 |
 | 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 2003Gaubster's Outlandish Claims (was: Re: "Science Diet" Hairball Control Sensitivity )
Gabster2 posted: >> I've never been a fan of Nutro. > >So? This is important to us because...? >>>Because I said so. You don't think it's important? Not just because "you say so". In fact, YOU have NO credibility with me, and I doubt you have much with others, based on the feedback you get. >>> I've had many bad >>>experiences w/ Nutro (I'm not the only one) and they are pretty much >>>the "used >>>car salesmen" of pet foods w/ their claims and tactics. >> Their foods are notoriously high in phosphorus >> (among other things) > >I've never had any problem, nor have the other 15 or so people I know >who feed it. In fact, my cats have been fed Nutro ever since it first >came on the market. >>>Good for you. I look at risk factors when it comes to nutrition and high >>>phosphorus foods are something I avoid. Your mileage may vary. >Are you a vet? A food nutritionist? A veterinary researcher? >Thought not. >>>Thanks for answering your own question. What are you? Any of the above, >>>because from the sounds of your posts, you don't seem to be a vet, a >>>nutritionist, or a vet researcher? Very creative snipping, on your part. I asked the question in resonse to your comment "I believe that all of their feline dry products acidify a cat's urinary Ph output below the normal range of 6.2-6.4." [Message-ID: <20031020015807.12749.00000452@mb-m23.aol.com>] My question was a simple one: Who are *you* to make this judgement? A vet? A food nutritionist? A veterinary researcher? The answer is clearly NONE OF THE ABOVE. *I'm* not the one making outlandish claims with nothing to back them up. >Whatever. Keep promoting your Hill's SD crap. Carry on. >Nobody is listening to you anymore. >>>You were listening and hearing something that wasn't implied! Apparently not. Your promotion of SD is infamous in this group. More than one person has commented on it. >Did I promote >>>Science Diet in this thread, No, but see above. 'Nuff said. -L. >>> I've never been a fan of Nutro. >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >me, and I doubt you have much with others, based on the feedback you >get. Then just ignore me if that's the case. But for some reason you can't. >Very creative snipping, on your part. I didn't do any "creative" snipping. I don't take things out of context...it's not honest. I quoted the entire sentence.. YOU typed: >>Are you a vet? A food nutritionist? A veterinary researcher? >>Thought not. I typed: >>>>Thanks for answering your own question. What are you? Any of the >above, >>>>because from the sounds of your posts, you don't seem to be a vet, >a >>>>nutritionist, or a vet researcher? Perhaps you made a mistake? >I asked the question in resonse to your comment "I believe that all of >their feline dry products acidify a cat's urinary Ph output below the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >clearly NONE OF THE ABOVE. *I'm* not the one making outlandish claims >with nothing to back them up. I am somewhat familiar w/ their line--I have done the research. Why don't you call the company themselves if you don't believe me. In the meantime, don't try to paint me as making "outlandish claims". I stated above that, "I believe...." It even says on their feline bags something to the effect of "Helps acidify the urine for lower urinary tract health". (I'm going by memory here) If fed long enough, there is the real possibility that a normal Ph would be driven lower than the healthy range. If anything has changed, I'm sure someone will post here. >>>>You were listening and hearing something that wasn't implied! > >Apparently not. Your promotion of SD is infamous in this group. More >than one person has commented on it. Yes, and the bashing of Science Diet is legendary on this group. There are many Hill's haters here, and I simple defend Hill's, especially against the outrageous claims that are made against them. Of course, I'm outnumbered, but so what? >>Did I promote >>>>Science Diet in this thread, > >No, but see above. 'Nuff said. Then, don't make it seem that way, ok? You implied that I was promoting SD as a part of this thread and then you had to take it back. 'Nuff said! <text deleted for brevity & bandwidth preservation> Perhaps you could elaborate on why you think Science Diet is bad food? > <text deleted for brevity & bandwidth preservation> > > Perhaps you could elaborate on why you think Science Diet is bad food? I didn't say it was a "bad food". In fact it probably is better than quite a few others. What I said is that it "sucks". See my follow-up to Phil for reasoning. Better yet, do a Google search for "Science Diet" and "sucks" or "hate" and you will see other testimonials. We fed it exclusively at the feline specialty hospital where I worked. The cats wouldn't eat it, it stunk, some choked on it, and we threw most of it away. It created really stinky poop in the cats that did eat it. In fact, working for the vet is where I developed my real dislike for the food. Long ago I had tried it on my own cats, they quickly refused it, and that was that. I just thought they were picky. My experience at the hospital proved to me that the food is crap, not to mention enlightened me to their slimy marketing techniques. We'd push the food (vets orders) and a few days to weeks later, people would return it saying their cats hated it. After a while, I just started wondering why he continued to carry it. But a lot of what he did was questionable... I can't speak about Hill's dog foods, other than it gave my dogs diarrhea which wouldn't resolve, as did most brands of dog food. -L. >I didn't say it was a "bad food". In fact it probably is better than >quite a few others. What I said is that it "sucks". See my follow-up >to Phil for reasoning. that's the problem. I don't see any logic or reasoning in what you just said. >My experience at the hospital proved to me that the food is >crap, not to mention enlightened me to their slimy marketing >techniques. What "slimy marketing techniques" are you talking about? You feed Nutro, right? Perhaps you should work with or hang around some Nutro reps and you'd find out what "slimy" is all about. Oh, by the way....how many vets feed Nutro to their own pets?? Hmm? >><text deleted for brevity & bandwidth preservation> >> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > -L. I'd like to see scientific evidence that Science Diet "sucks". I suspect scientists and investigators don't use words like "sucks" to describe their findings. The numbers once explained speak loud and clear for themselves.  Signature"Its the bugs that keep it running." -Joe Canuck > I'd like to see scientific evidence that Science Diet "sucks". > > I suspect scientists and investigators don't use words like "sucks" to > describe their findings. The numbers once explained speak loud and clear > for themselves. I note with some interest there is *NO* response to the above challenge to post some scientific evidence that a diet of Science Diet food is bad for cats. In case some of you don't realize it, all the bashing along with anecdotal reports don't count as scientific evidence either. Signature"Its the bugs that keep it running." -Joe Canuck >> I'd like to see scientific evidence that Science Diet "sucks". >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > In case some of you don't realize it, all the bashing along with > anecdotal reports don't count as scientific evidence either. I'd still like to see any evidence at all about Hill's diets for IBD. I've asked several times here with no answers, also. You don't always get an answer to your question on Usenet. >>>I'd like to see scientific evidence that Science Diet "sucks". >>> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > I've asked several times here with no answers, also. You don't always > get an answer to your question on Usenet. Thats the thing about food debates in here... they usually quickly deteriorate into bashing matches with no real information being offered. I was able to learn from Phil a while back about the importance of the calcium and phosphorous levels... that was extremely helpful and it is so easy to make some choices based on real numbers. I simply cannot make a choice based on advice like "my cat barfs Science Diet everytime I feed it". While that may be the case for that cat, my cat might react different... so might yours. Argh! Signature"Its the bugs that keep it running." -Joe Canuck > I simply cannot make a choice based on advice like "my cat barfs > Science Diet everytime I feed it". While that may be the case for > that cat, my cat might react different... so might yours. > > Argh! Of course you can't, and I would hope no one would be that stupid. But you certainly can't discount so many saying this, or know of many who say the same thing. That can be an anecdotal study of sorts. Of course the ones who are obsessed with "defending" Hill's against bad-mouthing will say these are all lies and inuendoes and scaremonging "tactics" (whatever that is supposed to mean). Oh, and that there is an agenda. <shrug> It is all experience. >From: "Cheryl" jlh@NOSPAMpetitmorte.net >I'd still like to see any evidence at all about Hill's diets for IBD. Cheryl, why don't you call the company and ask them yourself? If you tried their product and it didn't work, wouldn't you have to call every company that didn't work for your cat? > >From: "Cheryl" jlh@NOSPAMpetitmorte.net > > >I'd still like to see any evidence at all about Hill's diets for IBD. Just thought I'd chime in here to say that I have a 15 year old cat that was diagnosed with severe IBD at around 2 years of age. His diet up until that point had been NutroMax. He developed projectile diahhrea, vomiting, you name it - I'm not saying it was from Nutro - just so that's clear. He was diagnosed with IBD after biopsies were taken of various parts of his digestive tract. I tried so many different foods to get him back to normal, I couldn't even begin to remember them all. About 5 years ago, a new vet asked me to try Hill's Prescription W/D because the fiber content might help with the diahhrea . That led to a big improvement, with only intermittent diahhrea and vomiting (instead of every day). So we stuck with that until about 2 years ago, when a friend told me her IBD cat was doing well on the Hill's Sensitive Stomach food, available in ordinary pet food stores. Well, I tried it, and it has been fantastic! It is the only food that has completely stopped any signs of his IBD. It has been a miracle for me. Now, this all said, I usually do prefer to feed super-premium foods like Innova - which is what my dog gets. But I can honestly say that, in my case at least, Hill's food had been a Godsend! Jennifer >>>From: "Cheryl" jlh@NOSPAMpetitmorte.net >> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Jennifer Ah, ancedotal evidence that Science Diet works for this owner! Signature"Its the bugs that keep it running." -Joe Canuck >>>From: "Cheryl" jlh@NOSPAMpetitmorte.net >> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Jennifer I'm glad kitty's tummy is feeling much better!! I hope it continues to work for you so you can continue just enjoying kitty! :) K >>> From: "Cheryl" jlh@NOSPAMpetitmorte.net >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > only food that has completely stopped any signs of his IBD. It has > been a miracle for me. Hi Jennifer. Wonderful for you cat! Best wishes for continued success. This is the kind of story I was looking for! Did your cat take to the wd well? Was it dry or canned? I know the SD SS only comes in dry... tried that too. About fiber - I've tried that for my IBD cat without relief, in fact I have a whole case of rd (also high fiber) prescribed for my RB cat back when he was alive, for megacolon. He (megacolon kitty) wouldn't touch it. :( Now that might have helped him had he eaten it. Any how.. that is so great that your cat has some relief. I wish it worked the same on all of the IBD cases but sadly I and many others haven't found that to be the case. :( > >>> From: "Cheryl" jlh@NOSPAMpetitmorte.net > >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > success. This is the kind of story I was looking for! Did your cat > take to the wd well? If I recall correctly, he had no problem accepting it at all. I fed the dry version. He probably liked it because the food I was feeding prior to that was this really gross all natural lamb-based dry food and he only ate enough of that to prevent starving. He hated it, but that was the best I found for him, prior to the W/D and eventually the SS. > Was it dry or canned? Dry. I think I bought a few cans of the wet and offered it from time to time, but his main diet has always been dry food. > I know the SD SS only > comes in dry... tried that too. Didn't work for your kitty, eh? Drats. It sure has worked wonders for mine. I guess every kitty is different in regards to IBD as far as what the triggers are. > About fiber - I've tried that for my > IBD cat without relief, in fact I have a whole case of rd (also high > fiber) prescribed for my RB cat back when he was alive, for megacolon. > He (megacolon kitty) wouldn't touch it. Well, having fed RD to my dog a long time ago for a couple of weeks....I don't blame your cat for not eating it, if it's anywhere near the same as the canine version. It's mostly peanut shells! It even smelled like peanut shells. I only fed it to my dog because she needed to lose weight drastically, having torn both ACL's and needing surgery on both hind legs. The vet said get the weight off her NOW. Well, it worked...that's about all I can say about it though. :) > :( Now that might have > helped him had he eaten it. > > Any how.. that is so great that your cat has some relief. I wish it > worked the same on all of the IBD cases but sadly I and many others > haven't found that to be the case. :( I feel for you. Those years when I couldn't get it under control....I dreaded coming home from work, because almost EVERY DAY, and I'm not exaggerating, there would be diahhrea sprayed on the walls (I told you it was projectile!), puddles of it on the carpet, and sometimes a stream of it from one room to another, usually in the direction of the litter box. The poor guy would try to make it to the box but couldn't. There would be blood in it too sometimes. Then there was the vomit....I'd wake up in the middle of the night to that all-too-familiar sound of retching. *shudder* I just hope the SS food works for the rest of his life. I do not want to go back from whence we came...! Jennifer > (I told you it was projectile!), puddles of it on the carpet, and sometimes a stream of > it from one room to another, usually in the direction of the litter box. > Jennifer This looks like a lack of one or more digestive enzymes. If that food ever stops working (let´s hope it never does), try adding some digestive enzymes to his food. It might work a miracle. > > (I told you it was projectile!), puddles of it on the carpet, and sometimes a stream of > > it from one room to another, usually in the direction of the litter box. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > ever stops working (let´s hope it never does), try adding some > digestive enzymes to his food. It might work a miracle. I actually did try enyzmes for a while. They were called "Petzyme" or something like that. My vet had me try it for several months. It's been a long time, so I could have the name wrong. Anyway, it didn't help. :( I honestly don't know what I'll do if this food stops working. Sylvester is 15, and in addition to IBD, he has heart disease and was just diagnosed with diabetes. Despite all this, he's a pretty active and healthy-looking kitty. But at his age, I have to wonder how long he can keep going with all of his ailments. :( Well, for now he's happy. We'll just take one day at a time. Jennifer > I actually did try enyzmes for a while. They were called "Petzyme" or > something like that. My vet had me try it for several months. It's been > a long time, so I could have the name wrong. Anyway, it didn't help. :( > Jennifer I did a search on Petzyme to see what enzymes it contained but it´s not a supplement, it´s a product to remove urine odor, so I guess you mixed up the names. I´ve seen many enzyme supplements on the market, and they all vary in content. Some have many enzymes, others have just a few. You can always try another supplement, preferably with as many enzymes as possible, if the kitty has problems again. I really hope he doesn´t. I hate to see these furry balls suffering. > > I actually did try enyzmes for a while. They were called "Petzyme" or > > something like that. My vet had me try it for several months. It's been [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > not a supplement, it´s a product to remove urine odor, so I guess you > mixed up the names. Yep, I did. I have since remembered that it was called "ProZyme". Is that a good one? This was probably 12-13 years ago that I tried it, so the product might have improved by then. Jennifer > Yep, I did. I have since remembered that it was called "ProZyme". > Is that a good one? This was probably 12-13 years ago that I tried it, > so the product might have improved by then. > Jennifer I looked up Prozyme and that´s the name of the company. The company makes many different products (many of them are enzymes for every use you can imagine) so I´d need to know the product name. There´s so much research going on in this area that the product probably improved since then too. If ever you need to buy a supplement of digestive enzymes again, the thing to look for is the number of enzymes listed. Enzymes are very specific, and most of them will act on only one target (e.g., lactase only breaks up lactose, hence the name). If you do a Google search with the words digestive enzyme supplement you will find many suppliers. Their sites will give you a list of enzymes in there products so it won´t be hard for you to find one that is "broad spectrum." What concerns me is his diabetes. All these supplements contain enzymes that break down sugars and this would send more sugar to his blood. If it comes to a point where you need to supplement with enzymes again, I strongly advise you to switch his food to one that does not contain carbohydrates (that would need to be canned but some canned foods contain carbs, so you need to look at the ingredients first: nothing from plants allowed). Always have a vet help you with any dietary changes if you are using insulin. Lets hope he continues doing well. > Always have a vet help you with any dietary changes if you are using > insulin. I'm glad you finally leaned something from your last mistake about advising dietary changes in cats on insulin.... At least my time wasn't completely wasted. > I'm glad you finally leaned something from your last mistake about advising > dietary changes in cats on insulin.... At least my time wasn't completely > wasted. The last time the guy was not yet using insulin idiot. > > I'm glad you finally leaned something from your last mistake about advising > > dietary changes in cats on insulin.... At least my time wasn't completely > > wasted. > > The last time the guy was not yet using insulin idiot. You really *are* a pathological liar. No, you sleazy *liar*, the cat was indeed on insulin.. and a high dose of insulin at that which made dietary changes even more dangerous. I'm not the only one who thought your advice was extremely dangerous. Lets see you try to manipulate, doubletalk and sleaze out of this one: -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Liz" <c864320@yahoo.com> Newsgroups: rec.pets.cats.health+behav Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2003 12:30 PM Subject: Re: Diabetic Cat > "Stephen Ward" <stephen.ward@virgin.net> wrote in message news:<8Ywgb.19556$4D.9886881@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net>... > > Our cat Sam (large, neutered male, about 7 years of age) has recently been > > diagnosed with diabetes. > > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > meats. BTW, cats with type II diabetes (more common) do not respond to > insulin. Diet is the only way to go. From: "Phil P." <phil@maxshouse.com> Newsgroups: rec.pets.cats.health+behav Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2003 2:30 PM Subject: Re: Diabetic Cat > > "Stephen Ward" <stephen.ward@virgin.net> wrote in message > news:<8Ywgb.19556$4D.9886881@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net>... [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > > > > > However, we're having trouble getting him stabilised. Already he's on 12 > > > units of PZI a day, which apparently is extremely high. > > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Still trying to kill cats with your asinine and dangerous advice? The cat's > diet should *not* be changed without consulting a vet - A reduction in > calories or carbohydrates without a dosage adjustment can result in an > insulin *overdose*. > > Why don't you get the hell out of here because your asinine and dangerous > advice kill someone's cat - if it hasn't already! > In news:2Ladnf_FqZjCiB6iRVn-gQ@giganews.com, > Phil P. <phil@maxshouse.com> being of bellicose mind posted: [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > ~~Philip "Never let school interfere > with your education - Mark Twain" ------------------------------------------------------------ You really can't help lying and manipulating to suit your purpose... That's why you and Lauren get along so well. >From: c864320@yahoo.com (Liz) >Date: 10/28/03 2:36 AM Pacific Standard Time [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >The last time the guy was not yet using insulin idiot. Liz, why do you have to call name? And why are you still responding to him after you said you were either going to ignore him or killfile him. Oh, wait, you weren't ever going to respond to ME either?! ;) > Liz, why do you have to call name? What do you think you and Phil are? Some sort of prince that can´t be name called? If you call other people names, expect the same from them. You call me names, you get the same from me. >Subject: Re: Gaubster's Outlandish Claims (was: Re: "Science Diet" Hairball >Control Sensitivity ) [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >name called? If you call other people names, expect the same from >them. You call me names, you get the same from me. Ok, so 2 wrongs make a right w/ you. If you're referring to being called a liar, you ARE a liar. You've proven that time and time again. BTW, what are my "outlandish" claims that is the topic of this thread? >From: gaubster2@aol.com (GAUBSTER2) >>Subject: Re: Gaubster's Outlandish Claims (was: Re: "Science Diet" Hairball >>Control Sensitivity ) [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >liar, you ARE a liar. You've proven that time and time again. BTW, what are >my "outlandish" claims that is the topic of this thread? Try anything that comes out of your mouth. How about the lies you posted about Wellness for starters? Now go take your medication. The nurse is calling you. ________ 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 > How about the lies you posted about >Wellness for starters? Check them out for yourself, what I said was true. Now what may or may not be true is how you took factual information and then spun it be something else. FACT= Wellness uses an ingredient called enterococcus faecium that is found in feces and has an MSDS. That is a fact and nothing more. I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions. If you don't believe me, look it up. > Now go take your medication. The nurse is calling you. >________ I suppose it makes you FEEL better if, in your mind, you think I am crazy since that would vindicate you and Liz's wildly outrageous beliefs and theories! >From: gaubster2@aol.com (GAUBSTER2) >> How about the lies you posted about >>Wellness for starters? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >feces and has an MSDS. That is a fact and nothing more. I'll leave you to >draw your own conclusions. If you don't believe me, look it up. You are unbelievably just plain stupid! We've been over this many times before. ________ 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 >>> How about the lies you posted about >>>Wellness for starters? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >You are unbelievably just plain stupid! We've been over this many times >before. You're right...we have been over this before. And all you can do is call names since you've been stymied by facts and the truth! > You are unbelievably just plain stupid! ..and you're not? You're also an unbelievable *liar*... > > How about the lies you posted about > >Wellness for starters? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > feces and has an MSDS. That is a fact and nothing more. I'll leave you to > draw your own conclusions. If you don't believe me, look it up. OMG! I've been feeding my cats POOP! TG you told me now or I would have gone home and watched my happy, healthy cat with rabbit-soft fur, the energy of a little kitten, and no clinical signs of his FLUTD eat a beef-and-chicken disguised TURD! Thank you, Chris, thank you! Quickly, let us all purge our homes of products with MSDSs in them! You first. -Alison in OH >>>How about the lies you posted about >>>Wellness for starters? [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > -Alison in OH ROTFLMAO!!! I'm such a geek, you can always make me laugh by using the word "turd"! :) K Sadly misunderstanding ingredients is the problem here. Lactobacillus acidophilus, Enterococcus faecium, are yeast culture and non-viable fermentation products that are probiotic feed additives that provide a continuous supply of two effective and complementary lactic acid-producing bacteria to encourage maintenance of proper digestion and peak performance at every stage of animal development. Added not only to dog and cat food but also to most cattle and swine feed to assist in building healthy flora in the intestinal tract. SignatureJeremy Lowe www.healthypetnet.com/jeremy Have you hugged your pet today? > > > > How about the lies you posted about [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > -Alison in OH >From: "Jeremy Lowe" flash1969NOSPAM@starband.net >Sadly misunderstanding ingredients is the problem here. Lactobacillus >acidophilus, Enterococcus faecium, are yeast culture and non-viable [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Added not only to dog and cat food but also to most cattle and swine feed to >assist in building healthy flora in the intestinal tract. Thank you for a clear explanation. You have to understand that no matter what you post, Gaubster2 will never understand. ________ 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 >>Added not only to dog and cat food but also to most cattle and swine feed to >>assist in building healthy flora in the intestinal tract. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >you post, Gaubster2 will never understand. >________ That wasn't an explanation, that was a monologue. (and probably a run-on sentence!) Perhaps there is peer-reviewed published studies available that indicate the need for this in HEALTHY cats? >>Sadly misunderstanding ingredients is the problem here. Lactobacillus >>acidophilus, Enterococcus faecium, are yeast culture and non-viable >>fermentation products that are probiotic feed additives that provide a >>continuous supply of two effective and complementary lactic acid-producing >>bacteria to encourage maintenance of proper digestion and peak performance >>at every stage of animal development. Misunderstanding nutrients is a bigger problem for most pet food companies! No? I do not subscribe to having to see peer reviews of a suggested course of treatment if current medical indications show its efficiency in field use. After all peer reviews showed no harm in using thalidomide in pregnant women, no addictive properties of nicotine, no harm in the use of asbestos in closed work space, etc, etc. And No, there is little in the way of peer review or even funded case studies in the use of probiotics in the feeding of healthy felines. However there are many people at various web sites who have used probiotics to help with the treatment of one or more health related problems in their pets. If a pet food manufacturer is choosing to use a more expensive ingredient with the intention of "preventive" treatment, then my hat is off, or is that just too hard of a concept to understand? I merely implied that there is a beneficial reason for the use of probiotics in pet diets since numerous clinical studies have yet to be preformed. What is really interesting is that the majority of studies done on human intestinal function used dogs for the model, yet scientists have failed to move the use of antioxidants and probiotics into the "mainstream" pet food industry, even though the "case" studies showed marked improvements with the use of antioxidants. Only in the last two years has FSU Vet college even offered antioxidant and free radical testing on small animals now that more and more clinical field history is demonstrating that if free radicals are removed through the use of antioxidants then pets recover quicker from injuries and have less need of emergency medical treatments. I am glad to see the strong support that each poster has for their food of choice and while I personally believe that a raw diet is the best for any pet, I choose to feed my cats and dogs a premium dry pet food for convenience. I think that we should applaud any person who uses Hills S/D, Wellness, or even Life's Abundance, or any other "better" brand as at least taking a positive step in a better direction for the health of their pet, or would you imply that wholesale purchased pet food sold in the mass market is a better choice? And you are certainly right in the statement that "Misunderstanding nutrients is a bigger problem for most pet food companies!" But there are improvements being made and some premium holistic pet food producers are going to be on the cutting edge of this new wave of technological breakthroughs. SignatureJeremy Lowe www.healthypetnet.com/jeremy Have you hugged your pet today? > >>Added not only to dog and cat food but also to most cattle and swine feed to > >>assist in building healthy flora in the intestinal tract. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Misunderstanding nutrients is a bigger problem for most pet food companies! > No? What > is really interesting is that the majority of studies done on human > intestinal function used dogs for the model, yet scientists have failed to [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > removed through the use of antioxidants then pets recover quicker from > injuries and have less need of emergency medical treatments. Good post. You mentioned antioxidants in pet food, and an excellent source is found in flax seed and flax seed oil. It is a good source of EFAs, and Wellness uses flax seed. While I don't know what other pet foods do, I believe it is the reason why so many talk about their cats shiny, soft coat when they feed Wellness. I certainly notice it in my cats. >I do not subscribe to having to see peer reviews of a suggested course of >treatment if current medical indications show its efficiency in field use. I see. Don't you think that peer review, published studies lend credibility to a given modality? >And No, there is little in the way of peer review or even funded case >studies in the use of probiotics in the feeding of healthy felines. Thanks for making my point. There are a lot of petfoods on the market making all kinds of claims, but nutrition is more than just marketing claims. >However >there are many people at various web sites who have used probiotics to help >with the treatment of one or more health related problems in their pets. Yes, health related PROBLEMS. But in healthy animals? >What >is really interesting is that the majority of studies done on human >intestinal function used dogs for the model, yet scientists have failed to >move the use of antioxidants and probiotics into the "mainstream" pet food >industry, even though the "case" studies showed marked improvements with the >use of antioxidants. That's another one of the reasons I feed Science Diet to my pets. They have the highest levels of antioxidants in the industry in their foods. > But there are >improvements being made and some premium holistic pet food producers are >going to be on the cutting edge of this new wave of technological >breakthroughs. I have a problem with the term "holistic". What exactly does that mean and what makes a company truly holistic? It's a buzzword and nothing more. >From: gaubster2@aol.com (GAUBSTER2) >That's another one of the reasons I feed Science Diet to my pets. They have >the highest levels of antioxidants in the industry in their foods. Do you have proof of this? Or did a sales rep merely tell you what you wanted to hear? ________ 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 >>That's another one of the reasons I feed Science Diet to my pets. They have >>the highest levels of antioxidants in the industry in their foods. > >Do you have proof of this? Or did a sales rep merely tell you what you >wanted >to hear? Lauren, *for the final time*---CALL THE FRIGGIN COMPANY TO GET YOUR PROOF!! Geez, enough w/ you already! It IS true and I suppose Steve Crane will be by eventually to "prove" it to you, although you don't believe anything that anybody says if it goes against your Hill's hating agenda! I suppose you will want exact levels which are most likely proprietary, not that you would know what to do w/ such information! >From: gaubster2@aol.com (GAUBSTER2) >>>That's another one of the reasons I feed Science Diet to my pets. They >have [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Lauren, *for the final time*---CALL THE FRIGGIN COMPANY TO GET YOUR PROOF!! ROFLMAO!!! ________ 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 >>Lauren, *for the final time*---CALL THE FRIGGIN COMPANY TO GET YOUR PROOF!! > >ROFLMAO!!! >________ Okay, now you are a troll, pure and simple. You obviously aren't sincere. I DO have proof, but I won't be providing you w/ it at all. I am more and more convinced that you are a liar and that you have some sort of agenda that is anti-Hill's in nature. Since you like to ROTFLyAO, you must have one big A to still be able to do that! >From: gaubster2@aol.com (GAUBSTER2) >>>Lauren, *for the final time*---CALL THE FRIGGIN COMPANY TO GET YOUR PROOF!! > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Okay, now you are a troll, pure and simple. You obviously aren't sincere. I >DO have proof, but I won't be providing you w/ it at all. Or anyone else for that matter. Oh, I forgot, now go tell me to look it up ;) ________ 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 >>Okay, now you are a troll, pure and simple. You obviously aren't sincere. >I [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >;) >________ You're right (for once). I won't be providing you w/ anything else since I know you are simply trolling for reactions. >From: gaubster2@aol.com (GAUBSTER2) > I am more and more >convinced that you are a liar and that you have some sort of agenda that is >anti-Hill's in nature. So what exactly have I lied about? You still haven't come up with anything. As to Hill's, I don't care if you feed it or not. It just didn't work out for any of my animals, or a lot of other people's aniimals as well. If it works for yours, then that's great. 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 >It just didn't work out for >any of my animals, or a lot of other people's aniimals as well. If it works >for yours, then that's great. Yeah, right. I don't believe anything you say anymore. I know A LOT of people who's pets have done extremely well since switching over to Science Diet. I guess that cancels out your "me too" stories. >From: gaubster2@aol.com (GAUBSTER2) >>It just didn't work out for >>any of my animals, or a lot of other people's aniimals as well. If it works [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >who's pets have done extremely well since switching over to Science Diet. I >guess that cancels out your "me too" stories. Me too? No, I told you my animals did NOT do well on Science Diet. ________ 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 >Me too? No, I told you my animals did NOT do well on Science Diet. You can repeat it over and over again, that doesn't mean anyone takes you seriously anymore. Anytime someone has something the least bit negative that you can spin against Hill's w/ your "ooh, ooh, me too, me too" you do it! But of course, you knew that already didn't you? :( >From: gaubster2@aol.com (GAUBSTER2) >>Me too? No, I told you my animals did NOT do well on Science Diet. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >But >of course, you knew that already didn't you? :( Take me seriously? Look at yourself, idiot. You have done nothing but troll the dog groups and now you're trolling here. You never add anything to the discussion, and you defend Hill's like a dog with a bone. You are the most thick headed delusional idiot I've ever seen post here, and most of all you're just plain obnoxious. But of course, you knew that already, didn't you? LOLOL!!!!!!!!!!! ________ 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 - 8 lines] > Take me seriously? Look at yourself, idiot. You have done nothing but troll > the dog groups and now you're trolling here. ...and what do you do? You tramp around the internet from group to group attacking Hill's and trying to drum up supporters to disrupt this group even more! You've disrupted this group with your conjured up "me too" stories and carrion diet and anti Hill's campaign more than all the trolls and pro-declawers combined. You never add anything to the > discussion, and you defend Hill's like a dog with a bone. ...and what do you do? You attack Hill's like a rabid dog. All you add are mostly scare tactics, innuendoes, rumors and conjured up "me too" stories and built-to-suit-experiences. You forget - I remember when you began posting here. Based on your conjured up stories, your cats developed more adverse effects from SD *after* you stopped feeding SD than they did while they were *actually* eating SD! You are the most > thick headed delusional idiot I've ever seen post here, ..and you're the BIGGEST LIAR I've ever seen post here... >You never add anything to the >discussion, and you defend Hill's like a dog with a bone. I defend Hill's against the Hill's haters like you. The things I add to the discussion fly in the face of your agenda so all of a sudden I'm a troll? You demonize people that don't agree w/ you and your crazy agendas. You are the one w/ the problem, Lauren. >You are the most >thick headed delusional idiot I've ever seen post here, and most of all >you're >just plain obnoxious. See what I mean? > Look at yourself, idiot. There you you again! > So what exactly have I lied about? You still haven't come up with anything. You're even more far gone than I thought! If you don't know, that means you actually believe your own conjured up stories! LOL! > As to Hill's, I don't care if you feed it or not. It just didn't work out for > any of my animals, or a lot of other people's aniimals as well. If it works > for yours, then that's great. Its really comical when you try to act like you're normal! LOL! Instead of conjuring up numerous "me too" stories and custom made experiences, maybe you should just say "It just didn't work out for any of my animals". Then maybe you wouldn't look like a compulsive liar and a psychopath - Perhaps people might actually start believing you... You can't possibly think that people actually believe that your cats developed all the adverse effects from SD that you claim they did.... Even all your fellow Hill's Haters combined don't conjure up the stories that you do! > I do not subscribe to having to see peer reviews of a suggested course of > treatment if current medical indications show its efficiency in field use. And that's an acceptable personal decision. Personally I like to see proof before I go spending money and resources that might be spent better elswhere. > And No, there is little in the way of peer review or even funded case > studies in the use of probiotics in the feeding of healthy felines. However [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the intention of "preventive" treatment, then my hat is off, or is that just > too hard of a concept to understand? I'm not sure that it would be at all correct to say a pet food manufacturer using pre and pro biotics is using a "more expensive" raw indredient. In most cases it is a marketing decision rather than a decision based on any science. If it sells, it's very cheap to add pro and pre biotics - far cheaper than using better quality ingredients to reduce excessive levels of minerals for example. > I merely implied that there is a beneficial reason for the use of probiotics > in pet diets since numerous clinical studies have yet to be preformed. What [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > removed through the use of antioxidants then pets recover quicker from > injuries and have less need of emergency medical treatments. Unlike the issue of pro and pre biotics, the use of antioxidants is well established and well proven. I would have to disagree with the idea that using antioxidants hasn't entered the mainstream. Research done in the mid 90's on antioxidants in dogs and cats is well documented and well supported. That research culminated in a food that resolves the signs of cognitive dysfunction (Canine Alzheimer's) in 70% of dogs that are fed that food. It is possible to reduce DNA damage by using the right combination of antioxidants. That has been proven in several Grade 1 peer reviewed published studies. In fact the work attracted so much attention that the US department of defense funded a continuation and long term trial of just such a food. In 2000 all DOD dogs were placed on a special high antioxidant food. Primarily dogs used by DOD are trained until they are 2, work until they are 5-6 and then retired due to inability to do the job. By using a high antioxidant food the expensive training process can be extended to add a couple more functional years to each dog. As a consequence of the research that culminated in Prescription diet Canine b/d all Science Diet products have contained much higher levels of antioxidants for over 4 years. Purina has begun to add higher levels of antioxidants to most of their upper end products as well, Waltham (Pedigree) began adding additional antioxidants in 2002. > And you are certainly right in the statement that "Misunderstanding > nutrients is a bigger problem for most pet food companies!" But there are > improvements being made and some premium holistic pet food producers are > going to be on the cutting edge of this new wave of technological > breakthroughs. I think that is very unlikely. Certainly many will be on the cutting edge of effective marketing ideas, but none can, nor do, the basic research that is required to prove the efficacy or lack thereof for any given "idea". The effective value of pre and pro biotics is still unknown if it exists at all. So far there are no studies showing any serious benefit to a normal healthy animal. Certainly there are several companies with the research ability that are looking at such ideas, but none have yet shown any promising results. It is one thing to look at animals that have been treated with antibiotics for one reason or another and thus the re-population of the gut is beneficial. Extrapolating that to positive effect in healthy animals has not been shown. > Perhaps there is peer-reviewed published studies available that indicate the > need for this in HEALTHY cats? I wonder if there is peer-reviewed published studies available that indicate that people need a brain. > Perhaps there is peer-reviewed published studies available that indicate the > need for this in HEALTHY cats? http://www.nutrition.org/cgi/content/full/129/7/1454S Enjoy! HTH! HAND! -Alison in OH (who actually doesn't think there's an indication for bacterial fermentation in a carnivore's GIT but WTH...) >> Perhaps there is peer-reviewed published studies available that indicate >the >> need for this in HEALTHY cats? >-Alison in OH >(who actually doesn't think there's an indication for bacterial >fermentation in a carnivore's GIT but WTH...) Looks like this was a dog study, not a cat study. >From: gaubster2@aol.com (GAUBSTER2) >>> Perhaps there is peer-reviewed published studies available that indicate >>the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Looks like this was a dog study, not a cat study. Did you miss this part there Einstein? See what I mean about you being dense as a brick? LOL "In a study reviewed by Gruffydd et al. (1998) , cats fed diets containing 0 or 0.75% oligofructose had increased (P < 0.05) fecal concentrations of lactobacilli (7.9 x 107 vs. 5.0 x 105). The cats fed oligofructose also had decreased concentrations of C. perfringens (7.9 x 104 vs. 4.0 x 106) (P < 0.10) and Escherichia coli (3.2 x 107 vs. 2.0 x 106) (P < 0.05) compared with the controls. This may indicate that oligofructose supplementation elicits a more remedial colonic microbial population." 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 > >> Perhaps there is peer-reviewed published studies available that indicate > >the > >> need for this in HEALTHY cats? > Looks like this was a dog study, not a cat study. Lemme help by highlighting the relevant passage in this *literature survey*. As well as most of the generalized discussions being about *canines and felines* or *dogs and cats* we had this section summarizing a cat study: "In a study reviewed by Gruffydd et al. (1998) , cats fed diets containing 0 or 0.75% oligofructose had increased ( P< 0.05) fecal concentrations of lactobacilli (7.9 x10 7vs. 5.0 x10 5). The cats fed oligofructose also had decreased concentrations of C. perfringens (7.9 x10 4vs. 4.0 x10 6) ( P< 0.10) and Escherichia coli (3.2 x10 7vs. 2.0 x10 6) ( P< 0.05) compared with the controls. This may indicate that oligofructose supplementation elicits a more remedial colonic microbial population." Funny, I would have thought your objection would have been on the grounds of the article treating *pre*biotics rather than *pro*biotics. -Alison in OH Excellent research Allison > > >> Perhaps there is peer-reviewed published studies available that indicate > > >the [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > -Alison in OH >Sadly misunderstanding ingredients is the problem here. Lactobacillus >acidophilus, Enterococcus faecium, are yeast culture and non-viable >fermentation products that are probiotic feed additives that provide a >continuous supply of two effective and complementary lactic acid-producing >bacteria to encourage maintenance of proper digestion and peak performance >at every stage of animal development. Jeremy do you have any peer-reviewed, published studies suggesting that adding this to foods fed to HEALTHY cats is beneficial in some way? Or is it just a theory? The whole point is that some people freak out over safe and effective preservatives, yet get all warm and cuddly when discussing the ingredients above. There is a double-standard that I'm pointing out and nothing more. >OMG! I've been feeding my cats POOP! Come, come, Alison. You know that is NOT what I'm saying. Yet you want to take what is factual and turn it around and get all emotional about it! Don't you feed your cats raw or is it just your dogs? > >OMG! I've been feeding my cats POOP! > > Come, come, Alison. You know that is NOT what I'm saying. Yet you want to > take what is factual and turn it around and get all emotional about it! Don't > you feed your cats raw or is it just your dogs? Hektor's mostly on raw but in deference to my hubby who doesn't like raw chicken dragged about his kitchen first thing in the morning I sometimes feed him canned cat food. Otis belongs to my hubby who doesn't want him fed raw food, and he gets canned cat food at every meal. Though I look the other way when he steals from the dog dish and polishes off the better part of a chicken drumstick. HTH! How's that purge of MSDS-possessing products going? In case you were wondering that's going to include every household cleaning or beauty product; your vinegar and baking soda and baking powder and yeast; your vitamin pills; any ethanol-containing non-microbrewed beverage; any caffeine-containing non-starbucks beverage; live-culture yogurt...and much, much more! Wow, do you ever have your work cut out for you! -Alison in OH >How's that purge of MSDS-possessing products going? I'm not the one w/ the problem, it's the whackos on this group that are against (or at least they seem to be) products w/ MSDSs.....like synthetic antioxidants for example. ;) > >How's that purge of MSDS-possessing products going? > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > antioxidants > for example. ;) You're kidding. Somebody here really cited "has an MSDS" as a reason not to feed ethoxyquin? As I've pointed out just about everything under the sun has an MSDS. Now, if the MSDS showed an unacceptable hazard that would be something else entirely. I'm sorry that you feel the need to defend against a lame-o argument. :) -Alison in OH Alison, If I remember correctly, no one here stated an aversion to products with MSDSs. It was mentioned during one of the many on-going arguments about ethoxyquin. G2 is exxagerating here a bit. >>>How's that purge of MSDS-possessing products going? >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > -Alison in OH >From: "Karen M." mskitty@NOSPAMeasystreet.com >Date: 11/1/03 1:08 PM Pacific Standard Time [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >MSDSs. It was mentioned during one of the many on-going arguments about >ethoxyquin. G2 is exxagerating here a bit. I'll remember that the next time the argument comes up!! No exaggeration here though! >I'm sorry that you feel the need to defend against a lame-o argument. :) Alison you are the one making the argument against carrying products that have an MSDS. Not me. Anything in excess is bad. That's my whole point. When certain products are used in a safe and efficiaous manner, there is nothing to worry about. Also, another point of mine. >> I'm not the one w/ the problem, it's the whackos on this group that are >> against >> (or at least they seem to be) products w/ MSDSs.....like synthetic >> antioxidants >> for example. ;) >You're kidding. Somebody here really cited "has an MSDS" as a reason not >to feed ethoxyquin? As I've pointed out just about everything under the >sun has an MSDS. Where's your emotiocons?? ;) > >I'm sorry that you feel the need to defend against a lame-o argument. :) > > Alison you are the one making the argument against carrying products that have > an MSDS. Not me. Anything in excess is bad. That's my whole point. When > certain products are used in a safe and efficiaous manner, there is nothing to > worry about. Also, another point of mine. (Looking behind me) Who, ME? Arguing against products with an MSDS? Thanks much but I happen to think my daily d-alpha tocopherol and my regular intake of caffeine and my frequent use of vinegar in cooking are too important to give up just because these products possess an MSDS! > >> I'm not the one w/ the problem, it's the whackos on this group that are > >> against [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Where's your emotiocons?? ;) M'friend, when I'm feeling sassy or lighthearted I can sprinkle my commentary liberally with emoticons to indicate that mood. When I'm feeling perplexed, annoyed or disgruntled you're just going to have to take my posts at face value. -Alison in OH > How about the lies you posted Ain't that a hoot coming from the *biggest* liar on Usenet! You truly are detached from reality! > Ok, so 2 wrongs make a right w/ you. If you're referring to being called a > liar, you ARE a liar. How would you know? You can´t even understand what you read. >From: c864320@yahoo.com (Liz) >Date: 10/30/03 3:03 PM Pacific Standard Time [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >How would you know? You can´t even understand what you read. It's self evident to anyone who has read most of the threads that you post in. You've been caught in so many lies, it's obvious that you have a problem w/ the truth. > > Ok, so 2 wrongs make a right w/ you. If you're referring to being called a > > liar, you ARE a liar. > > How would you know? You can?t even understand what you read. ...and you can? You can't quote a study or survey without misinterpreting, manipulating or misrepresenting the studies and authors' intention to suit your own obsessive agenda. You've been caught, red-handed, manipulating and falsifying studies and surveys and giving cat owners dangerous and *deadly* advice several times. You're no one to criticize or mock Chris... or anyone else. He may make mistakes, occasionally, but at least they're *honest* mistakes... unlike you - you *deliberately* misinterpret, misrepresent, manipulate and falsify studies, surveys and who knows what other information you've manipulated to suit your obsessive agenda... You seem to fancy yourself as some kind of scientific "wiz" but you don't know how to apply your chemistry set test tube theories to real *live* cats because you have no practical experience. You know only that which you read in your chemistry set manual - but you don't understand that which applies in vitro doesn't always apply in vivo... I suggest you learn the difference... real *quick*, if not sooner, before you give anymore dangerous and deadly advice that might cost an owner their cat's life... if it hasn't already. I've been around *real* cat lovers for a very long time - long enough to know the real thing when I see it -- and you're a long, very long way from the real thing. You may love *your* cats, but you don't seem to have a genuine love for cats as a *species*. There's a night and day difference between you and nearly everyone else in this group -- other than the other amoral liar and manipulator. But you can't see that difference. I think you're here for your own reasons, probably to feed your ego because you're a loser, and to further your obsessive agenda for your own satisfaction and not for the benefit of the cats. Your agenda and ego seem to be more important to you than the cats. Other than "Me Too" Lauren and her conjured up, built-to-suit, fabricated "experiences" for any occasion, you're the *worst thing that's happened to this group in a long time. If you had the slightest concern for cats as a *species*, you crawl back under the rock where Lauren found you. The world for cats would be a better and safer place without you in it. >You're no one to criticize or mock Chris... or anyone else. He may make >mistakes, occasionally, but at least they're *honest* mistakes... unlike >you - you *deliberately* misinterpret, misrepresent, manipulate and falsify >studies, surveys and who knows what other information you've manipulated to >suit your obsessive agenda... Thanks, Phil. I joined this group to learn some things and I am. Any mistakes I make AREN'T deliberate or intentional. I want to be right all the time (I won't ever get there), so if there is enough factual evidence to support a position that I don't currently hold, of course, I'm willing to reexamine my positions and change them if neccessary. (...) > Thanks, Phil. I joined this group to learn some things and I am. Any > mistakes I make AREN'T deliberate or intentional. I want to be right all > the time (I won't ever get there), so if there is enough factual evidence to > support a position that I don't currently hold, of course, I'm willing to > reexamine my positions and change them if neccessary. TBH, this statement is laughable, given the way you absolutely refuse to budge, even when all the evidence says that you are wrong! Even when the point under discussion ain't even that important. Some examples: - You claim that SD is a 'human grade' food here (http://makeashorterlink.com/?B39A12A66). You twist, you turn, you *know* your boat's sinking ... but you just can't bail! - You rail against 'all life stages' foods, claiming that they are 'kitten food' and inappropriate for adult cats ... even though figures Steve Crane himself posted illustrate that ALS, kitten foods and maintenance foods widely overlap in their desired nutritional composition ... for all nutritional factors! (http://makeashorterlink.com/?Y57A56A66). - On the above point, you insist that the ALS foods 'may be inappropriate' (for adult cats), even though you can provide zero evidence for this assertion! Even though you continually ask others to provide evidence for similar types of random assertions! - On a similar path, you claim that 'I've checked many, many different foods for their nutrient levels on a dry matter basis and they all come back significantly higher than Hill's products'. Even when you've been told that this is not true, endless times (eg, see http://webpages.charter.net/katkarma/canfood.htm) you just will not admit your mistake. - You imply that Wellness foods contain sh.t. That's literal, not metaphoric sh.t (eg, http://makeashorterlink.com/?S16B53A66). - You're not too hot on the world outside the US, either ( http://makeashorterlink.com/?S5CA14A66). IMO, you are the only person on the ng (with the possible exception of the evil-petfoods book-woman) who is persistently, flagrantly and knowingly wrong whenever the opportunity presents. I'm assuming the 'knowingly' bit here, because I imagine that you are not, in reality, an imbecile. Feel free to correct this assumption, if I'm wrong. Steve. >TBH, this statement is laughable, given the way you absolutely refuse >to budge, even when all the evidence says that you are wrong! Even >when the point under discussion ain't even that important. Sorry you read it that way. That's certainly your opinion if you want it to be. >Some examples: > >- You claim that SD is a 'human grade' food here >(http://makeashorterlink.com/?B39A12A66). You twist, you turn, you >*know* your boat's sinking ... but you just can't bail! Nice spin, once again Steveo. I made that claim using other's definitions for "human grade"...Science Diet uses human grade ingredients also. The problem is that there is no legal definition, it is open to interpretation, and that's my point. You got stuck on "by-product" meal, IIRC and certain by-products are indeed sold at the butcher shop. I wasn't wrong on that one. >- You rail against 'all life stages' foods, claiming that they are >'kitten food' and inappropriate for adult cats ... even though figures >Steve Crane himself posted illustrate that ALS, kitten foods and >maintenance foods widely overlap in their desired nutritional >composition ... for all nutritional factors! It's not best to feed an ALS food to adult and senior animals. If you are at all concerned about risk factors, you would see what I'm talking about. Any food that makes the "all life stage" claim has higher levels of nutrients more appropriate for growth foods. The higher levels of nutrients will satisify the minimums for other lifestages. What part of that is so hard to understand? It won't guarantee disaster, but why play around w/ the health of your pet? >- On the above point, you insist that the ALS foods 'may be >inappropriate' (for adult cats), even though you can provide zero >evidence for this assertion! Even though you continually ask others to >provide evidence for similar types of random assertions! I believe that Steve Crane gave some examples which were then picked apart by some that didn't believe him. I'm not going to spend hours scouring the internet for stuff I learned in "real life". >- On a similar path, you claim that 'I've checked many, many different >foods for their nutrient levels on a dry matter basis and they all >come back significantly higher than Hill's products'. Even when you've >been told that this is not true, endless times (eg, see >http://webpages.charter.net/katkarma/canfood.htm) you just will not >admit your mistake. That particular page is canned food, almost all of the foods I've looked at in the past have been dry. >- You imply that Wellness foods contain sh.t. That's literal, not >metaphoric sh.t (eg, http://makeashorterlink.com/?S16B53A66). First of all your links aren't working. Secondly, I never said they contained feces--I said that the foods contained bacteria which are FOUND in feces. Big difference. And that whole point was to illustrate that the women on this board who cringe at the thought of feeding foods that are preserved safely w/ synthetic antioxidants have no problem feeding a food that has bacteria that is found in feces. Apparently you don't see the double standard? >- You're not too hot on the world outside the US, either No, quite frankly I'm not. I see too many countries around the world (seemingly a majority) that hate the US. I guess feeding and protecting a large part of the planet only guarantees nothing but contempt and derision. But that's my opinion and you are certainly entitled to yours...even if I don't agree with it! ;) >IMO, you are the only person on the ng (with the possible exception of >the evil-petfoods book-woman) who is persistently, flagrantly and >knowingly wrong whenever the opportunity presents. The problem is that you are taking what I say out of context. (...) > >- You claim that SD is a 'human grade' food here > >(http://makeashorterlink.com/?B39A12A66). You twist, you turn, you > >*know* your boat's sinking ... but you just can't bail! > > Nice spin, once again Steveo. I made that claim using other's definitions > for "human grade"...Science Diet uses human grade ingredients also. Sigh. Having a conversation with you reminds me of that time when I tried to thread a whale through the eye of a needle while drinking soup with a fork. 'Other's definitions': In the context of the thread, *I* was the 'other'. I provided no 'definition' of 'human grade'. I think your point was that some of the ingredients in SD are human grade. A strawman argument, this one, given that *every* food contains some human-grade ingredients. However, you seemed oddly reluctant to make a concrete statement regarding byproduct meal, and the human-fitness of the stuff: > The problem is that there is no legal definition, it is open to > interpretation, and that's my point. You got stuck on "by-product" meal, > IIRC and certain by-products are indeed sold at the butcher shop. I wasn't > wrong on that one. So, let's nail the hammer home here: are you saying that the byproduct meal used in Hills (or other, indeed) cat foods is suitable for human consumption? I'm expecting you to get a bit twisty, if you decide to reply to that. (...) > It's not |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message