chow are any better than McDonalds. I guess I just won't ever get WHY one would feed a food with lesser quality ingrendients when it's extremely obvious that dogs are meat eaters and it's common sense that dogs which hardly poop out anything are digesting more of their food.

And, eating crappy food and smoking and drinking while breast-feeding is child negelct IMO.


----------



## DobManiac (Aug 12, 2007)

flipgirl said:


> My point is, it's not really the amount of money you spend, in my opinion, it's how pure and fresh the food you feed your dog is. I'm no expert on nutrition but I feel the less processed, less chemicals and less preservatives and extraneous ingredients there are in the food, the better it is. Sure there is debate on which ingredients are extraneous such as corn and other grains, but even with those ingredients, the fresher they are, the more whole they are (i.e. the whole grain as opposed to the gluten), the better they are. The closer to nature the food is, the healthier your pet will be. Have you ever eaten real pure food? Don't you find that you feel much better than if you ate a bowl of cereal that is boxed and preserved with BHT? I know when I eat McDonalds (no unfortunately I am not the picture of health as you guys may be) I feel like crap.


I have to agree with labnoothers, that the McDonalds comparison is getting to be a bit overused. And it really doesn't make a whole lot of sense when you think about it. McDonalds isn't processed to be a balanced meal that will attempt to supply all of your daily needed vitamins, minerals and amino acids. 

But I really like the paragraph above. It explains very well why I chose to fed raw. The less processed the food the healthier it is for the animal, whether a dog, cat or a human being. And when I learned that the preservatives in kibble literal preserve the dogs poop, it completely freaked me out. That is why it takes months for kibble poop to naturally decompose, the preservatives have to break down first. 

I hate to think what those chemicals and preservatives could be doing to an animal’s system full time. And I can't think of any why someone with half a lick of sense could honestly believe all of those synthetic chemicals could be healthy. It's really quite scary when you consider that most dogs eat the same food for their entire lives. They are exposed to those same exact chemicals and preservatives day after day without giving their systems any rest.


----------



## Kathyy (Jun 15, 2008)

This study expands on the study posted by Dobmaniac.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1250243/

A whole lot of the NRC's book on nutrient requirements of dogs is available on google books.http://books.google.com/books?id=aqeCwxbRWvsC&pg=PA262&lpg=PA262&dq=high+protein+dog&ots=LzfXmXFvvO&sig=h5PuXHrl9lPEyQIPKQC1kZ8A6Lk&hl=en&ei=F0kbS9TsLYHsswPm4-j3Bw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CC8Q6AEwBDge#v=onepage&q=high%20protein%20dog&f=false


----------



## flipgirl (Oct 5, 2007)

DobManiac said:


> I have to agree with labnoothers, that the McDonalds comparison is getting to be a bit overused. And it really doesn't make a whole lot of sense when you think about it. McDonalds isn't processed to be a balanced meal that will attempt to supply all of your daily needed vitamins, minerals and amino acids.
> 
> But I really like the paragraph above. It explains very well why I chose to fed raw. The less processed the food the healthier it is for the animal, whether a dog, cat or a human being. And when I learned that the preservatives in kibble literal preserve the dogs poop, it completely freaked me out. That is why it takes months for kibble poop to naturally decompose, the preservatives have to break down first.
> 
> I hate to think what those chemicals and preservatives could be doing to an animal’s system full time. And I can't think of any why someone with half a lick of sense could honestly believe all of those synthetic chemicals could be healthy. It's really quite scary when you consider that most dogs eat the same food for their entire lives. They are exposed to those same exact chemicals and preservatives day after day without giving their systems any rest.


Yes Dobmaniac, the McD's comparison is overused but McD's is probably the one place people think of when it comes to fast food. I know the whole premise of McD's is not to provide the 4 food groups yet they are still trying to appeal to the healthy people and provide salads that contain more calories than a quarter pounder and apples with caramel sauce.. I just love how they extoll the virtues of the potato; while a potato is good, a potato fried in a pool of greasy reused oil is absolutely not good for you! Although very tasty....;P I would not be a very healthy dog I must say!

I chose raw for the very same reason. I feel very comfortable giving my dog fresh food. I wouldn't balk at a homecooked meal either as long as it was made with fresh ingredients. I'm not saying there isn't any good kibble out there; I feed premade raw so I guess it's not much different just fresher kibble! I would rather do it on my own but I can't fit it in right now.


----------



## Questdriven (Nov 25, 2009)

DobManiac said:


> I have to agree with labnoothers, that the McDonalds comparison is getting to be a bit overused. And it really doesn't make a whole lot of sense when you think about it. McDonalds isn't processed to be a balanced meal that will attempt to supply all of your daily needed vitamins, minerals and amino acids.



True. Fast food is also bad for a different reason than we believe commercial dog food to be. As omnivores, humans can actually digest some of the foods that dogs can't, like grain. McD's and the like is considered unhealthy mainly because of the transfats and all.


----------



## Labsnothers (Oct 10, 2009)

Still haven't found time to check Kathyy's links. I am sure if there was there, I would see discussion of it and not the same old opinions.


----------



## Questdriven (Nov 25, 2009)

Ever considered that perhaps those "same old opinions" have facts behind them? For example, the thought that corn is bad for dogs is based on the notion (I'm tempted to say fact here) that a dog cannot digest corn.
Too often people tend to say "this and that is bad" without really explaining why.=/


----------



## BobSD (Feb 1, 2008)

This is my favorite section of this forum, and I try to be very carefull how I comment

But testimonials (assuming they are honest), raw food vs pellets food are worth more then the so called expert opinions. My first dog, was a little round brown balls processed type feed"purina, all his life, and developed tumors through out his body. Became diabetic rather fast. Started going blind and in discomfort. And this was despite all the time I put into him play fun, exercise, alway we we doing things to gether, and he was a happy! But what was going on inside I hate to think about it. 

Now I have two dogs one is 7 and the other 9, went to the vet because the older dog was getting these tumors and was peeing blood at the end of his pee. Well the vet checked him out and the urine analysis, also an x-ray or somthing that is like x-ray forgot the name. He could find nothing wrong and gave me some med to mix in with his dry food, and it did not do anything. Still blood.

So after reading the testimonials of others in this section I switch to raw, ( never tooo late). And would you believe after only two and a half months on this diet My male is not putting out blood any more and on this white snow easy to tell. Also his largest tumor seem to have shrink, both my wife and I agree, to that and the other tumors, the small ones are hard to find. Not to mention how they react at feeding time, and at 7 & 9, I have a feeling they are going to live alonger and more enjoyable life then my first best buddy in the world did. Wish I can remember the names of the people that said things that hit home runs in changing me over to RAW. Thank You!!!!


----------



## Pai (Apr 23, 2008)

Questdriven said:


> Ever considered that perhaps those "same old opinions" have facts behind them? For example, the thought that corn is bad for dogs is based on the notion (I'm tempted to say fact here) that a dog cannot digest corn.
> Too often people tend to say "this and that is bad" without really explaining why.=/


One of the old dog books I've read that was written in 1922 (90 years ago!) said that corn was a bad food to feed too much of because it often causes skin irritations. So... dog people have _always_ noticed which foods were problematic or had common side effects, even _before_ science knew what 'allergens' were. These dog book authors usually maintained kennels full of dogs, and could see with their own eyes what foods gave the best results.

And sure, some dogs do fine with grains, but s_ome others don't._ If whatever you're feeding your own dogs works just fine for them and you're happy with it, then who _cares_ what someone else's opinion on the internet is?


----------



## Labsnothers (Oct 10, 2009)

Questdriven said:


> Ever considered that perhaps those "same old opinions" have facts behind them? For example, the thought that corn is bad for dogs is based on the notion (I'm tempted to say fact here) that a dog cannot digest corn.
> Too often people tend to say "this and that is bad" without really explaining why.=/


This is exactly what I was talking about. Corn and other grains are highly digestible IF processed properly. Yet people continue to post that it isn't.


----------



## Questdriven (Nov 25, 2009)

Labsnothers said:


> This is exactly what I was talking about. Corn and other grains are highly digestible IF processed properly. Yet people continue to post that it isn't.


The corn poops my dogs had before switching to a corn-free food say otherwise. Cookie's stool (from her kibble meals) in comparison to Treader's by proportion says otherwise as well.
Please show me any studies (that were actually done on dogs) that say that corn is digestible when "prepared properly" and/or address any other reasons why corn would produce such big stools. If you can't show me, give me the name of the study and I'll go from them there. I already know that many studies are not available for free, but please tell me anyway.

This is so complicated that I'll be glad when I can just feed _both_ of my dogs 100% raw. I've seen the results firsthand and I already know that it's biologically appropiate.


----------



## Labsnothers (Oct 10, 2009)

Already did. In the real world, if they can't digest corn, how are all the dog eating Purina and Old Roy doing so well?


----------



## Questdriven (Nov 25, 2009)

Labsnothers said:


> Already did.


Oh, my bad.



Labsnothers said:


> In the real world, if they can't digest corn, how are all the dog eating Purina and Old Roy doing so well?


If corn is so good, then why are so many people having better results from a corn-free diet? _Especially_, in general, correctly-fed and balanced raw or homecooked diets?

But to answer your question directly, the same way people can do weel practically eating off of fast food--especially those with healthy genes. For different reasons, I know, but same idea. Dietary nutrition tends to make a more noticeable difference in those with poor genes.
And I have noticed a change for the better since taking my dogs off of corn-based food. (Cookie was on it most of her life, and Treader was on it from at least June 2007 to July 2008.) As I've told you before, my dog's vet has noticed the change too. (Although, no, I have not yet ventured into a real discussion on dog food with her. I've mentioned it, even asked a few questions, but that was all.) All the while the dogs have been in my family (in Cookie's case, the vast majority of her life), they've been seeing the same veterinary office. On Cookie's last visit, the vet said that Cookie is in excellent condition for her age. On Treader's last check-up, she commented on how healthy he looks compared to last year. I know I've related this before, but it's the truth.
As I'm related several times afore, I don't have nearly as much scientific knowledge as I'd like to claim on this subject at this time (though you can bet your boots I will gain more as long as it's in my power to do so), but I do know what I have been seeing in my dogs.
Yes, people on "premuim foods" have sometimes had some problems, but I've seen those who are feeding "common brands" have the same problems. Such as diahrea (sp) when switching foods. This happens when switching low-quality brands, too, not just with "premuim brands". If there is a bigger difference, it's because the body has to adjust to the change in ingredients.

On another note, I started reading "Food Pets Die For" this afternoon. It's too soon for me to give an opinion on it.


ETA:
Ah, oops...
"Cookie's stool (from her kibble meals) in comparison to Treader's by proportion says otherwise as well."
Cookie is fed a corn-free food, but it does contain grain.

I looked up the studies mentioned in the article you gave on page two.
*Clapper*--All it said was that corn was a vailable option, but not much else. It did mention the poultry meal produced smaller stools than soy protein concentrate, which to me says "more digestable".
*Kendell and Holmes*--only compared the digestibility of some plant matters, no meat used.
*Wiernusz*--basically said the same as Clapper, except with soy instead of corn.
*Murray*--couldn't find.
*Zentek and Mischke*--couldn't find.
*Bednar*--couldn't find.

The studies that I could find were not really what I was looking for. All they basically said was that "corn/soy is viable option". Personally, I wouldn't call them viable options. Although it's obvious dogs can live off them, it's also clear to me that they are no replacement for meat. And I still wouldn't touch a food containing either as a major ingredient.=/
The three that I could not find I was told I may be able to look up at the library--but until I can find out more about them, they are of no help to me.


----------



## Labsnothers (Oct 10, 2009)

Check Foods Dogs Die For for studies to back up the allegations in it.


----------



## Questdriven (Nov 25, 2009)

Labsnothers said:


> Check Foods Dogs Die For for studies to back up the allegations in it.


Oh, I will.
Some of her sources include news reports, personal correspondence with organizations like the FDA, veterinarians, papers from universities, and even the AVMA. I'll look into whatever I can of those sources.
The person who wrote the book is not against grains (which I disagree with her on), but she does claim that many of the foods use grains that have been rejected from the human food chain because they contain carcinogenic herbicides, pesticides, and fungicides. (Hmmm...if that's true, it may explain the things I've read about cancer having become more common in pets...)
The book also contains much more that I have yet to read, including information behind the 2007 pet food recalls.


I've also got several other books I'll be reading after this one, such as Not Fit for a Dog! The Truth About Manufactured Dog and Cat Food by Michael Fox, B. Vet.Med., Ph.D., D.Sc., M.R.C.V.S.; Elizabeth Hodgkins, D.V.M.; and Marion Smart, D.V.M., Ph.D. Several others, of course, but I forgot their names. Food Pets Die For and Not Fit for a Dog! were the ones I wanted most.

ETA:
And once again I'd like to apologize for getting snippy with you. I've been going through a lot lately, plus this is getting just plain frustrating. Frankly I have had too much good come from switching the dog's diets to believe you, yet it's so hard to find everything I'm looking for and this is frustrating me. (But on the same note, I have yet to find anything at all that actually confirms your views on pet food, either.) I also feel like I'm being pressured here...but all of that is no excuse.
I know, I've apologized several times in the past and by now you're probably getting sceptical of it. (If such is the case, I can't say I blame you there.) I'm emotionally unstable like that. Because of my age, no doubt.
Well, here's my apology. Take it or leave it.


----------

