 |
 | 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 / November 2005More emphasis on wet food low in carbos
Just thought I'd share this newsletter article with you http://www.mercola.com/2005/nov/12/cats_need_wet_food.htm Y'know, there's no rule that says you can't moisten your kitty's dry food with filtered water either. But the authors do make a good point about the carbos in dry cat foods. Have you ever compared the appearance and the ingredients lists of Eukaneuba and ProPlan dried foods? The former is noticably fatty looking, and the latter looks like cereal. Carnivores handle fats much better than humans do. And I see tht Eukaneuba Funny. That Dr. Mercola has been pushing his own people Diet for Metabolic Type for a number of years. I'll bet it must've occurred to him that cats have a metabolism that requires a low carbo Atkins type diet ;-) > Just thought I'd share this newsletter article with you > http://www.mercola.com/2005/nov/12/cats_need_wet_food.htm [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Type for a number of years. I'll bet it must've occurred to him that cats > have a metabolism that requires a low carbo Atkins type diet ;-) This is a most vexing problem. I thought Ms. Kitty had dry fur. So I started with a little wet food, half and half in kcals per day. I thought her fur now feels like fur, not dry, if you know what I mean. Slight bit of oil or just more natural when I pet her. She loves dry food, all the time, almost addicted. But I try to feed her only the very best of dry food, like Science Diet, which seems well researched. Maybe not the best natural ingredients but well made and pH balanced and I know what's in it down to the levels of information that seems far better than many other brands. I have tried Royal Canin and Purina One, and they seem fine. Purina One is higher in kcals than I would like, even for its Weight Management series. I have tried adding water, it's just a mess and she does not like it. I can just leave out wet food, and she will eat it even if that is not her favorite type. I tried low phosphorus Fancy Feast and that's okay, lower in calories than other brands, even SD. I guess wet food with dental approved treats might be best. I think that wet food appears to satisfy her more and the dry food just does not. I am tempted to put out a big amount of dry food, weigh it, and say, look this is your food for three days, now let's see what you do. I have been giving it out just a bit at a time, but it seems I am always doing that. This is not as simple as it could be because I wonder what is best. > I tried low phosphorus Fancy Feast and that's okay, lower in calories > than other brands, even SD. I didn't realize this. Perhaps this is partly why my cat has lost weight on it. > I guess wet food with dental approved treats might be best. I think > that wet food appears to satisfy her more and the dry food just does > not. It is true with my cats. They look forward to meals with an eagerness that was not there before. > > I tried low phosphorus Fancy Feast and that's okay, lower in calories > > than other brands, even SD. > I didn't realize this. Perhaps this is partly why my cat has lost weight > on it. > > I guess wet food with dental approved treats might be best. I think > > that wet food appears to satisfy her more and the dry food just does > > not. > It is true with my cats. They look forward to meals with an eagerness > that was not there before. Mine does not really look forward to the canned foods as much as the dry foods but she's different in this regard. Probably because she was fed dry SD as a feral. But I hear other cats really look forward to the canned food. However, she is eating more of the canned because I suspect she is beginning to realize it might be better. And if she does not eat it, and lets it stay, it's sometimes easier for me. Because there is food out, just not to her royal taste buds, I can walk by the 'frig without being accosted. Suddenly, without warning, treeline12345@yahoo.com exclaimed (19-Nov-05 6:06 PM): > I am tempted to put out a big amount of dry food, weigh it, and say, > look this is your food for three days, now let's see what you do. I > have been giving it out just a bit at a time, but it seems I am always > doing that. > > This is not as simple as it could be because I wonder what is best. I think the food would get stale after three days. Meep certainly thinks so. She gets wet at night (she's not fond of it) and a set amount of dry that I give her morning and evening. What she gets is the equivalent of a scoop - that is, if the bowl's empty, she get a scoop, but if there's, say, half left, she gets half a scoop. If the bowl continually has remains for a few days, I dump it and start again: This is the stuff that's gone stale, and she's purposefully leaving it behind. This method seems to keep her weight at a good level, since she got quite chubby (though not fat) when I was feeding her free-choice - dumping a scoop in any time I saw it low. jmc > Just thought I'd share this newsletter article with you Unfortunately most of the claims are simply false or are composed of opinions alone not supported by the science. >There is increasing evidence, published in peer-reviewed veterinary journals, that many of >the health problems seen in cats are the result of diets inappropriate for a feline. Dry, >grain-based foods fed to a meat eater, over time, result in both chronic and life-> >threatening diseases, like these: flat out false - there is no published clinical trials to support this at all. The only peer reviewed published data is an HYPOTHESIS presented by Zoran and Greco - neither of which have any clinical trials to support the claims. >Kidney disease: Kidney disease is the most common cause of death for cats. The >kidneys require an abundant supply of water to do their job. Without water to process the >byproducts of the digestion process, the kidneys are overloaded, become damaged over >time and unable to do their job. This certainly has to be the most eggregious falsshood of all. There is no data whatsoever to support this claim. Further the move toward higher protein in low carb diets almost always increases the phosphorus levels of the foods. A good example is Purina Pro Plan Ocean Fish Crab Aspic - 0 carbs all right - but a whopping 2+% phosphorus. The ONLY proven advantage of canned foods is to drive the excretion of water through the urine instead of the feces. The current carbophobics promoting this have yet to answer the critical question. What would happen if we suddenly switched over the general population of cats from a low phos carbohydrate diet to a high phos low carb diet? Renal failure is the #2 killer of cats in the US and there is data to show increasing prevalence of renal failure in cats. Driving increased levels of phosphorus into the diet - which is the consequence of increasing protein would affect hundreds of thousands of cats that currently have sub clinical renal failure. The increase of protein in the diet has other contraindications as well. I think it wise to wait for some clinical studies that provide some proof, before you leap off the cliff for an unproven hypothesis. > > Just thought I'd share this newsletter article with you > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > presented by Zoran and Greco - neither of which have any clinical > trials to support the claims. Nope, what you say above is flat out false - you're bluffing here and I bet you did not do a single Medline search, fess up, did you? I went to a lot of trouble to get a complete peer review article from Europe that showed 0% crystals in the urine of felines fed an all wet food diet. Do a search on Medline for buzz words like felines and canned or wet food and crystals. Now this was a trial with all canned food, half and half, and all dry food. Dry food had the highest numbers of crystals in the urine. They also took into account the sampling variations of collecting and storage for crystals in the urine. The Medline will bring up the abstract but you have to contact the people in Europe for the full article. I think they were based in UK. Now this was a full-bore study. Was it also a clinical study in that they tracked to see if the animals developed urinary disease? I think this study was only for determining that crystals are associated with wet food and dry food. If there are no crystals, then there cannot be a problem with crystals in the urine. Do you see the logic to this? It's a good start this kind of study. > >Kidney disease: Kidney disease is the most common cause of death for cats. The >kidneys require an abundant supply of water to do their job. Without water to process the >byproducts of the digestion process, the kidneys are overloaded, become damaged over >time and unable to do their job. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > levels of the foods. A good example is Purina Pro Plan Ocean Fish Crab > Aspic - 0 carbs all right - but a whopping 2+% phosphorus. There are levels of protein to be observed. Water is important. Again, you are bluffing here. Do a Medline search and stop blowing smoke. Granted it's not simple. Also pH is important here. So it's a combo of phosphorus, protein and pH just to start out with. And calcium must also be present in reasonable amounts to keep the phosphorus doing its job appropriately. > The ONLY proven advantage of canned foods is to drive the excretion of > water through the urine instead of the feces. The current carbophobics [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > for some clinical studies that provide some proof, before you leap off > the cliff for an unproven hypothesis. The study I mentioned shows that canned food can be a critical component. If you cannot search Medline, get back here and I'll look in my archives > The study I mentioned shows that canned food can be a critical > component. > > If you cannot search Medline, get back here and I'll look in my > archives I haven't found anything like that yet. Do you have the complete title of the study? > > The study I mentioned shows that canned food can be a critical > > component. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I haven't found anything like that yet. Do you have the complete title of > the study? Yup, after I read your nice post I found it, whew, I was beginning to doubt myself: National Library of Medicine MEDLINE Database TITL: An investigation into the effects of storage on the diagnosis of crystalluria in cats. AUTH: Sturgess C P; Hesford A; Owen H; Privett R ORGA: Department of Clinical Veterinary Science, University of Bristol, Langford, Bristol BS40 5DU, UK. CITE: J Feline Med Surg 2001 Jun; 3 (2): 81-5 Volume 3, Issue 2 ABST: Urinalysis was performed on 41 cats with no history of urinary tract disease. Samples were divided into aliquots, stored under differing condition and then examined for the presence of crystalluria. Crystalluria was detected in at least one stored sample in 92% of cats fed a mixed wet/dry food diet compared to 24% in the fresh sample. Crystalluria was not detected in any sample or aliquot from cats fed all wet food diets. Copyright 2001 European Society of Feline Medicine. So I remember correctly. 100% free or 0% crystals in an all wet food diet. TADA! I actually was sent the whole study. The point is, well, it may be important. Now if Science Diet dry food does not have this or not, can't say, I don't recall what brands were tested if they were tested by brands. But this one study made me feed my feline 1/2 and 1/2 and her fur looks better. > > flat out false - there is no published clinical trials to support this > > at all. The only peer reviewed published data is an HYPOTHESIS [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > a lot of trouble to get a complete peer review article from Europe that > showed 0% crystals in the urine of felines fed an all wet food diet. As far as Medline searches go, I've been using Pub Med and Medline since the mid 80's back when it was the old FTP protocol and I got a bill from the Department of Commerce every quarter for $3-400.00. There is no question that canned foods can dilute urine, I don't think anyone has claimed differently. It is all the other silly unsupportable claims being made that are simply false and not proven. I would gather from some of the nonsense I've read that if cats had male pattern baldness and erectile dysfucntion that carbophobics would be claiming that advantage as well. That is not the question - in fact there are three clinical trials very clearly showing that canned foods drive water excretion through the urine. I never said otherwise. The first was done in England, second in South America and third here in the US - all with very much the same results. HOWEVER, and that's a big however - FLUTD, and other urolith diseases affect less than 3% of cats at one time or another in thier lives. Renal failure is now over 8% of cats over age 10 (Ettinger 4th Edition) or 11% - (Perdue database for the year 2000). Pick either 8% or 11% at your pleasure and it is still a far more important disease than the issues around uroliths and FLUTD which is the ONLY advantage to canned foods yet proven. > > >Kidney disease: Kidney disease is the most common cause of death for cats. The >kidneys require an abundant supply of water to do their job. Without water to process the >byproducts of the digestion process, the kidneys are overloaded, become damaged over >time and unable to do their job. > > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > also be present in reasonable amounts to keep the phosphorus doing its > job appropriately. Nonsense - Let's take a look at some low carb and no carb diets commonly on the market. All values are DMB Purina Fancy Feast Savory Salmon 5.42% carb - 1.42% phos Purina Fancy Feast OCean Whitefish 5.86% carb - 1.64% phos Purina Fancy Feast Turkey & giblets 5.02% carb - 1.53% phos Purina Pro Plan Ocvean Fish & Crab 0% carb - 2.07% phos Pro Plan Sardines & tuna 0% carbs - 2.18% phos Purina DM Canned 8.08% carb - 1.1% phos (just to show lower phos can be done by the same manufacturer) Key Nutritional Factors Maximum phos level for a normal healthy adult cat is 0.9% SACN IV page 309 Key Nutritional Factors Maximum phos level for a normal healthy senior cat (>7 years) is 0.7% Phos level for a typical renal failure diet Prescription Diet Feline k/d 0.22% Prescription Diet Feline g/d 0.41% Purina NF Feline 0.41% Eukanuba Multi Stage Renal 0.50% Phos level of peer reviewed published clinical Grade 1 EBM S. Ross UofM Study Control food - 0.9% Test food - 0.22% Since nobody's crystal ball is yet capable of determining which one cat out of ten will eventually die of renal failure - why on earth would you consider feeding a high phos food? Advocating canned foods and low carbs foods based on the sole proven advantage of reducing uroliths and FLUTD which is about 3% of the cat population and rarely is the cause of death - and then completely ignoring renal failure, which is certain death and affects at least three times as many cats seems a bit foolish. You have to think in terms of risks. Everything in life is indeed a risk. What risks are real and supported by real data? Renal failrue is real, so is FLUTD, but does a cat often die of FLUTD - not often, do cats die of renal failure - always. The data around phos in renal failure kitties is completely real and well documented and proven. If you want to use a low carb, no carb food with high levels of phos, then you better plan on getting bi-annual ERD tests done to insure you don't have that 1 cat out of 10 that will die of renal failure. I would gather > from some of the nonsense I've read that if cats had male pattern > baldness and erectile dysfucntion that carbophobics would be claiming > that advantage as well. Steve, you seem to have a real problem with carbs, or rather people who don't like to make the main part of a carnivore's diet carbs. Is it because Hill's Science Diet, the company that you work for, uses so much corn in their dry foods? Every time someone brings up a wet diet, you start up with this "carbophobic" nonsense. Me thinks you do protest too much. > I would gather > > from some of the nonsense I've read that if cats had male pattern [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > you start up with this "carbophobic" nonsense. Me thinks you do > protest too much. > > I would gather > > > from some of the nonsense I've read that if cats had male pattern [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > you start up with this "carbophobic" nonsense. Me thinks you do > > protest too much. Lauren, I don't think he was directly his comments solely at you. But, if the shoe fits..... ;) > I would gather > > from some of the nonsense I've read that if cats had male pattern [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > you start up with this "carbophobic" nonsense. Me thinks you do > protest too much. Actually no - I have a real problem with people who rely totally upon ingredients and the latest fad in Dr. Goodall's Miracle Elixir - and demand no hard science to justify conclusions, opinions and hypothesis. I have a real problem with ignoring real disease that really kills cats in favor of internet fantasy disease. I have a real problem with jumping off the cliff without knowing how far the bottom is, if there is water at the bottom, and if the water is frozen. Since you seem to have some problem with the use of corn, perhaps you would provide us with peer reviewed published data that illustrates corn has some negative effect as part of the protein, carbohydrates, and essential fatty acids etc in the diet. Don't waste our time with opinions, hypothesis, or internet driven fantasies, show us some real clinical trials that prove corn does anything deleterious to cats or dogs. We'll all wait with baited breath while you exhaust yourself looking for what doesn't exist. > > > flat out false - there is no published clinical trials to support this > > > at all. The only peer reviewed published data is an HYPOTHESIS [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > since the mid 80's back when it was the old FTP protocol and I got a > bill from the Department of Commerce every quarter for $3-400.00. THat's good but why from Department of Commerce, you get billed directly by PubMed then? Is that for full text articles that they are clipped you at what, $10 or $30 per copy. When I dinged on you, I forgot you were you, sorry. I remember using paper, was that Medline before computer? Actually there used to be an index of all medical articles. I think I still owe the med school library money for articles they got for me but I never picked up. I guess they did the FTP thing for me. > There is no question that canned foods can dilute urine, I don't think > anyone has claimed differently. It is all the other silly unsupportable > claims being made that are simply false and not proven. I would gather > from some of the nonsense I've read that if cats had male pattern > baldness and erectile dysfucntion that carbophobics would be claiming > that advantage as well. I misunderstood you. I thought you were saying it was not relevant. I was only referring to wet food and not carbs. I missed that argument completely. > That is not the question - in fact there are three clinical trials very > clearly showing that canned foods drive water excretion through the > urine. I never said otherwise. The first was done in England, second in > South America and third here in the US - all with very much the same > results. I posted an article that was done in England. Was that the first one then? > HOWEVER, and that's a big however - FLUTD, and other urolith diseases > affect less than 3% of cats at one time or another in thier lives. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > than the issues around uroliths and FLUTD which is the ONLY advantage > to canned foods yet proven. Weight management also? Satisfaction of feline tummy? I see your point but crystals can be a pain. And some crystals can be very painful and require surgery depending on the type of crystal. Is that not so? Some crystals cannot be removed except by surgery. Is that the calcium crystal? I doubt that but that is what I am told. And if one cannot afford the operation, $1000, then is the feline doomed so it can be fatal like renal failure? > > > >Kidney disease: Kidney disease is the most common cause of death for cats. The >kidneys require an abundant supply of water to do their job. Without water to process the >byproducts of the digestion process, the kidneys are overloaded, become damaged over >time and unable to do their job. > > > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Purina DM Canned 8.08% carb - 1.1% phos (just to show lower phos can > be done by the same manufacturer) There are a few types out of about 60 Fancy Feast that are low in phosphorus and low in kilocalories: AF = as fed DMB = dry matter basis for phosphorus Marinated Chicken Feast in Savory Juices: 0.09% (AF) - 0.40% (DMB) 78 kcals Protein 11% too - so low phosphorus? I live 0.40% PHOSPHORUS, not bad. Marinated Salmon Feast in Savory Juices: 0.13% (AF) - 0.59% (DMB) 80 kcals The above two have been re-titled so cannot verify the new formulations. Like pulling teeth to get info from Purina. It's now Marinated Morsels or some such. I sent 4 emails to their 4 tech or docs and still don't have the new numbers back. What is it with Purina? They are too big or what? I just want to know if they renamed their product did they also reformulate the product. Is that too big to know. How about you ask for me. Say a Science Diet customer is trying to find out info about Purina and can't so is asking Science Diet to ask Purina.... that would be a blast! Seafood Filets Tuna & Oceanfish Feast in Aspic: 0.16% (AF) - 0.72% (DMB) 59 kcals This one is the best in numbers. Strange looking in a gel but she'll eat it, kind of. Grilled Chicken Feast in Gravy 0.18% (AF) - 0.81% (DMB) 74 kcals Grilled Tuna Feast in Gravy: 0.18% (AF) - 0.81% (DMB) 71 kcals Sliced Beef Feast in Gravy in Gravy: 0.17% (AF) - 0.77% (DMB) 76 kcals Sliced Beef & Giblets Feast in Gravy: 0.18%F) - 0.81% (DMB) 82 kcals Minced Beef Feast in Sauce: 0.17% (AF) - 0.81% (DMB) 75 kcals Marinated Beef Feast in Savory Juices: 0.18% (A (AF) - 0.77% (DMB) 76 kcals So Purina can do it. How? Not much meat! So little phosphorus is one way to do it. They save on meat and I save on phosphorus. My cat won't touch the beef varieties. Smart cat! > Key Nutritional Factors Maximum phos level for a normal healthy adult > cat is 0.9% SACN IV page 309 [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > out of ten will eventually die of renal failure - why on earth would > you consider feeding a high phos food? I missed this part of the argument so I am not in this part. I don't feed my cat anything high in phosphorus. > Advocating canned foods and low carbs foods based on the sole proven > advantage of reducing uroliths and FLUTD which is about 3% of the cat [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > on getting bi-annual ERD tests done to insure you don't have that 1 cat > out of 10 that will die of renal failure. Okay, Science Diet tries to make their food low pH and low for urinary problems, right? But 1/2 and 1/2, wet and dry, seems a good idea especially if low in phosphorus for both, right? > THat's good but why from Department of Commerce, you get billed > directly by PubMed then? Is that for full text articles that they are > clipped you at what, $10 or $30 per copy. When I dinged on you, I > forgot you were you, sorry. Because in the OLDEN days the National Library of medicine billed through the Department of Commerce. That was not for the actual articles, that billing was just for the priviledge of accessing the abstracts. If you needed the full copy of the article you had to go through a National Library of Medicien source called Lonesome Docs and have it faxed to a local hospital which was "on-line" with NLM - the cost was $5 per page. That cost you had to pay to the local hospital. It was a cumbersome process at best. You hd to create these long annoying FTP protocol querries, submit the querry and then you would get back a list of possible abstracts, from those you could list the abstracts you wanted to see. > I remember using paper, was that Medline before computer? Actually > there used to be an index of all medical articles. I think I still owe [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > I posted an article that was done in England. Was that the first one > then? Yes, I listened to the clinician who did the work give his initial report at the North American Veterinary Conference in about 1998 I think. If I recall he was from Oxford. > > HOWEVER, and that's a big however - FLUTD, and other urolith diseases > > affect less than 3% of cats at one time or another in thier lives. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > afford the operation, $1000, then is the feline doomed so it can be > fatal like renal failure? I have to disagree here. I have never heard of a cat that died because of uroliths or stones - unless the owner was a complete idiot and sat around watching the cat in pain for several days before taking it in to the vet. I agree there are owners like that out there, but those poor kitties were probably doomed to die of owner stupidity, either being run over by a car, eaten by a coyote or any of the other hundreds of things stupid owners allow to happen. > > Nonsense - Let's take a look at some low carb and no carb diets > > commonly on the market. All values are DMB [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Marinated Salmon Feast in Savory Juices: 0.13% (AF) - 0.59% (DMB) 80 > kcals The closest Purina foods I show are called Friskies Sliced Chicken Dinner in Gravy Phos 1.15% Friskies Salmon Dinner phos 1.28% Fancy Feaast Savory Salmon Feast phos 1.45% DMB levels > The above two have been re-titled so cannot verify the new > formulations. Like pulling teeth to get info from Purina. It's now [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > info about Purina and can't so is asking Science Diet to ask Purina.... > that would be a blast! It happens everyday, dozens of times. Our veterinary clinicians who answer >400 phone calls every day from veterinarians around the world get asked about competitive products every day. Many companies have chosen to not release data on the nutreints. They prefer to concentrate on ingredients which they can tell all kinds of stories about with complete immunity. They can call thier foods "human grade" "holistic" etc becasue the terms have no meaning under the law. It's a heck of a lot easier to be "creative" about ingredients than hard numbers that deal with nutrients. > Okay, Science Diet tries to make their food low pH and low for urinary > problems, right? But 1/2 and 1/2, wet and dry, seems a good idea > especially if low in phosphorus for both, right? Part II - I missed this part earlier. I have no problem with feeding a canned food, I feed my own cat about half and half. My concern is the reason people do it, and of course that they are careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater - substituting low carb, high phos - just any canned food is always better than just any dry food - which is utter nonsense. Fanatics always get us into trouble, regardless of what it is that they are fanatic about. Whenever we go off the deep end with the latest fad and utterly fail to consider all the consequences of that decision we are bound to get into trouble. For those that prefer canned foods - I can guarantee you all the manufacturers would be thrilled if everyone went to canned foods. The profit is much better in canned foods than dry foods. Personally my 401K would be better if everyone suddenly switched to canned foods. But that's not a very good reason either, unless you just feel compelled to help me retire. :-)) |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.