# I almost killed my dog with fish oil tablets! :(



## megan2010

My much loved Neapolitan Mastiff is now 3 years old, but he very nearly didn't make it to his 3rd birthday due to fish oil tablets, this is his story.

Neo is a beautiful dog, a much loved member of our family. His favorite activities include stealing my shoes, long walks, socializing with other dogs at the park, sitting under the mulberry tree eagerly awaiting ripe mulberries to drop off for a snack, car drives and relaxing on the couch with his head on my lap.

His dislikes include, bath time, swimming, cats, vacuum cleaners, lawn mowers and being roused on when naughty (when roused on he gets the sulks and goes and sits in another room until I come and apologize lol).

He's very spoiled, I make his own food, he has a very balanced diet, lots of fresh meats, fresh fruits and fresh veggies, he's never spent a night outdoors in his life.

A few months ago I noticed he was seeming a little lame on his back legs, I took him to the local vet, who examined him, couldn't see anything wrong, said it was "probably just arthritis". I asked for a referral to an Orthopaedic specialist to make sure. 

The specialist couldn't see anything obviously wrong with him, and said it's most likely arthritis with him being such a large dog, and we were prescribed with Rimadyl for the pain and inflammation.

Both the vet and the specialist said I should also supplement him with Fish Oil and Glucosamine. I mentioned Neo was already taking fish oil and had been all his life as the breeder said they were great for healthy joints and a beautiful coat, with regards to the fish oil I told them he was having 8 capsules a day (keeping in mind he's an 80kg dog, 4 each meal), both vets said this was a good amount.

Neo's condition deteriorated gradually over the next few weeks, he had so much trouble standing up and sitting down, he seemed to be in pain. I went back to the specialist who gave Neo a prescription for Tramadol in addition to the Rimadyl. He said if there was no improvement he would need to do exploratory surgery and take x-rays and biopsies etc. Unfortunately as he is a specialist he was very busy with emergency cases so this couldn't be for another week.

The next day Neo's condition had worsened, he wasn't himself, he was puffing without exercise, he was pretty much paralyzed in the back legs now, i had to help him up a lot of the time and he was yelping in agony when touched and even randomly yelping when resting.

I took him to the local vet and demanded x-rays of his legs, hips and spine be done, they found some spondylosis (they said this is like arthritis on his spine), and deduced this was the cause of his pain. They said the rest of his life would be about pain management now, and was prescribed some heavy pain killers, Valium and more Rimadyl.

I didn't accept this diagnosis and took him to see yet another vet for a second opinion. This vet was great, he actually seemed to care about Neo. I asked for a full ultrasound to be done on Neo to make sure he didn't have any tumours, as this vet said the amount of pain he was in didn't seem to correlate to the small amount of spondylosis on his spine.

A nervous day spent awaiting the results and thankfully the ultrasound came back clear. We discussed the options available including low dose short term only steroids and also stem cell therapy, I decided to think about both, still not certain in my mind it was arthritis. We also discussed supplements such as glucosamine, fish oil, Sasha's blend (green lipped mussel) and he even suggested milk thistle for Neo's liver if he took the steroids.

After our visit to this vet I also took Neo to a naturopath, the naturopath said fish oil was great for dogs, also glucosamine, he said the human stuff was better than the pet stuff and cheaper. He also gave us some herbal treatments for pain management.

Still not content (the amount of pain he was in seemed enormous given that he was on heavy pain killers), he also seemed to be in pain everywhere, not just his back legs or back, it just didn't make sense to me, and I wasn't ready to give up on Neo and resign him to a life of pain management and horrible drugs until i had a definitive diagnosis, not a "maybe" or "probably".

So i got on the internet and spent several days and sleepless nights researching causes of extreme pain and lameness, when finally I came across several articles about "vitamin E deficiency", and then the more researched the more everything fit!

The articles said it was very rare in dogs (it's apparently seen more often in cats that eat tinned tuna) and extremely hard to diagnose, but symptoms included:
- severe pain
- hyper sensitivity to pain
- lack of muscle tone
- lameness
- paralysis 
- skeletal problems
- muscle weakness
- leg/feet swelling 
- edemas
- weight loss (although no loss of appetite)
- cataracts 
- premature aging

I could tick pretty much every box except the cataracts, Neo had 2 edemas earlier in the year in both his back legs, at the time the vets couldn't explain them, biopsies were negative for nasties, they were just "inflammatory fluid", I was told they were most likely bites, although they appeared to come from the "inside" of the leg, ie there was never any "bite" mark, no damage to the external skin, I had no reason to think these were related in any way to his "arthritis" which started months later.

As for the premature aging his face was also going grey already, which I thought was unusual for a 3 year old dog, which was one of the reasons I asked the vets to ultrasound his organs for tumors.

The good news is, as soon as I read these articles and all the puzzle pieces just fell into place I drove straight to the 24/7 chemist, bought vitamin E capsules (the natural vitamin E) and started him on them immediately and threw out the fish oil tablets. Within 24 hours he was able to get himself up without any help, later the next day he was up and walking around again albeit stiffly and limping, within 2 days he was barely limping and all the yelping had stopped, he was also able to stand up and sit down easily again.

After 3 days the limp was gone and his pain was almost gone, i started reducing his Rimadyl and pain killers gradually and after only 1 week he was running, jumping, playing, back to his old regular cheeky self again, and he was free of all medications!!! 

Even with the rain this week and colder weather he hasn't shown any signs of "arthritis", he's like a puppy (albeit a giant one) again!  I have my boy back!

2 weeks ago a guy from work told me about his 10 year old Maltese, who was collapsing, lame, had cataracts, he was being tested for "Cushing's disease", he'd already being tested for spleen cancer and diabetes. I curiously asked him if he fed his boy fish oil tablets, he said yes he was fed 2 per meal for his arthritis, had done so for years. 
I suggested 4 fish oil tablets a day for a little dog like that might be a worry, and suggested he stop the fish oil and get the vet to test for vitamin E deficiency instead, and sure enough the test was positive, he had acute vitamin e deficiency. Within a week his boy was cured too.

So this got me wondering, if a guy i work with also has this problem with his puppy, just how many other peoples dogs is this happening to? Are vets diagnosing any general unexplained pain as just blanket "arthritis"? Are dogs being put to sleep because they have "chronic arthritis" when all they need is a $5 bottle of vitamins for a complete cure? Are we killing our best friends with love (aka fish oil/omega 3)?

I decided to write this post in the hope that it will save a dogs life. This information is really hard to find and studies are only just starting to come out about the dangers of over supplementing fish oils without balancing them with vitamin E, and most of those are human studies, and humans generally get much more vitamin e in their diets than dogs do. Vets don't seem to be aware of it, in fact, they seem to be promoting the use of fish oil.

As a giant breed Neo was told by his breeders to take fish oil as a preventative and for a nice coat, and his vets all agreed, yet this almost killed him. Fish oil isn't as safe as vitamin sellers would have people believe.

Below I'll go into some more detail about what my research turned up for those who are interested. I'm not a vet or a scientist so please do your own research and speak to a decent vet about it who is aware of vitamin E deficiency before supplementing your dog with anything!

From what I've read vitamin E deficiency can be caused by any of the following essential fatty acid containing products, but especially combinations of them:

- Fish Oil supplements
- Flaxseed Oil supplements
- Other omega fatty acid supplements EPA/DHA/OMEGA3 etc
- Frozen fish
- Canned fish
- Green Lipped Mussel products (Sasha's Blend, Technyflex, Glyde etc)
- Some dogs have digestive problems which prevent them from digesting fats (and consequentially vitamin e) properly.
- Diet (most dogs don't eat vitamin e rich foods like nuts, wheatgerm, plant oils etc)

(Note: Apparently fresh raw fish is ok because it contains vitamin E naturally, but freezing, cooking, canning, processing it kills the viatmin E but leaves the omega 3's intact.)

You can avoid vitamin E deficiency in your dogs by simply supplementing them with SMALL amounts of vitamin e if you give them fish oil or buy a decent brand of fish oil that has enough vitamin E added to offset the depletion (I understand it's as little as 4 iu - 10 iu of natural vitamin E per 1000 mg of fish oil is all that's required to prevent the fish oil from depleting a dog's vitamin E levels). But the amount you need to give your dog will obviously depend on how big the dog is, and how much essential fatty acid containing products and foods with vitamin E they already consume as part of their diet.

So don't run out and buy 1000 iu vitamin e tablets and give them to your dogs! Too much fish oils (essential fatty acids) deplete the body of vitamin E, but too much vitamin E will apparently increase the dog's requirements for vitamin A, vitamin K and vitamin D! (It's quite a balancing act, which is why supplements can be dangerous!) Also vitamin E in mega doses like 1000 iu's can cause bleeding/hemorrhaging because it thins the blood.

Below is a quote from the website (http://mydogyogi.wordpress.com/) i found the most useful, and the one that saved my Neo's life:

"When giving fish oil (to your dog) on a regular basis extra vitamin E, an important fat-soluble vitamin and antioxidant, is typically needed. Fish oil oxidizes easily and the (dog's) body will use up its stores of vitamin E when processing fish oil. Therefore sufficient vitamin E is required in the diet to prevent a vitamin E deficiency in your dog.

Most fish oil supplements contain additional vitamin E, though this is typically only enough to preserve the product and not a significant source for the body to use. It is better to supplement natural vitamin E instead of synthetic, so when buying vitamin E look closely at the label. Natural vitamin E is listed as d-alpha-tocopherol and synthetic vitamin E is listed as dl-alpha-tocopherol. One little “L” makes a big difference is how effectively the (dog's) body can use it.

I encourage you to work together with your veterinarian to determine if a fish oil supplement is okay for your dog and to find out dosage information for both the fish oil and vitamin E."

Some references for those who would like to learn more are below:

http://www.ehow.com/facts_7291768_do-supplements-cause-vitamin-deficiency_.html

http://www.xtend-life.com/Blog/10-11-23/Does_Fish_Oil_deplete_Vitamin_E_levels.aspx

http://resources.metapress.com/pdf-preview.axd?code=cv5443426p138n1h&size=largest

http://mydogyogi.wordpress.com/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1583790/pdf/vetsci00137-0031a.pdf

I hope the information I've collected above proves useful for some other dogs out there, and their owners. The 3 thing I've learned from all this are:
- Supplements can be dangerous, even "SAFE" ones.
- Vets are human, they're not always right and they can't be expected to know everything, as an owner you know your pet better than anyone else.
- Never give up, seek second opinions, do your own research.

M


----------



## BoxMeIn21

No, you almost killed your dog with rimadyl.


----------



## CoverTune

BoxMeIn21 said:


> No, you almost killed your dog with rimadyl.


Explain please.. ?


----------



## BoxMeIn21

There have been lots of cases of nasty deaths/sides effects of using the drug rimadyl...weird, I can't find any on fish oil deaths...

But that's beside the point, I think this thread is a joke. Sounds too much like this one...
http://www.dogforums.com/dog-health-questions/87672-my-6-week-long.html

Just sayin'


----------



## Keechak

BoxMeIn21 said:


> No, you almost killed your dog with rimadyl.


Rimadyl can be dangerous, yes, but her dog was already in pain and had muscular problems before even going on it. Those problems are now gone, it wasn't the rimadyl that caused them (not saying the fish oil did ether).


----------



## Pai

Those side effects don't sound like Rimadyl's, though. The most common side effects of Rimadyl affect stomach, liver, and kidneys.


----------



## jboboxer

I give my dog two capsules of fish oil and two capsules of vitamin E (feed her twice a day), but like you mentioned I only heard about fish oil originally, but after spending time on a few forums and reading a lot it's clear that vitamin E is necessary when supplementing fish oil.

It's a shame that google is a better vet than most out there.


----------



## theyogachick

To piggyback on the Rimadyl thing--when Loki was sick and in pain, they put him on Rimadyl...and two days later he lost all control of his bladder function. He would literally leak uring all over the place. He had a lot of stuff going on, but it was very coincidental to me that he got that symptom after the Rimadyl. It bothered me so much that when the tried to get me to put Gracie on it, I refused--just in case.

And to the OP--I think you have to be careful no matter what supplement you use and always talk to your vet first.


----------



## mitzi

megan2010 said:


> I took him to the local vet, who examined him, couldn't see anything wrong, said it was "probably just arthritis". I asked for a referral to an Orthopaedic specialist to make sure.
> 
> The specialist couldn't see anything obviously wrong with him, and said it's most likely arthritis with him being such a large dog, and we were prescribed with Rimadyl for the pain and inflammation.
> 
> Both the vet and the specialist said I should also supplement him with Fish Oil and Glucosamine. I mentioned Neo was already taking fish oil and had been all his life as the breeder said they were great for healthy joints and a beautiful coat, with regards to the fish oil I told them he was having 8 capsules a day (keeping in mind he's an 80kg dog, 4 each meal), both vets said this was a good amount.


That amount of fish oil sounds outrageous to me, when DH & I took the stuff I only took 2 a day and I weigh more than Neo (130#). Were these vets even listening when you told them 8 caps a day?

BTW, DH & I stopped taking fish oil because it raised our LDL (bad) cholesterol signifigantly even tho' we had gone one a strict low fat diet. Once we quit those 2 caps a day our LDL cholesterol went down to the low 90s.


----------



## peterinwa

mitzi said:


> That amount of fish oil sounds outrageous to me...


Exactly! My bottle says 2 capsules a day for a person, and that dosage was four times that.

Too much of a good thing is always bad.


----------



## trainingjunkie

Thank you to the OP for sharing. What a well-written and balanced post. All of us have to research and think about what we put into our dog's bodies and we all have to remember that every "body" handles things a little differently.

I am glad your dog is on the mend and am impressed by your diligence in advocating for his care.

As for rimadyl, again, all of us have to balance the risks and the benefits and consider what is best for our individual dog(s). I had a lovely dog who was on rimadyl, tramadol, and amantadine (plus fish oil and cosequin) for 3 years. High risk? Sure. But she had no quality of life without it. All situations are different and all of us have to consider our very specific circumstances when we make treatment decisions.

Find a vet you trust. Learn all that you can. Adjust as your dog and situation requires. Keep learning.


----------



## Little Wise Owl

This thread is almost 4 years old...


----------



## peterinwa

Yes, and it's being quoted all over the web.


----------



## Xeph

Which is weird...no clue why it's being quoted all over now.

I have GSDs, who are not small. They get two capsules a day, that's it. Eight is just ridiculous


----------



## Iceweasel

I think it was a bs post. Anyone that thinks a balanced diet for a dog with plently of fuits and veggies isn't playing with a full deck. They are called carnivors for a reason.


----------



## peterinwa

My dogs eat kibble three times a day, then get veggie snacks between meals.

A vet once pointed out that when a carnivore kills a herbivore, the first thing it does it rip the stomach open and eat the intestines, absorbing the vitamins and nutrition from the veggies it's been eating. He said they can't get too many veggies to supplement their diet.


----------



## Iceweasel

A good dog food is going to have the vitamin and mineral content they need. They don't have the teeth or system to break down vagetables. They have very short intestines compared to humans, which is why they can eat raw meat and not get sick. Plant matter takes much longer to break down. That's why when grass goes in, grass comes out. I can't believe they are getting any nutritional value from it. I can believe that carnivores in the wild can get nutrition from partially digested plant matter from the stomach of a fresh kill.


----------



## Kayota

Dogs evolved alongside humans eating our scraps, which included vegetable matter. They've been eating those scraps for thousands of years and I believe they get more nutritional value out of them than wolves do. Also, dogs are omnivores. And the idea that dogs never get sick from raw meat is laughable, my dog lost weight no matter how much meat I threw at her and I had to give it up.

That aside, I only give Roxie one fish oil tablet maybe twice a month at the very most and always add an egg to balance it out.


----------



## Willowy

peterinwa said:


> A vet once pointed out that when a carnivore kills a herbivore, the first thing it does it rip the stomach open and eat the intestines


 Except they don't :/. They go for the organs first---liver, kidney, etc. Rich and nutritious. I haven't had the opportunity to see what's left after a canine is done with an animal, but cats usually leave the stomach and intestines of whatever critter they got. The only thing left is a little pile of rabbit intestines. . .and the feet . Dogs can usually handle processed veggies (pureed, cooked, etc.) but if you give them whole raw veggies, you'll usually see it come out pretty much the same way it went in.


----------



## Iceweasel

Kayota said:


> Dogs evolved alongside humans eating our scraps, which included vegetable matter. They've been eating those scraps for thousands of years and I believe they get more nutritional value out of them than wolves do.


Dogs are bred to be dogs but I do not believe their basic anatomy has evolved. If you bred humans to be very short, very blond and very heavy boned, they would still be human and have the same system. Microevolution can happen fairly quickly but macroevolution is a different matter.


----------



## Kayota

All I know is that when I removed veggies from my dog's diet she did very poorly, and that in vet tech school every single one of my teachers warned me against feeding solely raw. All a matter of opinion.


----------



## Iceweasel

People have opinions but they don't change the facts. If you are giving raw veggies, it's still raw. Meat comes from a variety of sources, if it was from open range well fed stock that would be one thing, but meat factories for fast cheap meat is another. I would imagine bones would be very important is a raw meat diet, as there are a lot of vitamins and minerals there.


----------



## Doggle

Megan2010, thank you for your thorough post.


----------



## taquitos

Kayota said:


> All I know is that when I removed veggies from my dog's diet she did very poorly, and that in vet tech school every single one of my teachers warned me against feeding solely raw. All a matter of opinion.


I feed my dog pretty much solely raw. He gets veggies once in a blue moon.

Same with my friend's two dogs (and I know plenty more who almost never feed veggies).

They're all doing fantastically well  But obviously not all dogs are going to do well with a diet like that, I just don't think veggies or fruits are as necessary as everyone believes.


----------



## Kayota

Iceweasel said:


> People have opinions but they don't change the facts. If you are giving raw veggies, it's still raw. Meat comes from a variety of sources, if it was from open range well fed stock that would be one thing, but meat factories for fast cheap meat is another. I would imagine bones would be very important is a raw meat diet, as there are a lot of vitamins and minerals there.


She got bones, organs, pretty much everything required. I don't feed her raw veggies as a staple, that would be ludicrous. I don't even eat raw veggies, they taste awful.


----------



## taquitos

Kayota said:


> She got bones, organs, pretty much everything required. I don't feed her raw veggies as a staple, that would be ludicrous. I don't even eat raw veggies, they taste awful.


Like I said, it doesn't work with every dog but for 90% of the dogs I've seen who have switched to raw did well so I guess my first reaction is to maybe try to troubleshoot with you to see what went wrong. I think raw is difficult for dogs with specific protein allergies, but I honestly think generally if they are getting the right ratio of red meats to white meats and plenty of omega 3s and a good variety, they generally don't do badly on it.


----------



## Kayota

I didn't think it was a good idea to experiment on my dog when I was watching her lose weight before my eyes to the point of seeing ribs no matter what I did.


----------



## taquitos

Kayota said:


> I didn't think it was a good idea to experiment on my dog when I was watching her lose weight before my eyes to the point of seeing ribs no matter what I did.


Well I obviously don't know what you were doing so I can't tell you what I would have done differently  As long as Roxie is healthy and happy right now I really couldn't care less lol whatever works for your dog


----------



## sassafras

Iceweasel said:


> Dogs are bred to be dogs but I do not believe their basic anatomy has evolved. If you bred humans to be very short, very blond and very heavy boned, they would still be human and have the same system. Microevolution can happen fairly quickly but macroevolution is a different matter.


Except that there was a study that came out either last year or late in 2012 that showed that dogs do have an increased amount of the digestive enzymes needed to digest carbohydrates as compared to wolves. There's no reason to believe that co-evolving alongside us didn't include evolving the ability to use new foodstuffs.


----------



## peterinwa

When I got my first dog and went to my first puppy class, I didn't know we were supposed to bring treats and I had to borrow them. But all anyone had brought were tiny slices of cheese and salami. I wasn't about to start my puppy eating that!

So I started out using only kibble for treats, and to keep the quantity down I both split it with a pill splitter and took if from their daily meals.

Over time I learned how much they loved veggies, and started using green peas and little pieces of lettuce and such for treats. If the doctor was wrong and they only pass through their bodies, then perhaps they are the perfect treats as they neither introduce bad things into their system nor make them fat.

Whatever, I'm sure they are better than cheese, salami, and most of the dog treats people buy. (Though I am sure there are some healthy ones... wouldn't know... never looked.)

BTW, good discussion!


----------



## RabbleFox

^Cheese and salami are used because they are high value. As they are just treats, they are fine to give in small amounts. Not all dogs find kibble rewarding. Pepper really could care less about his kibble. His favorite treat is cheese. That is used for learning new behaviors or in highly distracting environments. Merlin is a nut for any food (except veggies, he won't eat them raw...) so I use a combination of kibbles (samples are my best friend!) and dog treats to reward him. 

Taking kibble from daily meals is a good way to train dogs IMO but only if your dog finds kibbles rewarding!

Merlin is being fed partially raw right now. I am afraid I won't get the ratios right so his kibbles are there to ensure he gets all his nutrients. I've never heard if vitamin E deficiency but I've also never thought about giving my dog 8 capsules of fish oil.


----------



## Kayota

sassafras said:


> Except that there was a study that came out either last year or late in 2012 that showed that dogs do have an increased amount of the digestive enzymes needed to digest carbohydrates as compared to wolves. There's no reason to believe that co-evolving alongside us didn't include evolving the ability to use new foodstuffs.


Thank you. I didn't even know there was a study to be quite honest. I simply thought about it critically and thought about what I had read from both sides of the debate and came to the conclusion that dogs' systems are not exactly like wolves'. I do feed Roxie raw but it's more of a treat than a staple. She mostly gets Honest Kitchen, Royal Canin and Pure Balance with the occasional canned. I've heard good and bad things about Royal Canin, but more good than bad anecdotally speaking, so I figured I'd give it a shot and I'm happy with it. I split it with the Pure Balance to cut the cost.


----------



## Kathyy

Kayota said:


> Thank you. I didn't even know there was a study to be quite honest. I simply thought about it critically and thought about what I had read from both sides of the debate and came to the conclusion that dogs' systems are not exactly like wolves'. I do feed Roxie raw but it's more of a treat than a staple. She mostly gets Honest Kitchen, Royal Canin and Pure Balance with the occasional canned. I've heard good and bad things about Royal Canin, but more good than bad anecdotally speaking, so I figured I'd give it a shot and I'm happy with it. I split it with the Pure Balance to cut the cost.


This one. http://news.sciencemag.org/plants-animals/2013/01/diet-shaped-dog-domestication

Max seemed like he might have more copies of the amylase gene as he did fine on kibble but Ginger actually seems to digest stuff like raw celery and fallen dried up apples she finds in the backyard.

To me this shows some dogs have a lesser ability to digest carbs than others. It may be worth your while to try a low carb diet if you have a dog with digestive issues.


----------



## Iceweasel

Kayota said:


> She got bones, organs, pretty much everything required. I don't feed her raw veggies as a staple, that would be ludicrous. I don't even eat raw veggies, they taste awful.


Wait, what? I only eat veggies raw and do so everyday. Cooking destroys nutrition. It tastes better to me, I do use extra virgin olive oil and a bit of seasoning though.



sassafras said:


> Except that there was a study that came out either last year or late in 2012 that showed that dogs do have an increased amount of the digestive enzymes needed to digest carbohydrates as compared to wolves. There's no reason to believe that co-evolving alongside us didn't include evolving the ability to use new foodstuffs.


That's assuming that mankind had canine pets from the beginning, whenever that was. Did they include the evidence for that or just assume so? And did they demonstrate how man's digestive system changed? Everything I've read says otherwise, in fact, many attribute many problems today to not eating what our ancestors did. I'm calling bs on that study because dogs are still built like carnivors, their teeth are for ripping and tearing. They chew to get pieces small enough to swallow and do not have the enzymes in saliva like we do to start breaking down food. I'd be happy to see the evidence that says otherwise as it's contrary to everything I've read.


----------



## gingerkid

Iceweasel said:


> Wait, what? I only eat veggies raw and do so everyday. Cooking destroys nutrition. It tastes better to me, I do use extra virgin olive oil and a bit of seasoning though.
> 
> That's assuming that mankind had canine pets from the beginning, whenever that was. Did they include the evidence for that or just assume so? And did they demonstrate how man's digestive system changed? Everything I've read says otherwise, in fact, many attribute many problems today to not eating what our ancestors did. I'm calling bs on that study because dogs are still built like carnivors, their teeth are for ripping and tearing. They chew to get pieces small enough to swallow and do not have the enzymes in saliva like we do to start breaking down food. I'd be happy to see the evidence that says otherwise as it's contrary to everything I've read.


Nothing that you posted has anything to do with the study that Kathy linked to, which showed using various molecular/genetic techniques that dogs have more copies of the gene responsible for amylase, the enzyme that breaks down starches, compared to wolves. They found that dogs had many, many more copies of the gene (4-36 copies) than wolves had (2-4 copies). However, since having copies of a gene doesn't necessarily translate into increased functionality, the researchers also tested for the actual enzyme and found that dogs had nearly two to three-fold increased amylase enzyme activity compared to wolves.

You can read the original peer-reviewed study here, if you don't trust news outlet reporting of science. Of course, you're welcome to your own opinions, but the great thing about science is that it is true regardless... It is also clear that you don't really have a clear understanding of how evolution works. When a species evolves, it is one piece - one gene! - at a time, not all at once. And your assumption that the dentition would change along with enzyme activity isn't logical, from an evolutionary standpoint. Dentition, which is determined by hundreds of different genes and is partially determined by skull shape, takes a LONG time (like, millions of years) and extreme selective pressure to change, compared to enzyme activity which is regulated by a handful of genes at the most and has relatively low cost. If the dog produces extra amylase, so what? Dogs can still eat grains with carnivorous dentition, but they wouldn't be able to eat meat as efficiently with omnivorous dentition - the evolutionary trade off for the change in dentition would be to great and potentially detrimental, where as enzymes are quick and cheap to produce and don't affect the dog's ability to eat meat when it comes along.


----------



## Laurelin

I use cheese and salami for treats. Pepperoni was my jackpot treat this week. We need very very high value rewards in agility, especially for things like doing the teeter or other obstacles that dogs could potentially find scary. There's nothing wrong with giving your dogs a little junk food here and there.

I can use kibble for things just like shaping around the house and stuff like that. But in agility we need something non crunchy (because it takes longer for them to eat it) and high value. 

My dogs spit out veggies.


----------



## taquitos

Laurelin said:


> I use cheese and salami for treats. Pepperoni was my jackpot treat this week. We need very very high value rewards in agility, especially for things like doing the teeter or other obstacles that dogs could potentially find scary. There's nothing wrong with giving your dogs a little junk food here and there.
> 
> I can use kibble for things just like shaping around the house and stuff like that. But in agility we need something non crunchy (because it takes longer for them to eat it) and high value.
> 
> My dogs spit out veggies.


Same here Laurelin lol Meeko often carries veggies (if I give him a bigger treat) and rips/chews them up, or hides them in the bed, but he doesn't eat it lol!


----------



## Iceweasel

gingerkid said:


> Nothing that you posted has anything to do with the study that Kathy linked to, which showed using various molecular/genetic techniques that dogs have more copies of the gene responsible for amylase, the enzyme that breaks down starches, compared to wolves. They found that dogs had many, many more copies of the gene (4-36 copies) than wolves had (2-4 copies). However, since having copies of a gene doesn't necessarily translate into increased functionality, the researchers also tested for the actual enzyme and found that dogs had nearly two to three-fold increased amylase enzyme activity compared to wolves.
> 
> You can read the original peer-reviewed study here, if you don't trust news outlet reporting of science. Of course, you're welcome to your own opinions, but the great thing about science is that it is true regardless... It is also clear that you don't really have a clear understanding of how evolution works. When a species evolves, it is one piece - one gene! - at a time, not all at once. And your assumption that the dentition would change along with enzyme activity isn't logical, from an evolutionary standpoint. Dentition, which is determined by hundreds of different genes and is partially determined by skull shape, takes a LONG time (like, millions of years) and extreme selective pressure to change, compared to enzyme activity which is regulated by a handful of genes at the most and has relatively low cost. If the dog produces extra amylase, so what? Dogs can still eat grains with carnivorous dentition, but they wouldn't be able to eat meat as efficiently with omnivorous dentition - the evolutionary trade off for the change in dentition would be to great and potentially detrimental, where as enzymes are quick and cheap to produce and don't affect the dog's ability to eat meat when it comes along.


Save your chest pounding. I asked for when the domestication happened, how does that have nothing to do with the article? We all know wolves and dogs are not the same so it isn't surprising they test a bit differently. Everything I've read says they cannot break them down much if at all so they don't get much nutrition from them. If you have evidence to the contrary then fine, let's see it. Post the portion of the study that proves it instead of the chest thumping. Maybe they will evolve to completely break down raw broccoli someday, but that wasn't the question.


----------



## gingerkid

Iceweasel said:


> Save your chest pounding. I asked for when the domestication happened, how does that have nothing to do with the article? We all know wolves and dogs are not the same so it isn't surprising they test a bit differently. Everything I've read says they cannot break them down much if at all so they don't get much nutrition from them. If you have evidence to the contrary then fine, let's see it. Post the portion of the study that proves it instead of the chest thumping. Maybe they will evolve to completely break down raw broccoli someday, but that wasn't the question.


Domestication by people is just an possible explanation for why dogs have adapted to digest grains better than wolves, it doesn't negate the fact that the adaption occurred. Especially considering that the adaptation easily could've started before domestication, while they were just hanging around camps and scavenging off of human left-overs, but before they were actually tamed/raise by humans.

I'm just going to ignore the "chest pounding" remark, because it came from someone who doesn't want to do their own reading. I should also not have to do your research for you, especially since I provided you with the source material, but I'm a nice person and believe in the burden of proof, so here you go:



> Whereas humans have acquired amylase activity in the saliva22 via an ancient duplication of the pancreatic amylase gene, dogs only express amylase in the pancreas23. In dogs the AMY2B gene, encoding the alpha-2B-amylase, resides in a 600-kbCDR on chromosome 6 with Z(HP) andZ(FST) scores of24.60 and 7.16, respectively (Figs 1 and 2a). Interestingly, an 8-kb sequence spanning the AMY2B locus showed a several-fold increase in aligned read depth in dog relative to wolf (Fig. 2b), suggestive of a copy number change. Formal comparisons of regional and local pool coverage, and wolf and dog coverage (Methods), respectively, also suggest a substantial increase in copy numbers in all dog pools compared to wolf at this locus (Supplementary Discussion, section 5).
> 
> We confirmed this CNV by quantifying AMY2B copy numbers in 136 dogs and 35 wolves (Supplementary Table 11) using real-time quantitative PCR (qPCR). *Whereas all wolves tested carried only 2 copies (2N52), diploid copy numbers in dog ranged from 4 to 30* (P,0.001, Wilcoxon) (Fig. 2c), corresponding to a remarkable *7.4-fold average increase in dog AMY2B copy numbers*. To assess whether this change correspond to a difference in amylase activity, we first compared AMY2B gene expression in pancreas from dog (n59) and wolf (n512) and *noted a 28-fold higher average expression in dog* (P,0.001, Wilcoxon, Fig. 2d). We then quantified amylase activity in frozen serum (Fig. 2e) and found a *4.7-fold higher activity in dog (9.6–18.4 mkat l21 (n512)) relative to wolf (1.4–4.3 mkat l21 (n513))* (P,0.001, Wilcoxon). Similar results were obtained in comparisons of a limited number of fresh samples (Supplementary Tables 12 and 13).


----------



## Avery

I've always been told/read/thought dogs were omnivorous. They need more meat but they eat and digest other things. I haven't studied it of course, but it took me by surprise that people here were calling them carnivores.

Mumble love fruits and veggies. He goes especially crazy for lettuce and broccoli.


----------



## Willowy

By taxonomy definitions, dogs are carnivores but not obligate carnivores (like cats and ferrets). An omnivore would have teeth like a human---tearing/biting teeth in front, flat grinding/chewing teeth in back. Dogs don't have flat molars.

Bears and raccoons are omnivores, if you want to look at the difference between dog teeth and bear or raccoon teeth for comparative purposes.


----------



## Avery

Ah, gotcha. Good to know.


----------



## Laurelin

taquitos said:


> Same here Laurelin lol Meeko often carries veggies (if I give him a bigger treat) and rips/chews them up, or hides them in the bed, but he doesn't eat it lol!



Mia shreds veggies too. She will eat cooked carrots in tiny amounts but I think she doesn't really register them beyond 'food'!


----------



## Little Wise Owl

Willowy said:


> By taxonomy definitions, dogs are carnivores but not obligate carnivores (like cats and ferrets). An omnivore would have teeth like a human---tearing/biting teeth in front, flat grinding/chewing teeth in back. Dogs don't have flat molars.
> 
> Bears and raccoons are omnivores, if you want to look at the difference between dog teeth and bear or raccoon teeth for comparative purposes.


Pretty much, this. Dogs are anatomically carnivores but have adapted/evolved into being rather successful omnivores. But it's to my understand that while dogs _can_ digest some plant matter doesn't mean that they require it to thrive.


----------



## Iceweasel

gingerkid said:


> Domestication by people is just an possible explanation for why dogs have adapted to digest grains better than wolves, it doesn't negate the fact that the adaption occurred. Especially considering that the adaptation easily could've started before domestication, while they were just hanging around camps and scavenging off of human left-overs, but before they were actually tamed/raise by humans.
> 
> I'm just going to ignore the "chest pounding" remark, because it came from someone who doesn't want to do their own reading. I should also not have to do your research for you, especially since I provided you with the source material, but I'm a nice person and believe in the burden of proof, so here you go:


I'm not doing your homework for you. As you've said, the proof isn't there that grain feeding by humans altered their digestive systems to accomodate raw vegetables in their diet. What I asked for was evidence that they can digest raw veggies. Rather than throwing out links and demeaning people it would be more prudent to simply post the portion of the article that makes the case. 

If dogs can absorb nutrition from raw veggies I will supliment them in a heartbeat. I always have them around and they're much cheaper than meat or premium kibbles. BUT when they have peas, peas come out the rear end. When they eat grass, grass comes out the rear end. I'm not a scientist but I'd like someone to explain what they got out of it besides filling up a bit more.

If you've got the evidence then post it up, I'll definitely consider it.


----------



## ireth0

Iceweasel said:


> I'm not doing your homework for you. As you've said, the proof isn't there that grain feeding by humans altered their digestive systems to accomodate raw vegetables in their diet. What I asked for was evidence that they can digest raw veggies. Rather than throwing out links and demeaning people it would be more prudent to simply post the portion of the article that makes the case.
> 
> If dogs can absorb nutrition from raw veggies I will supliment them in a heartbeat. I always have them around and they're much cheaper than meat or premium kibbles. BUT when they have peas, peas come out the rear end. When they eat grass, grass comes out the rear end. I'm not a scientist but I'd like someone to explain what they got out of it besides filling up a bit more.
> 
> If you've got the evidence then post it up, I'll definitely consider it.


She did... read the quoted info in the post.


----------



## Willowy

ireth0 said:


> She did... read the quoted info in the post.


Well, no not really. The study says dogs have an increased ability to digest carbs. Not that they're particularly good at it or anything, just that they have more of an ability to digest them than wolves do. Also, carbs aren't the same as raw veggies, which are high in cellulose (most of 'em anyway). Animals who eat a lot of unprocessed cellulose require specialized digestive systems, like rabbits or cows. Raw whole veggies aren't the same as cooked/pureed veggies and aren't the same as cooked grains/starches.


----------



## Kayota

Willowy said:


> By taxonomy definitions, dogs are carnivores but not obligate carnivores (like cats and ferrets). An omnivore would have teeth like a human---tearing/biting teeth in front, flat grinding/chewing teeth in back. Dogs don't have flat molars.
> 
> Bears and raccoons are omnivores, if you want to look at the difference between dog teeth and bear or raccoon teeth for comparative purposes.


Challenge accepted.









Bear









Raccoon









Dog

Hmm... Not sure I see your point 

You'll be interested to know that I have cleaned a raccoon skull and they have the same jaw setup as dogs, ie their jaw only moves up and down. I've also seen this in action with real raccoons eating fruit. It would appear that bears have the same thing, from the photo above. (the raccoon skull in the photo is missing its zygomatic bone which is where the hinge lies, but the teeth are there and definitely similar to the dog's.)


----------



## Willowy

You gotta have a picture of the inside of their mouths open. Bears have molars like humans', dogs don't have any flat surfaces. You can kinda see it from the side but it's easier if you look at the open mouth. I'll see if I can find a pic. . .

Well, dang, I can't figure out how to make the pictures show up like that unless they're my pictures (which they aren't). But I Googled images of a bear skull (just typed in "bear skull" and clicked on "images") and there are a lot with their mouths open showing the flat molars.


----------



## Jacksons Mom

Iceweasel said:


> Dogs are bred to be dogs but I do not believe their basic anatomy has evolved. If you bred humans to be very short, very blond and very heavy boned, they would still be human and have the same system. Microevolution can happen fairly quickly but macroevolution is a different matter.


I used to buy into this whole belief. Now, I just... don't.

Dogs are obviously not wolves, and yes they only differ from the DNA structure of a wolf by 0.8%... That may not seem like much, but there is only a 1.2% difference in DNA separates us from the chimpanzee as well.

Dogs are one of the most manipulated species on the planet. We humans have MADE dogs be who they are today. AND dogs were literally brought up on scraps (including corn mush, and waste - you really think dogs were eating all the peoples good meat?) And lots of breeds have many issues that are special to their breed. For example, Schanuzers are very prone to pancreatitis. They often need a low-ish fat diet throughout their life. German Shepherds and Yorkies are both known for somewhat sensitive stomachs. And I know a lot of dogs who do terrible on raw food. So obviously there's not "one perfect food" for domesticated canines and what works for one may not work for the other. If they were all so similar to wolves, wouldn't they all do great on the same thing?


----------



## Willowy

Now that's an interesting thought. Do some wolves only eat rabbits because venison gives them a tummyache? Is that why some wolves prey on sheep instead of natural prey? LOL. Now I want to ask someone who runs a wolf sanctuary if all the wolves do well on the same thing. . .


----------



## RabbleFox

Willowy said:


> You gotta have a picture of the inside of their mouths open. Bears have molars like humans', dogs don't have any flat surfaces. You can kinda see it from the side but it's easier if you look at the open mouth. I'll see if I can find a pic. . .
> 
> Well, dang, I can't figure out how to make the pictures show up like that unless they're my pictures (which they aren't). But I Googled images of a bear skull (just typed in "bear skull" and clicked on "images") and there are a lot with their mouths open showing the flat molars.


Here ya go. :3









Open Bear Mouth, notice the pointy front ones and the flatter back ones.









Exposed Raccoon Mouth, check that out!


----------



## Willowy

LOL, that's the exact bear skull I was looking at! I think it's because I'm mobile. . .or maybe I just don't know how to post pics .


----------



## Iceweasel

A few excerpts:


http://primalpooch.com/the-great-debate-do-dogs-need-fruits-and-vegetables/

In fact, many argue that a change in diet fueled the domestication from wolf to dog. They believed this occurred when wolves had a reduced need to hunt and began hanging around the permanent settlements of man, scavenging for food.

In contrast, the intestines of an omnivore or herbivore are longer to accommodate the fermentation times required when digesting carbohydrates. In a carnivore, plant matter is expelled quickly, before it can be fully digested and the vitamins and minerals can be absorbed because of their short digestive tract. This is EXACTLY why many BARF feeders puree their fruits and veggies before serving them to their dogs.

To support the theory that wolves and domesticated dogs require plant matter, many people claim that wolves eat the partially digested stomach contents of their herbivorous prey, and therefore, do need plant matter for optimal health. In my opinion, it’s just a claim to help support the current industry’s practices of feeding carbohydrates.

When it comes to the stomach contents, the answer is – well, it depends. If a wolf was to catch something small, similar to the size of a squirrel, they’ll most likely eat it whole. So, yes, in this circumstance the stomach and it’s contents would be consumed.

What about the rest of the time, when a wolf catches much larger prey? According to leading wolf researcher David L. Mech who is a senior scientist with the Biological Resource Division and U.S. Geological Survey, wolves do not eat stomach contents. Mech has been studying wolves and their prey since 1958, and is quoted saying, “the vegetation in the intestinal tract is of no interest to the wolves” in his book Wolves:Behavior, Ecology, and Conservation. 

What about all the scientific studies suggesting that dogs are capable of handling starchy carbohydrates? There are many studies out there that attempt to prove dogs can digest grains, fruits, and vegetables. However, their findings are just one small piece to the puzzle, not concrete evidence that dogs can handle this type of diet without negative health effects down the line.

We’re aware that dogs and wolves, though still sharing an almost identical genetic blueprint, do in fact, have differences. But what we need to remember, is just because dogs are surviving on a new food – a food that was not biologically appropriate or natural to them – doesn’t mean they are thriving on this new type of food. Too much emphasis is put on whether or not an animal can survive on something, not if it’s optimal for good health.

This is a tough question to answer, which is why it’s so hard for people to come to an accurate conclusion. Fruits and vegetables are not inherently bad and don’t cause your dog great harm. Fruits and veggies are not poisons. If your dog consumes them, you won’t see any immediate, negative reaction. The problem lies in that it is the wrong kind of food for them to eat.

We can garner that dogs were designed to eat meat by comparing their anatomy and physiology to their carnivorous relatives.

If you were to study other carnivores in the wild (lions, tigers, wolves, etc.). You’ll notice they too only eat meat. No other carnivore in a natural setting has a need for plant matter. If no other carnivore in the animal kingdom needs grains, fruits, or vegetables to be in optimal condition, then why do our dogs? Dogs come equipped with essentially the same anatomy and physiology as their wolf counterparts (remember they differ genetically by 0.2%) which should prove that just as their carnivorous relatives, our dog’s were NOT meant to eat grains, fruits or vegetables.


----------



## Little Wise Owl

I have a bear skull and it's got flat molars.


----------



## Little Wise Owl

Well, I posted a few pictures of the bear skull I have to showcase its teeth but apparently it's being moderated. So frustrating.


----------



## hanksimon

Not a scientific study, but a single datum point:
1. Shep has been eating a couple of raw carrots with each meal for about 10 years. I assume they are crunchy chew toys.
2. I do believe that he gets very little nutrition from the carrots. Carrots in result in carrots out, as well as an interesting golden color 
3. However, I also believe that his stomach bacteria changed to accommodate the carrots, if just some of the sugars.
4. I suggest the sugars (and maybe starches?), because he can get fat if I double the number of carrots. And, no, I've never read that effect anywhere, but I've reproduced it 3 or 4 times.
5. I believe that most raw vegetables won't help Shep, but I believe that he can digest steamed broccoli and steamed green beans, and I think he can digest apples .... but I've never done a chemical analysis.

Someone mentioned the sensitive stomachs of some breeds. I believe that a few of us will attest to the iron stomachs of Labs!


----------



## Kayota

Willowy: I see what you mean. However I am going to back out of this now regardless because what I feed my dog doesn't affect anyone else, and what everyone feeds their dogs doesn't affect me, so it's a silly topic to argue about, honestly, and it's been pretty well exhausted on this forum.


----------



## Dr. Gaston

This post was brought to my attention today because my assistant saw it on Facebook last week. It has been interesting reading all the recent commentary. There are several points that may be helpful:

Megan2010 makes the statement that she was feeding a "very balanced diet". While I am advocate of homemade and raw diets, one of the obvious advantages of most commercial diets is the minimum AAFCO nutrient content in those 'balanced' foods. Though they are not optimum, they do eliminate many possible deficiencies. Regardless, nutrition always needs to be considered with any disease process. Dogs are as biochemically diverse as they are different in appearance - just as people are. So, while generalizations can be made about diet, ultimately we are feeding individuals and we need to determine what works best for each individual.

EPA doses have been shown to be safe and efficacious at a dose as high as 180 mg EPA/4.55 kg (Double-blinded Crossover Study with Marine Oil Supplementation Containing High-dose Eicosapentaenoic Acid for the Treatment of Canine Pruritic Skin Disease
Veterinary Dermatology Volume 5, Issue 3, pages 99–104, September 1994). At 80 kg body weight, and assuming these are typical 1000mg fish oil capsules containing possibly 300 mg EPA per capsule, the dose used in the cited study would be 10.5 capsules per day. Some of the posted comments suggest that 8 capsules would be excessive. From these calculations, that dose would be expected to be a safe dose for a dog of that size. 

According to Small Animal Clinical Nutrition 4th Edition, "For foods containing fish oils, AAFCO recommends an addition (i.e., above the minimum level) of 10 IU vitamin E/g fish oil/kg of food." This additional vitamin E should be added in addition to an adequate amount already present in the diet. If the diet was previously deficient in vitamin E, then additional PUFA would make the situation worse. Good quality oils such as Pure Encapsulations or Nordic Naturals will have the necessary additional vitamin E to avoid inducing a deficiency state in an adequately balanced diet. 

All the discussion about diet composition is interesting - everyone has an opinion. When it comes to vitamin E, I have had this same conversation with several clients recently who claimed that dogs are strict carnivores and fruits/vegetables/plans substances have no place in the carnivore diet. My observations suggest that dogs are opportunistic feeders and will eat a variety of substances including fruits and vegetables when they are available and depending on their level of hunger. The other important thing to note about vitamin E is that it is essential and is only synthesized by plants. The best sources are vegetable oils, seed oils, grains, and some green plant leaves. "Animal tissues tend to be low in vitamin E with the highest levels occurring in fatty tissues." (Small Animal Clinical Nutrition 4th Ed.) So, I think that there may be a legitimate need for supplemental oils, seeds, vegetables, etc. in a dog's diet.

Lastly, the distinction between 'natural' (d-) and synthetic (d,l) 'vitamin E' is of little practical consequence because these are both single-constituent chemical supplements taken out of context of their natural form and balance. Vitamin E consists of eight closely related compounds - 4 tocopherols and 4 tocotrienols. Real vitamin E contains all eight compounds and is best found in food and food concentrates. Most supplemental forms of vitamin E, are simply one fraction of the total vitamin E complex. This unbalanced intake of a single portion of the vitamin E complex is what leads to the seemingly paradoxical results of some recent nutritional studies. Several have shown, instead of benefits of alpha-tocopherol supplementation, an increase in death rates of humans taking >400 IU alpha-tocopherol/day. Unbalanced, unnatural supplementation can yield unpredictable results.


----------



## gingerkid

Willowy said:


> Well, no not really. The study says dogs have an increased ability to digest carbs. Not that they're particularly good at it or anything, just that they have more of an ability to digest them than wolves do. Also, carbs aren't the same as raw veggies, which are high in cellulose (most of 'em anyway). Animals who eat a lot of unprocessed cellulose require specialized digestive systems, like rabbits or cows. Raw whole veggies aren't the same as cooked/pureed veggies and aren't the same as cooked grains/starches.


I'm confused where I said dogs are "good" at digesting carbs? Actually, I didn't comment at all on "goodness" of a dog's ability to digest carbs, other than they are better at digesting carbs than wolves (which is completely supported by the study). And I never referred to veggies (raw or cooked) at all. So.... could you please explain to me where I didn't "do my own homework"?



Iceweasel said:


> If you were to study other carnivores in the wild (lions, tigers, wolves, etc.). You’ll notice they too only eat meat. No other carnivore in a natural setting has a need for plant matter. If no other carnivore in the animal kingdom needs grains, fruits, or vegetables to be in optimal condition, then why do our dogs? Dogs come equipped with essentially the same anatomy and physiology as their wolf counterparts (remember they differ genetically by 0.2%) which should prove that just as their carnivorous relatives, our dog’s were NOT meant to eat grains, fruits or vegetables.


My big problem with this is that it implies that animals were "designed" for a specific function and are therefore not able to adapt to changing conditions (including available food sources).


----------



## Willowy

gingerkid said:


> I'm confused where I said dogs are "good" at digesting carbs? Actually, I didn't comment at all on "goodness" of a dog's ability to digest carbs, other than they are better at digesting carbs than wolves (which is completely supported by the study). And I never referred to veggies (raw or cooked) at all. So.... could you please explain to me where I didn't "do my own homework"?


I think there I was replying to ireth who was replying to someone else. . .. I'm not saying dogs should never have any plant material. Just saying that raw veggies are probably not going to be well digested, so if you want to give your dog veggies or grains they probably should be cooked or pureed.


----------



## Little Wise Owl

Dr. Gaston said:


> This post was brought to my attention today because my assistant saw it on Facebook last week. It has been interesting reading all the recent commentary. There are several points that may be helpful:
> 
> Megan2010 makes the statement that she was feeding a "very balanced diet". While I am advocate of homemade and raw diets, one of the obvious advantages of most commercial diets is the minimum AAFCO nutrient content in those 'balanced' foods. Though they are not optimum, they do eliminate many possible deficiencies. Regardless, nutrition always needs to be considered with any disease process. Dogs are as biochemically diverse as they are different in appearance - just as people are. So, while generalizations can be made about diet, ultimately we are feeding individuals and we need to determine what works best for each individual.
> 
> EPA doses have been shown to be safe and efficacious at a dose as high as 180 mg EPA/4.55 kg (Double-blinded Crossover Study with Marine Oil Supplementation Containing High-dose Eicosapentaenoic Acid for the Treatment of Canine Pruritic Skin Disease
> Veterinary Dermatology Volume 5, Issue 3, pages 99–104, September 1994). At 80 kg body weight, and assuming these are typical 1000mg fish oil capsules containing possibly 300 mg EPA per capsule, the dose used in the cited study would be 10.5 capsules per day. Some of the posted comments suggest that 8 capsules would be excessive. From these calculations, that dose would be expected to be a safe dose for a dog of that size.
> 
> According to Small Animal Clinical Nutrition 4th Edition, "For foods containing fish oils, AAFCO recommends an addition (i.e., above the minimum level) of 10 IU vitamin E/g fish oil/kg of food." This additional vitamin E should be added in addition to an adequate amount already present in the diet. If the diet was previously deficient in vitamin E, then additional PUFA would make the situation worse. Good quality oils such as Pure Encapsulations or Nordic Naturals will have the necessary additional vitamin E to avoid inducing a deficiency state in an adequately balanced diet.
> 
> All the discussion about diet composition is interesting - everyone has an opinion. When it comes to vitamin E, I have had this same conversation with several clients recently who claimed that dogs are strict carnivores and fruits/vegetables/plans substances have no place in the carnivore diet. My observations suggest that dogs are opportunistic feeders and will eat a variety of substances including fruits and vegetables when they are available and depending on their level of hunger. The other important thing to note about vitamin E is that it is essential and is only synthesized by plants. The best sources are vegetable oils, seed oils, grains, and some green plant leaves. "Animal tissues tend to be low in vitamin E with the highest levels occurring in fatty tissues." (Small Animal Clinical Nutrition 4th Ed.) So, I think that there may be a legitimate need for supplemental oils, seeds, vegetables, etc. in a dog's diet.
> 
> Lastly, the distinction between 'natural' (d-) and synthetic (d,l) 'vitamin E' is of little practical consequence because these are both single-constituent chemical supplements taken out of context of their natural form and balance. Vitamin E consists of eight closely related compounds - 4 tocopherols and 4 tocotrienols. Real vitamin E contains all eight compounds and is best found in food and food concentrates. Most supplemental forms of vitamin E, are simply one fraction of the total vitamin E complex. This unbalanced intake of a single portion of the vitamin E complex is what leads to the seemingly paradoxical results of some recent nutritional studies. Several have shown, instead of benefits of alpha-tocopherol supplementation, an increase in death rates of humans taking >400 IU alpha-tocopherol/day. Unbalanced, unnatural supplementation can yield unpredictable results.


Great post!! Thank you for sharing.


----------



## gingerkid

Willowy said:


> I think there I was replying to ireth who was replying to someone else. . .. I'm not saying dogs should never have any plant material. Just saying that raw veggies are probably not going to be well digested, so if you want to give your dog veggies or grains they probably should be cooked or pureed.


She was replying to IceWeasel who was replying to _my post_ by saying:



> I'm not doing your homework for you. As you've said, the proof isn't there that grain feeding by humans altered their digestive systems to accomodate raw vegetables in their diet. *What I asked for was evidence that they can digest raw veggies*. Rather than throwing out links and demeaning people it would be more prudent to simply post the portion of the article that makes the case.


Who at no point until that post had ever actually asked for evidence that dogs can digest raw veggies. Raw veggies were also not mentioned by anyone who brought up the research article, in relation to the research article supporting that idea. IceWeasel was originally talking about how dogs only have the same digestive capabilities as wolves:



Iceweasel said:


> *Dogs are bred to be dogs but I do not believe their basic anatomy has evolved.*


Which, as the article which several of us have referenced, is not true, since dogs are now better at digesting carbohydrates than their lupine ancestors.


----------



## xoxluvablexox

Mercola has a really good vitamin e supplement. Uses sunflower instead of soy, not synthetic, and has all 8 compounds. The vitamin e supplement I have now, which I occasionally give to my dog since he's getting fish oil every day, is pretty good as far as at least having the 4 tocopherols and being made by a reputable supplement maker but it does use soybean oil & didn't mention anything about the tocotrienols. It's not synthetic though, so I think it probably has all 8 compounds but the tocotrienols aren't really cared about much in the scientific world. The reason why most supplements only have the alpha tocopherol is because that's the only compound that has really been the focus of most studies dealing with the effects of vitamin e on health.


----------



## JohnnyBandit

peterinwa said:


> My dogs eat kibble three times a day, then get veggie snacks between meals.
> 
> A vet once pointed out that when a carnivore kills a herbivore, the first thing it does it rip the stomach open and eat the intestines, absorbing the vitamins and nutrition from the veggies it's been eating. He said they can't get too many veggies to supplement their diet.



First thing a carnivore does is pull out the stomach, slit it open and shake out all the vegetable matter.... A lot of people assume because they eat the stomach they get the vegetable matter. Fact is, they shake out the veggies.


----------



## berniezuli

does a product with astaxanthin do the same job vitamin e will? having trouble finding a low dose vitamin e product to give along with the fish oil...i don't really want to give my dogs 400 iu a dose when it seems like i need 10 iu per gram of epa+dha. Krill oil seems safer than fish oil, and usually has the astaxanthin with it, but i'm unsure as to if vitamin e is still needed, or if they do the same function.

the mercola kill oil pump looks interesting-krill oil, astaxanthin, and says tocopherols are also in the 'extra ingredients', tho i'm unsure of how much...or even the epa/dha content.

thoughts?


----------



## Gally

JohnnyBandit said:


> First thing a carnivore does is pull out the stomach, slit it open and shake out all the vegetable matter.... A lot of people assume because they eat the stomach they get the vegetable matter. Fact is, they shake out the veggies.


Agreed. I've seen a lot of photos of wolf kills on deer and other large prey and the one organ that is often left uneaten is the stomach/intestines or where it has been eaten the veg matter is left on the ground.


----------

