 |
 | 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 2003"Tutorial" guidance required for reading cat food labels - please help, anyone
i need a "tutorial" in reading labels. I'm trying to put together all the information i've gotten from reading the back-and-forths about nutrition and petfood in this newsgroup and i don't think i understand very much. i really want to do the best thing for my cat. could someone help me apply what i've read in a reading label exercise? 1) my question is: what are excessive levels of nutrients? a lot of talk about excessive levels of nutrients and insufficient ratios harming cats. help me: if i buy, what levels should i look for on labels, then? If i'm preparing homemade, how much ? - magnesium: not more than how much % is acceptable? - calcium: not more than how much % is acceptable? - phosphorous: not more than how much % is acceptable? - ash : not more than how much % ? should i be looking out for ratios, percentages or quantities ? i know about calcium: phosphorous having to be 1.2: 1.2.1 (correct?) , but WHAT happens if it's 1: 1.2 or .79: 1.2? how bad is it? for example, right now I am feeding a combination of Back to Basics dry food and Prota Cat Steak and Kidney. Both these foods have calcium-phosphorous ratios that are not 1.2: 1.2.1 but are sort of close. Should I supplement? Here is the label reading for Back to Basics Back to Basics (from packet labelling - the packet labelling is a bit different from their web site labelling) Crude Protein not less than 34.00% Crude Fat not less than 21.00% Crude Fiber not less than 3.50% Moisture not more than 10.00% Ash not more than 5.6% Calcium not more than 1.1% Phosphorous not more than 1.0% Magnesium not more than 0.095% (is this high?) Copper = 33.06mg/kg In addition i have these questions: First, does this mean that the carb count for BtoB is 25.9% ? (100-34-21-3.5-10-6.5=25.9) According to the comparison that has been going on, this is sort of OK for a dry food in terms of grain content? It is IMPOSSIBLE to have a dry food without at least 20-30% grain content, right? Second, it says about ash here on the Back to Basics maker's web site: (http://www.beowulfs.com/natural_cat_food.shtml): ASH When meat is cooked, ash is produced. The ash content in cat food is proportional to the amount of meat in the food. In other words, the higher the meat content, the higher the ash. However high quality meat produces less ash than low quality meat. Back to Basics uses only the highest quality meats available and, therefore, has the least ash content possible which is approximately 6 1/2%. (The only way to get lower ash content is to supplement cheap vegetable proteins) So is this true? This ash - if I were to cook my own meat, is ash produced or is it only produced by commercial machines or something? Am I supposed to be able to see this ash? If I'm going to feed raw (like the Prota Cat), there's NO ash becuase it's not cooked, then? My colleague was showing me a NZ brand of catfood (some kind of semi wet food )she had just bought called Nature's Gift (I think) and i happened to see it had 12% ash - isn't that TOO HIGH? (according to the back to basics web site description that's very high). Third, the phosphorous content for B2B, it's OK but on the high side? I also feed Prota Pak Catfood (chilled). The calcium is 1% and the phosphorous is 1.2%. Is this not acceptable?? To supplement that should be trying to put the balance back by putting in .1% of calcium? (and how would i do this) 2) Taurine My (insufficient) reading tells me that meat itself is a source of taurine. Therefore if I'm feeding a raw food diet (like porta pak catfood), is that enough taurine, or do i need to add by-products (hearts or liver for taurine?)? What is the minimum mg or % of taurine I should include in my cat's diet? I can't find taurine-alone tablets in pet stores, only vitamin tablets that include taurine. Are these useful at all? any opinions, help, corrections appreciated, thanks. > 1) my question is: what are excessive levels of nutrients? Some nutrients are in fact toxic to lethal if overdosed, but as long as you do not supplement your cat with these nutrients (unless under veterinary supervision), you should be fine. These nutrients are all essential metals (sodium, potassium, iron, copper, nickel, cobalt, manganese, magnesium, etc.), and some vitamins (vitamins A, D, K). Calcium can be dangerous if not properly balanced with phosphorus. If properly balanced, most of it may pass straight through and not even go into the blood. The AAFCO says a calcium:phosphorus ratio of anywhere from 1:1 to 3:1 is fine. Since liver contains a lot of vitamin A, it is a good idea to not feed it too often. I give my cats liver once a week. Fish is also rich in minerals, so that´s another thing I do not give more than once a week. All commercial foods should be within acceptable limits (or ratios) of all nutrients mentioned above. A lot of people state that excess magnesium can lead to struvites (a magnesium salt that precipitates in the bladder and causes blockage). It can happen indeed but in alkaline urine. In acidic urine you would need a huge amount of magnesium to get those crystals precipitating. Proper amounts of magnesium have been shown to protect from calcium oxalate stones. One thing that I found amusing when this mania of cutting down on magnesium began is that not one manufacturer of commercial food told customers to check what kind of clay they used in their litter box. One very popular clay is a magnesium salt so it´s no use cutting magnesium down in the diet and using that clay in the litter box. Cat goes to box, than licks his paws and so much for a low-magnesium diet. > If i'm preparing homemade, how much? If you are preparing homemade, don´t feed liver, kidney (rich in minerals) and fish too often. I personally find it very advisable to supplement with an antioxidant formula containing vitamin E, linoleic, linolenic and arachidonic acids (or omega fatty acids or PUFAs). Although meats contain those nutrients, they are easily oxidized by air so depending on how much time has passed from the day the animal was killed to the day the meat is consumed, it will have lost much of it. If you intend to cook the food, then this supplementation is mandatory since these nutrients are easily destroyed by heat. Cheryl uses a great supplement but I can't remember the name. > should i be looking out for ratios, percentages or quantities ? If you are buying a commercial food, I believe no brand is using excessive amounts or incorrect ratios of anything in there. If you are preparing home-made, don´t feed some meats too often (above). There are great books out there with home-made recipes and one of these books will even give you a nutrient analysis of each of the recipes. > i know about calcium: phosphorous having to be 1.2: 1.2.1 (correct?) , > but WHAT happens if it's 1: 1.2 or .79: 1.2? how bad is it? Anything from 1:1 to 3:1 Ca:P is ok according to the AAFCO. If what you wrote above is 1 calcium: 1.2 phosphorus and 0.79 calcium to 1.2 phosphorus, that´s not ok. But if it´s 1.2 calcium to 0.79 phosphorus, that´s ok. > for example, right now I am feeding a combination of Back to Basics > dry food and Prota Cat Steak and Kidney. Both these foods have > calcium-phosphorous ratios that are not 1.2: 1.2.1 but are sort of > close. Should I supplement? Never supplement on minerals unless under veterinary supervision. If you gave your cats bones, you would be supplementing but there´s a big difference in feeding bones and giving prepared supplements. Bones come in a perfectly balanced ratio and most of it does not even enter the bloodstream from what I have observed. Supplements (calcium) are made with a very soluble calcium salt and easily enter the bloodstream. > Here is the label reading for Back to Basics > Back to Basics (from packet labelling - the packet labelling is a bit > different from their web site labelling) [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Magnesium not more than 0.095% (is this high?) > Copper = 33.06mg/kg Looks good. How about the ingredients? > In addition i have these questions: > First, does this mean that the carb count for BtoB is 25.9%? > (100-34-21-3.5-10-5.6=25.9) That´s it. Although fibers are carbs, they are not digested so can be subtracted along with the rest. > It is IMPOSSIBLE to have a dry food without at least 20-30% grain > content, right? It would be possible to do a dry food with zero carbs but it would be extremely expensive. You would need the same kind of process used in a pharmaceutical industry for making brewer's yeast tablets. Don´t forget the most important "nutrient": water. Cats on canned diets ingest much more water than cats on dry diets. Ideally, dry should be given only as treat or snack. > ASH > When meat is cooked, ash is produced. The ash content in cat > food is proportional to the amount of meat in the food. In other > words, the higher the meat content, the higher the ash. Not necessarily true. A person could formulate a plant-only diet and supplement with minerals (ash). OTOH, a diet that claims to have lots of meat cannot be low in ash (especially phosphorus). This is one thing that you need to remember if you prepare a homemade diet. Meats have much more phosphorus than calcium so bones should always be included. I also like to include milk but not all cats can drink milk without consequences. > (The only way to get lower ash content is to supplement > cheap vegetable proteins) Vegetable protein is not only cheap but it is also of very low quality. > So is this true? This ash - if I were to cook my own meat, is ash > produced or is it only produced by commercial machines or something? Ash is what cannot be burned, that is, minerals. If you look up some meats in the USDA site, you will see that all meats contain minerals. It´s not produced by the machines. http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/cgi-bin/nut_search.pl > Am I supposed to be able to see this ash? If I'm going to feed raw > (like the Prota Cat), there's NO ash becuase it's not cooked, then? No. There is ash but you can´t see it. Do you have a fireplace? When you burn a log, ash remains, right? Same with meat. You can roast meat until there´s nothing but ash left. > My colleague was showing me a NZ brand of catfood (some kind of > semi wet food )she had just bought called Nature's Gift (I think) > and i happened to see it had 12% ash - isn't that TOO HIGH? > (according to the back to basics web site description that's very > high). I don´t know the food but semi-moist is considered the worst food there is because of all the chemicals you need to put in there, especially to protect from mold. There are reports that dogs fed semi-moist foods had their lives cut in half. I don´t understand why Waltham had to add nuggets to Whiskas. Why make it worst than it was already? > Third, the phosphorous content for B2B, it's OK but on the high side? You will not find anywhere in literature anything saying that dietary phosphorus in the levels used in pet food and properly balanced with calcium is detrimental to kidneys. What you will find is papers saying that phosphorus is detrimental if there is too much phosphorus in blood, a condition called hyperphosphataemia. This condition usually appears when there´s very little kidney function left and IMO, it´s not caused by dietary phosphorus but by bone dissolution because of metabolic acidosis. A study showed that cutting down on phosphorus did not increase the life expectancy of dogs in the terminal stage of kidney disease. Another study showed that cutting down of phosphorus increased the life expectancy of cats with kidney disease. Maintenance diets for dogs are not acidified. Maintenance diets for cats are acidified. Kidney diets for cats are not acidified. IMO, it´s not the lower phosphorus that extended their lives but controlling metabolic acidosis. One very respected veterinary nephrologist suspects that it is the acidifying nature of maintenance diets for cats that cause metabolic acidosis in cats with advanced kidney disease. See if you can find a thread called "Chronic Renal Failure." I wrote a big post there and listed all references, some with links. Metabolic acidosis will cause among other problems, bone dissolution (hyperphosphataemia, hypercalcemia), and protein catalysis (high BUN and creatinine). Excess acid in blood will also accelerate kidney damage. > I also feed Prota Pak Catfood (chilled). The calcium is 1% and the > phosphorous is 1.2%. Is this not acceptable?? To supplement that > should be trying to put the balance back by putting in .1% of calcium? I understand that´s not the only thing you feed. Add all the ratios of everything you feed and make sure the final ratio is anywhere from 1:1 and 3:1 Ca:P. > 2) Taurine > My (insufficient) reading tells me that meat itself is a source of > taurine. Therefore if I'm feeding a raw food diet (like porta pak > catfood), is that enough taurine, or do i need to add by-products >(hearts or liver for taurine?)? What is the minimum mg or % of taurine > I should include in my cat's diet? I can't find taurine-alone tablets > in pet stores, only vitamin tablets that include taurine. Are these > useful at all? Don´t worry about supplementing taurine if you are feeding commercial + raw meats. The only deficiency one of my cats had after 9 months eating only raw beef muscle and raw liver once a week was vitamin E deficiency (mentioned earlier about supplementation). In zoos, the only cats that needed extra supplementation of taurine besides what they got from the meat they were given were leopards. If you are feeding only homemade, some recipes will request extra supplementation and some won´t. Adding heart to your cat´s diet if you are feeding him only homemade is a good idea. There is a group of raw feeders that you can join. They will give you a lot of help and info on preparing homemade. A holistic vet will most likely help you too. And, of course, expect another war to start from this thread! LOL ;) >A study showed that cutting down on phosphorus did >not increase the life expectancy of dogs in the terminal stage of >kidney disease. Is this a very old study? There was a study done at the U. of Minnesota back in 2001 or 2002 that showed dogs fed a low phosphorus food lived over 3 times as long (on average) and with 1/2 the uremic crisises (sp?) as dogs on a "maintenance" food. (and these were dogs "in the terminal stage of kidney disease). Actually kidney disease is always fatal, so at what point do you believe to be the "terminal stage" of kidney disease? > Is this a very old study? There was a study done at the U. of Minnesota back > in 2001 or 2002 that showed dogs fed a low phosphorus food lived over 3 times > as long (on average) and with 1/2 the uremic crisises (sp?) as dogs on a > "maintenance" food. (and these were dogs "in the terminal stage of kidney > disease). Actually kidney disease is always fatal, so at what point do you > believe to be the "terminal stage" of kidney disease? Gauby, life is fatal. If you are alive, you are definitively going to die some day. ;) But to answer your question, by terminal stage I mean symptoms start to appear and CRF is diagnosed (20% kidney function left?). Do you have the reference of that newer study with dogs? Thanks. > >A study showed that cutting down on phosphorus did > >not increase the life expectancy of dogs in the terminal stage of [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > disease). Actually kidney disease is always fatal, so at what point do you > believe to be the "terminal stage" of kidney disease? Keep in mind, Liz carefully picks her studies and uses only the studies and/or parts of studies that support her agenda and omits or minimizes the parts of the study and/or entire studies that contradict her agenda. She tries to minimize the potential dangers of phosphorus to rationalize feeding her high phosphorus diets.... and probably because Hill's diets are low in phosphorus... and you know how much she hates Hill's! LOL! Its a well-known *fact* that phosphorus restriction increases survival in dogs and cats. The Finco study - probably the most well-known phosphorus study in dogs showed reduced phosphorus *indeed* increased survival. Here's an exact excerpt from the abstract: "Dog survival was significantly enhanced by 0.4% P diets (vs 1.4% P diets), but survival was not significantly influenced by amount of dietary protein. The 0.4% P diets (vs 1.4% P diets) significantly increased the period that GFR remained stable before it decreased, but dietary protein did not have significant effect." Read the actual abstract yourself: http://tinyurl.com/99w6 In a similar study, GFR was higher and survival was longer in dogs fed lower phosphorus and calcium diets. Here's the other abstract http://tinyurl.com/99w6 Both studies were conducted at the Department of Physiology and Veterinary Pathology - University of Georgia and published in the American Journal of Veterinary Research... but of course Liz knows better! LOL! Like she knew better about dissolving calcium oxalate uroliths with *water* in cats...even though every veterinary university and publication says calcium oxalate uroliths and crystals can't be dissolved... I think there's something seriously wrong with her.... Every vet who read her asinine theories thinks she's a "nut case" (exact quote) LOL! ... > You will not find anywhere in literature anything saying that dietary > phosphorus in the levels used in pet food and properly balanced with > calcium is detrimental to kidneys. What you will find is papers saying > that phosphorus is detrimental if there is too much phosphorus in > blood, a condition called hyperphosphataemia. That is of course utter nonsense. In a dozen studies the level of phosphorus in the FOOD provided the animal, vastly affected the lifespan of the CRF animal. The primary dietary recommendation for the condition of hyperphosphatemia is REDUUCING the level of phosphorus in the diet. Since none of us have a crystal ball and cannot tell which one of five cats will succumb to renal failure, it makes absolutely NO sense to feed excessive levels of phosphorus in the diet. There is no "good news" to feeding high phos. There isn't a single advantage to feeding high levels of phosphorus. Since there is NO advantage, and since nobody can determine which cat will succumb to CRF , and since CRF is the second most common cause of death in cats, it makes absolutely NO sense to feed excessive levels of phos to any animal. It's just a stupid and avoidable risk. > A study showed that cutting down on phosphorus did > not increase the life expectancy of dogs in the terminal stage of > kidney disease. Please provide a source for this wild statement. Given that the last four Grade 1 published peer reviewed studies showed exactly the opposite. My guess is that you are once again referring to Finco's much bashed study wherein he fed the group of high phos dogs potassium citrate, did not feed the low phos dogs potassium citrate, took three dogs out of the study without acknowledgeing it, admitted that the dogs on high phos diets had greater and more extensive uremic crisis, and claimed that since the high phos dogs died of uremic crisis and NOT renal failure there was no difference with high phos levels. Most folks consider a dead dog a "negative outcome". Finco chose not to do so. > > You will not find anywhere in literature anything saying that dietary > > phosphorus in the levels used in pet food and properly balanced with [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > phosphorus in the FOOD provided the animal, vastly affected the > lifespan of the CRF animal. Dozen?! I know of only one and in this one, the author states clearly that it cannot be concluded that restriction of phosphorus increased their lives. Please give me the references of the other 11. > > A study showed that cutting down on phosphorus did > > not increase the life expectancy of dogs in the terminal stage of > > kidney disease. > > Please provide a source for this wild statement. I already did. Go back to the thread "Chronic Renal Failure" and read my post with all the references. > Given that the last > four Grade 1 published peer reviewed studies showed exactly the > opposite. Give me the reference for those four studies. > My guess is that you are once again referring to Finco's > much bashed study wherein he fed the group of high phos dogs potassium [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > folks consider a dead dog a "negative outcome". Finco chose not to do > so. Can you give me proof of what you said above about his study? Did anyone with a PhD bash his study in writing? If so, where is it? ------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the other thread, you have not answered many things I asked you. To make it easier for you, I´ll bring them over to this thread: > > What is the percentage of omega 3 and omega 6 in Science Diet Adult > > Maintenance? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > N3's range from 0.57% to 7.29%, > N6's range from 2.5% to 5.10% If they are proprietary, how can you claim that Hill´s has more than any other food? And this proprietary thing is bs. A chemist could analyze the food at any moment and tell you exactly how much N3 or N6 is in there with an error margin below 0.005%. > My mistake, that should have been metaboic *ketosis*, not acidosis. > Once the state of metabolic ketosis is acheived, there is absolutely > no value is taking carbs any lower. You are *not* going to reach metabolic ketosis with a 15% carb diet. You won´t get anywhere near it. Tell me, why does metabolic ketosis occur? > Absolutely WRONG!!!!!!!! Phos levels above 0.4% in cats and dogs with > early renal failure CAUSES early DEATH. No if's no ands, no buts. Reference please. > Ricketts - Caused by excessive calcium in the diet. The excessive > calcium binds the vitamin D and the aniaml succumbs to ricketts. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Cobalamin B12 - Altered reflexes, reduction inn vascular reflexes, Leaving aside vitamins A and D, please give me references for the rest. Regarding struvites, I want a study *proving* that magnesium is the culprit, not urinary pH. Do you have a study showing that struvites precipitated in acidic urine? Regarding calcium, I want a study *proving* that calcium is the culprit, that is, an oxalate-free (i.e.,plant-free) diet. I also want a study showing that excess calcium *without* excess vitamin D causes rickets. > It is not the least bit difficult to *add* anything to a diet > you would like to add. Not difficult but expensive, depending on what you´re adding. > I could add Vitamin E at toxic levels for pennies. What is the toxic level of vitamin E? And what are the effects of vitamin E toxicity? > What is difficult to do is to keep unecessary and possibly > harmful things OUT of a diet. It's *cheap* to add things, very > expensive to keep them out. Excuse me. What are you keeping out? Phosphorus? Tell me something, which of the following diets has more phosphorus: 1) a diet composed of 25% meat and 35% corn 2) a diet composed of 25% corn and 35% meat Which ingredient is cheaper, corn or meat? > > Please give an example of a disease caused by nutritional excess, > > other than obesity. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > there is no questions that excesses of these minerals speed a cat to > death much quicker. Give me *one* reference of what you stated above (in the levels used in cat food). Of course I can kill myself right now if I eat a pound of sodium so lets establish limits. Still trying to manipulate the facts in an attempt to minimize the potential dangers of high phosphorus diets in order to rationalize feeding the high phosphorus diets you feed and promote, eh? This is one of the reasons why vets and ACVIM Diplomates think you're a "nut case" and "dangerous" (exact quote)... and that was before they read your utterly asinine and extremely dangerous theory of dissolving calcium oxalate uroliths water in cats.... I shudder at the thought of cats dying of acute renal failure because their owners accepted your asinine theory as fact... And now, *again*, you're trying to put still more cats at risk of early death by attempting to minimize the danger of high phosphorus diets simply to support your fanatical fundamentalist agenda and asinine theory that are also in direct opposition to mainstrean veterinary practice just as your utterly *stupid* and asinine theory of dissolving calcium oxalate uroliths with *water* in cats! > > > You will not find anywhere in literature anything saying that dietary > > > phosphorus in the levels used in pet food and properly balanced with > > > calcium is detrimental to kidneys. Of course that's pure manipulated bullsh!t... as usual. Even the study you tried to manipulate showed cats fed reduced phosphorus diets survived more than *twice* as long as cats fed normal phosphorus diets. You remember the study, don't you? "median survival times of 264 days (interquartile range of 190 to 535 days) and 633 days (interquartile range of 338 to 950 days) for the maintenance diet and phosphate-restricted groups" Its also the study that you *deliberately* and *deceitfully* omitted "Plasma phosphate and PTH (parathyroid hormone) concentrations were assessed at the mid-survival time point in each group. A significant increase in PTH had occurred with time in the group that were not phosphate restricted, whereas PTH concentrations were lower than at the time of entry to the study in 69% of the group receiving phosphate restriction.". ...because it contradicted your asinine agenda and theory/ You were nice enough to include: "Although this study was non-randomised and open rather than double blind and placebo controlled, the cats that accepted the phosphate-restricted treatment regimen lived considerably longer than those that were fed standard maintenance diets. It cannot be concluded that phosphate restriction was the only factor responsible for this finding but it seems likely to have played a major part given the evidence from other species,including the dog.' But you *deliberately* omitted the last sentence because it contradicted your asinine theory and fanatical agenda! :To wit: "Based on the results of this study and the evidence from experimental studies, phosphate restriction should be a standard part of any treatment regimen for CRF in cats". Gee, how did you miss the last sentence and very important sentences concerning the reduction of PTH with phosphorus restriction???? This is clear and incontrovertible *fact* that you *intentionally* and *deliberately* and worst of all, **deceitfully** misinterpret, misrepresent, and manipulate statements and studies to suit your fanatical agenda and utterly asinine theories that are in absolute opposition to mainstream veterinary literature and practice. What you will find is papers saying > > > that phosphorus is detrimental if there is too much phosphorus in > > > blood, a condition called hyperphosphataemia. Another one of your manipulations... or delusions... Studies in cats with CRF showed that cats with normal dietary phosphorus intake had microscopic renal mineralization and fibrosis and that mineralization and fibrosis were prevented by decreasing the dietary phosphorus intake. Mineralization and fibrosis leads to inflammation and destruction of renal tissue.... Hyperparathyroidism is very common in cats with CRF, even in cats that are ***normophosphatemic*** and phosphorus restriction results in a reduction in plasma PTH (parathyroid hormone) concentration... and hyperparathyroidism certainly *is* detrimental to the kidneys. Thus, phosphorus restriction *is* beneficial - even in cats that are ***normophosphatemic***. . Read it and weep: Journal of Small Animal Practice 1998;39:108-116 ...or you'll find similar findings in the paragraphs you *deliberately* and *deceitfully* omitted from your post in the CRF thread.... > > That is of course utter nonsense. In a dozen studies the level of > > phosphorus in the FOOD provided the animal, vastly affected the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > that it cannot be concluded that restriction of phosphorus increased > their lives. That's because you only cite and/or use the studies and/or parts of studies that support your agenda and omit or minimize the parts of the study and/or entire studies that contradict your agenda. Its a well-known *fact* that phosphorus restriction increases survival in dogs and cats. Are you trying to re-write veterinary literature about CRF like you tried to do with your asinine theory of dissolving calcium oxalate uroliths with water in cats? The Finco study - probably the most well-known phosphorus study in dogs showed reduced phosphorus *indeed* increased survival. Here's an exact excerpt from the abstract American Journal of Veterinary Research 1992; 53: 157-163 Effects of dietary phosphorus and protein in dogs with chronic renal failure "Dog survival was significantly enhanced by 0.4% P diets (vs 1.4% P diets), but survival was not significantly influenced by amount of dietary protein. The 0.4% P diets (vs 1.4% P diets) significantly increased the period that GFR remained stable before it decreased, but dietary protein did not have significant effect." In another study, GFR was also higher and survival was also longer in dogs fed lower phosphorus and calcium diets. Read it and weep: American Aournal of Veterinary Research 1992; 53: 157-163. Sure looks like phosphorus restriction certainly does *increase* survival and GFR, doesn't it? huh? Both studies were conducted at the Department of Physiology and Veterinary Pathology - University of Georgia and published in the American Journal of Veterinary Research... But of course you, a backwoods, stump-jumping au natural fanatical fundamentalist without any veterinary medical training, knows more about CRF than veterinary pathologists LOL! I've thought all along that there's something seriously wrong with you.... > > Please provide a source for this wild statement. > > I already did. Go back to the thread "Chronic Renal Failure" and read > my post with all the references. Steve works for a living, so he doesn't have as much free time to waste as you have to go digging through previous threads all day.... Besides, you're certainly not a credible source.... You have clearly proven that you *intentionally* and *deliberately* and worst of all, **deceitfully** misinterpret, misrepresent, and manipulate statements and studies to suit your fanatical agenda and utterly asinine theories that are in absolute opposition to mainstream veterinary literature and practice. You are beyond the shadow of a doubt, the *worst*, deceitful, and most *dangerous* sleazy character that has ever posted to this group. You are a clear and present danger to cats and their owners. The world for cats would be a *better* and *safer* place without you in it. <the remainder of your bullsh!t snipped due to nausea I´m not going to go over the whole thing again. The only thing I will say is that if what you and Hill´s state were in fact substanciated, cats in zoos would not be fed such a rich phosphorus diet and those two cats fed eggs and bacon for breakfast (remember bacon has a lot of sodium) would never have lived that long. I also suggest you read more on metabolic acidosis and how it affects proteins, bones and kidneys. In one of your posts you said your cats died at 19, 20 and 22. What did they die of? What did you feed them? How often did you vaccinate them? Did they have any health problems? > I?m not going to go over the whole thing again. You said you weren't going to reply to any of my posts anymore.... Wassa matter, can't control your obssession? > In one of your posts you said your cats died at 19, 20 and 22. What > did they die of? Like you tell others, the answer is in previous posts... Go look through the Google archives... You have plenty of free time.... > You said you weren't going to reply to any of my posts anymore.... Wassa > matter, can't control your obssession? Not really. I just didn´t think you were so obtuse and was giving it a last try. Your comments on the renal survey did it. > > You said you weren't going to reply to any of my posts anymore.... Wassa > > matter, can't control your obsession? > > Not really. I just didn?t think you were so obtuse and was giving it a > last try. Your comments on the renal survey did it. Is that why you responded.... twice? ROTFL! Phil, I don´t know if I shared this renal survey with the group before. This survey was done with 19 veterinary internists/urologists/nephrologists. Notice that many of them do not feel phosphorus is detrimental enough to recommend a kidney diet as soon as CRF is diagnozed, incliding Prof. Polzin, one of the gods according to Steve. Also notice that *all* of them keep track of blood pH/metabolic acidosis (question 3). Steve´s allegations are nothing but marketing. Let me also inform you that the pH of tap water varies from region to region. It can be as low as 5.5 and as high as 10. Steve says Hill´s diets are formulated to result in a urinary pH between ? and ? (don´t care to remember those numbers). Now how can he state that if water in different regions has different pH? They would need to do a specific diet for every region they sell their product in. My tap water here has a pH of 8, so acidified diets here do not result in a urinary pH as low as it does to a cat who lives in a region where tap water is more acidic. I also found another interesting thing: Regulatory aspects of diets, supplements, and nutraceuticals. David A. Dzanis, DVM, Ph.D., DACVN Dzanis Consulting & Collaborations, Santa Clarita, CA 91350-2713, USA. The number of pet foods commercially available for veterinary use, both complete diets and dietary supplements, has been rapidly expanding in recent years. Veterinarians use and recommend nutritional products in their daily practice, and this use should meet the ethical constraints of veterinary medical practice and be based on scientifically sound premises. However, it is also important to be aware that nutritional products intended to treat or prevent disease or to affect the structure or function of the body in a manner apart from what is normally ascribed for food are considered "drugs" under the law. Most of the "veterinary medical foods" and "nutraceuticals" on the market bear claims on the labels or in promotional literature that would establish intent as drugs, but under the current regulatory conditions, THEY HAVE DONE SO WITHOUT MEETING THE CRITERIA NEEDED FOR MOST DRUGS. Thus, the lack of government oversight of therapeutic claims places the burden onto the veterinarian to carefully scrutinize products for safety and efficacy. Hill´s Science Diet is nothing but cheap claims, cheap food, and veterinary bribing. They use the exact same marketing strategy as the pharmaceutical industry: bribe and pressure the docs. >Hill´s Science Diet is nothing but cheap claims, cheap food, and >veterinary bribing. They use the exact same marketing strategy as the >pharmaceutical industry: bribe and pressure the docs. You've already shown to be a kook. More delusional rantings from a madwoman! You're spinning as hard as you can on this one! Care to explain why millions of pets thrive on Science Diet and/or have had their lives SAVED on Hill's theraputic diets?? No, you won't because 1) you have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to anything on this ng......and 2) you have a personal agenda that is NOT backed up by facts. But thanks for playing....please drive thru! >From: gaubster2@aol.com (GAUBSTER2) > Care to explain why millions >of pets thrive on Science Diet and/or have had their lives SAVED on Hill's >theraputic diets?? None of my animals ever thrived on Science Diet :( Lauren ________ See my cats: http://community.webshots.com/album/56955940rWhxAe Raw Diet Info: http://www.holisticat.com/drjletter.html http://www.geocities.com/rawfeeders/ForCatsOnly.html Declawing Info: http://www.wholecat.com/articles/claws.htm >> From: gaubster2@aol.com (GAUBSTER2) > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > None of my animals ever thrived on Science Diet :( And no one ever answers my questions about SD and Hill's prescription diets for IBD. Why is that? > >From: gaubster2@aol.com (GAUBSTER2) > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > None of my animals ever thrived on Science Diet :( Gee, why is that no surprise? If someone said Science Diet gave their tyrannosaurus rex diarrhea you'd conjure up a "me too" story about SD gave your T-Rex diarrhea too! >From: darnit7@aol.comnolitter (PawsForThought) >Date: 10/19/03 12:31 PM Pacific Daylight Time [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >None of my animals ever thrived on Science Diet :( Yeah, we know--you never pass up a chance to repeat it. Everybody I know (including family and co-workers) who have cats and/or dogs on Science Diet love it and (the ones I've seen) their pets look great. However, I asked Liz....and you didn't bother to address the part about Hill's theraputic diets. > You've already shown to be a kook. More delusional rantings from a madwoman! Who was talking about being polite the other day? I´m entitled to my opinion, whatever it may be. And I don´t see millions of cats thriving, I see millions of cats with chronic diseases of all sorts. > > You've already shown to be a kook. More delusional rantings from a madwoman! > > Who was talking about being polite the other day? I?m entitled to my > opinion, whatever it may be. I'd say you forfeit that courtesy when your opinions are *dangerous* to cats and stated as fact.... Four out of four vets - two of which are ACVIM Diplomates - one of which is double-boarded and one a retired veterinary professor think you're a "nut case" and "dangerous". I'm sure, at least I hope, that many other people feel the same way. You've certainly proved it on several occasions. >And I don´t see millions of cats thriving, I see millions of cats with >chronic diseases of all sorts. You *see* millions of cats?? >> You've already shown to be a kook. More delusional rantings from a >madwoman! ...guess I was right! ;) >Who was talking about being polite the other day? I´m entitled to my >opinion, whatever it may be. My adjectives are found in the dictionary...unlike the profanity that is spewed by your supporters. Forgot to paste the link of the renal survey. http://www.uga.edu/kidney/renals.htm Found another two studies contradicting each other: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Adverse effect of proteins on remnant kidney: dissociation from that of other nutrients. Laouari D, Kleinknecht C, Gubler MC, Broyer M. Several experiments have shown that deterioration of renal parenchyma after reduction of functional mass is affected by the protein content of the diet. The respective role of proteins and that of other nutrients that vary with proteins were never clearly separated. Three groups of 9 uremic rats received diets differing exclusively in protein (casein) content, which was 8% (group 1), 16% (group 2), and 32% (group 3). Energy and minerals were maintained identical. Food intake was similar in groups 1 and 2 and was lower in group 3. Mortality rate remained closely related to protein intake. Of group 3 rats, 78% died within 10 weeks and 100% within 15 weeks. Of group 2 rats, 56% were dead at week 15, and 100% at week 30. Mortality occurred significantly later in group-1 rats fed the lowest protein diet. Histology of remnant kidneys showed severe glomerular and tubular damage, with no or little calcium deposits despite normal phosphorus diet and frequent hyperphosphatemia. These data suggest that protein intake, independent of any other nutrient, influences survival by accelerating the renal damage in rats with reduced kidney mass. PMID: 6588260 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] ----------------------------------------------------------------- Food restriction retards body growth and prevents end-stage renal pathology in remnant kidneys of rats regardless of protein intake. Tapp DC, Wortham WG, Addison JF, Hammonds DN, Barnes JL, Venkatachalam MA. Brooke Army Medical Center, Fort Sam Houston, Texas. The objectives of this study were to evaluate the effects of food restriction (without protein or phosphorus restriction) and protein restriction (without the restriction of other nutrients or calories) on the outcome of the remnant kidney model of chronic renal failure in rats. After 5/6 nephrectomy, rats were assigned to one of the following dietary groups: group I (control-ad libitum) consumed a 21% casein diet ad libitum; group II (food restriction with protein restriction) consumed 36% less calories, protein and minerals than group I; group III (food restriction without protein restriction) consumed 36% less calories and minerals than group I, but equivalent amounts of protein; group IV (protein restriction) consumed 38% less protein than group I, but equivalent amounts of calories and minerals; group V (NaCl restriction) consumed 40% less sodium chloride than group I, but equivalent amounts of all other nutrients. *All groups consumed equivalent amounts of calcium, phosphorus and vitamins.* Groups II and III experienced retardation of growth in comparison to groups I, IV and V. The food-restricted groups II and III, but not groups IV and V, had less proteinuria than group I 20 weeks postablation. By 21 weeks postablation, the kidneys from group I showed severe parenchymal damage, characteristic of end-stage renal pathology. These changes were prevented in the food-restricted groups II and III, but not in groups IV and V. The percentage of glomeruli with severe structural damage was less in groups II (27.3 +/- 8.8) and III (26.9 +/- 7.5) compared with group I (72.4 +/- 7.8). In contrast, the corresponding values in groups IV and V were not significantly different from group I. Interstitial volume (the percentage of tubulointerstitium which is interstitium) which was proportional to the severity of tubular damage was significantly lower in groups II (25.1 +/- 4.5) and III (20.4 +/- 2.8) when compared with groups I (48.1 +/- 3.0), IV (44.4 +/- 6.6), or V (41.9 +/- 4.2). An interstitial volume less than 30 correlated with well preserved renal histology, whereas a value greater than 40 was indicative of end-stage renal pathology. These results indicate that the restriction of carbohydrate, fat, and minerals (except for calcium and phosphorus) retarded growth and prevented the development of end-stage renal pathology in the remnant kidney model of chronic renal failure in rats, regardless of whether protein was restricted or not.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS) ------------------------------------------------------------------- It seems that managing kidney disease is not as simple as cutting down on one nutrient or another. > Forgot to paste the link of the renal survey. > > http://www.uga.edu/kidney/renals.htm > > Found another two studies contradicting each other: They contradict each other, to you, because you're *clueless* about *feline* physiology and anatomy...you're just a good manipulator (well, not that good... I seem to catch you very easily)! LOL! . <snip> Three > groups of 9 uremic rats <snip> > renal pathology in remnant kidneys of rats ROTFL!!! *Rat* studies are *well-known* not to apply to cats! The theory of restricting protein in dogs and cats *originated* from outdated studies in *rats* years ago. If you really knew anything about feline CRF you would have known that... Its now a *well-known* fact (but obviously not to you) that the mechanisms that affect the progression of CRF in rats *do not* have the same effect in *cats*! Why do think the policy of protein restriction in cats is no longer recommended until the cat becomes azotemic -- and that's only to control azotemia? Duh! Or are you normally not that inquisitive because you think you have all the answers? The fact you quoted rat studies that do not apply to cats is incontrovertible proof that you're really *clueless* about feline physiology and feline CRF and you're just trying to look like you know what you're talking about by posting scientific articles - most of which don't even apply! ROTFL! The more you try to show what a "wiz" you are and how much more you know than the mainstream veterinary community with your utterly stupid and asinine theories and conclusions, the more you show you're *clueless* about cats and that you're nothing more than a deceitful, manipulating, obessessed, fanatic suffering from delusions of grandeur. Stay the hell away from posting about cats before your asinine theories gets some cats killed... if they haven't already. Btw, since you consider yourself so "well-informed" and "knowledgeable" about feline CRF, why don't you join and "update" the 3000 or so people and the nephrologists and pathologists on the CRF-Support list? I'm sure they'll give your utterly stupid and asinine theories a very "warm" welcome.... LOL! > ROTFL!!! *Rat* studies are *well-known* not to apply to cats! You are a total functional illiterate! Did I say anything about cats? BOTH studies are about RATS yet they are pointing in *opposite* directions. My conclusion was that managing kidney disease is not simple. That´s it. Gosh, no wonder you need to copy your books in your posts. You can´t understand enough even to be able to use your own words. You are probably extremely frustrated because you never made it to vet school. Learn to read and you might have a chance. It´s only too late to fulfill a dream when we´re dead. >> ROTFL!!! *Rat* studies are *well-known* not to apply to cats! I guess this would apply to the *Rat* studies done on Ethoxyquin too then? ROFLMAO! Lauren ________ See my cats: http://community.webshots.com/album/56955940rWhxAe Raw Diet Info: http://www.holisticat.com/drjletter.html http://www.geocities.com/rawfeeders/ForCatsOnly.html Declawing Info: http://www.wholecat.com/articles/claws.htm > >> ROTFL!!! *Rat* studies are *well-known* not to apply to cats! > > I guess this would apply to the *Rat* studies done on Ethoxyquin too then? > ROFLMAO! That's *right*! They don't apply to cats! The ROTFLMAO is on you, dolt! Nothing like picking up a stone to throw at someone and dropping it on your own foot! LOL! >From: "Phil P." phil@maxshouse.com >> >> ROTFL!!! *Rat* studies are *well-known* not to apply to cats! >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Nothing like picking up a stone to throw at someone and dropping it on your >own foot! LOL! Your foot must be pretty sore then, LOL!!! ________ See my cats: http://community.webshots.com/album/56955940rWhxAe Raw Diet Info: http://www.holisticat.com/drjletter.html http://www.geocities.com/rawfeeders/ForCatsOnly.html Declawing Info: http://www.wholecat.com/articles/claws.htm > >From: "Phil P." phil@maxshouse.com > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Your foot must be pretty sore then, LOL!!! Nothing like following you're first asinine remark with another! Didn't you say, *many times*, that you kill-filled me? And now you replied to my post *directly* and not through another's reply... But that's ok, I know you're a compulsive liar and can't control yourself... Don't forget, I remember when you began posting here... Compulsive lying and poor impulse control seem to be common traits in obsessed, au naturel cult fanatics... > > ROTFL!!! *Rat* studies are *well-known* not to apply to cats! > > You are a total functional illiterate! I can't be too illiterate since I keep catching you in manipulations, misrepresentations and deliberate misinterpretations, now can I? LOL! Did I say anything about cats? > BOTH studies are about RATS ...and the current discussion is about CRF in *cats*. You obviously didn't know that the protein restriction concept for renal cats (and dogs) *originated* from studies in rats. Later studies in cats found that the studies in rats didn't apply to cats.... Otherwise, you wouldn't have posted completely *irrelevant* studies... unless of course, your were trying to convolute the issue because your argument is so weak.... yet they are pointing in *opposite* > directions. My conclusion was that managing kidney disease is not > simple. ROTFL! So you used studies in animals in which the management of CRF isn't *remotely* similar to the management of CRF in cats??? What a lame and asinine excuse! At least it matches your asinine theories! LOL! That?s it. Gosh, no wonder you need to copy your books in your > posts. You can?t understand enough even to be able to use your own > words. I obviously understand a lot more about cats than you since I don't conjure up utterly *stupid*, asinine and *dangerous* theories that are in direct opposition to mainstream veterinary practice like you do! LOL! I happen to remember a lot of information that I learned and was taught... After all, my vet is a retired veterinary professor... Whatever I don't remember exactly, or if I'm not sure, I look it up... I don't have a problem with that... I have many more issues on my mind than you... LOL! At least the information I post is ***true*** unlike a lot of yours.. LOL! You are probably extremely frustrated because you never made it > to vet school. I don't think so... I thought about vet school and I could have gone for *free*, but I decided against it because I don't like surgery. I obviously made the right call because in my position I can help more cats than I could if I were a vet... I can hire all the vets I need... and I do! LOL! Our yearly vet bills are more than most vets make in a year... You're probably extremely frustrated because I catch you in your bullsh!t manipulations, misrepresentations, and deliberate misinterpretations! ROTFL! The more posts of yours that I read, the more I think you also lied about quitting your job... You said you were in "research"... If you misinterpreted, manipulated and misrepresented studies at work like you do here, it would be no surprise that you were bounced out on your a.s! LOL! You lack logic Phil. If you come across a sequence of events, you can't predict the outcome. If I tell you that it always rains when the sky is gray, you are unable to predict rain when you see a gray sky. > You lack logic Phil. I sure as hell hope I lack your kind of logic! You're detached from reality. Seriously, I think something is wrong with you... But don't worry, its nothing that a few thousands volts can't cure... Do it for the cats.... > Seriously, I think something is wrong with you... But don't worry, its > nothing that a few thousands volts can't cure... Do it for the cats.... My cats are doing great, thank you. > Phil, I don?t know if I shared this renal survey with the group > before. Share? Don't you mean *manipulate* and *misrepresent*? This survey was done with 19 veterinary > internists/urologists/nephrologists. Notice that many of them do not > feel phosphorus is detrimental enough to recommend a kidney diet as > soon as CRF is diagnozed, This is yet *another* example of how you *deliberately* and *deceitfully* misinterpret, mispresent, and *purposely omit* crucial facts from studies, and in this case, a survery and opinions, to suit your fanatical, fundamentalist (and probably pathological), obsessive cult agenda. The survey question was *actually*: "At what point do you use protein-phosphorus restricted diets?" "*Protein*-phosphorus restricted diets"... Did you get that? "*Protein*-phosphorus restricted diets". The question *did not* ask "at what point do you restrict phosphorus" or "do feel phosphorus is detrimental enough to recommend a kidney diet as soon as CRF is diagnosed" as you *deliberately* and *deceitfully* implied. Since there is no prescription renal diet available that only restricts protein without also restricting phosphorus, one cannot be restricted without restricting the other. Of the 8 responses, 4 replied as soon as CRF was documented, and the remaining 4 replied if or when the cat is or becomes azotemic -- which *clearly* refers to restricting protein to control azotemia. Therefore, your statement that "many of them do not > feel phosphorus is detrimental enough to recommend a kidney diet as > soon as CRF is diagnozed" ...is a downright *deliberate* MANIPULATION and MISREPRESENTATION of the actual responses and survey. > incliding Prof. Polzin, one of the gods Yet *another* downright deliberate mispresentation! You're implying that Dr. Polzin doesn't feel phosphorus is detremental enough to restrict when *none* of the indivudual responses were attributed to their specific authors! I think you think "morals" are large paintings on walls... and "scruples" are Russian money... because you manipulate, deliberately misinterpret and misrepresent statements of others and studies without a second thought. > Hill?s Science Diet is nothing but cheap claims, cheap food, and > veterinary bribing. Do you realize you appear to be an obsessed raving lunatic? - which is perfectly fine with me - I don't have to worry about very many people giving you any credibility or believing your ravings. Its the people that don't any better and newbies or people that don't know what you are that I worry about. You've already demonstrated that you know *nothing* about mainstream veterinary practices. Most vets usually only sell prescription diets and more as a convenience for their clients than for a profit. I've worked with many vets over the years, so I can say with reasonable certainty that the "profit" on pet food doen't, or at best, barely, offsets the cost of the space in a practioner's office to store it! ..and I ought to know -- one of my tenants is a vet! LOL! They use the exact same marketing strategy as the > pharmaceutical industry: bribe and pressure the docs. You're no one to criticize the ethics of others since you deliberately and deceitfully misrepresent, misinterpret and manipulate statements of others and studies to suit your fanatical agenda. I've single-handedly caught you manipulating and deliberately misinterpreting studies and exposed your deceptions several times. You´re another one with a serious comprehension problem. You and Gauby should read about functional illiteracy. The survey is there. I don´t think anyone needs you or I to interpret it for them. Let them draw their own conclusions. > You?re another one with a serious comprehension problem. . I don't think so... After all, I did catch you in *another* manipulation and deliberate misinterpretation of a study... and this isn't the first time! The survey is there. I don?t > think anyone needs you or I to interpret it for them. Let them draw > their own conclusions. You already *did* interpret, correction, *deliberately misinterpret* the question, purpose and results of the survey and drew a manipulated conclusion that was *not* intended by the authors... and posted it as fact... To wit: "Liz" <c864320@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:12c83831.0310190414.4a914585@posting.google.com "Notice that many of them do not feel phosphorus is detrimental enough to recommend a kidney diet as soon as CRF is diagnozed, incliding Prof. Polzin, one of the gods according to Steve. " Not *one* respondent said or even implied that they felt "phosphorus wasn't detrimental enough to recommend a kidney diet as soon CRF is diagnosed". That was *your* conclusion and *deliberate* misinterpretation and misrepresentation of the actual question, purpose of the survey and responses. The survey question was: "At what point do you use protein-phosphorus restricted diets?" "*Protein*-phosphorus restricted diets"*... Four of the eight respondents said they implement a renal diet when CRF was diagnosed and the remaining four said when the cat becomes *azotemic* -- which is clearly, and obviously a response to protein restriction -- to control azotemia... None of the respondents said or implied "phosphorus wasn't detrimental enough to recommend a kidney diet as soon CRF is diagnosed". *You* fabricated that conclusion and posted it as fact. Furthermore, you downright *lied* by stating "including Prof. Polzin" since *none* of the responses in the survey were attributed to any particular author. That was a *deliberate* and *deceptive* attempt to give people impression that Dr. Polzin said: "phosphorus wasn't detrimental enough to recommend a kidney diet as soon CRF is diagnosed" -- which he *clearly* did *not* say! I generally don't like au naturel fanatics because of their scare tactics, rumors and innuendoes and also because they deliberately misrepresent and manipulate studies and statements of others to support their agenda as you do so naturally. But you are by far the *worst* sleazy, amoral manipulator of them all! You're much more dangerous than fanatical au naturel dolts like Lauren, only an idiot would believe her ravings, because you give your manipulations and misrepresentations a "scientific" flair that sound "good" to people who don't know the real deal and/or don't have the time or means to verify your bogus statements. You are a danger to cats because you post statements that are dangerous to cats and because your agenda, and I now believe, your *ego* is more important to you than the actual welfare of cats. The world for cats would be a much better and *safer* place without you in it >From: c864320@yahoo.com (Liz) >Date: 10/19/03 11:10 PM Pacific Daylight Time [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >think anyone needs you or I to interpret it for them. Let them draw >their own conclusions. Liz, I thought you weren't going to "respond" to me? Change your mind? >From: c864320@yahoo.com (Liz) >> Let's take CRF, as it is one of the most common causes of death in >> cats. Phosphorus, calcium, sodium excess will speed the animals death. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >in cat food). Of course I can kill myself right now if I eat a pound >of sodium so lets establish limits. Liz, this is so hypocritical of you!! LOL!! Why don't you provide ONE reference for cats that have suffered deleterious effects from eating foods preserved w/ ethoxyquin (in the levels used in cat food)?? <<which you have failed to do>> (yet here you are using the same request for something entirely different?) Of course you could probably kill yourself right now if you ingested enough eq, but you are wanting a reference for the "amounts found in cat foods"?? How about you follow your own advice for once? LOL!!!! > Liz, this is so hypocritical of you!! LOL!! Why don't you provide ONE > reference for cats that have suffered deleterious effects from eating foods [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > ingested enough eq, but you are wanting a reference for the "amounts found in > cat foods"?? How about you follow your own advice for once? LOL!!!! You´re absolutely right Gauby. I do sound hypocritical. The difference is ethoxyquin is fat-soluble, that is, it may build up in the system and in fact it does at the levels used by pet food manufacturers. Calcium, phosphorus and sodium are hydrophilic (soluble in water), so excess is easily eliminated by kidneys in a healthy individual with proper consumption of water. The fact that eq was not allowed in human foods in a concentration above 0.5 ppm and that it was banned in many countries should should be enough evidence for anyone in fact concerned with their pet. Also remember that prolylene glycol was used extensively in pet foods before it was banned. "However, *recent reports* in the veterinary literature of scientifically sound studies have shown that propylene glycol reduces the red blood cell survival time, renders red blood cells more susceptible to oxidative damage, and has other adverse effects in cats consuming the substance at levels found in soft-moist food. In light of this new data, CVM amended the regulations to expressly prohibit the use of propylene glycol in cat foods." David A. Dzanis, DVM, Ph.D., DACVN Now, why would a smart person wait for eq to be banned? I´d rather not feed it to my pets ever. >From: c864320@yahoo.com (Liz) >You´re absolutely right Gauby. I do sound hypocritical. Thank you for pointing out the obvious. Oh, by the way....weren't you NEVER going to respond to me again? I can see that I shouldn't take anything you say seriously! >The difference >is ethoxyquin is fat-soluble, that is, it may build up in the system >and in fact it does at the levels used by pet food manufacturers. It "may" or it "does"? You're all over the map on this one. I don't think eq does build up in the system as you say. >Calcium, phosphorus and sodium are hydrophilic (soluble in water), so >excess is easily eliminated by kidneys in a healthy individual with >proper consumption of water. Nobody in their right mind would advocate feeding foods high in calcium, phosphorus, and/or sodium. Kidney disease is a real threat to cats (and dogs) and if you want to manage risk factors you take those 3 nutrients of concern into consideration. Now, if you're Liz, and you don't know what you're talking about--you'd do just the opposite. > Oh, by the way....weren't you NEVER going to respond to me again? > I can see that I shouldn't take anything you say seriously! You were being so nice I actually felt sorry for ignoring you but don´t worry, it won´t happen again. And see if you can understand these terms: hydrophilic, lipophilic, and functional illiterate. :) >You were being so nice I actually felt sorry for ignoring you but >don´t worry, it won´t happen again. And see if you can understand >these terms: hydrophilic, lipophilic, and functional illiterate. :) Thank you for the compliment, but I haven't really changed the tone of my posts. I always try to be "so nice". As for your terms, none of them apply to me...so perhaps you are the one w/ the comprehension problem? :) >From: c864320@yahoo.com (Liz) >> Liz, this is so hypocritical of you!! LOL!! Why don't you provide ONE >> reference for cats that have suffered deleterious effects from eating foods [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] >Now, why would a smart person wait for eq to be banned? I´d rather not >feed it to my pets ever. Me either. There's no good reason to feed foods that contain Ethoxyquin. "Many companies have "slithered" away from using ETHOXYQUIN. "The once popular, and staunchly defended as safe, preservative (antioxidant) called "Ethoxyquin" has been mostly abandoned because of "hushed" litigation and settlements with professional breeders. It formerly was championed by pet food manufacturers (and others) as an advanced and healthy inclusion in pet food in an attempt to hide the fact that it was never intended to be eaten, much less on a daily basis. It was originally formulated as a rubber stabilizer and a color retention agent. Tires stayed pliable and spices stayed red. Despite efforts to get it approved as a food stabilizing agent in people food, it is only allowed for extremely limited application with colored spices. The people who know the devastating truth about this ingredient when eaten daily by pets have been paid off and forced to never tell their stories. There are innumerable instances of stillbirth, sudden liver failure, kidney dysfunction, permanent pigment changes, tumors and death thought to be caused by the addition of this wonder substance to pet food starting in about 1987. Much of the talk about ethoxyquin has quieted since the major pet food companies jumped off the bandwagon and switched to safer (and less legally troublesome) preservatives like forms of vitamins E and C. If they want the trust of the public, they should own up to their mistakes and come clean. Fat chance. All you'll get is denial." Lauren ________ See my cats: http://community.webshots.com/album/56955940rWhxAe Raw Diet Info: http://www.holisticat.com/drjletter.html http://www.geocities.com/rawfeeders/ForCatsOnly.html Declawing Info: http://www.wholecat.com/articles/claws.htm > "Many companies have "slithered" away from using ETHOXYQUIN. "Slithered". I like that. lol > "The once popular, and staunchly defended as safe, preservative > (antioxidant) called "Ethoxyquin" has been mostly abandoned because [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > in people food, it is only allowed for extremely limited > application with colored spices. Plus the fact that the long term effects are "unknown" according to the FDA's own article about pet food labeling. "Approximately ten years ago, CVM began receiving reports from dog owners attributing the presence of ethoxyquin in the dog food with a myriad of adverse effects, such as allergic reactions, skin problems, major organ failure, behavior problems, and cancer. However, there was a paucity of available scientific data to support these contentions, or to show other adverse effects in dogs at levels approved for use in dog foods. More recent studies by the manufacturer of ethoxyquin showed a dose-dependent accumulation of a hemoglobin-related pigment in the liver, as well as increases in the levels of liver-related enzymes in the blood. Although these changes are due to ethoxyquin in the diet, the pigment is not made from ethoxyquin itself, and the */health significance of these findings is unknown/*. More information on the utility of ethoxyquin is still needed in order for CVM to amend the maximum allowable level to below that which would cause these effects, but which still would be useful in preserving the food. While studies are being conducted to ascertain a more accurate minimum effective level of ethoxyquin in dog foods, CVM has asked the pet food industry to voluntarily lower the maximum level of use of ethoxyquin in dog foods from 150 ppm (0.015%) to 75 ppm. Regardless, most pet foods that contained ethoxyquin never exceeded the lower amount, even before this recommended change. " http://www.fda.gov/cvm/index/consumer/petlabel.htm >From: "Cheryl" jlh@NOSPAMpetitmorte.net ><darnit7@aol.comnolitter> composed with style: >> [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > >http://www.fda.gov/cvm/index/consumer/petlabel.htm Very interesting, Cheryl. I would be highly suspect of studies done by Monsanto itself. They need studies done by an independent source. What it all boils down to for me anyway, is that many pet owners have reported problems believed to be caused by Eq. So I think it's a much better option to feed a food that just doesn't have Eq. Lauren ________ See my cats: http://community.webshots.com/album/56955940rWhxAe Raw Diet Info: http://www.holisticat.com/drjletter.html http://www.geocities.com/rawfeeders/ForCatsOnly.html Declawing Info: http://www.wholecat.com/articles/claws.htm >> While studies are being conducted to ascertain a more accurate >> minimum [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > think it's a much better option to feed a food that just doesn't > have Eq. Agreed. What I find interesting is that complaints were made even though pet foods didn't exceed the lower "approved" levels (last sentence) before being asked to. >From: "Cheryl" jlh@NOSPAMpetitmorte.net >PawsForThought <darnit7@aol.comnolitter> composed with style: > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >though pet foods didn't exceed the lower "approved" levels (last >sentence) before being asked to. Good catch, Cheryl. I didn't even notice that. I guess just more reason to not feed a food that contains ethoxyquin. Lauren ________ See my cats: http://community.webshots.com/album/56955940rWhxAe Raw Diet Info: http://www.holisticat.com/drjletter.html http://www.geocities.com/rawfeeders/ForCatsOnly.html Declawing Info: http://www.wholecat.com/articles/claws.htm >Very interesting, Cheryl. I would be highly suspect of studies done by >Monsanto itself. They need studies done by an independent source. What it >all >boils down to for me anyway, is that many pet owners have reported problems >believed to be caused by Eq. So I think it's a much better option to feed a >food that just doesn't have Eq. What's very interesting is what your reaction would be if owners started reporting problems w/ "organic" or "holistic" foods. Not to mention all of the problems that ARE associated w/ feeding raw diets. I suppose you are easily led astray by scare tactics and rumours? >From: gaubster2@aol.com (GAUBSTER2) >>Very interesting, Cheryl. I would be highly suspect of studies done by >>Monsanto itself. They need studies done by an independent source. What it [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >I suppose you are easily led astray by scare tactics and rumours? Why is it that you never have anything useful to say? It's the same old crap. Why can't you believe that someone's animals did poorly on science diet? I would recommend it if my cats had done well on it. But instead, they had dry coats and smelly poops. I can't in good conscience recommend such a food. Lauren ________ See my cats: http://community.webshots.com/album/56955940rWhxAe Raw Diet Info: http://www.holisticat.com/drjletter.html http://www.geocities.com/rawfeeders/ForCatsOnly.html Declawing Info: http://www.wholecat.com/articles/claws.htm >From: darnit7@aol.comnolitter (PawsForThought) >Why is it that you never have anything useful to say? It's the same old >crap. You repeat the same stuff ad nauseaum--look in the mirror. > But instead, they had dry >coats and smelly poops. ...as opposed to poop that smells good? Especially concerning cats....my father's cat, my co-worker's 3 cats and the 3 stray cats that we rescued......all had shiny, glossy coats once put on Science Diet. With regards to my co-worker's cats and the stray cats that we fed--all had brittle, dull coats until we switched their food. > I can't in good conscience recommend such a food. Perhaps that's because your agenda doesn't allow otherwise. I can absolutely in good conscience and current/past experience recommend Science Diet. >From: gaubster2@aol.com (GAUBSTER2) >>From: darnit7@aol.comnolitter (PawsForThought) > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >Perhaps that's because your agenda doesn't allow otherwise. I can absolutely >in good conscience and current/past experience recommend Science Diet. and YOU don't have an agenda? LOL Just look at how you trolled the dog groups. ________ See my cats: http://community.webshots.com/album/56955940rWhxAe Raw Diet Info: http://www.holisticat.com/drjletter.html http://www.geocities.com/rawfeeders/ForCatsOnly.html Declawing Info: http://www.wholecat.com/articles/claws.htm >>Perhaps that's because your agenda doesn't allow otherwise. I can >absolutely [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >groups. >________ Are you admitting that you have an agenda? And I don't troll any groups. Never have, never will. But since troll is a dirty word online, you try to smear me w/ that term. Too bad for you it's false. Where do you get this stuff? Perhaps you would like to "name" all of the groups I've contributed to? "PawsForThought" <darnit7@aol.comnolitter> wrote in message > "Many companies have "slithered" <fanatical au naturel cult website fodder snipped> You ought to know all about slithering... from all your conjured up, built-to-suit "experiences" and fabricated "me too" stories that you seem to have ready for any negative post about commercial pet food and especially Hill's. Are you that delusional that you think rational people believe your conjured up "me too" stories just because a few other obsessed fanatics believe you? LOL! Btw, why didn't you post the URL so everyone can see the article came from another one your au naturel cult fanatical websites? >From: darnit7@aol.comnolitter (PawsForThought) Oh man! I guess my adjectives for Liz apply to Lauren as well! Paranoia running wild!! >Me either. There's no good reason to feed foods that contain Ethoxyquin. Here's one good reason...it's an excellent preservative even when used at very trace levels and COMPLETELY SAFE!! Please show even ONE study contradicting that fact (at levels found in pet foods). Don't bother blathering on about toxic levels at thousands of times the levels allowed by law. >"The once popular, and staunchly defended as safe, preservative (antioxidant) >called "Ethoxyquin" has been mostly abandoned because of "hushed" litigation >and settlements with professional breeders. Oh really? Care to provide any sort of reference for this at all? It's real easy to allege something that is false and then blame the lack of proof on some sort of conspiracy! >The >people who know the devastating truth about this ingredient when eaten daily >by >pets have been paid off and forced to never tell their stories. You are quite simply...a whackjob. There is no proof of this whatsoever. >There are >innumerable instances of stillbirth, sudden liver failure, kidney >dysfunction, >permanent pigment changes, tumors and death thought to be caused by the >addition of this wonder substance to pet food starting in about 1987. Too bad there is not one shred of proof anywhere to back up what you allege. Not to mention that eq has been used for probably over 50+ years and yet problems only started in 1987?? Huh? >Much of >the talk about ethoxyquin has quieted since the major pet food companies [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >public, they should own up to their mistakes and come clean. Fat chance. All >you'll get is denial." Who's words are you "quoting"? Not to mention that most Vitamin E is, itself, preserved w/ ethoxyquin. But since Vitamin E *sounds* better, there is less of a knee-jerk emotional reaction. > >From: darnit7@aol.comnolitter (PawsForThought) > > >The > >people who know the devastating truth about this ingredient when eaten daily > >by > >pets have been paid off and forced to never tell their stories. Ahhhh! What a coincidence! Awhile back, Liz accused me of being "paid off" by Hill's to "keep my mouth shut" and/or to "support" their products! Now I know where she got such the absurd and paranoid idea from! --I should have known -- from a fanatical au naturel cult website! ROTFL! Au naturel fanatics are like the Moonies of years ago... They all chant the same mindless mantra! LOL! > > Liz, this is so hypocritical of you!! LOL!! Why don't you provide ONE > > reference for cats that have suffered deleterious effects from eating foods [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > You?re absolutely right Gauby. That's about the only honest and truthful thing you've said! I addition to what others wrote, this is an informative page of info on pet food labeling. (yes, Steve, this supports what you said about the ingredient list). http://www.fda.gov/cvm/index/consumer/petlabel.htm > And, of course, expect another war to start from this thread! LOL ;) Not from me dear, I'm pooped. hi liz! thank you for replying. i hope you are still reading this thread. i have some questions and answers for you from your post.. > > should i be looking out for ratios, percentages or quantities ? > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > are great books out there with home-made recipes and one of these > books will even give you a nutrient analysis of each of the recipes. According to the calculation i made (in this thread), the B2B brand i was looking at has *not enough* nutrients. (?) > > i know about calcium: phosphorous having to be 1.2: 1.2.1 (correct?) , > > but WHAT happens if it's 1: 1.2 or .79: 1.2? how bad is it? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > phosphorus, that´s not ok. But if it´s 1.2 calcium to 0.79 phosphorus, > that´s ok. OK thanks. So it doesn't have to be *exactly* 1.2:1.2.1 - it really can have as wide a margin as that? Because I was wondering how on earth to do all that measuring. > > for example, right now I am feeding a combination of Back to Basics > > dry food and Prota Cat Steak and Kidney. Both these foods have [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > made with a very soluble calcium salt and easily enter the > bloodstream. OK but correct me if I'm wrong, from what I've read. Giving a chicken thigh alone would not be achieving the correct ratio because the thigh is fleshier and not balanced. But if giving the whole chicken, ground up or whatever, then the calcium phosphorous ratio would be absolutely correct. By this reasoning, just giving necks alone would also not be achieving the correct ratio. > > Here is the label reading for Back to Basics > [ snip ] > Looks good. How about the ingredients? Here are the ingredients: Chicken Meal, Chicken, Ground Brown Rice, Ground Corn, Chicken Fat (Preserved with Natural Mixed Tocopherols (Vitamin E), Citric Acid, and Rosemary Extract), Dried Tomato Pomace, Dried Whole Egg, Fish Meal (Herring), Brewers Dried Yeast, Flax Meal, Lecithin, Fish Oil, Sea Salt, Methionine (Amino Acid), Lysine, Potassium Chloride, Natural Yucca Schidegera Extract, Taurine, Ascorbic Acid, Garlic Powder, Vitamins & Chelated Minerals* I know about the reservations on corn and rice, etc. They do have some plus points, I think, they describe their ingredients and make it a point to say that their corn is human grade (i know i know, that actually doesnt mean anything) and that its not geneticallyt modified. They also go out of their way to point out that their herring is ethoxyquin free. The ingredients description is here: http://www.beowulfs.com/natural_cat_food.shtml Also, I'm in Singapore. We don't have wellness or wysong as far as I can find, or any of the other brands that have been recommended here. I'm in the process of trying to figure how to do this raw diet thing properly. > > In addition i have these questions: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > That´s it. Although fibers are carbs, they are not digested so can be > subtracted along with the rest. OK thanks. My other question is (generally) - WHY don't manufacturers just say how many carbs are in their pet foods? :) it seems to be the only food group they leave out. > > ASH > > When meat is cooked, ash is produced. The ash content in cat [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > included. I also like to include milk but not all cats can drink milk > without consequences. OK thanks. What would you consider a high ash content? I've been looking at labels, and from B2b at 5.x% to Royal Canin to about 6.6%, the NAture's Variety that I mention below had 12.x. That has to be pretty hi |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message