 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsGeneral TopicsCat AnecdotesHealth and BehaviorRescue CatKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Cat Forum / Health and Behavior / October 2005Phil P - what you recommend from Purina
Phil P, what do you recommend for a dry food from Purina? I got a free coupon after I pointed out the mistakes in what info they were giving out over the phone. I think they give free coupons often. In any case, the cat is female, 6, no known problems except meowing near the 'frig. She weighs a little over 10 pounds and I consider that too much although she does not feel fat and has a waistline. But, she has a pouch and I doubt it's the fighting pouch-type. I would suspect her weight should ideally be under 8 pounds so I'm reducing her gently. At 2 her weight was 7.5 pounds but a foster free-fed her. Nice people. Not overly bright. Does Purina have a good dry food? I usually feed Science Diet Light and a little Oral Care. I was thinking of Purina One or something like that. I am feeding her wet food also and that seems to firm her up and help her calm her appetite. Any suggestions? : Phil P, what do you recommend for a dry food from Purina? : I got a free coupon.. I am not Phil, and would look forward to reading his advice, but Purina's best brand is supposed to be Pro Plan. I think the next is Purina One. Both are good, but with a free coupon why not go for the very best? :) > : Phil P, what do you recommend for a dry food from Purina? > : I got a free coupon.. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Purina One. Both are good, but with a free coupon why not go for the > very best? :) I was going to say, I use Purina One because my kitty loves it. So I would love to hear what Phil thinks about it. : I was going to say, I use Purina One because my kitty loves it. OK, that is a strong case for Purina One. :-) : So I would love to hear what Phil thinks about it. Gosh, I have learned so much from Phil's posts that I can almost act as his unauthorized spokesperson. :) He has specifically recommended Purina One Chicken and Rice Formula in some of his posts. > : I was going to say, I use Purina One because my kitty loves it. > > OK, that is a strong case for Purina One. :-) :) But every creature is different. Her sister will not touch that but adores Iams diet hairball food, which she can no longer have. > : So I would love to hear what Phil thinks about it. > > Gosh, I have learned so much from Phil's posts that I can almost act as > his unauthorized spokesperson. :) He has specifically recommended > Purina One Chicken and Rice Formula in some of his posts. Oh good. But--my kitty only scarfs down the tuna and salmon. I wonder what the difference is in nutrition? > Phil P, what do you recommend for a dry food from Purina? > I got a free coupon after I pointed out the mistakes in what [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Any suggestions? Purina One Chicken & Rice and DM. Phil > Purina One Chicken & Rice and DM. What is DM? DM Dietary Management apparently a diabetic food, so probably by prescription Clinical Nutrition Management DM Prescription Stuff? Traditionally, veterinary diets for diabetic cats have followed canine models and have been formulated to be high in complex carbohydrates and fiber to help slow the absorption of glucose, a method that works well with diabetic dogs. Cats, however, are carnivores and have much higher requirements for protein compared to dogs. In addition, cats lack glucokinase, the enzyme used by most mammals to clear glucose from the bloodstream. They rely on a less efficient enzyme to metabolize carbohydrates and clear glucose, which can be a particular disadvantage for diabetic cats. "CNM DM-Formula was developed as a result of collaborations between scientists at Purina and Heska Corporation, and incorporates Purina's research in proteins and understanding of the feline metabolism," said Dottie Laflamme, DVM, Ph.D., a research fellow at Ralston Purina Company. "The DM-Formula diet capitalizes on the cat's efficient mechanism for protein breakdown, while reducing the reliance on its less-efficient carbohydrate metabolism." In addition, cats lack > glucokinase, the enzyme used by most mammals to clear glucose from the > bloodstream. There's a detailed explanation of how the cat metabolizes carbohydrates on my site: http://www.maxshouse.com/feline_nutrition.htm#Dry_Food_vs_Canned_Food.__Which_is _reall http://www.maxshouse.com/feline_nutrition.htm > Phil P, what do you recommend for a dry food from Purina? > I got a free coupon after I pointed out the mistakes in what [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > She weighs a little over 10 pounds and I consider that too much > although she does not feel fat and has a waistline. But, she has a pouch and I doubt it's the fighting pouch-type. Perhaps you should check with your vet what her ideal weight should be or if there is another reason she has a pouch. Her shape sounds the same as my cat Kim who is 6 . Her weight is just under 10lb and the vet said that was fine. You can check your cats weight here. http://www.petfit.com/Petfit/PetIndex.jsp Click on the Is My Cat Overweight button at the top of the webpage. Alison I suspect that she is in fact "obese" although she looks normal and has a bit of a waistline indenting. I weighed her on a more accurate scale and she is actually 11 pounds. I think as a young adult, full-grown, she used to weigh 7.5 pounds. If this is so and the scale was accurate, then she is 40% over her ideal 7.5 weight at 11 pounds. That is "obese" just based on percentages for almost any living creature. She has a little belly but I have trouble believing that it's 3 pounds or so there. If I'm right, then my cat is technically obese and carrying unnecessary weight. Now is a good time to start the dieting because as she gets older, I suspect her metabolism will slow and gain even more weight with the same food intake. Probably a pound or two a year loss might be a good start. > I suspect that she is in fact "obese" although she looks normal and has > a bit of a waistline indenting. I weighed her on a more accurate scale > and she is actually 11 pounds. I think as a young adult, full-grown, > she used to weigh 7.5 pounds. If this is so and the scale was accurate, > then she is 40% over her ideal 7.5 weight at 11 pounds. That is "obese" > just based on percentages for almost any living creature. If she has a waist, she's probably not obese. Have you asked your veterinarian?  SignatureWeb site: http://www.slywy.com/ Message board: http://www.slywy.com/phpBB2/ Journal: http://slywy.diaryland.com/ > > I suspect that she is in fact "obese" although she looks normal and has > > a bit of a waistline indenting. I weighed her on a more accurate scale [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Message board: http://www.slywy.com/phpBB2/ > Journal: http://slywy.diaryland.com/ She has some indentation but she also has a pouch so it's the same as with a human to a degree where there's a big tummy falling over but the back shows some indentation. Does she look obese, nope. But she does not look thin with the sagging pouch or udder like a little black and white cow. I will discuss this with a vet but if the vet were to disagree without a solid and good reason then I would have to tell the vet to check the latest scientific literature. Whether the cat is "obese" or overweight are just metaphors. She has to lose weight or else she will probably not live longer than her teens, like most pets that are overweight. When I use the word "obese" - I am using it technically here. Some people are 30% overweight and no one would think they are obese, but they are. Some people don't put weight around their tummies. It's safer that way since tummy weight is the biggest killer if obese or not or so say the latest surveys on predicting death and disease. The main factor for death in humans and pets is overweight. With adequate nutrition, underweight animals live far longer. See wwww.walford.com for references about humans. The key is adequate nutrition. This research started by the way in the vet labs, interestingly enough. It's strange. We overfeed because of affection and what else to do if we can't play games but it's not good. Probably same things happens with kiddies and why so many are fat here in the USA. > I will discuss this with a vet but if the vet were to > disagree without a solid and good reason then I would have to tell the > vet to check the latest scientific literature. My one veterinarian doesn't go by weight but appearance -- he doesn't go by the, "7.5 pounds is the ideal weight," but whether the cat's weight fits its size and frame. For me it's pretty easy to tell my cat's at a good weight -- waist, bones aren't under layers of fat, etc. He does have a pouch, but then most cats do, and his isn't fat. They've been pretty happy with his weight (around 11) when I've taken him in. SignatureWeb site: http://www.slywy.com/ Message board: http://www.slywy.com/phpBB2/ Journal: http://slywy.diaryland.com/ > > I will discuss this with a vet but if the vet were to > > disagree without a solid and good reason then I would have to tell the [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Message board: http://www.slywy.com/phpBB2/ > Journal: http://slywy.diaryland.com/ You misunderstood what I wrote. 7.5 pounds is the cat's original weight, that's why it's ideal - for her! It's not a theoretical ideal. That was her original weight. About appearances. I have seen many make truly bad decisions about medicine because they went by appearances. It's not always that easy but it's sure a lot easier for the so-called doctor to spit out, oh, you look fine rather than do some real thinking and investigating. In this case, appearances though may be all that's necessary? Well it's not since I have the historical data at hand. If we go by appearances, we are dealing with accepted community standards - a little weight is not so bad, versus what's coming down in science. If you want to extend life, lose the weight. If I were ignorant about the science, I could just forget about all this. But unfortunately, it's something I have followed for years. So it's not really fair to my cat to cut short her life to the teens when I have the info to perhaps extend her life into the twenties without too much trouble. Since most people and most doctors are not familiar with the scientific literature in this regard, I have to assume responsibilities that I would prefer to leave to the "professionals." To sum up, 7.5 pounds is her original weight. If she weighs 11 pounds, then she is carrying extra weight. > That was her original weight. My original weight was 9 and a half pounds, but even I wouldn't want to get down to it. ;) I'm not sure why 7.5 is ideal because it was the cat's original weight. What if her original weight had been 11? Would that be ideal? It's not that I misunderstood; I guess I just don't agree. SignatureWeb site: http://www.slywy.com/ Message board: http://www.slywy.com/phpBB2/ Journal: http://slywy.diaryland.com/ > > That was her original weight. > > My original weight was 9 and a half pounds, but even I wouldn't want to > get down to it. ;) So you weighed 9 1/2 pounds as an adult at 21? You're being silly. > I'm not sure why 7.5 is ideal because it was the cat's original weight. > What if her original weight had been 11? Would that be ideal? If that were her adult healthy weight, then yes. > It's not that I misunderstood; I guess I just don't agree. I don't understand why you have trouble here. People have healthy adult weights. So do cats. When they exceed that weight, they are FAT. How much do you weigh now compared to when you were 21? Would you be unhealthy if you lost all that additional weight you have gained over the years? Unlikely. > -- > Web site: http://www.slywy.com/ > Message board: http://www.slywy.com/phpBB2/ > Journal: http://slywy.diaryland.com/ > > It's not that I misunderstood; I guess I just don't agree. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > So do cats. My veterinarian disagrees, as does Phil. Body condition is a much better measure than weight. A female Olympic swimmer who weighed 190 was technically 50-60 pounds overweight -- and in impeccable condition. More and more research reveals that judging health in terms of absolute pounds is just not that helpful. Without seeing a photo of your cat, I have no idea whether she's obese or not. I'm simply saying 7.5 may not be a magic number. SignatureWeb site: http://www.slywy.com/ Message board: http://www.slywy.com/phpBB2/ Journal: http://slywy.diaryland.com/ > > > It's not that I misunderstood; I guess I just don't agree. > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > My veterinarian disagrees, as does Phil. Body condition is a much better > measure than weight. Absolutely! "Diane" <delenn@nospamatmindspring.com> wrote in message news:delenn- > My one veterinarian doesn't go by weight but appearance -- he doesn't go > by the, "7.5 pounds is the ideal weight," but whether the cat's weight > fits its size and frame. That's the right way to determine a cat's weight status. http://www.maxshouse.com/nutrition/Body_Scoring_System-Chart.jpg Phil > "Diane" <delenn@nospamatmindspring.com> wrote in message news:delenn- > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > http://www.maxshouse.com/nutrition/Body_Scoring_System-Chart.jpg Yep, they've got the Purina chart in their office, which I always find fascinating while I'm waiting. It's interesting because Hodge is actually probably smaller than Pudge, but she looked bigger because of her undercoat and fur type. SignatureWeb site: http://www.slywy.com/ Message board: http://www.slywy.com/phpBB2/ Journal: http://slywy.diaryland.com/ >> > I suspect that she is in fact "obese" although she looks normal and >> > has a bit of a waistline indenting. I weighed her on a more [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> > at 11 pounds. That is "obese" just based on percentages for almost >> > any living creature. at 40% overweight, I think she'd look more like a bowling ball rather than just having a bit of extra tummy. How do you know that 7.5 was really full- grown? It's good that you're watching her diet, but I'm worried about 7.5 being a realistic goal. > >> > I suspect that she is in fact "obese" although she looks normal and > >> > has a bit of a waistline indenting. I weighed her on a more [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > grown? It's good that you're watching her diet, but I'm worried about 7.5 > being a realistic goal. Exactly! At 40 percent (obese), she'd look grotesque, which I take it is not the case. SignatureWeb site: http://www.slywy.com/ Message board: http://www.slywy.com/phpBB2/ Journal: http://slywy.diaryland.com/ > > at 40% overweight, I think she'd look more like a bowling ball rather than > > just having a bit of extra tummy. How do you know that 7.5 was really full- [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Exactly! At 40 percent (obese), she'd look grotesque, which I take it is > not the case. Nope, you're wrong here. It's not true with me and I doubt it's not true with my cat. People go by appearances, and that's very wrong at times. When doctors do it, they are being lazy. It really depends on the body build. In any event, she is not going on a diet to lose 40% of her weight. She is going to lose a pound or two which is about 18% of her current weight. That is a good start and over a year will allow for a lot of time. 2/11 = 18% :) I hear so much really bad info. Even with myself. I have had many, many quacks tell me that if I lost weight, I would not get my six-pack back. I lost weight for medical reasons, and without even trying, as I said in another post, I got back a six-pack for my abdomen - just as I had as a teenager. Where these quacks get their info, I just don't know. And, I gained 30% of my body weight and had many people tell me I was still thin. I gave up trying to educate people why carrying 30% extra fat was very dangerous for me in particular. Maybe not for them but for me. In any event, don't anybody worry, I am not rushing into things. I have been discussing this weight loss with various vets as I look for one who is patient enough to understand losing weight in the general case and losing weight for optimal longevity which is a special case. I don't think you caught my previous reference but for those who are interested. The scientists, mostly by serendipity, doubled the life spans of certain primates by controlling caloric intake. So that's an indication that weight is not trivial for life spans of mammals and many other living creatures. > >> > I suspect that she is in fact "obese" although she looks normal and > >> > has a bit of a waistline indenting. I weighed her on a more [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > grown? It's good that you're watching her diet, but I'm worried about 7.5 > being a realistic goal. I'm concerned but the science and the data are rather solid here. The cat was a very healthy adult at 7 1/2 pounds. I had to go away and left her with others with the strict instructions to feed her 70 grams of Science Diet a day. The people were nice but not too bright. They free fed her all she wanted to eat. She's a former feral. That's just plain ignorant. It's too be expected, they are not educated. Well, even educated people are stupid like that. It's not unrealistic and too often in our culture people tell books by their covers. With myself, I went back to the weight I was at 21. I got very envious comments from some nasty doctor about how she could not believe I had a six-pack without exercising. Nasty woman. Bad, bad doctor. In any event, I gained back 40 pounds, over 30% of my body weight for a couple of years. I told people I had to lose it again. They sounded incredulous. They thought I was too thin as it was. So again, go by the facts not appearances or impressions. What works for me works forme. It may not work for you. And all the comments I receive are usually just plain wrong because they are hasty generalizations. About the cat, at least 2 people told me they thought she was too fat. She really needs to lose a pound or two which is what I originally said. I am not taking her back to 7.5 right away but I will after I find a vet who knows and cares about cats and science. That is easier said than done. > The cat was a very healthy adult at 7 1/2 pounds. [...] > She really needs to lose a pound or two which is what I originally > said. I am not taking her back to 7.5 right away but I will after I > find a vet who knows and cares about cats and science. That is easier > said than done. What is the right weight for a young cat is not necessarily the right weight for an older cat. You sound like your heart is in the right place but your head may be trying to force your cat into line with some notions you have about weight that are a bit extreme. She's a little cat. Let her wear an extra pound if she's happy that way. > > The cat was a very healthy adult at 7 1/2 pounds. > > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > She's a little cat. Let her wear an extra pound if she's happy that > way. You're so right. The weight of most older cats is way too much and they should aim for young cats' weights. ;) It's not my heart but my head. I have been perusing the epidemiological literature in this regard. It's quite tricky. Try it. The dilemma is that simple studies show people who age and gain weight and live a simple life live longer. So the obvious conclusion is that extra fat is not a bad thing. But the deeper studies show that if someone loses weight but maintains correct nutrition, that person will live even longer. The problem is the proper nutrition. A big problem. But we're talking here about figuring out why people live to be beyond 100 and not just saying, duh, it's the genes. The genes can be, shall we say, given a little boost. What is true for people is also true for animals. The studies are now at the primate stage, I believe. The epidemiological studies are looking at the Okinawans for example. They eat less. They are smaller than the Japanese but they outlive the Japanese. As I said, this research came out of the vet experimental labs by accident. I gather none of you know what I am talking about so I'll keep quiet. If you're interested here's a reference from Walford.com who died recently. He was the guy in the Biosphere and who popularized this research for the last 30 years or so and also published scholarly articles as a research scientist. I corresponded briefly with him to discuss the area of weight loss. In any event, as the next person said, the cat, poor baby, needs to lose a few pounds regardless of any science. She looks like a cow when she walks and people make fun of her. Actually I have reduced the udder by half a pound so it's not so bad as it was last year. Slowly we are getting there. She is now on canned food and dry food and that has put muscle in place of fat too. We're working up to exercising but she hates jogging :) > The dilemma is that simple studies show people who age and gain weight > and live a simple life live longer. You know, the newer studies show that the hysteria about obesity is just that -- hysteria. There have been some interesting articles about it. (Humans here.) I still think eyeballing and telling by feel is a better way to gauge a cat's weight than deciding on a precise weight. SignatureWeb site: http://www.slywy.com/ Message board: http://www.slywy.com/phpBB2/ Journal: http://slywy.diaryland.com/ > You know, the newer studies show that the hysteria about obesity is just > that -- hysteria. There have been some interesting articles about it. > (Humans here.) There is a difference between obese and overweight. When you see someone who because of obesity becomes a TYpe II diabetic who then has their legs cut amputated, hysteria?, maybe not if you can afford a motorized wheelchair. I guess it depends on your comfort level. > I still think eyeballing and telling by feel is a better way to gauge a > cat's weight than deciding on a precise weight. Again, this is what the cat's weight was. So it's a guideline. It's called set point in the longevity literature which you are ignoring. It's the same as my asking you what your weight was at 21 and what your weight now is, assuming you are now older than 21. Come on, fess up, you're much heavier and rationalizing, I betcha... > > You know, the newer studies show that the hysteria about obesity is just > > that -- hysteria. There have been some interesting articles about it. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > their legs cut amputated, hysteria?, maybe not if you can afford a > motorized wheelchair. I guess it depends on your comfort level. Most Type II diabetics don't have their legs amputated, only those whose glucose levels cannot be managed through diet, exercise, stress management, and/or medication or who refuse to cooperate with their treatment plan. About 15 percent have amputations, and most of these are preventable. There's no automatic road from obesity -> Type II -> amputation. Why overstate the issue? > > I still think eyeballing and telling by feel is a better way to gauge a > > cat's weight than deciding on a precise weight. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Come on, fess up, you're much heavier and rationalizing, I betcha... I am obese and have never denied it; I'm not sure what you think I'm "rationalising." I know what I'm at high risk for and monitor it pretty carefully. (And all my readings, from blood pressure to glucose, are currently better than average for my age, which I think very odd, but I'm not complaining.) Walking is a great exercise. All I have said in this thread is that body condition is a better measure of health than some arbitrarily determined poundage for cats. I learned that from my veterinarian. He weighs my cat, but he pays more attention to how he looks and feels, and has said he doesn't want to give me some "ideal weight" because he thinks that's the wrong way to look at it. This makes a lot more sense to me than obsessing over a perfect number. As I said in my previous post, the 190-lb. female Olympic swimmer was in better shape than most women who weigh the arbitrary 120 lbs. that women of my generation were told was ideal (and which caused many women to get into an unhealthy cycle of loss and gain, loss and gain in their attempts to achieve it). Her body condition was perfect, despite what the scales said. Your cat may well be obese but I'd rely more on condition than a number. That's all I said. SignatureWeb site: http://www.slywy.com/ Message board: http://www.slywy.com/phpBB2/ Journal: http://slywy.diaryland.com/ : The cat was a very healthy adult at 7 1/2 pounds... : I had to go away and left her with others with the strict instructions : to feed her 70 grams of Science Diet a day. The people were nice but : not too bright. They free fed her all she wanted to eat... It is very clear now that she is overweight and also why. You can bring her weight down very gradually, she won't even know the difference. No need to stress out either her or yourself. > : The cat was a very healthy adult at 7 1/2 pounds... > : I had to go away and left her with others with the strict instructions [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > her weight down very gradually, she won't even know the difference. No > need to stress out either her or yourself. Thanks for the encouragement. She's been stressed out by this thread talking about her belly in public and she has lost 1.6 ounces, poor baby :( Or the scale finally warmed up :) > : The cat was a very healthy adult at 7 1/2 pounds... > : I had to go away and left her with others with the strict instructions [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > her weight down very gradually, she won't even know the difference. No > need to stress out either her or yourself. It wouldn't be any fun for him/her if it wasn't stressful or complicated. <treeline12345@yahoo.com> wrote in message Whether the cat is > "obese" or overweight are just metaphors. "Obese" and "overweight" are actually body condition scores. Overweight is BCS 6 whereas obese is BCS 8 on the nine point scale. http://www.maxshouse.com/nutrition/Body_Scoring_System-Chart.jpg > <treeline12345@yahoo.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > http://www.maxshouse.com/nutrition/Body_Scoring_System-Chart.jpg Let's see, how about labels instead for body conditions? My cat is around 6 on the 7 side I reckoned when I was checking her out a long time ago. Now I prefer to do a full body fat but she seems disinclined to be immersed into the pool of water for THE DEFINITIVE analysis. You know how cats are about swimming pools and add a cage, heck, I wouldn't want to be caged just for body fat. Not when there are problematic impedance scales for doing this. Again, 7.5 is her normal weight and she has not grown since then but I'll wait until the next vet visit to rehash this. She's not as fat as most cats I have seen who are house cats. But when we get to jogging together, she'll slim down. > > <treeline12345@yahoo.com> wrote in message > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Let's see, how about labels instead for body conditions? Naaa, I'd rather stick to BCS since its a universal standard. My cat is > around 6 on the 7 side I reckoned when I was checking her out a long > time ago. That *is* a body condition score-- and places her between overweight to heavy > Again, 7.5 is her normal weight Her normal weight is not necessarily her ideal weight. Her normal weight could be overweight. and she has not grown since then but > I'll wait until the next vet visit to rehash this. A lot of vets seem to think 6-7 is 'normal' because they see so many overweight cats. OTOH, they seem to think ideal weight is underweight. > Naaa, I'd rather stick to BCS since its a universal standard. I'm all for metrics so it's a start. But it's certainly not as precise as actually measuring the body fat. It's what we do with humans, yes? I found actual measurements made the rough charts, for humans, show that the charts were way off for certain types, like myself. Not everybody conforms to the chart and the equations and instruments were far better for determing body fat than any rough guidelines. You may recall some were combos, like wrist size, skin fold fat and so on. Very rough but certainly better than outlines in a mirror. Well, more precise. But it's real hard for a cat. With humans, we have bio-impedance meters and calipers and all sorts of interesting gadgets. Now the body fat and water scales are cheap-cheap and ubiquitous. I missed a chance to buy one on Amazon.com for $18 - can you believe that? $18 to measure weight and body fat. Inaccurate for my body type but as a relative index, it's fine, just fine. I need scales with special measurements since I am not typical. > That *is* a body condition score-- and places her between overweight to > heavy Yes, I know that and that's why I am discussing it. It's noticing her body condition that alerted me to the fact that she is carrying more weight than a smallish cat of her size should. And others noticed it too which really brought it to my attention. I missed it at first, really did. I appreciate your web site and the info. > Her normal weight is not necessarily her ideal weight. Her normal weight > could be overweight. I think here I must strongly disagree with you. She gained the weight in an extremely short period of time because of free-feeding. That is not normal regardless of how you look at it. If this happened over years, okay. Well, not even then. It happened over the course of 3-4 months. That's not her normal weight although it became her normal weight. Because something becomes routine does not necessarily mean it's good. It's not all that bad and I could live with it if she can. But I suspect it's really not good to run around with your belly hanging down. But that's me. > A lot of vets seem to think 6-7 is 'normal' because they see so many > overweight cats. OTOH, they seem to think ideal weight is underweight. The numbers I see show less serious diseases with underweight animals, including the human animal, BUT WITH THE CONSTRAINT of adequate nutrition. This means meeting the amino acid, vitamin, mineral, and even fatty acid requirements. This is almost impossible to do for sure without knowing a good bit of science and having software to check up on the 60 parameters or so. Can you imagine my saying to someone, are you sure you are getting enough EPA or medium-chain fatty acids of a certain type? What's your omega-3 EPA to DHA ratio in general? This can affect brain processing so a boon for those with mood swings. The USDA, bless their hearts, now provide this sort of knowledge free of charge. A wonderful thing our government does. I can't believe how good they are in this regard and have been for the last 20 years that I have been looking into this. First there is the problem of knowledge. Then there is the problem of optimization. Which food would have that missing particular fatty acid that would fit into the menu? I don't think most could even say the fiber content or calories of their meals let alone individual amino acids. What was your intake of valine today? Yeah, right, see what I mean. Important? Maybe, maybe not. But real easy with computers to do within seconds now. And not critical since the body combines amino acids within a 24 hour period for the complementary aspects of the essential amino acids. This is just for a for instance. And it's for optimization. Now just taking things easy is good enough for many without any real thought or effort for almost a century. Or good genes. But if there are not good genes, then ... Again, check out www.walford.com, you might find that interesting. The tools are free now. You have the knowledge so you might find it challenging - and there are some simple tests for measuring how the body is aging. Sometimes we don't want to know ... > > Naaa, I'd rather stick to BCS since its a universal standard. > > I'm all for metrics so it's a start. But it's certainly not as precise > as actually measuring the body fat. It's what we do with humans, yes? I think you're getting a little carried away. > I found actual measurements made the rough charts, for humans, show > that the charts were way off for certain types, like myself. Not [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > rough but certainly better than outlines in a mirror. Well, more > precise. Outlines in a mirror??? That's a new one on me! You've got to be careful to hold the marker at the same angle every time. LOL! I'm happy with my weight as long as I can see my dick without bending at the waist. > But it's real hard for a cat. With humans, we have bio-impedance meters > and calipers and all sorts of interesting gadgets. I know what you mean. My cats were just complaining the other day about how hard it is for them to find bio-impedance meters and calipers. They're really pissed about that. Now the body fat and > water scales are cheap-cheap and ubiquitous. I missed a chance to buy > one on Amazon.com for $18 - can you believe that? $18 to measure weight > and body fat. Why would you want to measure body fat? Are you planning to sell it? I'd just get rid of it- less hassle. Inaccurate for my body type but as a relative index, it's > fine, just fine. I need scales with special measurements since I am not > typical. Typical what? > > That *is* a body condition score-- and places her between overweight to > > heavy [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > too which really brought it to my attention. I missed it at first, > really did. Its difficult to notice gradual weight gain or loss in a cat you see everyday- especially in long-haired cats. That's why I'm always recommending weekly weigh-ins on a good pediatric scale. > I appreciate your web site and the info. Thanks. Someday I'll finish it and connect all the links. > > Her normal weight is not necessarily her ideal weight. Her normal weight > > could be overweight. > > I think here I must strongly disagree with you. She gained the weight > in an extremely short period of time because of free-feeding. That is > not normal regardless of how you look at it. I think you forgot the part you snipped where you said: "Again, 7.5 is her normal weight". If 7.5# is her 'normal weight' and she's between a BCS 6-7- then her normal weight is not her ideal weight. If this happened over > years, okay. Well, not even then. It happened over the course of 3-4 > months. That's not her normal weight although it became her normal > weight. Because something becomes routine does not necessarily mean > it's good. I think that's what I meant by "Her normal weight is not necessarily her ideal weight". It's not all that bad and I could live with it if she can. > But I suspect it's really not good to run around with your belly > hanging down. But that's me. I've seen cats that were so obese that they had sway backs from excess weight pulling on their spines. That could lead to very serious musculoskeletal disorders. > > A lot of vets seem to think 6-7 is 'normal' because they see so many > > overweight cats. OTOH, they seem to think ideal weight is underweight. > > The numbers I see show less serious diseases with underweight animals, Cats at their ideal weight are at less of risk for diabetes and hepatic lipidosis and they're also better surgical and anesthesia candidates. > including the human animal, BUT WITH THE CONSTRAINT of adequate > nutrition. This means meeting the amino acid, vitamin, mineral, and > even fatty acid requirements. This is almost impossible to do for sure > without knowing a good bit of science and having software to check up > on the 60 parameters or so. ...or you could simply look up the NRC or AAFCO protein, fat, vitamin & mineral allowances. I have all of them listed on my site. http://www.maxshouse.com/feline_nutrition.htm > Can you imagine my saying to someone, are you sure you are getting > enough EPA or medium-chain fatty acids of a certain type? What's your > omega-3 EPA to DHA ratio in general? Actually, I can. LOL! This can affect brain processing > so a boon for those with mood swings. The USDA, bless their hearts, now > provide this sort of knowledge free of charge. A wonderful thing our [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > challenging - and there are some simple tests for measuring how the > body is aging. Sometimes we don't want to know ... I'll take a look as soon as I'm finished organizing my pantry in alphabetical order- or should I arrange the items by weight? I can't decide. > Inaccurate for my body type but as a relative index, it's > > fine, just fine. I need scales with special measurements since I am not > > typical. > Typical what? For some reasons, machines may think I am the "Athletic" type and miscalculate my body fat. I'm not sure why. I can have a slower than normal heart rate or I can have low body fat depending on the season. If the Tanita scales or whatever are consistant, then this is not important because I can go by the relatives differences. As far as the absolute value is concerned, I would compute that myself. It's rare a moderately priced scale can do the absolute body fat well. I did compute all this once a long time ago. So if the Tanita scale said 20% body fat, I knew I was really 13% and would go from there. If the next month the Tanita said 19%, I would know I was really 12%. But it was a real hassle getting calipers and equations and very expensive machines and seeing an expert. What was the point? No point. Seriously, I was determing if the how much of the weight I was losing was muscle over body fat. Did it matter? It was interesting and yes, losing too quicky can get muscle over body fat which is not a wonderful achievement since muscle metabolizes calories much, much better. > > I think here I must strongly disagree with you. She gained the weight > > in an extremely short period of time because of free-feeding. That is [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > normal weight". If 7.5# is her 'normal weight' and she's between a BCS 6-7- > then her normal weight is not her ideal weight. What I was trying to say was her weight was originaly 7.5 pounds. She then gained a lot of weight in a few months by someone else free feeding her. She went from 7.5 pounds to 10 to 11 pounds! When she was 7.5 pounds, her BCS profile was perfect, no belly, certainly not anywhere near a BCS 6-7. At 11 pounds, she is probably a 7 BCS tops, more than 6, 6 1/2? but not an 8. I gave her a 6-7 because she was listening and you know how a certain unnamed gender is sensitive to remarks about tummies. > > Again, check out www.walford.com, you might find that interesting. The > > tools are free now. You have the knowledge so you might find it [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > alphabetical order- or should I arrange the items by weight? I can't > decide. Don't fret, maybe Walford has a section on how to organize your pantry so when you are low on linoleic acid, you'll know just which shelf to go to. > > > Naaa, I'd rather stick to BCS since its a universal standard. > > > > I'm all for metrics so it's a start. But it's certainly not as precise > > as actually measuring the body fat. It's what we do with humans, yes? > > I think you're getting a little carried away. I really do too. I tried making that point but it fell on deaf ears. It really is not fair to subject our cats to our eccentricities. Although "treeline" is not this bad, this reminds me of vegetarians who try to have Vegan cats. >> Very > > rough but certainly better than outlines in a mirror. Well, more [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > to hold the marker at the same angle every time. LOL! I'm happy with my > weight as long as I can see my dick without bending at the waist. lol! > > But it's real hard for a cat. With humans, we have bio-impedance meters > > and calipers and all sorts of interesting gadgets. > > I know what you mean. My cats were just complaining the other day about how > hard it is for them to find bio-impedance meters and calipers. They're > really pissed about that. > > I think you're getting a little carried away. > > I really do too. I tried making that point but it fell on deaf ears. > It really is not fair to subject our cats to our eccentricities. Although > "treeline" is not this bad, this reminds me of vegetarians who try to > have Vegan cats. I do not think you are comprehending what I am posting. Science is not eccentricities unless you are a luddite or not conversant with the scientific literature. Do you read much in the scientific literature? Do you read anything in science. For example, do you read the medical literature or veterinary literatue? When was the last time you read any article that was scientific or technical? Is it too much of a bother for you? Why? Do you lack the inclination or the education or both? It's not eccentricities unless you are ignorant of science in which case, yes, a lot of what I am saying would appear to be eccentric to you. It's a pity that many people are not familiar with science. It's also a pity that many people overfeed their pets and cause illnesses which could be avoidable. If people wish to be fat and stupid and lead shortened lives, that is their privilege as Americans. I'm not so sure it's fair to their pets. Whta you accuse me of is as stupid as vegans putting carnivores on herbivore diets. Don't be a hypocrite and accuse me of something that is the opposite of what I am trying to accomplish. I am trying to use my brain and science. I suggest you try to do the same thing. Who knows. You might like it. If you think that being concerned about a pet being fat is eccentric, then you are being ignorant, quite literally. Ignorance is bliss so I gather you trade happiness for knowledge? Most do. I need to be blunt with you because I abhor this patronizing attitude when I am trying to discuss something at a non-idiot level. Now again, I am not putting my cat on a carrot diet. I am trying to figure out how much weight she has to lose. If you call this eccentric, grrrr, you are close to being an absolute idiot, if I may use ad hominem argument, which is gender free this afternoon :) > > > I think you're getting a little carried away. > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > I do not think you are comprehending what I am posting. Sure I do. > Science is not eccentricities unless you are a luddite or not > conversant with the scientific literature. You are taking this so-called "science" to a ridiculous degree. Just reduce your cat's meals a bit, but don't subject her to your extreme and eccentric ideas about what her "ideal weight" should be. It is a matter of perspective. > Do you read much in the scientific literature? Do you read anything in > science. For example, do you read the medical literature or veterinary > literatue? When was the last time you read any article that was > scientific or technical? Is it too much of a bother for you? Why? Do > you lack the inclination or the education or both? This is a really funny assumption. Really funny. I may write the literature you are reading for all you know. My point is, you are going to extremes and obsessing over yourcat's precise "ideal weight" like some sort of compulsive nutcase. In the name of "science" and in the mistaken belief that you are better educated and more enlightened than others. Being very precise and focusing on minutiae is not always the way to health. Perspective, man. > It's not eccentricities unless you are ignorant of science in which > case, yes, a lot of what I am saying would appear to be eccentric to > you. I love science. Physics, nutrition science, biology, physiology. However, your uh, energetic approach to the simple problem of taking a pound or two off of your cat is fanatical. In fact, your approach to the management of your own body sounds pretty "out there." Perspective. Zoom out a little. > It's a pity that many people are not familiar with science. It's also a > pity that many people overfeed their pets and cause illnesses which > could be avoidable. My cats are in great shape. It's not astrophysics, "treeline." If they begin to get a bit pudgy I cut back on the food by 1/4 until they are at a healthy weight. I can tell a healthy weight by looking at them and watching how they act. > If people wish to be fat and stupid and lead shortened lives, that is > their privilege as Americans. I'm not so sure it's fair to their pets. Jump to conclusions much? I am fit and trim, as are my cats. I am just not a fanatic. You must be very troubled when fitness gurus drop head early despite doing every thing perfectly all their lives. A healthy life comes about as a combination of knowledge of nutrition and physiology, the importance of diet and exercise in other words, and the pursuit of a happy life. It'a a balancing act more likely to be achieved by perspective than extremes. > Whta you accuse me of is as stupid as vegans putting carnivores on > herbivore diets. Don't be a hypocrite and accuse me of something that > is the opposite of what I am trying to accomplish. Um. I think this level of intensity and effort might be better applied to other things. It simply is not necessary for you or your cat--the difference is, you can choose but your cat cannot. Lighten up a bit. > I am trying to use my brain and science. I suggest you try to do the > same thing. Who knows. You might like it. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > grrrr, you are close to being an absolute idiot, if I may use ad > hominem argument, which is gender free this afternoon :) I am so sorry. I must be mistaken. There is nothing eccentric at all about the post above. > You are taking this so-called "science" to a ridiculous degree. > Just reduce your cat's meals a bit, but don't subject her to your > extreme and eccentric ideas about what her "ideal weight" should > be. It is a matter of perspective. A cat gains almost half her weight in a few months, adds 3 1/2 pounds to 7 1/2 pounds to weigh in at 11 pounds and you think my concern is extreme and eccentric? And you call this eccentric and extreme - a concern of a 47% weight gain? Are you a troll or are you really this dense? > > You are taking this so-called "science" to a ridiculous degree. > > Just reduce your cat's meals a bit, but don't subject her to your [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > And you call this eccentric and extreme - a concern of a 47% weight > gain? You have an interesting way of deciding exactly what part of your odd diatribe I am referring to. In any case, your extreme "scientific method" as you like to think of it, is not necessary. Just cut her food back by 1/4 and get on with your life. > > > You are taking this so-called "science" to a ridiculous degree. > > > Just reduce your cat's meals a bit, but don't subject her to your [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Just cut her food back by 1/4 and get on with your life. You can't admit that you made a mistake and are quite dense. It's really not difficult, in fact, you do not have to use all the fingers on your hand. A 47% weight gain is something to be considered. Try thinking instead of using platitudes. It will give your life depth and save you from the shallows of your brain. > > > > You are taking this so-called "science" to a ridiculous degree. > > > > Just reduce your cat's meals a bit, but don't subject her to your [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > You can't admit that you made a mistake and are quite dense. *Sigh* What mistake? You are overcomplicating things. > It's really not difficult, in fact, you do not have to use all the > fingers on your hand. Very clever. > A 47% weight gain is something to be considered. Try thinking instead > of using platitudes. It will give your life depth and save you from the > shallows of your brain. I understand that you are offended, but listening to you belaboring something as simple as cutting your cat's food back by a quarter and playing with her more to see that she gets more exercise was just getting too painful to watch. I understand that you are interested in nutrition and science as many of us are. Still, all you need to do is put your cat on a premium cat food and reduce her daily intake by 1/4. Everything else is just mental masturbation. You may enjoy it, but it is definitely not a spectator sport. Flaming is fun, though, isn't it? > > > > > You are taking this so-called "science" to a ridiculous degree. > > > > > Just reduce your cat's meals a bit, but don't subject her to your [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > *Sigh* What mistake? You are overcomplicating things. Because you make big boo-boo and me go very slow with you. What is complex for little Topaz is not complex for me. My brain does not thrive on TV and silly ripostes. Ripostes - internal pun on posting. Get it? See we make progress. > > It's really not difficult, in fact, you do not have to use all the > > fingers on your hand. > > Very clever. Actually it's not all that clever even if you are into interdigitation. The cat gained 3 1/2 pounds so it's awkward to do on your fingers unless you lost half a digit. I can tell you've lost half your mind and how I envy you. I really do. Going through life, a little here and a little there, not putting all that much mental effort into anything other than opening your email. > > A 47% weight gain is something to be considered. Try thinking instead > > of using platitudes. It will give your life depth and save you from the [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Flaming is fun, though, isn't it? You threw the first match - I was just relaxing and all of a sudden I see this patronizing witch, a veritable kerosene apparition talking about me. Don't gossip. It's what the little people do. > > > > > > You are taking this so-called "science" to a ridiculous degree. > > > > > > Just reduce your cat's meals a bit, but don't subject her to your [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] > see this patronizing witch, a veritable kerosene apparition talking > about me. Don't gossip. It's what the little people do. You're still overcomplicating the feeding issue. Which is the point. > I understand that you are offended, but listening to you belaboring > something as simple as cutting your cat's food back by a quarter and > playing with her more to see that she gets more exercise was just > getting too painful to watch. I know I'm done. :) SignatureWeb site: http://www.slywy.com/ Message board: http://www.slywy.com/phpBB2/ Journal: http://slywy.diaryland.com/ > > You have an interesting way of deciding exactly what part of your odd > > diatribe I am referring to. In any case, your extreme "scientific method" [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > You can't admit that you made a mistake and are quite dense. Point out the mistake because I didn't see one- other than yours by over-complicating a rather simple solution with trivial details. > It's really not difficult, in fact, you do not have to use all the > fingers on your hand. The solution isn't so complicated that you need bio-impedance meters and calipers to figure it out. > A 47% weight gain is something to be considered. No one said it shouldn't be. Its your pedantic concern for trivial details that's annoying. Try thinking instead > of using platitudes. It will give your life depth and save you from the > shallows of your brain. Don't feel bad, Einstein also had trouble with simple math. I'll give you two solutions to your problem and let you choose the one that's more complicated: Plan #1: Reduce your cat's daily caloric intake by 25% until her weight plateaus. When the reduced caloric intake becomes her maintenance diet, reduce her daily caloric intake by an additional 10% until she plateaus again. Follow the same reduce/plateau/reduce/plateau pattern in 10% increments until she reaches her target weight. Do not allow her to lose more than one pound every four weeks. If she begins losing more than 1# a month, increase her daily caloric intake by 5%-10% or as much as necessary to slow her weight loss to 1#/4 weeks. Plan #2: This is a sliding target weight, stepwise plan: If she weighs 11#, set her target weight at 9# and feed her the DER for a 9# cat. When she reaches the target weight of #9 she should plateau, then set a new target weight of 7# or whatever weight that will place her in BCS 5. Again, don't set target weights that will result in a loss of more than 1#/4 weeks. > > > You have an interesting way of deciding exactly what part of your odd > > > diatribe I am referring to. In any case, your extreme "scientific [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Point out the mistake because I didn't see one- other than yours by > over-complicating a rather simple solution with trivial details. The you does not refer to you but to Topaz. Are you really sure you want to jump in here? I was not addressing you but Topaz had to jump in wiht her airhead comments. > > It's really not difficult, in fact, you do not have to use all the > > fingers on your hand. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > No one said it shouldn't be. Its your pedantic concern for trivial details > that's annoying. Like what? Remember, it's all in the details. > Try thinking instead > > of using platitudes. It will give your life depth and save you from the [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > weight of 7# or whatever weight that will place her in BCS 5. Again, don't > set target weights that will result in a loss of more than 1#/4 weeks. Okay, that's pleasant to point that out and what I was doing anyway. BUT, here it's the details again which you find annoying but what you are saying above - it's not what you posted a while ago. You'll correct me if I'm wrong but you said not to lose more than 1% because of losing muscle over fat. Now what exactly is the 1% referring to. You did say that, yes? 1 pound a month would be 10% not 1%. So the 1% refers to a week or did someone else say that? About that target weigths, that is also helpful and if you'll recall we discussed that with RER or Resting Energy Requirements. Again, you're jumping into an argument that was addressed to Topaz, not to you unless you are also Topaz. Well, it's the weekend, maybe you're cross-dressing again. Never know on the 'net. > > > > You have an interesting way of deciding exactly what part of your odd > > > > diatribe I am referring to. In any case, your extreme "scientific [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Are you really sure you want to jump in here? I was not addressing you > but Topaz had to jump in wiht her airhead comments. Airhead=simple logic. > > The you does not refer to you but to Topaz. > > > > Are you really sure you want to jump in here? I was not addressing you > > but Topaz had to jump in wiht her airhead comments. > > Airhead=simple logic. Because the logic is simple does not mean the logic is correct. Just because 1 + 1 = 2 does not mean that 1 + 1 = 1. Your computer was built around Boolean logic but it does ordinary arithmetic for you. And although the basic logic of the computer is almost trivial, no one, not even you, would say that a computer is simple and trivial. So don't mistake parsimony for truth. It's nice to have but it can't take the place of accuracy. Again, your mistake was in confusing what I said about my cat with what I posted about longevity research. The longevity research is quite complex and that is not something I would post again because it's too complex. Fine. This is a cat's group. And anyway it's a touchy area that gets into lifestyles and way too much science except for those who are very comfortable with math and biochemistry and so forth. The cat is simple logic. She gained almost half her weight in a few months. THAT IS BAD. Even you, yes you, can comprehend that is a No-No. A naughty, not nice. Now instead of reflexively replying, try thinking. Take a deep breath. It's something you might learn to enjoy, like a breath of fresh, ozonated air :) after the storm. > > > The you does not refer to you but to Topaz. > > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > although the basic logic of the computer is almost trivial, no one, not > even you, would say that a computer is simple and trivial. That's exactly what I mean by ostentatious scientific blather that does not apply to cats and only complicates the issue at hand. > > > > You have an interesting way of deciding exactly what part of your odd > > > > diatribe I am referring to. In any case, your extreme "scientific [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > The you does not refer to you but to Topaz. This is Usnet- there are no private conversations. > Are you really sure you want to jump in here? I was not addressing you > but Topaz had to jump in wiht her airhead comments. Again, this is Usnet- there are no private conversations. Her comments were basically the same as mind: You're over-complicating the issue. > > > It's really not difficult, in fact, you do not have to use all the > > > fingers on your hand. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Like what? Remember, it's all in the details. Yeah, but you take it to the sub-atomic level. Extraneous details only confuse people and complicate an already frustrating matter. Weight loss in cats is frustrating enough without adding distracting blather > > Try thinking instead > > > of using platitudes. It will give your life depth and save you from the [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > BUT, here it's the details again which you find annoying but what you > are saying above - it's not what you posted a while ago. Its not the details of the weight-loss plan that's annoying, its all the other ostentatious scientific blather about bio-impedance meters, calipers, measuring body fat, etc. that does not apply to cats and only complicates the issue for people who aren't rocket scientists like you. > You'll correct me if I'm wrong but you said not to lose more than 1% > because of losing muscle over fat. Now what exactly is the 1% referring > to. You did say that, yes? 1 pound a month would be 10% not 1%. So the > 1% refers to a week or did someone else say that? I said no more than 1% a week or 1# every 4 weeks whichever is less. > About that target weigths, that is also helpful and if you'll recall we > discussed that with RER or Resting Energy Requirements. > > Again, you're jumping into an argument that was addressed to Topaz, not > to you unless you are also Topaz. This is Usnet- there are no private conversations. Well, it's the weekend, maybe you're > cross-dressing again. Never know on the 'net. I know what you mean. I haven't figured out if you're male or female- you have the characteristics of both. Maybe you're a hermaphrodite- which are usually frigid and impotent simultaneously. > > Like what? Remember, it's all in the details. > Yeah, but you take it to the sub-atomic level. Extraneous details only > confuse people and complicate an already frustrating matter. Weight loss in > cats is frustrating enough without adding distracting blather > I said no more than 1% a week or 1# every 4 weeks whichever is less. Now that's clear. By the way, thanks for the compliment of calling me a name like a rocket scientist or taking things to the sub-atomic level. But mentionining Boolean algebra over a computer network is not really all that technical. If it is, we are in deep, deep, trouble. Come on, your IQ's are at least in the triple digits. > I know what you mean. I haven't figured out if you're male or female- you > have the characteristics of both. Maybe you're a hermaphrodite- which are > usually frigid and impotent simultaneously. gender mender bender $10.95 at Walmart, used to be a lot cheaper. > > > Like what? Remember, it's all in the details. > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > By the way, thanks for the compliment of calling me a name like a > rocket scientist or taking things to the sub-atomic level. No thanks are necessary. Its always a pleasure to compliment an anal retentive. > But mentionining Boolean algebra over a computer network is not really > all that technical. If it is, we are in deep, deep, trouble. Come on, > your IQ's are at least in the triple digits. Is that including decimal places? > > I know what you mean. I haven't figured out if you're male or female- you > > have the characteristics of both. Maybe you're a hermaphrodite- which are > > usually frigid and impotent simultaneously. > > gender mender bender $10.95 at Walmart, used to be a lot cheaper. Nothing better than a reference from someone whose had first hand experience with a product. > No thanks are necessary. Its always a pleasure to compliment an anal > retentive. and complement I might add. > > gender mender bender $10.95 at Walmart, used to be a lot cheaper. > > Nothing better than a reference from someone whose had first hand experience > with a product. With the introduction of USB into USA they stopped selling the little buggers. > > No thanks are necessary. Its always a pleasure to compliment an anal > > retentive. > > and complement I might add. You don't get it, do you? You may be book smart but you don't have any common sense. Your pedantic blather about trivial and extraneous details is not only tiresome, it also confuses and frustrates people who just want simple answers for how to feed their cats properly or to get their cats to lose weight safely. If you want to show off your scientific knowledge about the universe- show it off to people who give a sh.t. > > > No thanks are necessary. Its always a pleasure to compliment an anal > > > retentive. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > If you want to show off your scientific knowledge about the universe- show > it off to people who give a sh.t. Getting your bowels in an uproar? What's wrong with you that you cannot handle a conversation above the idiot level? Come on, people are not that stupid. I throw out a word or two, if people cannot tolerate it here then fine. But I am talking life and death and pets. If people really care about their pets and are not fat-assed hypocrites, then they will pay a little attention. I do get it. You can handle a word with more than one syllable, or not? > > > > No thanks are necessary. Its always a pleasure to compliment an anal > > > > retentive. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > I do get it. You can handle a word with more than one syllable, or not? Honestly, I tried to be gentle, but you really are an idiot, all your theories aside, if only because you get aggressive when you make a mistake instead of just admitting it. We are all wrong at one time or another, "sixpack abs" and "scientific" training notwithstanding. Learn to shut up and move on when you are wrong. It will make you look less aggressively stupid. Aside from this topic you have had some good things to offer. > Honestly, I tried to be gentle, but you really are an idiot, all your > theories aside, Try to be accurate. They are not my theories. I appreciate the accolade but it's just not so. A scientist who did try to bring the theory to the public was Roy Walford, a pathologist at UCLA. The original research was presumably out of the vet research centers. Do you have bipolar episodes that render you incapable of comprehension? > if only because you get aggressive when you make a mistake instead of just > admitting it. We are all wrong at one time or another, "sixpack abs" and > "scientific" training notwithstanding. Learn to shut up and move on when I never mentioned any scientific training. I think you and Phil P. are just assuming that because I used logic. Sorry about that. I'll try not to do that in the future. > you are wrong. It will make you look less aggressively stupid. Aside > from this topic you have had some good things to offer. If you have trouble following an argument, then yes, people will look stupid or idiotic to you. Is that why you change your screen name from time to time? Start over with a clean slate and give those a time to clue in. Interesting. > > if only because you get aggressive when you make a mistake instead of just > > admitting it. We are all wrong at one time or another, "sixpack abs" and > > "scientific" training notwithstanding. Learn to shut up and move on when > > I never mentioned any scientific training. I think you and Phil P. are > just assuming that because I used logic. You don't use logic, you babble on and on about trivial and extraneous and irrelevant details trying to show off how 'scientific' you are. I know you're not a scientist- I've worked with enough of them to know the real thing when I see it -- and you're a long way from it. > > > > No thanks are necessary. Its always a pleasure to compliment an anal > > > > retentive. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Getting your bowels in an uproar? I'm sure your pedantic, pretentious, and ostentatious blather has that affect on many people. What's wrong with you that you cannot > handle a conversation above the idiot level? I'm simply replying to an idiot savant with no common sense. Come on, people are not > that stupid. I throw out a word or two, Bullshit. You complicate simple issues with trivial and irrelevant details so that any actually useful information in the thread gets lost in all your verbalism. Look at the major production you made out of the simple matter of the typical analyses for Fancy Feast. And now you're turning the simple matter of body condition scoring into some complicated 'scientific' equation by talking about bio-impedance meters and calipers and full body immersion in a water pool. Get a grip- or let go- whichever applies. Are you familiar with the concept of overanalyzing are you just an anal retentive neurotic that can't follow a map because all the symbols aren't exactly the same size? if people cannot tolerate it > here then fine. But I am talking life and death and pets. It looks more like you're talking more about your own 'scientific wisdom's than a practical method for feeding cats. If people > really care about their pets and are not fat-assed hypocrites, then > they will pay a little attention. IOW, people who have a weight problem are "fat-assed hypocrites" and should wade through all your sh.t to find some small tidbit of useful information-- that you just leaned yourself. I was right: you don't have any common sense. > I do get it. You can handle a word with more than one syllable, or not? It doesn't look like you get it because you're still babbling. Maybe you should try using less words! LOL! > I'm simply replying to an idiot savant with no common sense. That's an oxymoron, Phil. When you find an idiot savant with common sense, you do not have an idiot savant any more. And if I were an idiot savant without common sense, as you put it, why are you replying to me? Just who is the idiot here? In any event, the term High Functioning Autistic is politically correct. Just say HFA. You also said something about my making a big to-do over Fancy Feast. I wanted to know the phosphorus levels, which you supplied. And also the kilocalories. You supplied some of the info but I had to get additional info from Purina to cover the brands of Fancy Feast that I was purchasing for my little beastie. Additionally, you asked me for information about the Fancy Feast. Don't you recall? You asked me the date of the latest info - nasty fellow you be. I found that Purina was giving out the wrong info over the telephone. That is not good. They were confusing the Dry Matter Basis. Apparently the young ladies answering the phones did not know what exactly it was. Since all Fancy Feast is 78% moisture, you divide all the numbers by 0.22 to get the Dry Matter Basis. I did speak to the manager and she agreed and said Purina would likely check this out and correct the information they were giving out. As I pointed out, most likely, it's a wrong constant in their Excel spreadsheet or something along those lines so all the numbers were wrong. And they gave me free coupons which is why I started this thread to ask your advice. Okay, it's almost midnight but I know where my cat is, inside. > > I'm simply replying to an idiot savant with no common sense. > > That's an oxymoron, Phil. When you find an idiot savant with common > sense, you do not have an idiot savant any more. Would you feel better if I just said you may have technical knowledge but no common sense? That does seem more appropriate, > You also said something about my making a big to-do over Fancy Feast. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > you recall? You asked me the date of the latest info - nasty fellow you > be. Actually, you were quoting numbers from an outdated list- that's why I corrected you. You said only two Fancy Feast diets contained 0.80% phosphorus or less. I said you were wrong and showed you about 10 diets that 0.81% or less. You insisted the Katkarma list was up to date even though "Revised: 12-Oct-2003" was clearly printed at the bottom of the page. You also said "But Fancy Feast has not been updated probably because it's still the same,"- which of course is not true-- as you found out after reading the *current* Fancy Feast typical analyses on my site and receiving your own copies from Purina. > I found that Purina was giving out the wrong info over the telephone. > That is not good. They were confusing the Dry Matter Basis. Apparently > the young ladies answering the phones did not know what exactly it was. Actually, I think you got the product lines mixed up-- and probably confused the person at Purina with all the trivial and extraneous babble you usually include. FF Turkey & Giblets Feast contains 0.45% phos. "As Fed" or 2.04% DMB. However, FF Turkey & Giblets Feast in the *Sliced* diet line contains 0.23% phos. "As Fed" which *indeed* translates into 1.04% phosphorus "DMB". So, Purina was probably correct and you simply confused the product lines. > Since all Fancy Feast is 78% moisture, you divide all the numbers Yes, yes yes. You don't have to explain the same formula to me that I explained to you. See what I mean? > Actually, you were quoting numbers from an outdated list- that's why I > corrected you. You said only two Fancy Feast diets contained 0.80% [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > *current* Fancy Feast typical analyses on my site and receiving your own > copies from Purina. That's about half true, not bad. I did make a mistake on 1/2 the site, the other part was updated to 2005 but did not include Fancy Feast. The woman who runs the site apparently decided not to update the previous stuff even though she stated she would. So it's good this gets out in the open and others will realize the numbers have changed in the last two years. I sent her some emails to update her site but she never did. > Actually, I think you got the product lines mixed up-- and probably confused > the person at Purina with all the trivial and extraneous babble you usually > include. FF Turkey & Giblets Feast contains 0.45% phos. "As Fed" or 2.04% > DMB. However, FF Turkey & Giblets Feast in the *Sliced* diet line contains > 0.23% phos. "As Fed" which *indeed* translates into 1.04% phosphorus "DMB". > So, Purina was probably correct and you simply confused the product lines. This is silly and presumptuous on your part. There were not any product lines to mix up. The numbers were simply wrong in and of themselves. If you have .22 phosphorus as fed, then dry matter is 1.00% phosphorus, dividing by 0.22 for the dry matter percentage. To say that it's .60% is just plain wrong and misleading in that the phosphorus is low. Generally, the phosphorus content of Fancy Feast is high to extremely high. How many are okay, 10 out of 60? It may not matter but it should be on the cans themselves, the phosphorus content and the kilocalories or caloric content. It's not on the cans and it's not on the web site which is inexcusable for the largest company? Who is larger than Purina? And about dividing by 0.22, you may know that, but the people at Purina did not know that and others reading this post may not know it. It's a very simple conversion though so it does not hurt to repeat for the sake of others. > > Actually, you were quoting numbers from an outdated list- that's why I > > corrected you. You said only two Fancy Feast diets contained 0.80% [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > That's |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message