PDA

View Full Version : Phil P - what you recommend from Purina


September 20th 05, 08:16 PM
Phil P, what do you recommend for a dry food from Purina?
I got a free coupon after I pointed out the mistakes in what
info they were giving out over the phone. I think they give
free coupons often.

In any case, the cat is female, 6, no known problems except
meowing near the 'frig.

She weighs a little over 10 pounds and I consider that too much
although she does not feel fat and has a waistline.

But, she has a pouch and I doubt it's the fighting pouch-type.

I would suspect her weight should ideally be under 8 pounds so
I'm reducing her gently. At 2 her weight was 7.5 pounds but
a foster free-fed her. Nice people. Not overly bright.

Does Purina have a good dry food? I usually feed Science Diet
Light and a little Oral Care. I was thinking of Purina One
or something like that. I am feeding her wet food also and
that seems to firm her up and help her calm her appetite.

Any suggestions?

Kiran
September 20th 05, 08:29 PM
"> wrote:

: Phil P, what do you recommend for a dry food from Purina?
: I got a free coupon..

I am not Phil, and would look forward to reading his advice, but
Purina's best brand is supposed to be Pro Plan. I think the next is
Purina One. Both are good, but with a free coupon why not go for the
very best? :)

cybercat
September 20th 05, 08:31 PM
"Kiran" > wrote in message
...
> "> wrote:
>
> : Phil P, what do you recommend for a dry food from Purina?
> : I got a free coupon..
>
> I am not Phil, and would look forward to reading his advice, but
> Purina's best brand is supposed to be Pro Plan. I think the next is
> Purina One. Both are good, but with a free coupon why not go for the
> very best? :)

I was going to say, I use Purina One because my kitty loves it.
So I would love to hear what Phil thinks about it.

Kiran
September 20th 05, 09:08 PM
cybercat > wrote:

: I was going to say, I use Purina One because my kitty loves it.

OK, that is a strong case for Purina One. :-)

: So I would love to hear what Phil thinks about it.

Gosh, I have learned so much from Phil's posts that I can almost act as
his unauthorized spokesperson. :) He has specifically recommended
Purina One Chicken and Rice Formula in some of his posts.

cybercat
September 20th 05, 09:35 PM
"Kiran" > wrote in message
...
> cybercat > wrote:
>
> : I was going to say, I use Purina One because my kitty loves it.
>
> OK, that is a strong case for Purina One. :-)

:) But every creature is different. Her sister will not touch
that but adores Iams diet hairball food, which she can no
longer have.

>
> : So I would love to hear what Phil thinks about it.
>
> Gosh, I have learned so much from Phil's posts that I can almost act as
> his unauthorized spokesperson. :) He has specifically recommended
> Purina One Chicken and Rice Formula in some of his posts.

Oh good. But--my kitty only scarfs down the tuna and salmon.
I wonder what the difference is in nutrition?

Phil P.
September 21st 05, 12:06 PM
> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Phil P, what do you recommend for a dry food from Purina?
> I got a free coupon after I pointed out the mistakes in what
> info they were giving out over the phone. I think they give
> free coupons often.
>
> In any case, the cat is female, 6, no known problems except
> meowing near the 'frig.
>
> She weighs a little over 10 pounds and I consider that too much
> although she does not feel fat and has a waistline.
>
> But, she has a pouch and I doubt it's the fighting pouch-type.
>
> I would suspect her weight should ideally be under 8 pounds so
> I'm reducing her gently. At 2 her weight was 7.5 pounds but
> a foster free-fed her. Nice people. Not overly bright.
>
> Does Purina have a good dry food? I usually feed Science Diet
> Light and a little Oral Care. I was thinking of Purina One
> or something like that. I am feeding her wet food also and
> that seems to firm her up and help her calm her appetite.
>
> Any suggestions?
>


Purina One Chicken & Rice and DM.

Phil

AlexZ
September 21st 05, 02:53 PM
Phil P. > wrote:

> Purina One Chicken & Rice and DM.

What is DM?

September 21st 05, 03:18 PM
DM Dietary Management
apparently a diabetic food, so probably by prescription

Clinical Nutrition Management DM Prescription Stuff?

Traditionally, veterinary diets for diabetic cats have followed canine
models and have been formulated to be high in complex carbohydrates and
fiber to help slow the absorption of glucose, a method that works well
with diabetic dogs. Cats, however, are carnivores and have much higher
requirements for protein compared to dogs. In addition, cats lack
glucokinase, the enzyme used by most mammals to clear glucose from the
bloodstream. They rely on a less efficient enzyme to metabolize
carbohydrates and clear glucose, which can be a particular disadvantage
for diabetic cats.

"CNM DM-Formula was developed as a result of collaborations between
scientists at Purina and Heska Corporation, and incorporates Purina's
research in proteins and understanding of the feline metabolism," said
Dottie Laflamme, DVM, Ph.D., a research fellow at Ralston Purina
Company. "The DM-Formula diet capitalizes on the cat's efficient
mechanism for protein breakdown, while reducing the reliance on its
less-efficient carbohydrate metabolism."

Alison
September 21st 05, 05:40 PM
--
> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Phil P, what do you recommend for a dry food from Purina?
> I got a free coupon after I pointed out the mistakes in what
> info they were giving out over the phone. I think they give
> free coupons often.
>
> In any case, the cat is female, 6, no known problems except
> meowing near the 'frig.
>
> She weighs a little over 10 pounds and I consider that too much
> although she does not feel fat and has a waistline.
But, she has a pouch and I doubt it's the fighting pouch-type.
>>

Perhaps you should check with your vet what her ideal weight should
be
or if there is another reason she has a pouch.
Her shape sounds the same as my cat Kim who is 6 . Her weight is just
under 10lb and the vet said that was fine.
You can check your cats weight here.
http://www.petfit.com/Petfit/PetIndex.jsp
Click on the Is My Cat Overweight button at the top of the webpage.
Alison

September 21st 05, 07:55 PM
I suspect that she is in fact "obese" although she looks normal and has
a bit of a waistline indenting. I weighed her on a more accurate scale
and she is actually 11 pounds. I think as a young adult, full-grown,
she used to weigh 7.5 pounds. If this is so and the scale was accurate,
then she is 40% over her ideal 7.5 weight at 11 pounds. That is "obese"
just based on percentages for almost any living creature.

She has a little belly but I have trouble believing that it's 3 pounds
or so there.

If I'm right, then my cat is technically obese and carrying unnecessary
weight. Now is a good time to start the dieting because as she gets
older, I suspect her metabolism will slow and gain even more weight
with the same food intake.

Probably a pound or two a year loss might be a good start.

September 22nd 05, 10:01 AM
Diane wrote:
> In article om>,
> " > wrote:
>
> > I suspect that she is in fact "obese" although she looks normal and has
> > a bit of a waistline indenting. I weighed her on a more accurate scale
> > and she is actually 11 pounds. I think as a young adult, full-grown,
> > she used to weigh 7.5 pounds. If this is so and the scale was accurate,
> > then she is 40% over her ideal 7.5 weight at 11 pounds. That is "obese"
> > just based on percentages for almost any living creature.
>
> If she has a waist, she's probably not obese. Have you asked your
> veterinarian?
> --
> Web site: http://www.slywy.com/
> Message board: http://www.slywy.com/phpBB2/
> Journal: http://slywy.diaryland.com/

She has some indentation but she also has a pouch so it's the same as
with a human to a degree where there's a big tummy falling over but the
back shows some indentation. Does she look obese, nope. But she does
not look thin with the sagging pouch or udder like a little black and
white cow. I will discuss this with a vet but if the vet were to
disagree without a solid and good reason then I would have to tell the
vet to check the latest scientific literature. Whether the cat is
"obese" or overweight are just metaphors. She has to lose weight or
else she will probably not live longer than her teens, like most pets
that are overweight. When I use the word "obese" - I am using it
technically here. Some people are 30% overweight and no one would think
they are obese, but they are. Some people don't put weight around their
tummies. It's safer that way since tummy weight is the biggest killer
if obese or not or so say the latest surveys on predicting death and
disease.

The main factor for death in humans and pets is overweight. With
adequate nutrition, underweight animals live far longer. See
wwww.walford.com for references about humans. The key is adequate
nutrition. This research started by the way in the vet labs,
interestingly enough.

It's strange. We overfeed because of affection and what else to do if
we can't play games but it's not good. Probably same things happens
with kiddies and why so many are fat here in the USA.

5cats
September 22nd 05, 01:06 PM
wrote:

>> > I suspect that she is in fact "obese" although she looks normal and
>> > has a bit of a waistline indenting. I weighed her on a more
>> > accurate scale and she is actually 11 pounds. I think as a young
>> > adult, full-grown, she used to weigh 7.5 pounds. If this is so and
>> > the scale was accurate, then she is 40% over her ideal 7.5 weight
>> > at 11 pounds. That is "obese" just based on percentages for almost
>> > any living creature.
>>

at 40% overweight, I think she'd look more like a bowling ball rather than
just having a bit of extra tummy. How do you know that 7.5 was really full-
grown? It's good that you're watching her diet, but I'm worried about 7.5
being a realistic goal.

September 22nd 05, 02:00 PM
Diane wrote:
> In article . com>,
> " > wrote:
>
> > I will discuss this with a vet but if the vet were to
> > disagree without a solid and good reason then I would have to tell the
> > vet to check the latest scientific literature.
>
> My one veterinarian doesn't go by weight but appearance -- he doesn't go
> by the, "7.5 pounds is the ideal weight," but whether the cat's weight
> fits its size and frame. For me it's pretty easy to tell my cat's at a
> good weight -- waist, bones aren't under layers of fat, etc. He does
> have a pouch, but then most cats do, and his isn't fat. They've been
> pretty happy with his weight (around 11) when I've taken him in.
> --
> Web site: http://www.slywy.com/
> Message board: http://www.slywy.com/phpBB2/
> Journal: http://slywy.diaryland.com/

You misunderstood what I wrote. 7.5 pounds is the cat's original
weight, that's why it's ideal - for her! It's not a theoretical ideal.
That was her original weight. About appearances. I have seen many make
truly bad decisions about medicine because they went by appearances.
It's not always that easy but it's sure a lot easier for the so-called
doctor to spit out, oh, you look fine rather than do some real thinking
and investigating. In this case, appearances though may be all that's
necessary? Well it's not since I have the historical data at hand.

If we go by appearances, we are dealing with accepted community
standards - a little weight is not so bad, versus what's coming down in
science. If you want to extend life, lose the weight. If I were
ignorant about the science, I could just forget about all this. But
unfortunately, it's something I have followed for years. So it's not
really fair to my cat to cut short her life to the teens when I have
the info to perhaps extend her life into the twenties without too much
trouble. Since most people and most doctors are not familiar with the
scientific literature in this regard, I have to assume responsibilities
that I would prefer to leave to the "professionals."

To sum up, 7.5 pounds is her original weight. If she weighs 11 pounds,
then she is carrying extra weight.

September 22nd 05, 03:33 PM
Diane wrote:
> In article . com>,
> " > wrote:
>
> > That was her original weight.
>
> My original weight was 9 and a half pounds, but even I wouldn't want to
> get down to it. ;)

So you weighed 9 1/2 pounds as an adult at 21? You're being silly.

> I'm not sure why 7.5 is ideal because it was the cat's original weight.
> What if her original weight had been 11? Would that be ideal?

If that were her adult healthy weight, then yes.

> It's not that I misunderstood; I guess I just don't agree.

I don't understand why you have trouble here.

People have healthy adult weights.

So do cats.

When they exceed that weight, they are FAT.

How much do you weigh now compared to when you were 21?

Would you be unhealthy if you lost all that additional weight you have
gained over the years?

Unlikely.

> --
> Web site: http://www.slywy.com/
> Message board: http://www.slywy.com/phpBB2/
> Journal: http://slywy.diaryland.com/

September 22nd 05, 03:40 PM
5cats wrote:
> wrote:
>
> >> > I suspect that she is in fact "obese" although she looks normal and
> >> > has a bit of a waistline indenting. I weighed her on a more
> >> > accurate scale and she is actually 11 pounds. I think as a young
> >> > adult, full-grown, she used to weigh 7.5 pounds. If this is so and
> >> > the scale was accurate, then she is 40% over her ideal 7.5 weight
> >> > at 11 pounds. That is "obese" just based on percentages for almost
> >> > any living creature.
> >>
>
> at 40% overweight, I think she'd look more like a bowling ball rather than
> just having a bit of extra tummy. How do you know that 7.5 was really full-
> grown? It's good that you're watching her diet, but I'm worried about 7.5
> being a realistic goal.

I'm concerned but the science and the data are rather solid here.

The cat was a very healthy adult at 7 1/2 pounds.

I had to go away and left her with others with the strict instructions
to feed her 70 grams of Science Diet a day. The people were nice but
not too bright. They free fed her all she wanted to eat. She's a former
feral. That's just plain ignorant. It's too be expected, they are not
educated. Well, even educated people are stupid like that.

It's not unrealistic and too often in our culture people tell books by
their covers.

With myself, I went back to the weight I was at 21. I got very envious
comments from some nasty doctor about how she could not believe I had a
six-pack without exercising. Nasty woman. Bad, bad doctor.

In any event, I gained back 40 pounds, over 30% of my body weight for a
couple of years. I told people I had to lose it again. They sounded
incredulous. They thought I was too thin as it was.

So again, go by the facts not appearances or impressions. What works
for me works forme. It may not work for you. And all the comments I
receive are usually just plain wrong because they are hasty
generalizations.

About the cat, at least 2 people told me they thought she was too fat.

She really needs to lose a pound or two which is what I originally
said. I am not taking her back to 7.5 right away but I will after I
find a vet who knows and cares about cats and science. That is easier
said than done.

September 22nd 05, 03:51 PM
Diane wrote:
> > at 40% overweight, I think she'd look more like a bowling ball rather than
> > just having a bit of extra tummy. How do you know that 7.5 was really full-
> > grown? It's good that you're watching her diet, but I'm worried about 7.5
> > being a realistic goal.
>
> Exactly! At 40 percent (obese), she'd look grotesque, which I take it is
> not the case.

Nope, you're wrong here. It's not true with me and I doubt it's not
true with my cat. People go by appearances, and that's very wrong at
times. When doctors do it, they are being lazy.

It really depends on the body build. In any event, she is not going on
a diet to lose 40% of her weight. She is going to lose a pound or two
which is about 18% of her current weight. That is a good start and over
a year will allow for a lot of time.

2/11 = 18% :)

I hear so much really bad info. Even with myself. I have had many, many
quacks tell me that if I lost weight, I would not get my six-pack back.
I lost weight for medical reasons, and without even trying, as I said
in another post, I got back a six-pack for my abdomen - just as I had
as a teenager. Where these quacks get their info, I just don't know.

And, I gained 30% of my body weight and had many people tell me I was
still thin. I gave up trying to educate people why carrying 30% extra
fat was very dangerous for me in particular. Maybe not for them but for
me.

In any event, don't anybody worry, I am not rushing into things. I have
been discussing this weight loss with various vets as I look for one
who is patient enough to understand losing weight in the general case
and losing weight for optimal longevity which is a special case.

I don't think you caught my previous reference but for those who are
interested. The scientists, mostly by serendipity, doubled the life
spans of certain primates by controlling caloric intake. So that's an
indication that weight is not trivial for life spans of mammals and
many other living creatures.

Topaz
September 22nd 05, 05:51 PM
> wrote:
>
> The cat was a very healthy adult at 7 1/2 pounds.
>
[...]
>
> She really needs to lose a pound or two which is what I originally
> said. I am not taking her back to 7.5 right away but I will after I
> find a vet who knows and cares about cats and science. That is easier
> said than done.
>

What is the right weight for a young cat is not necessarily the right
weight for an older cat. You sound like your heart is in the right
place but your head may be trying to force your cat into line
with some notions you have about weight that are a bit extreme.
She's a little cat. Let her wear an extra pound if she's happy that
way.

Kiran
September 22nd 05, 06:40 PM
"> wrote:

: The cat was a very healthy adult at 7 1/2 pounds...
: I had to go away and left her with others with the strict instructions
: to feed her 70 grams of Science Diet a day. The people were nice but
: not too bright. They free fed her all she wanted to eat...

It is very clear now that she is overweight and also why. You can bring
her weight down very gradually, she won't even know the difference. No
need to stress out either her or yourself.

September 22nd 05, 07:38 PM
Topaz wrote:
> > wrote:
> >
> > The cat was a very healthy adult at 7 1/2 pounds.
> >
> [...]
> >
> > She really needs to lose a pound or two which is what I originally
> > said. I am not taking her back to 7.5 right away but I will after I
> > find a vet who knows and cares about cats and science. That is easier
> > said than done.
> >
>
> What is the right weight for a young cat is not necessarily the right
> weight for an older cat. You sound like your heart is in the right
> place but your head may be trying to force your cat into line
> with some notions you have about weight that are a bit extreme.
> She's a little cat. Let her wear an extra pound if she's happy that
> way.

You're so right. The weight of most older cats is way too much and they
should aim for young cats' weights. ;)

It's not my heart but my head. I have been perusing the epidemiological
literature in this regard. It's quite tricky. Try it.

The dilemma is that simple studies show people who age and gain weight
and live a simple life live longer. So the obvious conclusion is that
extra fat is not a bad thing. But the deeper studies show that if
someone loses weight but maintains correct nutrition, that person will
live even longer.

The problem is the proper nutrition. A big problem. But we're talking
here about figuring out why people live to be beyond 100 and not just
saying, duh, it's the genes. The genes can be, shall we say, given a
little boost.

What is true for people is also true for animals. The studies are now
at the primate stage, I believe. The epidemiological studies are
looking at the Okinawans for example. They eat less. They are smaller
than the Japanese but they outlive the Japanese.

As I said, this research came out of the vet experimental labs by
accident. I gather none of you know what I am talking about so I'll
keep quiet. If you're interested here's a reference from Walford.com
who died recently. He was the guy in the Biosphere and who popularized
this research for the last 30 years or so and also published scholarly
articles as a research scientist. I corresponded briefly with him to
discuss the area of weight loss.

In any event, as the next person said, the cat, poor baby, needs to
lose a few pounds regardless of any science. She looks like a cow when
she walks and people make fun of her. Actually I have reduced the udder
by half a pound so it's not so bad as it was last year. Slowly we are
getting there. She is now on canned food and dry food and that has put
muscle in place of fat too.

We're working up to exercising but she hates jogging :)

Phil P.
September 22nd 05, 08:55 PM
> wrote in message
ups.com...

In addition, cats lack
> glucokinase, the enzyme used by most mammals to clear glucose from the
> bloodstream.

There's a detailed explanation of how the cat metabolizes carbohydrates on
my site:

http://www.maxshouse.com/feline_nutrition.htm#Dry_Food_vs_Canned_Food.__Whi ch_is_reall

http://www.maxshouse.com/feline_nutrition.htm

Phil P.
September 22nd 05, 08:56 PM
"Diane" > wrote in message news:delenn-


> My one veterinarian doesn't go by weight but appearance -- he doesn't go
> by the, "7.5 pounds is the ideal weight," but whether the cat's weight
> fits its size and frame.

That's the right way to determine a cat's weight status.

http://www.maxshouse.com/nutrition/Body_Scoring_System-Chart.jpg


Phil

Phil P.
September 22nd 05, 09:04 PM
> wrote in message

Whether the cat is
> "obese" or overweight are just metaphors.

"Obese" and "overweight" are actually body condition scores. Overweight is
BCS 6 whereas obese is BCS 8 on the nine point scale.

http://www.maxshouse.com/nutrition/Body_Scoring_System-Chart.jpg

September 22nd 05, 11:17 PM
Phil P. wrote:
> > wrote in message
>
> Whether the cat is
> > "obese" or overweight are just metaphors.
>
> "Obese" and "overweight" are actually body condition scores. Overweight is
> BCS 6 whereas obese is BCS 8 on the nine point scale.
>
> http://www.maxshouse.com/nutrition/Body_Scoring_System-Chart.jpg

Let's see, how about labels instead for body conditions? My cat is
around 6 on the 7 side I reckoned when I was checking her out a long
time ago.

Now I prefer to do a full body fat but she seems disinclined to be
immersed into the pool of water for THE DEFINITIVE analysis. You know
how cats are about swimming pools and add a cage, heck, I wouldn't want
to be caged just for body fat. Not when there are problematic impedance
scales for doing this.

Again, 7.5 is her normal weight and she has not grown since then but
I'll wait until the next vet visit to rehash this. She's not as fat as
most cats I have seen who are house cats. But when we get to jogging
together, she'll slim down.

September 23rd 05, 12:17 AM
Kiran wrote:
> "> wrote:
>
> : The cat was a very healthy adult at 7 1/2 pounds...
> : I had to go away and left her with others with the strict instructions
> : to feed her 70 grams of Science Diet a day. The people were nice but
> : not too bright. They free fed her all she wanted to eat...
>
> It is very clear now that she is overweight and also why. You can bring
> her weight down very gradually, she won't even know the difference. No
> need to stress out either her or yourself.

Thanks for the encouragement. She's been stressed out by this thread
talking about her belly in public and she has lost 1.6 ounces, poor
baby :(

Or the scale finally warmed up :)

Phil P.
September 23rd 05, 01:18 AM
> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Phil P. wrote:
> > > wrote in message
> >
> > Whether the cat is
> > > "obese" or overweight are just metaphors.
> >
> > "Obese" and "overweight" are actually body condition scores.
Overweight is
> > BCS 6 whereas obese is BCS 8 on the nine point scale.
> >
> > http://www.maxshouse.com/nutrition/Body_Scoring_System-Chart.jpg
>
> Let's see, how about labels instead for body conditions?


Naaa, I'd rather stick to BCS since its a universal standard.


My cat is
> around 6 on the 7 side I reckoned when I was checking her out a long
> time ago.

That *is* a body condition score-- and places her between overweight to
heavy



>
> Again, 7.5 is her normal weight



Her normal weight is not necessarily her ideal weight. Her normal weight
could be overweight.


and she has not grown since then but
> I'll wait until the next vet visit to rehash this.


A lot of vets seem to think 6-7 is 'normal' because they see so many
overweight cats. OTOH, they seem to think ideal weight is underweight.

Phil P.
September 23rd 05, 01:23 AM
"Diane" > wrote in message
...
> In article om>,
> " > wrote:
>
> > > It's not that I misunderstood; I guess I just don't agree.
> >
> > I don't understand why you have trouble here.
> >
> > People have healthy adult weights.
> >
> > So do cats.
>
> My veterinarian disagrees, as does Phil. Body condition is a much better
> measure than weight.


Absolutely!

September 23rd 05, 05:53 AM
Diane wrote:
> You know, the newer studies show that the hysteria about obesity is just
> that -- hysteria. There have been some interesting articles about it.
> (Humans here.)

There is a difference between obese and overweight. When you see
someone who because of obesity becomes a TYpe II diabetic who then has
their legs cut amputated, hysteria?, maybe not if you can afford a
motorized wheelchair. I guess it depends on your comfort level.


> I still think eyeballing and telling by feel is a better way to gauge a
> cat's weight than deciding on a precise weight.

Again, this is what the cat's weight was. So it's a guideline. It's
called set point in the longevity literature which you are ignoring.

It's the same as my asking you what your weight was at 21 and what your
weight now is, assuming you are now older than 21.

Come on, fess up, you're much heavier and rationalizing, I betcha...

September 23rd 05, 06:20 AM
Phil P. wrote:
> Naaa, I'd rather stick to BCS since its a universal standard.

I'm all for metrics so it's a start. But it's certainly not as precise
as actually measuring the body fat. It's what we do with humans, yes?

I found actual measurements made the rough charts, for humans, show
that the charts were way off for certain types, like myself. Not
everybody conforms to the chart and the equations and instruments were
far better for determing body fat than any rough guidelines. You may
recall some were combos, like wrist size, skin fold fat and so on. Very
rough but certainly better than outlines in a mirror. Well, more
precise.

But it's real hard for a cat. With humans, we have bio-impedance meters
and calipers and all sorts of interesting gadgets. Now the body fat and
water scales are cheap-cheap and ubiquitous. I missed a chance to buy
one on Amazon.com for $18 - can you believe that? $18 to measure weight
and body fat. Inaccurate for my body type but as a relative index, it's
fine, just fine. I need scales with special measurements since I am not
typical.

> That *is* a body condition score-- and places her between overweight to
> heavy

Yes, I know that and that's why I am discussing it. It's noticing her
body condition that alerted me to the fact that she is carrying more
weight than a smallish cat of her size should. And others noticed it
too which really brought it to my attention. I missed it at first,
really did.

I appreciate your web site and the info.


> Her normal weight is not necessarily her ideal weight. Her normal weight
> could be overweight.

I think here I must strongly disagree with you. She gained the weight
in an extremely short period of time because of free-feeding. That is
not normal regardless of how you look at it. If this happened over
years, okay. Well, not even then. It happened over the course of 3-4
months. That's not her normal weight although it became her normal
weight. Because something becomes routine does not necessarily mean
it's good. It's not all that bad and I could live with it if she can.
But I suspect it's really not good to run around with your belly
hanging down. But that's me.


> A lot of vets seem to think 6-7 is 'normal' because they see so many
> overweight cats. OTOH, they seem to think ideal weight is underweight.


The numbers I see show less serious diseases with underweight animals,
including the human animal, BUT WITH THE CONSTRAINT of adequate
nutrition. This means meeting the amino acid, vitamin, mineral, and
even fatty acid requirements. This is almost impossible to do for sure
without knowing a good bit of science and having software to check up
on the 60 parameters or so.

Can you imagine my saying to someone, are you sure you are getting
enough EPA or medium-chain fatty acids of a certain type? What's your
omega-3 EPA to DHA ratio in general? This can affect brain processing
so a boon for those with mood swings. The USDA, bless their hearts, now
provide this sort of knowledge free of charge. A wonderful thing our
government does. I can't believe how good they are in this regard and
have been for the last 20 years that I have been looking into this.

First there is the problem of knowledge. Then there is the problem of
optimization. Which food would have that missing particular fatty acid
that would fit into the menu?

I don't think most could even say the fiber content or calories of
their meals let alone individual amino acids. What was your intake of
valine today? Yeah, right, see what I mean. Important? Maybe, maybe
not. But real easy with computers to do within seconds now. And not
critical since the body combines amino acids within a 24 hour period
for the complementary aspects of the essential amino acids.

This is just for a for instance. And it's for optimization. Now just
taking things easy is good enough for many without any real thought or
effort for almost a century. Or good genes. But if there are not good
genes, then ...

Again, check out www.walford.com, you might find that interesting. The
tools are free now. You have the knowledge so you might find it
challenging - and there are some simple tests for measuring how the
body is aging. Sometimes we don't want to know ...

Phil P.
September 23rd 05, 09:51 AM
> wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Phil P. wrote:
> > Naaa, I'd rather stick to BCS since its a universal standard.
>
> I'm all for metrics so it's a start. But it's certainly not as precise
> as actually measuring the body fat. It's what we do with humans, yes?


I think you're getting a little carried away.


>
> I found actual measurements made the rough charts, for humans, show
> that the charts were way off for certain types, like myself. Not
> everybody conforms to the chart and the equations and instruments were
> far better for determing body fat than any rough guidelines. You may
> recall some were combos, like wrist size, skin fold fat and so on. Very
> rough but certainly better than outlines in a mirror. Well, more
> precise.


Outlines in a mirror??? That's a new one on me! You've got to be careful
to hold the marker at the same angle every time. LOL! I'm happy with my
weight as long as I can see my dick without bending at the waist.


>
> But it's real hard for a cat. With humans, we have bio-impedance meters
> and calipers and all sorts of interesting gadgets.


I know what you mean. My cats were just complaining the other day about how
hard it is for them to find bio-impedance meters and calipers. They're
really ****ed about that.



Now the body fat and
> water scales are cheap-cheap and ubiquitous. I missed a chance to buy
> one on Amazon.com for $18 - can you believe that? $18 to measure weight
> and body fat.

Why would you want to measure body fat? Are you planning to sell it? I'd
just get rid of it- less hassle.



Inaccurate for my body type but as a relative index, it's
> fine, just fine. I need scales with special measurements since I am not
> typical.


Typical what?


>
> > That *is* a body condition score-- and places her between overweight to
> > heavy
>
> Yes, I know that and that's why I am discussing it. It's noticing her
> body condition that alerted me to the fact that she is carrying more
> weight than a smallish cat of her size should. And others noticed it
> too which really brought it to my attention. I missed it at first,
> really did.


Its difficult to notice gradual weight gain or loss in a cat you see
everyday- especially in long-haired cats. That's why I'm always
recommending weekly weigh-ins on a good pediatric scale.



>
> I appreciate your web site and the info.


Thanks. Someday I'll finish it and connect all the links.

>
>
> > Her normal weight is not necessarily her ideal weight. Her normal
weight
> > could be overweight.
>
> I think here I must strongly disagree with you. She gained the weight
> in an extremely short period of time because of free-feeding. That is
> not normal regardless of how you look at it.


I think you forgot the part you snipped where you said: "Again, 7.5 is her
normal weight". If 7.5# is her 'normal weight' and she's between a BCS 6-7-
then her normal weight is not her ideal weight.




If this happened over
> years, okay. Well, not even then. It happened over the course of 3-4
> months. That's not her normal weight although it became her normal
> weight. Because something becomes routine does not necessarily mean
> it's good.


I think that's what I meant by "Her normal weight is not necessarily her
ideal weight".


It's not all that bad and I could live with it if she can.
> But I suspect it's really not good to run around with your belly
> hanging down. But that's me.


I've seen cats that were so obese that they had sway backs from excess
weight pulling on their spines. That could lead to very serious
musculoskeletal disorders.


>
>
> > A lot of vets seem to think 6-7 is 'normal' because they see so many
> > overweight cats. OTOH, they seem to think ideal weight is underweight.
>
>
> The numbers I see show less serious diseases with underweight animals,


Cats at their ideal weight are at less of risk for diabetes and hepatic
lipidosis and they're also better surgical and anesthesia candidates.



> including the human animal, BUT WITH THE CONSTRAINT of adequate
> nutrition. This means meeting the amino acid, vitamin, mineral, and
> even fatty acid requirements. This is almost impossible to do for sure
> without knowing a good bit of science and having software to check up
> on the 60 parameters or so.


....or you could simply look up the NRC or AAFCO protein, fat, vitamin &
mineral allowances. I have all of them listed on my site.
http://www.maxshouse.com/feline_nutrition.htm


>
> Can you imagine my saying to someone, are you sure you are getting
> enough EPA or medium-chain fatty acids of a certain type? What's your
> omega-3 EPA to DHA ratio in general?


Actually, I can. LOL!



This can affect brain processing
> so a boon for those with mood swings. The USDA, bless their hearts, now
> provide this sort of knowledge free of charge. A wonderful thing our
> government does. I can't believe how good they are in this regard and
> have been for the last 20 years that I have been looking into this.
>
> First there is the problem of knowledge. Then there is the problem of
> optimization. Which food would have that missing particular fatty acid
> that would fit into the menu?
>
> I don't think most could even say the fiber content or calories of
> their meals let alone individual amino acids. What was your intake of
> valine today? Yeah, right, see what I mean. Important? Maybe, maybe
> not. But real easy with computers to do within seconds now. And not
> critical since the body combines amino acids within a 24 hour period
> for the complementary aspects of the essential amino acids.
>
> This is just for a for instance. And it's for optimization. Now just
> taking things easy is good enough for many without any real thought or
> effort for almost a century. Or good genes. But if there are not good
> genes, then ...
>
> Again, check out www.walford.com, you might find that interesting. The
> tools are free now. You have the knowledge so you might find it
> challenging - and there are some simple tests for measuring how the
> body is aging. Sometimes we don't want to know ...


I'll take a look as soon as I'm finished organizing my pantry in
alphabetical order- or should I arrange the items by weight? I can't
decide.



>

September 23rd 05, 05:02 PM
Phil P. wrote:
> Inaccurate for my body type but as a relative index, it's
> > fine, just fine. I need scales with special measurements since I am not
> > typical.
> Typical what?

For some reasons, machines may think I am the "Athletic" type and
miscalculate my body fat. I'm not sure why. I can have a slower than
normal heart rate or I can have low body fat depending on the season.
If the Tanita scales or whatever are consistant, then this is not
important because I can go by the relatives differences. As far as the
absolute value is concerned, I would compute that myself. It's rare a
moderately priced scale can do the absolute body fat well. I did
compute all this once a long time ago. So if the Tanita scale said 20%
body fat, I knew I was really 13% and would go from there. If the next
month the Tanita said 19%, I would know I was really 12%. But it was a
real hassle getting calipers and equations and very expensive machines
and seeing an expert. What was the point? No point. Seriously, I was
determing if the how much of the weight I was losing was muscle over
body fat. Did it matter? It was interesting and yes, losing too quicky
can get muscle over body fat which is not a wonderful achievement since
muscle metabolizes calories much, much better.


> > I think here I must strongly disagree with you. She gained the weight
> > in an extremely short period of time because of free-feeding. That is
> > not normal regardless of how you look at it.
>
>
> I think you forgot the part you snipped where you said: "Again, 7.5 is her
> normal weight". If 7.5# is her 'normal weight' and she's between a BCS 6-7-
> then her normal weight is not her ideal weight.

What I was trying to say was her weight was originaly 7.5 pounds. She
then gained a lot of weight in a few months by someone else free
feeding her. She went from 7.5 pounds to 10 to 11 pounds!

When she was 7.5 pounds, her BCS profile was perfect, no belly,
certainly not anywhere near a BCS 6-7.

At 11 pounds, she is probably a 7 BCS tops, more than 6, 6 1/2? but not
an 8. I gave her a 6-7 because she was listening and you know how a
certain unnamed gender is sensitive to remarks about tummies.


> > Again, check out www.walford.com, you might find that interesting. The
> > tools are free now. You have the knowledge so you might find it
> > challenging - and there are some simple tests for measuring how the
> > body is aging. Sometimes we don't want to know ...
>
>
> I'll take a look as soon as I'm finished organizing my pantry in
> alphabetical order- or should I arrange the items by weight? I can't
> decide.

Don't fret, maybe Walford has a section on how to organize your pantry
so when you are low on linoleic acid, you'll know just which shelf to
go to.

Topaz
September 23rd 05, 06:04 PM
"Phil P." > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> >
> > Phil P. wrote:
> > > Naaa, I'd rather stick to BCS since its a universal standard.
> >
> > I'm all for metrics so it's a start. But it's certainly not as precise
> > as actually measuring the body fat. It's what we do with humans, yes?
>
>
> I think you're getting a little carried away.

I really do too. I tried making that point but it fell on deaf ears.
It really is not fair to subject our cats to our eccentricities. Although
"treeline" is not this bad, this reminds me of vegetarians who try to
have Vegan cats.

>
>
>> Very
> > rough but certainly better than outlines in a mirror. Well, more
> > precise.
>
>
> Outlines in a mirror??? That's a new one on me! You've got to be careful
> to hold the marker at the same angle every time. LOL! I'm happy with my
> weight as long as I can see my dick without bending at the waist.

lol!


> > But it's real hard for a cat. With humans, we have bio-impedance meters
> > and calipers and all sorts of interesting gadgets.
>
>
> I know what you mean. My cats were just complaining the other day about
how
> hard it is for them to find bio-impedance meters and calipers. They're
> really ****ed about that.
>
>

September 23rd 05, 07:38 PM
Topaz wrote:
> > I think you're getting a little carried away.
>
> I really do too. I tried making that point but it fell on deaf ears.
> It really is not fair to subject our cats to our eccentricities. Although
> "treeline" is not this bad, this reminds me of vegetarians who try to
> have Vegan cats.

I do not think you are comprehending what I am posting.

Science is not eccentricities unless you are a luddite or not
conversant with the scientific literature.

Do you read much in the scientific literature? Do you read anything in
science. For example, do you read the medical literature or veterinary
literatue? When was the last time you read any article that was
scientific or technical? Is it too much of a bother for you? Why? Do
you lack the inclination or the education or both?

It's not eccentricities unless you are ignorant of science in which
case, yes, a lot of what I am saying would appear to be eccentric to
you.

It's a pity that many people are not familiar with science. It's also a
pity that many people overfeed their pets and cause illnesses which
could be avoidable.

If people wish to be fat and stupid and lead shortened lives, that is
their privilege as Americans. I'm not so sure it's fair to their pets.

Whta you accuse me of is as stupid as vegans putting carnivores on
herbivore diets. Don't be a hypocrite and accuse me of something that
is the opposite of what I am trying to accomplish.

I am trying to use my brain and science. I suggest you try to do the
same thing. Who knows. You might like it.

If you think that being concerned about a pet being fat is eccentric,
then you are being ignorant, quite literally.

Ignorance is bliss so I gather you trade happiness for knowledge? Most
do.

I need to be blunt with you because I abhor this patronizing attitude
when I am trying to discuss something at a non-idiot level.

Now again, I am not putting my cat on a carrot diet. I am trying to
figure out how much weight she has to lose. If you call this eccentric,
grrrr, you are close to being an absolute idiot, if I may use ad
hominem argument, which is gender free this afternoon :)

Topaz
September 23rd 05, 07:57 PM
> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Topaz wrote:
> > > I think you're getting a little carried away.
> >
> > I really do too. I tried making that point but it fell on deaf ears.
> > It really is not fair to subject our cats to our eccentricities.
Although
> > "treeline" is not this bad, this reminds me of vegetarians who try to
> > have Vegan cats.
>
> I do not think you are comprehending what I am posting.

Sure I do.

>
> Science is not eccentricities unless you are a luddite or not
> conversant with the scientific literature.

You are taking this so-called "science" to a ridiculous degree.
Just reduce your cat's meals a bit, but don't subject her to your
extreme and eccentric ideas about what her "ideal weight" should
be. It is a matter of perspective.

>
> Do you read much in the scientific literature? Do you read anything in
> science. For example, do you read the medical literature or veterinary
> literatue? When was the last time you read any article that was
> scientific or technical? Is it too much of a bother for you? Why? Do
> you lack the inclination or the education or both?
>

This is a really funny assumption. Really funny. I may write the literature
you are reading for all you know. My point is, you are going to extremes
and obsessing over yourcat's precise "ideal weight" like some sort of
compulsive
nutcase. In the name of "science" and in the mistaken belief that you are
better
educated and more enlightened than others. Being very precise and focusing
on minutiae is not always the way to health. Perspective, man.

> It's not eccentricities unless you are ignorant of science in which
> case, yes, a lot of what I am saying would appear to be eccentric to
> you.

I love science. Physics, nutrition science, biology, physiology. However,
your uh, energetic approach to the simple problem of taking a pound or
two off of your cat is fanatical. In fact, your approach to the management
of your own body sounds pretty "out there." Perspective. Zoom out a
little.

>
> It's a pity that many people are not familiar with science. It's also a
> pity that many people overfeed their pets and cause illnesses which
> could be avoidable.

My cats are in great shape. It's not astrophysics, "treeline." If
they begin to get a bit pudgy I cut back on the food by 1/4
until they are at a healthy weight. I can tell a healthy weight by
looking at them and watching how they act.

>
> If people wish to be fat and stupid and lead shortened lives, that is
> their privilege as Americans. I'm not so sure it's fair to their pets.

Jump to conclusions much? I am fit and trim, as are my cats. I am
just not a fanatic. You must be very troubled when fitness gurus
drop head early despite doing every thing perfectly all their lives.
A healthy life comes about as a combination of knowledge of
nutrition and physiology, the importance of diet and exercise in
other words, and the pursuit of a happy life. It'a a balancing act
more likely to be achieved by perspective than extremes.

>
> Whta you accuse me of is as stupid as vegans putting carnivores on
> herbivore diets. Don't be a hypocrite and accuse me of something that
> is the opposite of what I am trying to accomplish.

Um. I think this level of intensity and effort might be better applied
to other things. It simply is not necessary for you or your cat--the
difference is, you can choose but your cat cannot. Lighten up a bit.

>
> I am trying to use my brain and science. I suggest you try to do the
> same thing. Who knows. You might like it.
>
> If you think that being concerned about a pet being fat is eccentric,
> then you are being ignorant, quite literally.
>
> Ignorance is bliss so I gather you trade happiness for knowledge? Most
> do.
>
> I need to be blunt with you because I abhor this patronizing attitude
> when I am trying to discuss something at a non-idiot level.
>
> Now again, I am not putting my cat on a carrot diet. I am trying to
> figure out how much weight she has to lose. If you call this eccentric,
> grrrr, you are close to being an absolute idiot, if I may use ad
> hominem argument, which is gender free this afternoon :)
>

I am so sorry. I must be mistaken. There is nothing eccentric
at all about the post above.

September 23rd 05, 08:10 PM
Topaz wrote:
> You are taking this so-called "science" to a ridiculous degree.
> Just reduce your cat's meals a bit, but don't subject her to your
> extreme and eccentric ideas about what her "ideal weight" should
> be. It is a matter of perspective.

A cat gains almost half her weight in a few months, adds 3 1/2 pounds
to 7 1/2 pounds to weigh in at 11 pounds and you think my concern is
extreme and eccentric?

And you call this eccentric and extreme - a concern of a 47% weight
gain?

Are you a troll or are you really this dense?

Topaz
September 23rd 05, 08:16 PM
> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Topaz wrote:
> > You are taking this so-called "science" to a ridiculous degree.
> > Just reduce your cat's meals a bit, but don't subject her to your
> > extreme and eccentric ideas about what her "ideal weight" should
> > be. It is a matter of perspective.
>
> A cat gains almost half her weight in a few months, adds 3 1/2 pounds
> to 7 1/2 pounds to weigh in at 11 pounds and you think my concern is
> extreme and eccentric?
>
> And you call this eccentric and extreme - a concern of a 47% weight
> gain?

You have an interesting way of deciding exactly what part of your odd
diatribe I am referring to. In any case, your extreme "scientific method"
as you like to think of it, is not necessary.


Just cut her food back by 1/4 and get on with your life.

September 23rd 05, 09:09 PM
Topaz wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > Topaz wrote:
> > > You are taking this so-called "science" to a ridiculous degree.
> > > Just reduce your cat's meals a bit, but don't subject her to your
> > > extreme and eccentric ideas about what her "ideal weight" should
> > > be. It is a matter of perspective.
> >
> > A cat gains almost half her weight in a few months, adds 3 1/2 pounds
> > to 7 1/2 pounds to weigh in at 11 pounds and you think my concern is
> > extreme and eccentric?
> >
> > And you call this eccentric and extreme - a concern of a 47% weight
> > gain?
>
> You have an interesting way of deciding exactly what part of your odd
> diatribe I am referring to. In any case, your extreme "scientific method"
> as you like to think of it, is not necessary.
>
>
> Just cut her food back by 1/4 and get on with your life.

You can't admit that you made a mistake and are quite dense.

It's really not difficult, in fact, you do not have to use all the
fingers on your hand.

A 47% weight gain is something to be considered. Try thinking instead
of using platitudes. It will give your life depth and save you from the
shallows of your brain.

Topaz
September 23rd 05, 09:28 PM
> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Topaz wrote:
> > > wrote in message
> > oups.com...
> > >
> > > Topaz wrote:
> > > > You are taking this so-called "science" to a ridiculous degree.
> > > > Just reduce your cat's meals a bit, but don't subject her to your
> > > > extreme and eccentric ideas about what her "ideal weight" should
> > > > be. It is a matter of perspective.
> > >
> > > A cat gains almost half her weight in a few months, adds 3 1/2 pounds
> > > to 7 1/2 pounds to weigh in at 11 pounds and you think my concern is
> > > extreme and eccentric?
> > >
> > > And you call this eccentric and extreme - a concern of a 47% weight
> > > gain?
> >
> > You have an interesting way of deciding exactly what part of your odd
> > diatribe I am referring to. In any case, your extreme "scientific
method"
> > as you like to think of it, is not necessary.
> >
> >
> > Just cut her food back by 1/4 and get on with your life.
>
> You can't admit that you made a mistake and are quite dense.

*Sigh* What mistake? You are overcomplicating things.

>
> It's really not difficult, in fact, you do not have to use all the
> fingers on your hand.

Very clever.

>
> A 47% weight gain is something to be considered. Try thinking instead
> of using platitudes. It will give your life depth and save you from the
> shallows of your brain.
>

I understand that you are offended, but listening to you belaboring
something as simple as cutting your cat's food back by a quarter and
playing with her more to see that she gets more exercise was just
getting too painful to watch.

I understand that you are interested in nutrition and science as
many of us are.

Still, all you need to do is put your cat on a premium cat food
and reduce her daily intake by 1/4. Everything else is just
mental masturbation. You may enjoy it, but it is definitely not
a spectator sport.

Flaming is fun, though, isn't it?

Phil P.
September 23rd 05, 10:51 PM
> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Topaz wrote:
> > > wrote in message
> > oups.com...


> >
> > You have an interesting way of deciding exactly what part of your odd
> > diatribe I am referring to. In any case, your extreme "scientific
method"
> > as you like to think of it, is not necessary.
> >
> >
> > Just cut her food back by 1/4 and get on with your life.
>
> You can't admit that you made a mistake and are quite dense.


Point out the mistake because I didn't see one- other than yours by
over-complicating a rather simple solution with trivial details.



>
> It's really not difficult, in fact, you do not have to use all the
> fingers on your hand.


The solution isn't so complicated that you need bio-impedance meters and
calipers to figure it out.




>
> A 47% weight gain is something to be considered.


No one said it shouldn't be. Its your pedantic concern for trivial details
that's annoying.


Try thinking instead
> of using platitudes. It will give your life depth and save you from the
> shallows of your brain.


Don't feel bad, Einstein also had trouble with simple math.

I'll give you two solutions to your problem and let you choose the one
that's more complicated:

Plan #1: Reduce your cat's daily caloric intake by 25% until her weight
plateaus. When the reduced caloric intake becomes her maintenance diet,
reduce her daily caloric intake by an additional 10% until she plateaus
again. Follow the same reduce/plateau/reduce/plateau pattern in 10%
increments until she reaches her target weight. Do not allow her to lose
more than one pound every four weeks. If she begins losing more than 1# a
month, increase her daily caloric intake by 5%-10% or as much as necessary
to slow her weight loss to 1#/4 weeks.

Plan #2: This is a sliding target weight, stepwise plan: If she weighs
11#, set her target weight at 9# and feed her the DER for a 9# cat. When she
reaches the target weight of #9 she should plateau, then set a new target
weight of 7# or whatever weight that will place her in BCS 5. Again, don't
set target weights that will result in a loss of more than 1#/4 weeks.

Phil P.
September 23rd 05, 10:56 PM
"Nomen Nescio" ]> wrote in message
...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> From: "Topaz" >
>
> >You are taking this so-called "science" to a ridiculous degree.
> >Just reduce your cat's meals a bit, but don't subject her to your
> >extreme and eccentric ideas about what her "ideal weight" should
> >be. It is a matter of perspective.
>
> I saw a study, a while ago, where researchers concluded
> that people who are between 2 - 5% above their "ideal"
> weight tend to be healthier and live longer than people at
> their "ideal" weight.
> Hmmmmmm?????????????????????????


We can't really go by weight in cats. That's why the body condition score
system is so good. Nevertheless, I think 2-5% above ideal is perfectly
acceptable for cats.

Phil

September 23rd 05, 11:53 PM
Phil P. wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > Topaz wrote:
> > > > wrote in message
> > > oups.com...
>
>
> > >
> > > You have an interesting way of deciding exactly what part of your odd
> > > diatribe I am referring to. In any case, your extreme "scientific
> method"
> > > as you like to think of it, is not necessary.
> > >
> > >
> > > Just cut her food back by 1/4 and get on with your life.
> >
> > You can't admit that you made a mistake and are quite dense.
>
>
> Point out the mistake because I didn't see one- other than yours by
> over-complicating a rather simple solution with trivial details.


The you does not refer to you but to Topaz.

Are you really sure you want to jump in here? I was not addressing you
but Topaz had to jump in wiht her airhead comments.


> > It's really not difficult, in fact, you do not have to use all the
> > fingers on your hand.
>
>
> The solution isn't so complicated that you need bio-impedance meters and
> calipers to figure it out.
>
>
>
>
> >
> > A 47% weight gain is something to be considered.
>
>
> No one said it shouldn't be. Its your pedantic concern for trivial details
> that's annoying.


Like what? Remember, it's all in the details.


> Try thinking instead
> > of using platitudes. It will give your life depth and save you from the
> > shallows of your brain.
>
>
> Don't feel bad, Einstein also had trouble with simple math.
>
> I'll give you two solutions to your problem and let you choose the one
> that's more complicated:
>
> Plan #1: Reduce your cat's daily caloric intake by 25% until her weight
> plateaus. When the reduced caloric intake becomes her maintenance diet,
> reduce her daily caloric intake by an additional 10% until she plateaus
> again. Follow the same reduce/plateau/reduce/plateau pattern in 10%
> increments until she reaches her target weight. Do not allow her to lose
> more than one pound every four weeks. If she begins losing more than 1# a
> month, increase her daily caloric intake by 5%-10% or as much as necessary
> to slow her weight loss to 1#/4 weeks.
>
> Plan #2: This is a sliding target weight, stepwise plan: If she weighs
> 11#, set her target weight at 9# and feed her the DER for a 9# cat. When she
> reaches the target weight of #9 she should plateau, then set a new target
> weight of 7# or whatever weight that will place her in BCS 5. Again, don't
> set target weights that will result in a loss of more than 1#/4 weeks.

Okay, that's pleasant to point that out and what I was doing anyway.

BUT, here it's the details again which you find annoying but what you
are saying above - it's not what you posted a while ago.

You'll correct me if I'm wrong but you said not to lose more than 1%
because of losing muscle over fat. Now what exactly is the 1% referring
to. You did say that, yes? 1 pound a month would be 10% not 1%. So the
1% refers to a week or did someone else say that?

About that target weigths, that is also helpful and if you'll recall we
discussed that with RER or Resting Energy Requirements.

Again, you're jumping into an argument that was addressed to Topaz, not
to you unless you are also Topaz. Well, it's the weekend, maybe you're
cross-dressing again. Never know on the 'net.

Topaz
September 23rd 05, 11:57 PM
> wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Phil P. wrote:
> > > wrote in message
> > oups.com...
> > >
> > > Topaz wrote:
> > > > > wrote in message
> > > > oups.com...
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > > You have an interesting way of deciding exactly what part of your
odd
> > > > diatribe I am referring to. In any case, your extreme "scientific
> > method"
> > > > as you like to think of it, is not necessary.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Just cut her food back by 1/4 and get on with your life.
> > >
> > > You can't admit that you made a mistake and are quite dense.
> >
> >
> > Point out the mistake because I didn't see one- other than yours by
> > over-complicating a rather simple solution with trivial details.
>
>
> The you does not refer to you but to Topaz.
>
> Are you really sure you want to jump in here? I was not addressing you
> but Topaz had to jump in wiht her airhead comments.
>

Airhead=simple logic.

September 24th 05, 12:00 AM
Topaz wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > Topaz wrote:
> > > > wrote in message
> > > oups.com...
> > > >
> > > > Topaz wrote:
> > > > > You are taking this so-called "science" to a ridiculous degree.
> > > > > Just reduce your cat's meals a bit, but don't subject her to your
> > > > > extreme and eccentric ideas about what her "ideal weight" should
> > > > > be. It is a matter of perspective.
> > > >
> > > > A cat gains almost half her weight in a few months, adds 3 1/2 pounds
> > > > to 7 1/2 pounds to weigh in at 11 pounds and you think my concern is
> > > > extreme and eccentric?
> > > >
> > > > And you call this eccentric and extreme - a concern of a 47% weight
> > > > gain?
> > >
> > > You have an interesting way of deciding exactly what part of your odd
> > > diatribe I am referring to. In any case, your extreme "scientific
> method"
> > > as you like to think of it, is not necessary.
> > >
> > >
> > > Just cut her food back by 1/4 and get on with your life.
> >
> > You can't admit that you made a mistake and are quite dense.
>
> *Sigh* What mistake? You are overcomplicating things.

Because you make big boo-boo and me go very slow with you.

What is complex for little Topaz is not complex for me.

My brain does not thrive on TV and silly ripostes.

Ripostes - internal pun on posting. Get it? See we make progress.


> >
> > It's really not difficult, in fact, you do not have to use all the
> > fingers on your hand.
>
> Very clever.

Actually it's not all that clever even if you are into interdigitation.

The cat gained 3 1/2 pounds so it's awkward to do on your fingers
unless you lost half a digit. I can tell you've lost half your mind and
how I envy you. I really do. Going through life, a little here and a
little there, not putting all that much mental effort into anything
other than opening your email.


> >
> > A 47% weight gain is something to be considered. Try thinking instead
> > of using platitudes. It will give your life depth and save you from the
> > shallows of your brain.
> >
>
> I understand that you are offended, but listening to you belaboring
> something as simple as cutting your cat's food back by a quarter and
> playing with her more to see that she gets more exercise was just
> getting too painful to watch.
>
> I understand that you are interested in nutrition and science as
> many of us are.
>
> Still, all you need to do is put your cat on a premium cat food
> and reduce her daily intake by 1/4. Everything else is just
> mental masturbation. You may enjoy it, but it is definitely not
> a spectator sport.
>
> Flaming is fun, though, isn't it?

You threw the first match - I was just relaxing and all of a sudden I
see this patronizing witch, a veritable kerosene apparition talking
about me. Don't gossip. It's what the little people do.

Topaz
September 24th 05, 12:56 AM
> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Topaz wrote:
> > > wrote in message
> > oups.com...
> > >
> > > Topaz wrote:
> > > > > wrote in message
> > > > oups.com...
> > > > >
> > > > > Topaz wrote:
> > > > > > You are taking this so-called "science" to a ridiculous degree.
> > > > > > Just reduce your cat's meals a bit, but don't subject her to
your
> > > > > > extreme and eccentric ideas about what her "ideal weight" should
> > > > > > be. It is a matter of perspective.
> > > > >
> > > > > A cat gains almost half her weight in a few months, adds 3 1/2
pounds
> > > > > to 7 1/2 pounds to weigh in at 11 pounds and you think my concern
is
> > > > > extreme and eccentric?
> > > > >
> > > > > And you call this eccentric and extreme - a concern of a 47%
weight
> > > > > gain?
> > > >
> > > > You have an interesting way of deciding exactly what part of your
odd
> > > > diatribe I am referring to. In any case, your extreme "scientific
> > method"
> > > > as you like to think of it, is not necessary.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Just cut her food back by 1/4 and get on with your life.
> > >
> > > You can't admit that you made a mistake and are quite dense.
> >
> > *Sigh* What mistake? You are overcomplicating things.
>
> Because you make big boo-boo and me go very slow with you.
>
> What is complex for little Topaz is not complex for me.
>
> My brain does not thrive on TV and silly ripostes.
>
> Ripostes - internal pun on posting. Get it? See we make progress.
>
>
> > >
> > > It's really not difficult, in fact, you do not have to use all the
> > > fingers on your hand.
> >
> > Very clever.
>
> Actually it's not all that clever even if you are into interdigitation.
>
> The cat gained 3 1/2 pounds so it's awkward to do on your fingers
> unless you lost half a digit. I can tell you've lost half your mind and
> how I envy you. I really do. Going through life, a little here and a
> little there, not putting all that much mental effort into anything
> other than opening your email.
>
>
> > >
> > > A 47% weight gain is something to be considered. Try thinking instead
> > > of using platitudes. It will give your life depth and save you from
the
> > > shallows of your brain.
> > >
> >
> > I understand that you are offended, but listening to you belaboring
> > something as simple as cutting your cat's food back by a quarter and
> > playing with her more to see that she gets more exercise was just
> > getting too painful to watch.
> >
> > I understand that you are interested in nutrition and science as
> > many of us are.
> >
> > Still, all you need to do is put your cat on a premium cat food
> > and reduce her daily intake by 1/4. Everything else is just
> > mental masturbation. You may enjoy it, but it is definitely not
> > a spectator sport.
> >
> > Flaming is fun, though, isn't it?
>
> You threw the first match - I was just relaxing and all of a sudden I
> see this patronizing witch, a veritable kerosene apparition talking
> about me. Don't gossip. It's what the little people do.
>

You're still overcomplicating the feeding issue. Which is the point.

September 24th 05, 01:01 AM
Topaz wrote:

> > The you does not refer to you but to Topaz.
> >
> > Are you really sure you want to jump in here? I was not addressing you
> > but Topaz had to jump in wiht her airhead comments.
> >
>
> Airhead=simple logic.

Because the logic is simple does not mean the logic is correct.

Just because 1 + 1 = 2 does not mean that 1 + 1 = 1. Your computer was
built around Boolean logic but it does ordinary arithmetic for you. And
although the basic logic of the computer is almost trivial, no one, not
even you, would say that a computer is simple and trivial. So don't
mistake parsimony for truth. It's nice to have but it can't take the
place of accuracy.

Again, your mistake was in confusing what I said about my cat with what
I posted about longevity research. The longevity research is quite
complex and that is not something I would post again because it's too
complex. Fine. This is a cat's group. And anyway it's a touchy area
that gets into lifestyles and way too much science except for those who
are very comfortable with math and biochemistry and so forth.

The cat is simple logic. She gained almost half her weight in a few
months. THAT IS BAD.

Even you, yes you, can comprehend that is a No-No. A naughty, not nice.

Now instead of reflexively replying, try thinking. Take a deep breath.
It's something you might learn to enjoy, like a breath of fresh,
ozonated air :) after the storm.

Phil P.
September 24th 05, 01:05 AM
> wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Phil P. wrote:
> > > wrote in message
> > oups.com...
> > >
> > > Topaz wrote:
> > > > > wrote in message
> > > > oups.com...
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > > You have an interesting way of deciding exactly what part of your
odd
> > > > diatribe I am referring to. In any case, your extreme "scientific
> > method"
> > > > as you like to think of it, is not necessary.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Just cut her food back by 1/4 and get on with your life.
> > >
> > > You can't admit that you made a mistake and are quite dense.
> >
> >
> > Point out the mistake because I didn't see one- other than yours by
> > over-complicating a rather simple solution with trivial details.
>
>
> The you does not refer to you but to Topaz.


This is Usnet- there are no private conversations.


>
> Are you really sure you want to jump in here? I was not addressing you
> but Topaz had to jump in wiht her airhead comments.


Again, this is Usnet- there are no private conversations. Her comments were
basically the same as mind: You're over-complicating the issue.


>
>
> > > It's really not difficult, in fact, you do not have to use all the
> > > fingers on your hand.
> >
> >
> > The solution isn't so complicated that you need bio-impedance meters and
> > calipers to figure it out.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > A 47% weight gain is something to be considered.
> >
> >
> > No one said it shouldn't be. Its your pedantic concern for trivial
details
> > that's annoying.
>
>
> Like what? Remember, it's all in the details.


Yeah, but you take it to the sub-atomic level. Extraneous details only
confuse people and complicate an already frustrating matter. Weight loss in
cats is frustrating enough without adding distracting blather


>
>
> > Try thinking instead
> > > of using platitudes. It will give your life depth and save you from
the
> > > shallows of your brain.
> >
> >
> > Don't feel bad, Einstein also had trouble with simple math.
> >
> > I'll give you two solutions to your problem and let you choose the one
> > that's more complicated:
> >
> > Plan #1: Reduce your cat's daily caloric intake by 25% until her weight
> > plateaus. When the reduced caloric intake becomes her maintenance diet,
> > reduce her daily caloric intake by an additional 10% until she plateaus
> > again. Follow the same reduce/plateau/reduce/plateau pattern in 10%
> > increments until she reaches her target weight. Do not allow her to
lose
> > more than one pound every four weeks. If she begins losing more than 1#
a
> > month, increase her daily caloric intake by 5%-10% or as much as
necessary
> > to slow her weight loss to 1#/4 weeks.
> >
> > Plan #2: This is a sliding target weight, stepwise plan: If she weighs
> > 11#, set her target weight at 9# and feed her the DER for a 9# cat. When
she
> > reaches the target weight of #9 she should plateau, then set a new
target
> > weight of 7# or whatever weight that will place her in BCS 5. Again,
don't
> > set target weights that will result in a loss of more than 1#/4 weeks.
>
> Okay, that's pleasant to point that out and what I was doing anyway.
>
> BUT, here it's the details again which you find annoying but what you
> are saying above - it's not what you posted a while ago.


Its not the details of the weight-loss plan that's annoying, its all the
other ostentatious scientific blather about bio-impedance meters, calipers,
measuring body fat, etc. that does not apply to cats and only complicates
the issue for people who aren't rocket scientists like you.


>
> You'll correct me if I'm wrong but you said not to lose more than 1%
> because of losing muscle over fat. Now what exactly is the 1% referring
> to. You did say that, yes? 1 pound a month would be 10% not 1%. So the
> 1% refers to a week or did someone else say that?


I said no more than 1% a week or 1# every 4 weeks whichever is less.


>
> About that target weigths, that is also helpful and if you'll recall we
> discussed that with RER or Resting Energy Requirements.
>
> Again, you're jumping into an argument that was addressed to Topaz, not
> to you unless you are also Topaz.


This is Usnet- there are no private conversations.



Well, it's the weekend, maybe you're
> cross-dressing again. Never know on the 'net.

I know what you mean. I haven't figured out if you're male or female- you
have the characteristics of both. Maybe you're a hermaphrodite- which are
usually frigid and impotent simultaneously.

Phil P.
September 24th 05, 01:05 AM
> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Topaz wrote:
>
> > > The you does not refer to you but to Topaz.
> > >
> > > Are you really sure you want to jump in here? I was not addressing you
> > > but Topaz had to jump in wiht her airhead comments.
> > >
> >
> > Airhead=simple logic.
>
> Because the logic is simple does not mean the logic is correct.
>
> Just because 1 + 1 = 2 does not mean that 1 + 1 = 1. Your computer was
> built around Boolean logic but it does ordinary arithmetic for you. And
> although the basic logic of the computer is almost trivial, no one, not
> even you, would say that a computer is simple and trivial.


That's exactly what I mean by ostentatious scientific blather that does not
apply to cats and only complicates the issue at hand.

September 24th 05, 02:01 AM
Phil P. wrote:
> > Like what? Remember, it's all in the details.


> Yeah, but you take it to the sub-atomic level. Extraneous details only
> confuse people and complicate an already frustrating matter. Weight loss in
> cats is frustrating enough without adding distracting blather

> I said no more than 1% a week or 1# every 4 weeks whichever is less.

Now that's clear.

By the way, thanks for the compliment of calling me a name like a
rocket scientist or taking things to the sub-atomic level.

But mentionining Boolean algebra over a computer network is not really
all that technical. If it is, we are in deep, deep, trouble. Come on,
your IQ's are at least in the triple digits.

> I know what you mean. I haven't figured out if you're male or female- you
> have the characteristics of both. Maybe you're a hermaphrodite- which are
> usually frigid and impotent simultaneously.

gender mender bender $10.95 at Walmart, used to be a lot cheaper.

Phil P.
September 24th 05, 04:11 AM
> wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Phil P. wrote:
> > > Like what? Remember, it's all in the details.
>
>
> > Yeah, but you take it to the sub-atomic level. Extraneous details only
> > confuse people and complicate an already frustrating matter. Weight
loss in
> > cats is frustrating enough without adding distracting blather
>
> > I said no more than 1% a week or 1# every 4 weeks whichever is less.
>
> Now that's clear.
>
> By the way, thanks for the compliment of calling me a name like a
> rocket scientist or taking things to the sub-atomic level.


No thanks are necessary. Its always a pleasure to compliment an anal
retentive.


>
> But mentionining Boolean algebra over a computer network is not really
> all that technical. If it is, we are in deep, deep, trouble. Come on,
> your IQ's are at least in the triple digits.


Is that including decimal places?



>
> > I know what you mean. I haven't figured out if you're male or female-
you
> > have the characteristics of both. Maybe you're a hermaphrodite- which
are
> > usually frigid and impotent simultaneously.
>
> gender mender bender $10.95 at Walmart, used to be a lot cheaper.


Nothing better than a reference from someone whose had first hand experience
with a product.


>

September 24th 05, 09:14 PM
Phil P. wrote:
> No thanks are necessary. Its always a pleasure to compliment an anal
> retentive.

and complement I might add.


> > gender mender bender $10.95 at Walmart, used to be a lot cheaper.
>
>
> Nothing better than a reference from someone whose had first hand experience
> with a product.

With the introduction of USB into USA they stopped selling the little
buggers.

Phil P.
September 25th 05, 11:57 AM
> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Phil P. wrote:
> > No thanks are necessary. Its always a pleasure to compliment an anal
> > retentive.
>
> and complement I might add.


You don't get it, do you? You may be book smart but you don't have any
common sense. Your pedantic blather about trivial and extraneous details is
not only tiresome, it also confuses and frustrates people who just want
simple answers for how to feed their cats properly or to get their cats to
lose weight safely.

If you want to show off your scientific knowledge about the universe- show
it off to people who give a ****.

September 25th 05, 06:01 PM
Phil P. wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > Phil P. wrote:
> > > No thanks are necessary. Its always a pleasure to compliment an anal
> > > retentive.
> >
> > and complement I might add.
>
>
> You don't get it, do you? You may be book smart but you don't have any
> common sense. Your pedantic blather about trivial and extraneous details is
> not only tiresome, it also confuses and frustrates people who just want
> simple answers for how to feed their cats properly or to get their cats to
> lose weight safely.
>
> If you want to show off your scientific knowledge about the universe- show
> it off to people who give a ****.

Getting your bowels in an uproar? What's wrong with you that you cannot
handle a conversation above the idiot level? Come on, people are not
that stupid. I throw out a word or two, if people cannot tolerate it
here then fine. But I am talking life and death and pets. If people
really care about their pets and are not fat-assed hypocrites, then
they will pay a little attention.

I do get it. You can handle a word with more than one syllable, or not?

Topaz
September 25th 05, 06:06 PM
"Phil P." > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > Phil P. wrote:
> > > No thanks are necessary. Its always a pleasure to compliment an anal
> > > retentive.
> >
> > and complement I might add.
>
>
> You don't get it, do you? You may be book smart but you don't have any
> common sense. Your pedantic blather about trivial and extraneous details
is
> not only tiresome, it also confuses and frustrates people who just want
> simple answers for how to feed their cats properly or to get their cats to
> lose weight safely.


Yep. I wanted to mention the latter, but was afraid I might be trying to
justify my simple annoyance with a more noble origin. But yes, there are
a lot of fat cats out there, and no it is not a complicated matter to help
them reduce. And this is not the Treeline Show.

Topaz
September 25th 05, 06:13 PM
> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Phil P. wrote:
> > > wrote in message
> > oups.com...
> > > Phil P. wrote:
> > > > No thanks are necessary. Its always a pleasure to compliment an
anal
> > > > retentive.
> > >
> > > and complement I might add.
> >
> >
> > You don't get it, do you? You may be book smart but you don't have any
> > common sense. Your pedantic blather about trivial and extraneous
details is
> > not only tiresome, it also confuses and frustrates people who just want
> > simple answers for how to feed their cats properly or to get their cats
to
> > lose weight safely.
> >
> > If you want to show off your scientific knowledge about the universe-
show
> > it off to people who give a ****.
>
> Getting your bowels in an uproar? What's wrong with you that you cannot
> handle a conversation above the idiot level? Come on, people are not
> that stupid. I throw out a word or two, if people cannot tolerate it
> here then fine. But I am talking life and death and pets. If people
> really care about their pets and are not fat-assed hypocrites, then
> they will pay a little attention.
>
> I do get it. You can handle a word with more than one syllable, or not?
>

Honestly, I tried to be gentle, but you really are an idiot, all your
theories aside,
if only because you get aggressive when you make a mistake instead of just
admitting it. We are all wrong at one time or another, "sixpack abs" and
"scientific" training notwithstanding. Learn to shut up and move on when
you are wrong. It will make you look less aggressively stupid. Aside
from this topic you have had some good things to offer.

September 25th 05, 06:20 PM
Topaz wrote:
> "Phil P." > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > > wrote in message
> > oups.com...
> > > Phil P. wrote:
> > > > No thanks are necessary. Its always a pleasure to compliment an anal
> > > > retentive.
> > >
> > > and complement I might add.
> >
> >
> > You don't get it, do you? You may be book smart but you don't have any
> > common sense. Your pedantic blather about trivial and extraneous details
> is
> > not only tiresome, it also confuses and frustrates people who just want
> > simple answers for how to feed their cats properly or to get their cats to
> > lose weight safely.
>
>
> Yep. I wanted to mention the latter, but was afraid I might be trying to
> justify my simple annoyance with a more noble origin. But yes, there are
> a lot of fat cats out there, and no it is not a complicated matter to help
> them reduce. And this is not the Treeline Show.

It is my show. I started the thread. And for confusing people? Simple
answers? That's what God is for. Simple answers to complex problems.

If you are annoyed, then don't read the thread. But you should ask
yourself if you are annoyed because you do not like anything that is
more than 10 seconds in length. Have you ever worked through complex
problems?

Sure you can say weight problems are simple and make life into sound
bytes. But the real truth of the matter is that it is an extremely
complex subject for which there has been a scientific debate for the
last 30 years at least.

And it deals with life and death and that is what this group is about.
It is not an excuse for a quilting party or tea and watercress
sandwiches, dear ;)

September 25th 05, 10:31 PM
Diane wrote:
> In article . com>,
> " > wrote:
>
> > Have you ever worked through complex
> > problems?
>
> I'm sure we all have. You're not the only genius on the planet.

I don't know why you are jumping back in the thread except to take
another cheap shot that has no intelligence in it. You said previously
you were "done." Apparently you suffer from memory or what you say is
not what you mean?

If you are sure that "we all have" - I'll call your bluff. You are not
telling the truth here. Now tell me what complex problem have you ever
solved in your entire life other than what to buy at the store? Come
on. Name a complex problem you have addressed. Where to get your
mortgage? What dress to buy? What to make for breakfast?

You wish to be rude because I asked questions fine, let's see if you're
capable of original thought of any kind. I can tell by the dullness of
your comments that you have never, ever addressed a complex problem of
any kind at any time in your entire life. So don't use the royal "we."

But prove me wrong. Take a nuclear device. A rather ordinary 18 year
old kid solved that problem. He did a good job. Are you capable of
original thought as that kid was and this was before the internet.

Could you figure out how to make a nuclear device as that kid did
because he was failing his physics class? He got an A by the way and a
visit from officials in the government who were not amused.

> But reducing weight in a cat does not require the same level of thought
> application as, say, building a nuclear device.

It's a different type of thought. But the question of weight and
longevity is far more difficult simply because the data are not
constant or unknown. When you build inanimate explosive devices, the
math is complicated but predictable in a very narrow range.

Do you know anything about building a nuclear device? I doubt it. I
doubt you even know what isotopes are involved. If you knew anything
about science or epidemiology, you would know that discussing a cat and
weight or humans and fatasses is a difficult and complex area. So
complex that it's a lot easier in a way to discuss nuclear devices than
the data.

But you don't know that because you only want to believe in the simple
explanation.

Tell me for what made the universe - do you say God did it and that's
enough for you?

> The most effective diet for diabetics is to eat measured portions of a
> balanced diet, filling up on such things as leafy greens, enhanced by
> regular exercise.
>
> Oddly, this would work for most people seeking to lose weight if they
> weren't into fads and quick fixes. My dad, on this diet, lost 75 lbs. at
> age 65 and kept it off until his death at 88.
>
> And, oddly, measured portions of a balanced diet, plus exercise, will
> get a cat to lose weight safely. A lot of us have achieved that with our
> cats without going utterly anal about it.
>
> It's not rocket science, but common sense.
>
> Now I am done.

That's what you said before. Time to check your oven, sweetie pie :)

Now I am done. Now I am done. That's what you always say. Come on and
use all three of your brain cells. And stop saying things just to make
noise.

Try it. Some studies say overweight is not so bad for humans. But the
animal studies said underweight animals lived twice as long. That is a
paradox or a contradiction that needs to be resolved. Twice as long is
not a trivial matter, especially if you are the animal involved.

So what is the best weight? Is it really below the normal weight that
everyone has been saying? How much below? Let's see, around 20% below
the set point.

Okay Scottie, beam me up, I'm "done" - at least for a few seconds.

Ask a few questions, not even a big words, and all the dummies get in
on the act. Sheeeeeesh.

> --
> Web site: http://www.slywy.com/
> Message board: http://www.slywy.com/phpBB2/
> Journal: http://slywy.diaryland.com/

Topaz
September 25th 05, 10:39 PM
> wrote in message
ups.com...
> Diane wrote:
> > In article . com>,
> > " > wrote:
> >
> > > Have you ever worked through complex
> > > problems?
> >
> > I'm sure we all have. You're not the only genius on the planet.
>
> I don't know why you are jumping back in the thread except to take
> another cheap shot that has no intelligence in it. You said previously
> you were "done." Apparently you suffer from memory or what you say is
> not what you mean?
>
> If you are sure that "we all have" - I'll call your bluff. You are not
> telling the truth here. Now tell me what complex problem have you ever
> solved in your entire life other than what to buy at the store? Come
> on. Name a complex problem you have addressed. Where to get your
> mortgage? What dress to buy? What to make for breakfast?
>
> You wish to be rude because I asked questions fine, let's see if you're
> capable of original thought of any kind. I can tell by the dullness of
> your comments that you have never, ever addressed a complex problem of
> any kind at any time in your entire life. So don't use the royal "we."
>
> But prove me wrong. Take a nuclear device. A rather ordinary 18 year
> old kid solved that problem. He did a good job. Are you capable of
> original thought as that kid was and this was before the internet.
>
> Could you figure out how to make a nuclear device as that kid did
> because he was failing his physics class? He got an A by the way and a
> visit from officials in the government who were not amused.
>
> > But reducing weight in a cat does not require the same level of thought
> > application as, say, building a nuclear device.
>
> It's a different type of thought. But the question of weight and
> longevity is far more difficult simply because the data are not
> constant or unknown. When you build inanimate explosive devices, the
> math is complicated but predictable in a very narrow range.
>
> Do you know anything about building a nuclear device? I doubt it. I
> doubt you even know what isotopes are involved. If you knew anything
> about science or epidemiology, you would know that discussing a cat and
> weight or humans and fatasses is a difficult and complex area. So
> complex that it's a lot easier in a way to discuss nuclear devices than
> the data.
>
> But you don't know that because you only want to believe in the simple
> explanation.
>
> Tell me for what made the universe - do you say God did it and that's
> enough for you?
>
> > The most effective diet for diabetics is to eat measured portions of a
> > balanced diet, filling up on such things as leafy greens, enhanced by
> > regular exercise.
> >
> > Oddly, this would work for most people seeking to lose weight if they
> > weren't into fads and quick fixes. My dad, on this diet, lost 75 lbs. at
> > age 65 and kept it off until his death at 88.
> >
> > And, oddly, measured portions of a balanced diet, plus exercise, will
> > get a cat to lose weight safely. A lot of us have achieved that with our
> > cats without going utterly anal about it.
> >
> > It's not rocket science, but common sense.
> >
> > Now I am done.
>
> That's what you said before. Time to check your oven, sweetie pie :)
>
> Now I am done. Now I am done. That's what you always say. Come on and
> use all three of your brain cells. And stop saying things just to make
> noise.
>
> Try it. Some studies say overweight is not so bad for humans. But the
> animal studies said underweight animals lived twice as long. That is a
> paradox or a contradiction that needs to be resolved. Twice as long is
> not a trivial matter, especially if you are the animal involved.
>
> So what is the best weight? Is it really below the normal weight that
> everyone has been saying? How much below? Let's see, around 20% below
> the set point.
>
> Okay Scottie, beam me up, I'm "done" - at least for a few seconds.
>
> Ask a few questions, not even a big words, and all the dummies get in
> on the act. Sheeeeeesh.
>
>

That was a beautiful K00kout meltdown.

A thing of beauty, "sweetie pie."

Are you middle eastern?

Topaz
September 26th 05, 12:44 AM
"Diane" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Topaz" > wrote:
>
> > A thing of beauty, "sweetie pie."
>
> It made me laugh. :D
> --

Especially from a guy who goes ballistic at what he
sees as people "condescending" to him. Hoo, boy! :)

Phil P.
September 26th 05, 01:07 AM
> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Phil P. wrote:
> > > wrote in message
> > oups.com...
> > > Phil P. wrote:
> > > > No thanks are necessary. Its always a pleasure to compliment an
anal
> > > > retentive.
> > >
> > > and complement I might add.
> >
> >
> > You don't get it, do you? You may be book smart but you don't have any
> > common sense. Your pedantic blather about trivial and extraneous
details is
> > not only tiresome, it also confuses and frustrates people who just want
> > simple answers for how to feed their cats properly or to get their cats
to
> > lose weight safely.
> >
> > If you want to show off your scientific knowledge about the universe-
show
> > it off to people who give a ****.
>
> Getting your bowels in an uproar?


I'm sure your pedantic, pretentious, and ostentatious blather has that
affect on many people.


What's wrong with you that you cannot
> handle a conversation above the idiot level?


I'm simply replying to an idiot savant with no common sense.


Come on, people are not
> that stupid. I throw out a word or two,


Bull****. You complicate simple issues with trivial and irrelevant details
so that any actually useful information in the thread gets lost in all your
verbalism. Look at the major production you made out of the simple matter
of the typical analyses for Fancy Feast. And now you're turning the simple
matter of body condition scoring into some complicated 'scientific' equation
by talking about bio-impedance meters and calipers and full body immersion
in a water pool. Get a grip- or let go- whichever applies.

Are you familiar with the concept of overanalyzing are you just an anal
retentive neurotic that can't follow a map because all the symbols aren't
exactly the same size?



if people cannot tolerate it
> here then fine. But I am talking life and death and pets.


It looks more like you're talking more about your own 'scientific wisdom's
than a practical method for feeding cats.


If people
> really care about their pets and are not fat-assed hypocrites, then
> they will pay a little attention.


IOW, people who have a weight problem are "fat-assed hypocrites" and should
wade through all your **** to find some small tidbit of useful information--
that you just leaned yourself. I was right: you don't have any common
sense.



>
> I do get it. You can handle a word with more than one syllable, or not?


It doesn't look like you get it because you're still babbling. Maybe you
should try using less words! LOL!

Phil P.
September 26th 05, 01:07 AM
"Topaz" > wrote in message ...
>
> "Phil P." > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > > wrote in message
> > oups.com...
> > > Phil P. wrote:
> > > > No thanks are necessary. Its always a pleasure to compliment an
anal
> > > > retentive.
> > >
> > > and complement I might add.
> >
> >
> > You don't get it, do you? You may be book smart but you don't have any
> > common sense. Your pedantic blather about trivial and extraneous
details
> is
> > not only tiresome, it also confuses and frustrates people who just want
> > simple answers for how to feed their cats properly or to get their cats
to
> > lose weight safely.
>
>
> Yep. I wanted to mention the latter, but was afraid I might be trying to
> justify my simple annoyance with a more noble origin. But yes, there are
> a lot of fat cats out there, and no it is not a complicated matter to help
> them reduce. And this is not the Treeline Show.


She thinks it is.

The most important aspects of a weight loss program for cats is patience and
simplicity.

Phil P.
September 26th 05, 01:08 AM
> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Topaz wrote:
> > "Phil P." > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > > wrote in message
> > > oups.com...
> > > > Phil P. wrote:
> > > > > No thanks are necessary. Its always a pleasure to compliment an
anal
> > > > > retentive.
> > > >
> > > > and complement I might add.
> > >
> > >
> > > You don't get it, do you? You may be book smart but you don't have
any
> > > common sense. Your pedantic blather about trivial and extraneous
details
> > is
> > > not only tiresome, it also confuses and frustrates people who just
want
> > > simple answers for how to feed their cats properly or to get their
cats to
> > > lose weight safely.
> >
> >
> > Yep. I wanted to mention the latter, but was afraid I might be trying to
> > justify my simple annoyance with a more noble origin. But yes, there are
> > a lot of fat cats out there, and no it is not a complicated matter to
help
> > them reduce. And this is not the Treeline Show.
>
> It is my show. I started the thread.


LOL! . It doesn't work like that. You're new to Usenet, aren't you?

Phil P.
September 26th 05, 01:08 AM
"Kiran" > wrote in message
...
> "> wrote:
>
> : The cat was a very healthy adult at 7 1/2 pounds...
> : I had to go away and left her with others with the strict instructions
> : to feed her 70 grams of Science Diet a day. The people were nice but
> : not too bright. They free fed her all she wanted to eat...
>
> It is very clear now that she is overweight and also why. You can bring
> her weight down very gradually, she won't even know the difference. No
> need to stress out either her or yourself.

It wouldn't be any fun for him/her if it wasn't stressful or complicated.

Phil P.
September 26th 05, 01:18 AM
"Nomen Nescio" ]> wrote in message
...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> From: Diane >
>
> >The most effective diet for diabetics is to eat measured portions of a
> >balanced diet, filling up on such things as leafy greens, enhanced by
> >regular exercise.
> >
> >Oddly, this would work for most people seeking to lose weight if they
> >weren't into fads and quick fixes. My dad, on this diet, lost 75 lbs. at
> >age 65 and kept it off until his death at 88.
>
> With all the fad diet books out there, I've thought of writing
> one and cashing in.
>
> "The First Law of Thermodynamics Diet"
>
> There would be only one page, with one line:
>
> "(Calories in) - (Calories out) + (Calories stored) = (Calories
remaining)"


What you should do is advertise a "scientifically proven program for
guaranteed weight loss: $199.99 + 9.95 Shipping & Handling" Whoever sends
you a check, send them back a little Post It with
"(Calories in) - (Calories out) + (Calories stored) = (Calories remaining)"
printed on them. Its legit!

Don't forget to cut me in for 50%.

Phil

Topaz
September 26th 05, 01:39 AM
"Phil P." > wrote > The most important aspects of a
weight loss program for cats is patience and
> simplicity.
>

And a hard enough heart to ignore those plaintiff yowls for snacks at all
hours. :)

Phil P.
September 26th 05, 03:24 AM
"Topaz" > wrote in message ...
>
> "Phil P." > wrote > The most important aspects of a
> weight loss program for cats is patience and
> > simplicity.
> >
>
> And a hard enough heart to ignore those plaintiff yowls for snacks at all
> hours. :)


Cats hold midnight meetings on how to make the most effective pitiful looks
and sounds that will make us breakdown and give in. You think I'm kidding?
While my cats were eating, I stole a book they had hidden under their bed
cushion. Here's an excerpt from their manual on how to take over a family:

"This pair looked exactly like the family I wanted, so I jumped onto the
screen door, clung there, and cried piteously.

They looked up at me from their breakfast. I knew exactly how I appeared to
them from the other side of the screen door. Irresistible! I pretended to
lose my grip on the mesh and fell off, and then climbed back up again,
crying all the time.

The woman said, "Oh look! The poor little thing, it wants to come in. Maybe
it's hungry. I'll give it some milk."

Just as I expected! I had her. All I needed was to get one paw inside the
door and---"

See? Its all a plan. Wait- it gets worse:

"I can think of no better phrase to apply when we move in upon human beings.
Overnight everything is changed for them; their homes, as well as in time
their customs and habits, are no longer their own. From then on they belong
to us.

You need have no fear about embarking upon such a program. It is only
oppor*tunities, methods, and people that differ. The take-over instinct is
in all of us, and has enabled us to survive unaltered and dominant through
thousands of years in a constantly changing world. We have always known how
to look after ourselves, nor is there any limit to what we can achieve. You
have only to glance back into your own history to verify this. In Egypt less
than five thousand years ago we made our*selves God. Dogs could be kicked
from pillar to post, but anyone who insulted or did anything to one of us
had his head cut off."

So watch out! They know exactly what they're doing! ;-)

Phil

September 26th 05, 04:33 AM
Phil P. wrote:

> I'm simply replying to an idiot savant with no common sense.

That's an oxymoron, Phil. When you find an idiot savant with common
sense, you do not have an idiot savant any more. And if I were an idiot
savant without common sense, as you put it, why are you replying to me?
Just who is the idiot here? In any event, the term High Functioning
Autistic is politically correct. Just say HFA.

You also said something about my making a big to-do over Fancy Feast.

I wanted to know the phosphorus levels, which you supplied. And also
the kilocalories. You supplied some of the info but I had to get
additional info from Purina to cover the brands of Fancy Feast that I
was purchasing for my little beastie.

Additionally, you asked me for information about the Fancy Feast. Don't
you recall? You asked me the date of the latest info - nasty fellow you
be.

I found that Purina was giving out the wrong info over the telephone.
That is not good. They were confusing the Dry Matter Basis. Apparently
the young ladies answering the phones did not know what exactly it was.

Since all Fancy Feast is 78% moisture, you divide all the numbers by
0.22 to get the Dry Matter Basis. I did speak to the manager and she
agreed and said Purina would likely check this out and correct the
information they were giving out.

As I pointed out, most likely, it's a wrong constant in their Excel
spreadsheet or something along those lines so all the numbers were
wrong.

And they gave me free coupons which is why I started this thread to ask
your advice.

Okay, it's almost midnight but I know where my cat is, inside.

September 26th 05, 04:36 AM
Topaz wrote:
> That was a beautiful K00kout meltdown.
>
> A thing of beauty, "sweetie pie."
>
> Are you middle eastern?

Thank you. You know the way to a man's heart, except I have an upset
tummy, hence my losing my usual sweet, kind and loving countenance.

So what do you say, we have a felafel somewhere?

Topaz
September 26th 05, 04:42 AM
> wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Topaz wrote:
> > That was a beautiful K00kout meltdown.
> >
> > A thing of beauty, "sweetie pie."
> >
> > Are you middle eastern?
>
> Thank you. You know the way to a man's heart, except I have an upset
> tummy, hence my losing my usual sweet, kind and loving countenance.
>
> So what do you say, we have a felafel somewhere?
>

So you are indeed middle eastern?

September 26th 05, 04:52 AM
Topaz wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> >
> > Topaz wrote:
> > > That was a beautiful K00kout meltdown.
> > >
> > > A thing of beauty, "sweetie pie."
> > >
> > > Are you middle eastern?
> >
> > Thank you. You know the way to a man's heart, except I have an upset
> > tummy, hence my losing my usual sweet, kind and loving countenance.
> >
> > So what do you say, we have a felafel somewhere?
> >
>
> So you are indeed middle eastern?

The Mid-Atlantic states are middle eastern, literally. And you're from
the Bible Belt, mais oui?

Phil P.
September 26th 05, 07:02 AM
> wrote in message
ups.com...
> Phil P. wrote:
>
> > I'm simply replying to an idiot savant with no common sense.
>
> That's an oxymoron, Phil. When you find an idiot savant with common
> sense, you do not have an idiot savant any more.


Would you feel better if I just said you may have technical knowledge but no
common sense? That does seem more appropriate,




>
> You also said something about my making a big to-do over Fancy Feast.
>
> I wanted to know the phosphorus levels, which you supplied. And also
> the kilocalories. You supplied some of the info but I had to get
> additional info from Purina to cover the brands of Fancy Feast that I
> was purchasing for my little beastie.
>
> Additionally, you asked me for information about the Fancy Feast. Don't
> you recall? You asked me the date of the latest info - nasty fellow you
> be.


Actually, you were quoting numbers from an outdated list- that's why I
corrected you. You said only two Fancy Feast diets contained 0.80%
phosphorus
or less. I said you were wrong and showed you about 10 diets that 0.81% or
less. You insisted the Katkarma list was up to date even though "Revised:
12-Oct-2003" was clearly printed at the bottom of the page. You also said
"But Fancy Feast has not been updated probably because it's still the
same,"- which of course is not true-- as you found out after reading the
*current* Fancy Feast typical analyses on my site and receiving your own
copies from Purina.


> I found that Purina was giving out the wrong info over the telephone.
> That is not good. They were confusing the Dry Matter Basis. Apparently
> the young ladies answering the phones did not know what exactly it was.


Actually, I think you got the product lines mixed up-- and probably confused
the person at Purina with all the trivial and extraneous babble you usually
include. FF Turkey & Giblets Feast contains 0.45% phos. "As Fed" or 2.04%
DMB. However, FF Turkey & Giblets Feast in the *Sliced* diet line contains
0.23% phos. "As Fed" which *indeed* translates into 1.04% phosphorus "DMB".
So, Purina was probably correct and you simply confused the product lines.


>
> Since all Fancy Feast is 78% moisture, you divide all the numbers

Yes, yes yes. You don't have to explain the same formula to me that I
explained to you. See what I mean?

September 26th 05, 07:28 AM
Phil P. wrote:

> Actually, you were quoting numbers from an outdated list- that's why I
> corrected you. You said only two Fancy Feast diets contained 0.80%
> phosphorus
> or less. I said you were wrong and showed you about 10 diets that 0.81% or
> less. You insisted the Katkarma list was up to date even though "Revised:
> 12-Oct-2003" was clearly printed at the bottom of the page. You also said
> "But Fancy Feast has not been updated probably because it's still the
> same,"- which of course is not true-- as you found out after reading the
> *current* Fancy Feast typical analyses on my site and receiving your own
> copies from Purina.

That's about half true, not bad. I did make a mistake on 1/2 the site,
the other part was updated to 2005 but did not include Fancy Feast. The
woman who runs the site apparently decided not to update the previous
stuff even though she stated she would. So it's good this gets out in
the open and others will realize the numbers have changed in the last
two years. I sent her some emails to update her site but she never did.


> Actually, I think you got the product lines mixed up-- and probably confused
> the person at Purina with all the trivial and extraneous babble you usually
> include. FF Turkey & Giblets Feast contains 0.45% phos. "As Fed" or 2.04%
> DMB. However, FF Turkey & Giblets Feast in the *Sliced* diet line contains
> 0.23% phos. "As Fed" which *indeed* translates into 1.04% phosphorus "DMB".
> So, Purina was probably correct and you simply confused the product lines.

This is silly and presumptuous on your part. There were not any product
lines to mix up. The numbers were simply wrong in and of themselves. If
you have .22 phosphorus as fed, then dry matter is 1.00% phosphorus,
dividing by 0.22 for the dry matter percentage. To say that it's .60%
is just plain wrong and misleading in that the phosphorus is low.
Generally, the phosphorus content of Fancy Feast is high to extremely
high. How many are okay, 10 out of 60? It may not matter but it should
be on the cans themselves, the phosphorus content and the kilocalories
or caloric content. It's not on the cans and it's not on the web site
which is inexcusable for the largest company? Who is larger than
Purina?

And about dividing by 0.22, you may know that, but the people at Purina
did not know that and others reading this post may not know it. It's a
very simple conversion though so it does not hurt to repeat for the
sake of others.

Phil P.
September 26th 05, 08:46 AM
> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Phil P. wrote:
>
> > Actually, you were quoting numbers from an outdated list- that's why I
> > corrected you. You said only two Fancy Feast diets contained 0.80%
> > phosphorus
> > or less. I said you were wrong and showed you about 10 diets that 0.81%
or
> > less. You insisted the Katkarma list was up to date even though
"Revised:
> > 12-Oct-2003" was clearly printed at the bottom of the page. You also
said
> > "But Fancy Feast has not been updated probably because it's still the
> > same,"- which of course is not true-- as you found out after reading the
> > *current* Fancy Feast typical analyses on my site and receiving your own
> > copies from Purina.
>
> That's about half true, not bad. I did make a mistake on 1/2 the site,
> the other part was updated to 2005 but did not include Fancy Feast.


Bull****. Fancy Feast Diets are incorporated in the general list (with all
the other brands). The list was last Revised: 12-Oct-2003.
http://webpages.charter.net/katkarma/canfood.htm There is no "other part"
of the list- other than the dry cat food section- which is also outdated (
Revised: 05-Nov-2003) http://webpages.charter.net/katkarma/dryfood.htm


>
> > Actually, I think you got the product lines mixed up-- and probably
confused
> > the person at Purina with all the trivial and extraneous babble you
usually
> > include. FF Turkey & Giblets Feast contains 0.45% phos. "As Fed" or
2.04%
> > DMB. However, FF Turkey & Giblets Feast in the *Sliced* diet line
contains
> > 0.23% phos. "As Fed" which *indeed* translates into 1.04% phosphorus
"DMB".
> > So, Purina was probably correct and you simply confused the product
lines.
>
> This is silly and presumptuous on your part.


No, its a rational and prudent explanation for your blunder. Don't get too
depressed and defensive over it; many people don't realize Fancy Feast makes
different formulations of the same diets.


There were not any product
> lines to mix up.

More bull****. Fancy Feast makes *three* lines of the Turkey & Giblets
diet: *Filet & Pate* Turkey & Giblets Feast, *Sliced* Turkey & Giblets
Feast, and Turkey & Giblets Feast. Based on my experience with Purina, I
think you probably transposed the numbers from one version to another or
forgot which product line you were referring to because you were babbling
incessantly trying to show them how much you know. LOL!

September 26th 05, 02:56 PM
Phil P. wrote:
> Bull****. Fancy Feast Diets are incorporated in the general list (with all
> the other brands). The list was last Revised: 12-Oct-2003.
> http://webpages.charter.net/katkarma/canfood.htm There is no "other part"
> of the list- other than the dry cat food section- which is also outdated (
> Revised: 05-Nov-2003) http://webpages.charter.net/katkarma/dryfood.htm

http://webpages.charter.net/katkarma/dry.htm

This is the "other part" - try to comprehend. Look at it again, come
on, you can read.

DRY CAT FOOD
DRY MATTER ANALYSIS (Updated 3/28/05)
Numbers ordered by Phosphorus content for CRF cats
All Original Mfg were contacted, these responded, see Old Dry Food Page


> More bull****. Fancy Feast makes *three* lines of the Turkey & Giblets
> diet: *Filet & Pate* Turkey & Giblets Feast, *Sliced* Turkey & Giblets
> Feast, and Turkey & Giblets Feast. Based on my experience with Purina, I
> think you probably transposed the numbers from one version to another or
> forgot which product line you were referring to because you were babbling
> incessantly trying to show them how much you know. LOL!

You don't know because you were not there. They made mistakes. You make
mistakes. We all make mistakes. But to assume something as ignorant as
what you post above, concerning conversations with manufacturers and
their talking heads - is arrogance on your part. In this case your
arrogance supercedes your ignorance. Congratulations!

I gather your knowledge is limited to textbooks and what hands-on
experience you have?

You seem completely out of water when it comes to the scientific
literature. I'm surprised that you don't know more. If you do, post
something about weights and long-term research concerning felines. I'm
all ears, dude.

Any reference, preferably a longitudinal cohort followed for at least 5
years that is prospective in design.

If you don't know how to search Medline, that's okay, I'll do it later
and don't worry I won't post anything on a cat newsgroup dealing with
health and behavior. I mean, after all, what would the National Library
of Medicine have to do with health?
Anything. Let's see some real info for a change.

September 26th 05, 03:54 PM
This is the "other part" - try to comprehend. Look at it again, come
on, you can read.

DRY CAT FOOD
DRY MATTER ANALYSIS (Updated 3/28/05)
Numbers ordered by Phosphorus content for CRF cats
All Original Mfg were contacted, these responded, see Old Dry Food Page

September 26th 05, 03:59 PM
http://webpages.charter.net/katkarma/dry.htm

There's the URL that's on the original page for the other part.

You probably missed it in your rush to diatribe.

September 26th 05, 04:04 PM
More bull****. Fancy Feast makes *three* lines of the Turkey & Giblets
diet: *Filet & Pate* Turkey & Giblets Feast, *Sliced* Turkey & Giblets
Feast, and Turkey & Giblets Feast. Based on my experience with Purina,
I
think you probably transposed the numbers from one version to another
or
forgot which product line you were referring to because you were
babbling
incessantly trying to show them how much you know. LOL!

You're quite wrong here too. There were not any numbers to transpose.
So you are just plain wrong.

When they told me the numbers over the phone, I pointed out that was
logically impossible since the As Fed should be the Dry Matter Basis
divided by the percentage which is always 0.22 or 22% for all their
Fancy Feast.

September 26th 05, 04:09 PM
Topaz wrote:
> Honestly, I tried to be gentle, but you really are an idiot, all your
> theories aside,

Try to be accurate. They are not my theories. I appreciate the accolade
but it's just not so. A scientist who did try to bring the theory to
the public was Roy Walford, a pathologist at UCLA. The original
research was presumably out of the vet research centers.

Do you have bipolar episodes that render you incapable of
comprehension?

> if only because you get aggressive when you make a mistake instead of just
> admitting it. We are all wrong at one time or another, "sixpack abs" and
> "scientific" training notwithstanding. Learn to shut up and move on when

I never mentioned any scientific training. I think you and Phil P. are
just assuming that because I used logic. Sorry about that. I'll try not
to do that in the future.

> you are wrong. It will make you look less aggressively stupid. Aside
> from this topic you have had some good things to offer.

If you have trouble following an argument, then yes, people will look
stupid or idiotic to you. Is that why you change your screen name from
time to time? Start over with a clean slate and give those a time to
clue in. Interesting.

5cats
September 26th 05, 06:09 PM
wrote:

> I mean, after all, what would the National Library
> of Medicine have to do with health?
>

The real question is, what's it got to do with *feline* health?

Topaz
September 26th 05, 06:38 PM
> foamed in message
oups.com...
> This is the "other part" - try to comprehend. Look at it again, come on,
you can read.
>

Um. "Treeline?" If you are going to K00k out like this every time someone
pokes you with a stick, there are
going to be a lot of people poking you with sticks. It may be wrong but it
is highly entertaining watching you foam at the mouth.

September 26th 05, 07:02 PM
5cats wrote:
> wrote:
>
> > I mean, after all, what would the National Library
> > of Medicine have to do with health?
> >
>
> The real question is, what's it got to do with *feline* health?

If you decide to use the National Library of Medicine, you would find
that feline studies are included. It's much better, as I alluded in
that deleted post, to use the original resources than the textbooks. A
text is not bad but it's never as thorough or as accurate as the real,
original sources. It's more like Cliff Notes.

FELINE!
Your search request has found 10,561 REFERENCES through Level 1.

So there are over 10,000 medical, scientific articles dealing with
felines in the National Library of Medicine's data base. I just did a
quick search using Feline! which is for truncation. So it would include
feline and felines, for example.

Since you are interested in the health of cats, you might want to use
this resource. It is available to the public as:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed

I find this a good starting point. For example, when I heard that
canned food was helpful in preventing urinary problems with cats, I
searched the data base. And there was an excellent article from Europe
which detailed canned food and crystals in the urine. Apparently there
was a complete absence of crystals in the urine in cats fed 100% canned
diets. That's a good starting point in that particular debate. And
those fed 1/2 and 1/2 had some crystals and so on. But it certainly
grabs one attention when one reads 100% absence. You don't often see
that in any scientific article. As I recall, and it's been quite a few
years, they took into consideration storage and other possible
contaminations that could occur in the testing.

One could add that it's really the definitive source for humans. I can
only wish that more doctors would use it. There is probably something
just for vets but this is free and not a bad start, a START, not the
finish.

Phil P.
September 26th 05, 09:28 PM
> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Phil P. wrote:
> > Bull****. Fancy Feast Diets are incorporated in the general list (with
all
> > the other brands). The list was last Revised: 12-Oct-2003.
> > http://webpages.charter.net/katkarma/canfood.htm There is no "other
part"
> > of the list- other than the dry cat food section- which is also outdated
(
> > Revised: 05-Nov-2003) http://webpages.charter.net/katkarma/dryfood.htm
>
> http://webpages.charter.net/katkarma/dry.htm
>
> This is the "other part" - try to comprehend. Look at it again, come
> on, you can read.


Yes I saw that list when Noreen first uploaded it 6 months ago. Fancy Feast
is not on that list. Look at it again - try to comprehend. The values for
Fancy Feast that you posted were from an outdated list that clearly stated:
"Revised: 12-Oct-2003" yet you insisted the list was not outdated.
Surprising that an pedantic, anal retentive neurotic would miss such an
obvious detail.



> > More bull****. Fancy Feast makes *three* lines of the Turkey & Giblets
> > diet: *Filet & Pate* Turkey & Giblets Feast, *Sliced* Turkey & Giblets
> > Feast, and Turkey & Giblets Feast. Based on my experience with Purina,
I
> > think you probably transposed the numbers from one version to another or
> > forgot which product line you were referring to because you were
babbling
> > incessantly trying to show them how much you know. LOL!
>
> You don't know because you were not there.


Yeah, but I know how you babble on and on about trivial and extraneous
details trying to show off what a 'scientist' you are and that's enough from
which to draw a likely conclusion. The person on the phone either forgot
what the hell you were actually talking about or she dosed off from boredom
while you were babbling incessantly. Your posts could be used as therapy
for insomniacs that don't respond to strong drugs. LOL!


>
> I gather your knowledge is limited to textbooks and what hands-on
> experience you have?


Yeah, limited to about 45 years of experience working with thousands of
stray, feral, shelter and pet cats and dozens of vets, pathologists and
labs. And limited to operating a clinic for cats that have special needs
and cats that require rehabilitation before they can be adoptable. And, as
a matter of fact, I do have a rather extensive veterinary medical library--
more extensive than most general practioners. Where exactly does your
"fountain of wisdom" about cats come from? The web! LOL! You clearly have
no or very, very little experience or practical knowledge.



> You seem completely out of water when it comes to the scientific
> literature.

Quite the contrary. My library consists of tens of thousands of dollars in
veterinary medical texts and I subscribe to several veterinary medical
journals. I just don't babble on about it- I used to-- but I learned that
it
only confuses people and puts them off-- as you're learning- or hopefully
learning. However, I
know how to blend 'scientific literature' with practical real life
experience-- which you don't. If you read the studies that say cats are
asocial and solitary animals, you'd believe them because they're 'scientific
literature" regardless of reality! LOL! But fret not, if you stop
babbling long enough, I'll educate you some more about real life cats.
You've already learned more about feline nutrition from me than you ever
knew before.

Consider this advice and constructive criticism- and learn from it.

Phil P.
September 26th 05, 09:29 PM
> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Topaz wrote:

> > if only because you get aggressive when you make a mistake instead of
just
> > admitting it. We are all wrong at one time or another, "sixpack abs" and
> > "scientific" training notwithstanding. Learn to shut up and move on when
>
> I never mentioned any scientific training. I think you and Phil P. are
> just assuming that because I used logic.

You don't use logic, you babble on and on about trivial and extraneous and
irrelevant details trying to show off how 'scientific' you are. I know
you're not a scientist- I've worked with enough of them to know the real
thing when I see it -- and you're a long way from it.

Phil P.
September 26th 05, 09:30 PM
> wrote in message
oups.com...
> This is the "other part" - try to comprehend. Look at it again, come
> on, you can read.

If you plan to play on Usenet, learn how to post properly. Include a
reference to the post to which you're replying so people can get an idea of
what the hell you're talking about-- even you don't.

Phil P.
September 26th 05, 10:04 PM
"Topaz" > wrote in message ...
>
> > foamed in message
> oups.com...
> > This is the "other part" - try to comprehend. Look at it again, come on,
> you can read.
> >
>
> Um. "Treeline?" If you are going to K00k out like this every time someone
> pokes you with a stick, there are
> going to be a lot of people poking you with sticks. It may be wrong but it
> is highly entertaining watching you foam at the mouth.


I tried to explain and correct him politely in the "cat foods and too much
sugar" thread- but he's obtuse and insisted he was right and I was wrong
even after I *showed* him where he was wrong. He just kept babbling on and
on. Now he's trying to turn the simple method of body condition scoring
into brain surgery by babbling useless, trivial, and pedantic details that
only confuses people. That's why I "poked him with a stick". But does he
learn- Noooooooooooooooooooooooo. He just gets more obstinate and defensive
and babbles even more incessantly.

I guess I should be a little gentler with people who have such fragile egos
that bruise so easily. I should, but--- you're right! It is highly
entertaining watching him foam at the mouth. LOL!

Phil

Pearl
September 27th 05, 12:35 AM
"Topaz" > wrote in message
...
>
> > foamed in message
> oups.com...
>> This is the "other part" - try to comprehend. Look at it again,
>> come on,
> you can read.
>>
>
> Um. "Treeline?" If you are going to K00k out like this every time
> someone
> pokes you with a stick, there are
> going to be a lot of people poking you with sticks. It may be wrong
> but it
> is highly entertaining watching you foam at the mouth.
>
>

From: "Topaz" >
Newsgroups: rec.pets.cats.health+behav
References: >
. com>
>
. com>
>
om>
>
om>
>
. com>
>
. com>
>
om>
>
. com>
>
. com>
. com>
Subject: Re: Phil P - what you recommend from Purina
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 13:38:30 -0400
Lines: 13
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1506
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1506
NNTP-Posting-Host: x-privat.org
Message-ID: >
Organization: X-Privat NNTP Server - http://www.x-privat.org
X-Authenticated-User:

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Is this an oops? Isn't that from "cybercats" email address header?


X-Complaints-To:
Path: x-privat.org!not-for-mail

September 27th 05, 01:13 AM
Phil P. wrote:

> > This is the "other part" - try to comprehend. Look at it again, come
> > on, you can read.
>
>
> Yes I saw that list when Noreen first uploaded it 6 months ago. Fancy Feast
> is not on that list. Look at it again - try to comprehend. The values for
> Fancy Feast that you posted were from an outdated list that clearly stated:
> "Revised: 12-Oct-2003" yet you insisted the list was not outdated.
> Surprising that an pedantic, anal retentive neurotic would miss such an
> obvious detail.

What Phil P. says about Treeline tells more about Phil P. than it does
about Treeline.

I took her at her word that she would be updating all her lists as
information came in. Does that sound anal retentive? Nope, not at all.

> Yeah, but I know how you babble on and on about trivial and extraneous
> details trying to show off what a 'scientist' you are and that's enough from
> which to draw a likely conclusion. The person on the phone either forgot
> what the hell you were actually talking about or she dosed off from boredom
> while you were babbling incessantly. Your posts could be used as therapy
> for insomniacs that don't respond to strong drugs. LOL!


Nothing that complex. She did not know how to do Dry Matter Basis from
the As Fed. It's a simple conversion. Just like Celsius to Fahrenheit.
However, the supplied or prepared numbers for the Dry Matter Basis were
simply wrong. Someone entered the constant incorrectly. The As Fed
numbers were correct. The simple conversions were not. The manager
understood this and could see that someone was not dividing the As Fed
by 22%. Just a mistake in the spreadsheet or conversion nubmers.

I have said this three times so far. That's enough. If you do not wish
to comprehend, that's okay. Whatever floats your boat.


> > I gather your knowledge is limited to textbooks and what hands-on
> > experience you have?
>
>
> Yeah, limited to about 45 years of experience working with thousands of
> stray, feral, shelter and pet cats and dozens of vets, pathologists and
> labs. And limited to operating a clinic for cats that have special needs
> and cats that require rehabilitation before they can be adoptable. And, as
> a matter of fact, I do have a rather extensive veterinary medical library--
> more extensive than most general practioners. Where exactly does your
> "fountain of wisdom" about cats come from? The web! LOL! You clearly have
> no or very, very little experience or practical knowledge.

> > You seem completely out of water when it comes to the scientific
> > literature.
>
> Quite the contrary. My library consists of tens of thousands of dollars in
> veterinary medical texts and I subscribe to several veterinary medical
> journals. I just don't babble on about it- I used to-- but I learned that
> it
> only confuses people and puts them off-- as you're learning- or hopefully
> learning. However, I
> know how to blend 'scientific literature' with practical real life
> experience-- which you don't. If you read the studies that say cats are
> asocial and solitary animals, you'd believe them because they're 'scientific
> literature" regardless of reality! LOL! But fret not, if you stop
> babbling long enough, I'll educate you some more about real life cats.
> You've already learned more about feline nutrition from me than you ever
> knew before.
>
> Consider this advice and constructive criticism- and learn from it.

Let's make sure we are not having hardening of the orthodoxies here. If
you wish to educate me about real life cats, that's fine.

But education can work both ways. You don't seem at all familiar with
the literature of caloric restriction or have much patience with new
developments unless they have been codified into textbooks. That's a
good and safe approach.

I have not said much about it but here's a little non-scientific blurb
from the PubMed that I pointed out to you in another post.


Microsc Res Tech. 2002 Nov 15;59(4):335-8.
Caloric restriction and aging in primates: Relevance to humans and
possible CR mimetics.
Lane MA, Mattison J, Ingram DK, Roth GS.
Laboratory of Neurosciences, National Institute on Aging,
Baltimore, Maryland 21224, USA.
For nearly 70 years it has been recognized that reduction in
caloric intake by 30-40% from ad libitum levels leads to a significant
extension of mean and maximal lifespan in a variety of short-lived
species. This effect of caloric restriction (CR) on lifespan has been
reported in nearly all species tested and has been reproduced hundreds
of times under a variety of different laboratory conditions. In
addition to prolonging lifespan, CR also prevents or delays the onset
of age-related disease and maintains many physiological functions at
more youthful levels. Studies in longer-lived species, specifically
rhesus and squirrel monkeys, have been underway since the late 1980s.
The studies in nonhuman primates are beginning to yield valuable
information suggesting that the effect of CR on aging is universal
across species and that this nutritional paradigm will have similar
effects in humans. Even if CR can be shown to impact upon human aging,
it is unlikely that most people will be able to maintain the strict
dietary control required for this regimen. Thus, elucidation of the
biological mechanisms of CR and development of alternative strategies
to yield similar benefits is of primary importance. CR mimetics, or
interventions that "mimic" certain protective effects of CR, may
represent one such alternative strategy. Copyright 2002 Wiley-Liss,
Inc.

Have you ever run across this in your extensive and expensive library?
Just asking. It's been around for 70 years but not discussed much.
That's too bad because it holds the keys. Even if caloric restriction
is too much for man or cat, the equivalencies may be promising. That
is, trying to achieve the effects of caloric restriction through other
means since it's just too difficult for us food-centric beings.

Again, it's a key. The research is trying to achieve the results
without using caloric restriction.

Just a thought. Not a big word or scientific sentence I have uttered so
if you can respond, fine. If not, that's fine too. But I cannot keep
replying to you if you only want to curse and sputter around. If you're
not interested, just don't reply, end of comment.

September 27th 05, 01:23 AM
" > wrote:

>Nothing that complex. She did not know how to do Dry Matter Basis from
>the As Fed.

>It's a simple conversion. Just like Celsius to Fahrenheit.

Bad analogy.

That's a 2 step calculation.

F to C - subtract 32 and divide by 1.8.

C to F - multiply by 1.8 and add 32.
-mhd

September 27th 05, 02:08 AM
wrote:
> " > wrote:
> >Nothing that complex. She did not know how to do Dry Matter Basis from
> >the As Fed.
> >It's a simple conversion. Just like Celsius to Fahrenheit.

> Bad analogy.
> That's a 2 step calculation.
> F to C - subtract 32 and divide by 1.8.
> C to F - multiply by 1.8 and add 32.
> -mhd

The first time, it's also a two-step process ;)
1. Subtract moisture 78% from 100% to arrive at 22%.
[Only moisture per se is listed, not the dry matter as its whole.]

2. Then divide the nutrient by 22% to get the Dry Matter Basis.

But on successive tries, you're right. F and C is always a 2 step
process. I had to reply since Click and Clack just had this for this
week's puzzler. But that's another web site. It's either the cat or
the car.

September 27th 05, 02:21 AM
Phil P. wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > This is the "other part" - try to comprehend. Look at it again, come
> > on, you can read.
>
> If you plan to play on Usenet, learn how to post properly. Include a
> reference to the post to which you're replying so people can get an idea of
> what the hell you're talking about-- even you don't.

I did give the reference. On that page, it said there was an updated
page and to go there for any differences that are new. One could
conclude that if it remained on the older page, it had remained the
same. Not so at all. And if we keep this up, maybe she will get around
to updating the Fancy Feast since at most 10 are low phosphorus and the
whole point to her web site was a memorial to her cats who died,
presumably, from a high phosphorus diet.

Now in the future, I will try to spell this out. But you made a
mistake. You can't admit that. That's okay. You can play God in this
newsgroup. There, feel better?

Felinity
September 27th 05, 04:04 AM
On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 19:35:15 -0400, "Pearl" >
wrote:

>
>"Topaz" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> > foamed in message
>> oups.com...
>>> This is the "other part" - try to comprehend. Look at it again,
>>> come on,
>> you can read.
>>>
>>
>> Um. "Treeline?" If you are going to K00k out like this every time
>> someone
>> pokes you with a stick, there are
>> going to be a lot of people poking you with sticks. It may be wrong
>> but it
>> is highly entertaining watching you foam at the mouth.
>>
>>
>
>From: "Topaz" >
>Newsgroups: rec.pets.cats.health+behav
>References: >
. com>
>
. com>
>
om>
>
om>
>
. com>
>
. com>
>
om>
>
. com>
>
. com>
. com>
>Subject: Re: Phil P - what you recommend from Purina
>Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 13:38:30 -0400
>Lines: 13
>X-Priority: 3
>X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
>X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1506
>X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1506
>NNTP-Posting-Host: x-privat.org
>Message-ID: >
>Organization: X-Privat NNTP Server - http://www.x-privat.org
>X-Authenticated-User:
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Is this an oops? Isn't that from "cybercats" email address header?
>
>

**** off, stalker freak.


>X-Complaints-To:
>Path: x-privat.org!not-for-mail
>Xref: x-privat.org rec.pets.cats.health+behav:402547
>

Mmm mmm. Complaints about what?

Kinda miss your own x-privat account, eh?

Angel
September 27th 05, 04:14 AM
On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 17:04:57 -0400, "Phil P." >
wrote:

>
>"Topaz" > wrote in message ...
>>
>> > foamed in message
>> oups.com...
>> > This is the "other part" - try to comprehend. Look at it again, come on,
>> you can read.
>> >
>>
>> Um. "Treeline?" If you are going to K00k out like this every time someone
>> pokes you with a stick, there are
>> going to be a lot of people poking you with sticks. It may be wrong but it
>> is highly entertaining watching you foam at the mouth.
>
>
>I tried to explain and correct him politely in the "cat foods and too much
>sugar" thread- but he's obtuse and insisted he was right and I was wrong
>even after I *showed* him where he was wrong. He just kept babbling on and
>on. Now he's trying to turn the simple method of body condition scoring
>into brain surgery by babbling useless, trivial, and pedantic details that
>only confuses people. That's why I "poked him with a stick". But does he
>learn- Noooooooooooooooooooooooo. He just gets more obstinate and defensive
>and babbles even more incessantly.
>
>I guess I should be a little gentler with people who have such fragile egos
>that bruise so easily. I should, but--- you're right! It is highly
>entertaining watching him foam at the mouth. LOL!
>

We just have to find fun where we find it. :)

Angel
September 27th 05, 04:29 AM
On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 16:30:28 -0400, "Phil P." >
wrote:

>
> wrote in message
oups.com...
>> This is the "other part" - try to comprehend. Look at it again, come
>> on, you can read.
>
>If you plan to play on Usenet, learn how to post properly. Include a
>reference to the post to which you're replying so people can get an idea of
>what the hell you're talking about-- even you don't.
>
>

Always a good idea. :)

Topaz
September 27th 05, 05:19 AM
> wrote in message
...
> " > wrote:
>
> >Nothing that complex. She did not know how to do Dry Matter Basis from
> >the As Fed.
>
> >It's a simple conversion. Just like Celsius to Fahrenheit.
>
> Bad analogy.
>
> That's a 2 step calculation.
>
> F to C - subtract 32 and divide by 1.8.
>
> C to F - multiply by 1.8 and add 32.
> -mhd

You're a glutton for punishment, aren't you? :)

Topaz
September 27th 05, 05:23 AM
"Phil P." > wrote in message
...
>
> "Topaz" > wrote in message
...
> >
> > "Phil P." > wrote > The most important aspects of a
> > weight loss program for cats is patience and
> > > simplicity.
> > >
> >
> > And a hard enough heart to ignore those plaintiff yowls for snacks at
all
> > hours. :)
>
>
> Cats hold midnight meetings on how to make the most effective pitiful
looks
> and sounds that will make us breakdown and give in.

<G> I have no doubt that they do. And only cats must commune with
the Mother Ship in the wee hours to receive instruction in such matters!


>You think I'm kidding?
> While my cats were eating, I stole a book they had hidden under their bed
> cushion. Here's an excerpt from their manual on how to take over a family:
>
> "This pair looked exactly like the family I wanted, so I jumped onto the
> screen door, clung there, and cried piteously.
>
> They looked up at me from their breakfast. I knew exactly how I appeared
to
> them from the other side of the screen door. Irresistible! I pretended to
> lose my grip on the mesh and fell off, and then climbed back up again,
> crying all the time.
>
> The woman said, "Oh look! The poor little thing, it wants to come in.
Maybe
> it's hungry. I'll give it some milk."
>
> Just as I expected! I had her. All I needed was to get one paw inside the
> door and---"

Is this how you got one of yours?

>
> See? Its all a plan. Wait- it gets worse:
>
> "I can think of no better phrase to apply when we move in upon human
beings.
> Overnight everything is changed for them; their homes, as well as in time
> their customs and habits, are no longer their own. From then on they
belong
> to us.
>
> You need have no fear about embarking upon such a program. It is only
> oppor*tunities, methods, and people that differ. The take-over instinct is
> in all of us, and has enabled us to survive unaltered and dominant through
> thousands of years in a constantly changing world. We have always known
how
> to look after ourselves, nor is there any limit to what we can achieve.
You
> have only to glance back into your own history to verify this. In Egypt
less
> than five thousand years ago we made our*selves God. Dogs could be kicked
> from pillar to post, but anyone who insulted or did anything to one of us
> had his head cut off."
>
> So watch out! They know exactly what they're doing! ;-)
>

I will keep that in mine.

Topaz
September 27th 05, 05:24 AM
"Diane" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Topaz" > wrote:
>
> > "Phil P." > wrote > The most important aspects of a
> > weight loss program for cats is patience and
> > > simplicity.
> > >
> >
> > And a hard enough heart to ignore those plaintiff yowls for snacks at
all
> > hours. :)
>
> Earplugs. Combined with hearing impairment, they work wonders.

I can't use earplugs, then I'd miss all the good night sounds of the house!
:)

>
> Seriously, Hodge yowls for food at about the times he's determined it's
> mealtime, which are at pretty regular hours; when I'm home, he's yowling
> at 4:30 p.m. like clockwork.

I'd say you're lucky. At least he can tell time. My cats always think
it is feeding time.

September 27th 05, 05:52 AM
"Topaz" > wrote:

>
> wrote in message
...
>> " > wrote:
>>
>> >Nothing that complex. She did not know how to do Dry Matter Basis from
>> >the As Fed.
>>
>> >It's a simple conversion. Just like Celsius to Fahrenheit.
>>
>> Bad analogy.
>>
>> That's a 2 step calculation.
>>
>> F to C - subtract 32 and divide by 1.8.
>>
>> C to F - multiply by 1.8 and add 32.
>> -mhd
>
>You're a glutton for punishment, aren't you? :)
>

That's why I have cats :-)

-mhd

Phil P.
September 27th 05, 06:46 AM
> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Phil P. wrote:
>
> > > This is the "other part" - try to comprehend. Look at it again, come
> > > on, you can read.
> >
> >
> > Yes I saw that list when Noreen first uploaded it 6 months ago. Fancy
Feast
> > is not on that list. Look at it again - try to comprehend. The values
for
> > Fancy Feast that you posted were from an outdated list that clearly
stated:
> > "Revised: 12-Oct-2003" yet you insisted the list was not outdated.
> > Surprising that an pedantic, anal retentive neurotic would miss such an
> > obvious detail.
>
> What Phil P. says about Treeline tells more about Phil P. than it does
> about Treeline.


Yeah- it tells that I look for the dates of the material I'm reading and
verify its timeliness and accuracy before citing it. For someone who claims
to be so concerned about science, you focus so intensely on the trivial
details that you miss the important details that are staring you right in
the face.


>
> I took her at her word that she would be updating all her lists as
> information came in. Does that sound anal retentive? Nope, not at all.


That has absolutely nothing to with you citing outdated and erroneous
information and insisting it was current even *after* you were shown the
information was indeed outdated. Do you realize the problems you could have
caused for cats and people who are concerned about phosphorus levels? You
could have sent them on an unnecessary new food hunt.

And what about all the rest of your pedantic drivel about trivial and
extraneous and irrelevant details that only confuse and distract people?
That certainly is characteristic of an anal retentive.


>
> > Yeah, but I know how you babble on and on about trivial and extraneous
> > details trying to show off what a 'scientist' you are and that's enough
from
> > which to draw a likely conclusion. The person on the phone either
forgot
> > what the hell you were actually talking about or she dosed off from
boredom
> > while you were babbling incessantly. Your posts could be used as
therapy
> > for insomniacs that don't respond to strong drugs. LOL!
>
>
> Nothing that complex. She did not know how to do Dry Matter Basis from
> the As Fed.


*If* that's true, you probably spoke to an operator or receptionist- its not
her job to know how to convert as fed to dry matter- Hell- most vets don't
even know how to make the conversion unless they look it up. Ask your vet
the next time you see him- or better still: ask him how to determine the
volume of food to feed a cat- other than reading the excessive label
recommendations-- you'll see what I mean. Maybe next time you'll have the
sense to ask to speak to a dietician or nutritionist.


>
> I have said this three times so far. That's enough. If you do not wish
> to comprehend, that's okay. Whatever floats your boat.


That doesn't necessarily make it true. You also said Noreen's Fancy Feast
data was current three times.


>
>
> > > I gather your knowledge is limited to textbooks and what hands-on
> > > experience you have?
> >
> >
> > Yeah, limited to about 45 years of experience working with thousands of
> > stray, feral, shelter and pet cats and dozens of vets, pathologists and
> > labs. And limited to operating a clinic for cats that have special
needs
> > and cats that require rehabilitation before they can be adoptable. And,
as
> > a matter of fact, I do have a rather extensive veterinary medical
library--
> > more extensive than most general practioners. Where exactly does your
> > "fountain of wisdom" about cats come from? The web! LOL! You clearly
have
> > no or very, very little experience or practical knowledge.
>
> > > You seem completely out of water when it comes to the scientific
> > > literature.
> >
> > Quite the contrary. My library consists of tens of thousands of dollars
in
> > veterinary medical texts and I subscribe to several veterinary medical
> > journals. I just don't babble on about it- I used to-- but I learned
that
> > it
> > only confuses people and puts them off-- as you're learning- or
hopefully
> > learning. However, I
> > know how to blend 'scientific literature' with practical real life
> > experience-- which you don't. If you read the studies that say cats are
> > asocial and solitary animals, you'd believe them because they're
'scientific
> > literature" regardless of reality! LOL! But fret not, if you stop
> > babbling long enough, I'll educate you some more about real life cats.
> > You've already learned more about feline nutrition from me than you ever
> > knew before.
> >
> > Consider this advice and constructive criticism- and learn from it.
>
> Let's make sure we are not having hardening of the orthodoxies here. If
> you wish to educate me about real life cats, that's fine.


Only if you promise not be obstinate and obtuse or turn every issue into
brain surgery.


>
> But education can work both ways. You don't seem at all familiar with
> the literature of caloric restriction


You thought *wrong* (again). Along with diabetes and hepatic lipidosis,
why do you think I'm so concerned- if not fanatical- about proper nutrition
and weight for cats? Or are you normally not that inquisitive? You might
want to take a look at the reference section on the bottom of my Feline
Nutrition page http://www.maxshouse.com/feline_nutrition.htm to see the
amount of research that went into that page and the sources.



or have much patience with new
> developments unless they have been codified into textbooks. That's a
> good and safe approach.


Knock, knock? Most of the information contained in vet med texts are based
on journal studies which I get long before textbooks are published. By the
time texts are published- some if not a lot of the information is already
outdated. One of the reasons why I haven't connected all the links on my
site is because I don't have the time to make sure the information in each
section is still current. Unlike you, I prefer to make sure my information
is current and accurate before citing or publishing it.



>
> I have not said much about it but here's a little non-scientific blurb
> from the PubMed that I pointed out to you in another post.
>
>
> Microsc Res Tech. 2002 Nov 15;59(4):335-8.
> Caloric restriction and aging in primates: Relevance to humans and
> possible CR mimetics.

Old news. The most recent studies suggest that the benefits of caloric
restriction in humans would be quantitatively small. Ageing Res Rev. 2005
Aug;4(3):339-50.

Phil P.
September 27th 05, 06:50 AM
> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Phil P. wrote:
> > > wrote in message
> > oups.com...
> > > This is the "other part" - try to comprehend. Look at it again, come
> > > on, you can read.
> >
> > If you plan to play on Usenet, learn how to post properly. Include a
> > reference to the post to which you're replying so people can get an idea
of
> > what the hell you're talking about-- even if you don't.
>
> I did give the reference. On that page, it said there was an updated
> page


ROTFL! Knock knock? I was referring to your dangling *post* - you didn't
include any part of the post to which or to whom you were replying. See how
I (and most posters) included the header and text to which I'm replying???
That's an example of what I meant when I said you have no common sense.



> Now in the future, I will try to spell this out. But you made a
> mistake.

Are you sure about that? Looks like you blundered *twice*-- again. LOL!
You really do have some issues, don't you? I'm beginning to think your
babbling and anal retentiveness are only minor problem compared to your
other issues.

Fret not. Now that I know you're so insecure and have such a fragile ego,
I'll be gentle with you if you promise not to turn every issue into brain
surgery.

Topaz
September 27th 05, 07:40 PM
> wrote :
> >> -mhd
> >
> >You're a glutton for punishment, aren't you? :)
> >
>
> That's why I have cats :-)
>

Well, at least they let us know who's boss. :)

September 28th 05, 01:05 AM
Topaz wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ...
> > " > wrote:
> >
> > >Nothing that complex. She did not know how to do Dry Matter Basis from
> > >the As Fed.
> >
> > >It's a simple conversion. Just like Celsius to Fahrenheit.
> >
> > Bad analogy.
> >
> > That's a 2 step calculation.
> >
> > F to C - subtract 32 and divide by 1.8.
> >
> > C to F - multiply by 1.8 and add 32.
> > -mhd
>
> You're a glutton for punishment, aren't you? :)

"Glutton" after what I posted? Tsk tsk what a cutting insult. Sure the
poster was a troll but besides, his point was valid nonetheless and his
nom de plume refers to Bukowski's alleged autobiography.

September 28th 05, 01:55 AM
Phil P. wrote:
> > Microsc Res Tech. 2002 Nov 15;59(4):335-8.
> > Caloric restriction and aging in primates: Relevance to humans and
> > possible CR mimetics.
>
> Old news. The most recent studies suggest that the benefits of caloric
> restriction in humans would be quantitatively small. Ageing Res Rev. 2005
> Aug;4(3):339-50.

That is so bad of you. You take an article and expect that to refute
the tons of good work being done? Bad, bad boy. Why did you not give
the full reference? In any event, news that is one month old is not
"old news." That's misrepresenting the field.

Now it's good to have discussion. But the fellows based their equations
on Okinawans, which is okay but that's a very rough approximation to
true caloric restriction. The Okinawans consume less calories than the
Japanese mainlanders and are shorter and live longer as a result. I do
believe that more people in Okinawa live more than 100 years of age
than any other country. That's what I recollect. But they don't make a
concerted effort for caloric restriction. And to pair them against Sumo
wrestlers?

Well, we'll have to see. Diseases decrease with caloric restriction so
it's probably more black and white than this.


Here it is:

You are referring to: Phelan JP, Rose MR. Why dietary restriction
substantially increases longevity in animal models but won't in humans.
Ageing Res Rev. 2005 Aug 1 ; 4(3):339-50.

I am giving you a solid look-see why that article is a red herring or
may be. I have yet to read the full text article. If you read it, send
it to me. They want $30 for the full text. You did read the full
article or just went by the abstract? It's intriguing but I doubt that
Sumo wrestlers and Okinawans by themselves can generate a good future
model. But don't know until I read it myself.

Here's a good critique of that article by Holloszy:

Comments on Paper and Primary News
Comment by: John Holloszy
Submitted 7 September 2005 Posted 7 September 2005

"The authors place much emphasis on the role of reproduction in
longevity. I can't see what relevance reproduction has to human
aging. There is no difference in longevity between humans who reproduce
and those who don't. Furthermore, the studies of the effects of CR on
longevity of rats and mice were done on animals that did not reproduce
(the rats were usually singly housed). CR may or may not substantially
increase longevity in humans. However, I do not think that calculations
such as those performed by Phelan and Rose have any validity or provide
any meaningful insights or information regarding this question, as they
are based on erroneous assumptions. For example, sumo wrestlers who die
at an early age don't die of old age, but because of the
complications of diabetes and/or atherosclerosis, that is, no direct
relevance to normal aging."

Holloszy who made that comment is a superb investigator for exercise
and caloric restriction in general. He's a scientist, originally from
Hungary, whose work has been quite rigorous for decades. I think I
remember one of his early studies on exercise where he showed it was
not a win-win solution. Very interesting.


Here's a recent title which included Holloszy and shows a decided
benefit for humans:

Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004 Apr 27;101(17):6659-63. Epub 2004 Apr 19
Long-term calorie restriction is highly effective in reducing the risk
for atherosclerosis in humans.
Fontana L, Meyer TE, Klein S, Holloszy JO.
Department of Internal Medicine, Washington University School of
Medicine, St. Louis, MO 63110, USA.

I like your reference. It's a good controversy. But I will not dump
caloric restriction until I read the full article. And since they are
basing their model upon faulty assumptions, I doubt I would throw out
caloric restriction on one math model article.

As Brad Wilcox puts it:
"While the study itself is interesting, in the end, a simple
mathematical model is only as good as the data and assumptions that go
into it. Since the assumptions cannot be supported by the evidence,
neither can the conclusions. Much more research needs to be done before
we can make any firm conclusions about the effects of CR on human
lifespan."

And he did find a rough comparison of 10% fewer calories with 10%
longer life, paralleling animal studies:

"Calories in the Okinawan population were approximately 5-15 percent
fewer than what would be required (for their body weight and activity
levels), and then only for about half their lives, not equivalent to
the large calorie reductions seen over the entire life course in animal
studies. Even under this limited "CR paradigm," Okinawans outlive
Americans by about 10 percent, similar to that seen in animal studies
(i.e., 10 percent calorie reduction and 10 percent increase in
lifespan)."

AND caloric restriction is already shown to work. And it's already
valid for animals that don't live long like most people. So it's still
relevant for felines and this newsgroup. Very relevant. For humans, the
test would be 100 years into the future for a good test and that's just
not doable this century ;)

So if you or anybody wants to discuss it fine. If not, I threw out
enough buzz words you can pursue this or your own. I can see where you
have enough on your plate taking care of cats, that you don't need to
pursue something rigorously. But there is a need for figuring out what
to feed the feline so she lives the longest. It's a non-trivial
subject. And again, IT HAS BEEN SHOWN TO WORK IN ANIMALS!!! for 70
years. The big question relevant to this newsgroup would be then, is
this true for felines too?

Topaz
September 28th 05, 02:13 AM
Is it true your nym comes from a Bukowski work??

Phil P.
September 28th 05, 05:26 AM
> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Phil P. wrote:
> > > Microsc Res Tech. 2002 Nov 15;59(4):335-8.
> > > Caloric restriction and aging in primates: Relevance to humans and
> > > possible CR mimetics.
> >
> > Old news. The most recent studies suggest that the benefits of caloric
> > restriction in humans would be quantitatively small. Ageing Res Rev.
2005
> > Aug;4(3):339-50.
>
> That is so bad of you. You take an article and expect that to refute
> the tons of good work being done? Bad, bad boy.


I said "recent studies *suggest*"-- I didn't say "recent studies prove",
dimwit. The journal article you cited is *three years old*-- a lot of new
information can surface in three years. Do you not realize that one
breakthrough discovery can disprove 100s of years of theories? Or has that
fact escaped your lightening-quick perception?




Why did you not give
> the full reference?


I did give the full reference, dimwit: "Ageing Res Rev. 2005
Aug;4(3):339-50" *is* the full reference. Don't you even know how to cite a
journal? Do I have to teach you everything? Journal Citing 101: Journal
Name Year Month;Volume(Issue)spans pages. Do you think you can remember all
that correctly?


In any event, news that is one month old is not
> "old news." That's misrepresenting the field.


The journal article you cited is *three years* old, dimwit, not "one month
old": "Microsc Res Tech. ***2002 Nov 15***". Now, I'm certain you bungled
the numbers Purina gave you. You obsess over trivial details while important
details whiz right past you.

> Now it's good to have discussion.

Not with you! A discussion with you is like listening to a record that
skips every few grooves.

September 28th 05, 04:25 PM
Phil P. wrote:
> > > Old news. The most recent studies suggest that the benefits of caloric
> > > restriction in humans would be quantitatively small. Ageing Res Rev.
> 2005
> > > Aug;4(3):339-50.
> >
> > That is so bad of you. You take an article and expect that to refute
> > the tons of good work being done? Bad, bad boy.
>
>
> I said "recent studies *suggest*"-- I didn't say "recent studies prove",
> dimwit. The journal article you cited is *three years old*-- a lot of new
> information can surface in three years. Do you not realize that one
> breakthrough discovery can disprove 100s of years of theories? Or has that
> fact escaped your lightening-quick perception?

One single, sole study is not "studies." And it's not a research study
as more a mathematical modeling based on rather tenuous assumptions. It
reminds me of inadequate economics studies. I have not read the full
study but it's a bit silly to use Okinawans as a full representation of
caloric restriction when that is not what they do. By serendipity, they
do a tiny bit of caloric restriction compared to other groupds, but
that's all the researchers found. That makes sense. If you restrict 3
to 7% of your food intake and longevity is increased by 3 to 7% I don't
see how the authors put caloric restriction as not working at full
bore. It would seem to me that their results are in line with what one
would expect if caloric restriction were true. The real studies, the
real live animal studies, prospective in design, show that it is true.
I take live animal studies over a not representative math model any
day.

But no one has done a people study. The Biosphere II was by accident a
people study for a short time, year or two. But there were dramatic
improvement in the health of the people inside the Biosphere on a
restricted diet owing to inadequate design of the Biosphere.

Well it's true that many decades of research can be shot with one
study, that would have to be pretty good one. The good ones are usually
prospective in nature and not like this one, a retrospective one. And
certainly not a retrospective math one. Again, a prospective
longitudinal study using cohorts are the gold standard in medicine.
Those studies, extremely expensive and rather rare, do disprove almost
instantaneously decades of wrong thoughts. The first one in medicine
that was valid like this was the Framingham Study following a huge
cohort for decades and is still going on with those who have survived.

> Why did you not give
> > the full reference?
>
>
> I did give the full reference, dimwit: "Ageing Res Rev. 2005
> Aug;4(3):339-50" *is* the full reference. Don't you even know how to cite a
> journal? Do I have to teach you everything? Journal Citing 101: Journal
> Name Year Month;Volume(Issue)spans pages. Do you think you can remember all
> that correctly?

It's common practice that a "full" reference includes the title and
author. It helps to have the title and authors. Theoretically it's not
necessary but it's the norm. As far as I can recall, I have never seen
just the journal and pages listed in any article in a bibliography or
notes section unless it was already cited previously. If you went to
the trouble of finding the journal, then including the title and
authors is usually done in a discussion unless you meant not to discuss
but continue your rant against me personally.

> The journal article you cited is *three years* old, dimwit, not "one month
> old": "Microsc Res Tech. ***2002 Nov 15***". Now, I'm certain you bungled
> the numbers Purina gave you. You obsess over trivial details while important
> details whiz right past you.

The journal article I cited was one of many over many decades. So far,
the research is that caloric restriction works. Whether it will work in
people is another issue. But the key question here is whether it will
work in cats. I have found articles on even canines but not felines.
And so far it works in all animals that have been studied.

I don't think I have found any reference where it did not work except
for the one that you brought up but that may be a misinterpretation -
to say it works weakly. That article is okay for a shot in the dark.
However I think his approach was interesting and I am sure better
researchers will redo his work to see if his point has any validity. I
doubt it because I think he proved it worked as said. If he found 3 to
7% validity to caloric restriction as a way to increase life and the
people ate 3 to 7% less, then he validated the idea. If they wish to
imply it does not work all that much, they would have to find a
seriously caloric restriction people and that has not happened yet.
People prefer food too much.

Your point, I'm not sure what your point is, but caloric restriction
works. You may not like it. You may not wish to discuss it
meaningfully. But it works. The question is how much does it work in
humans and whether it works at all in felines. It does for monkeys so
far and canines and rats and mice.


> > Now it's good to have discussion.
>
> Not with you! A discussion with you is like listening to a record that
> skips every few grooves.

Then stop the discussion. At this point, I would want to get technical
and then and see if anyone has information about felines and caloric
restriction, presumably in a vet discussion group.

Since this is neither an interest nor a field you know about, it's not
productive to discuss something further if you just wish to be
unpleasant. And I cannot until I read the full article to see if what
I've said is correct. I am basing my comments on critcisms I have read
about the article. But I would want to read the actual article to see
if the authors made the mistake I think they made. It's nice that you
contributed something and it's nice that you listen to records even if
the groves or worn or it's time to replace your needle.

September 29th 05, 05:49 AM
"Topaz" > wrote:

>
>Is it true your nym comes from a Bukowski work??
>

Actually no.
-mhd

Topaz
September 29th 05, 11:35 AM
> wrote in message
...
> "Topaz" > wrote:
>
> >
> >Is it true your nym comes from a Bukowski work??
> >
>
> Actually no.
> -mhd

Pardon me if I am prying, but may I ask how your unusual nym arose?

Phil P.
September 29th 05, 01:41 PM
> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Phil P. wrote:
> > > > Old news. The most recent studies suggest that the benefits of
caloric
> > > > restriction in humans would be quantitatively small. Ageing Res
Rev.
> > 2005
> > > > Aug;4(3):339-50.
> > >
> > > That is so bad of you. You take an article and expect that to refute
> > > the tons of good work being done? Bad, bad boy.
> >
> >
> > I said "recent studies *suggest*"-- I didn't say "recent studies
prove",
> > dimwit. The journal article you cited is *three years old*-- a lot of
new
> > information can surface in three years. Do you not realize that one
> > breakthrough discovery can disprove 100s of years of theories? Or has
that
> > fact escaped your lightening-quick perception?
>
> One single, sole study is not "studies."


But you think the "one single, sole" three-year-old study you cited is "tons
of good work". LOL!


> Your point, I'm not sure what your point is,


That's obvious-- you've even confused yourself with your trivial,
distracting babble- but that doesn't seem to stop you from continuing to
babble on and
on.


> but caloric restriction
works. You may not like it.


Apparently, you're oblivious to the fact that I'm a very strong proponent of
caloric restriction. You've been so busy babbling about trivial and
extraneous and irrelevant details you've forgotten that I'm the one who told
you about restricting the caloric intake of neutered cats' by an additional
33%. And that I recommend calculating a cat's DER based on 40-45 kcals/kg
instead of the 60-80 kcals that's commonly recommended. You babble on and
on so much that you forget what has been said and makes you look like a fool
or a babbling idiot.

Any actually useful information in this thread had been buried by your
trivial and extraneous babble. You're more harmful than helpful because you
over-complicate simple matters with trivial details trying to show how much
you know -- which as far as cats are concerned is actually very little. Do
everyone a favor and try reading more and typing less.

That about sums it up for me.

September 29th 05, 06:36 PM
"Topaz" > wrote:

>
> wrote in message
...
>> "Topaz" > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Is it true your nym comes from a Bukowski work??
>> >
>>
>> Actually no.
>> -mhd
>
>Pardon me if I am prying, but may I ask how your unusual nym arose?
>


I liked the absurdity of how it sounds but it's roots are in deli
slang for a ham and cheese on a kaiser.

-mhd

Topaz
September 29th 05, 07:05 PM
> wrote in message
...
> "Topaz" > wrote:
>
> >
> > wrote in message
> ...
> >> "Topaz" > wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >Is it true your nym comes from a Bukowski work??
> >> >
> >>
> >> Actually no.
> >> -mhd
> >
> >Pardon me if I am prying, but may I ask how your unusual nym arose?
> >
>
>
> I liked the absurdity of how it sounds but it's roots are in deli
> slang for a ham and cheese on a kaiser.
>

Ah! That never occurred to me. Restaurant lingo! Very good. :) I'm
kind of hungry now. If you will excuse me ...

September 30th 05, 12:54 AM
"Topaz" > wrote:

>> I liked the absurdity of how it sounds but it's roots are in deli
>> slang for a ham and cheese on a kaiser.
>>
>
>Ah! That never occurred to me. Restaurant lingo! Very good. :) I'm
>kind of hungry now. If you will excuse me ...

I'm sure Mel and Flo know what it means :-)

-mhd

John Doe
October 29th 05, 07:06 AM
troll

"Phil P." <phil maxshouse.com> wrote:

> Path: newsdbm05.news.prodigy.com!newsdst02.news.prodigy. com!newsmst01b.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!newsco n06.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.net!border1.nntp.dca. giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local01.nntp.dca.gi ganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 06:00:51 -0500
> From: "Phil P." <phil maxshouse.com>
> Newsgroups: rec.pets.cats.health+behav
> References: <1127328916.764776.17000 g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <delenn-AA31EC.20230221092005 news.east.earthlink.net> <1127379710.706184.240750 o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> <UIKdnfoP86B6k67eRVn-3Q giganews.com> <1127427438.416921.179700 g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1oadnYELL7sK167eRVn-gA giganews.com> <1127452827.108741.80630 g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <a7udnVj5EMFFX67eRVn-jA giganews.com> <433434e2$1_1 x-privat.org> <1127500699.166220.170840 g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <43344f37_1 x-privat.org> <1127502650.279787.164940 z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> <433453a7$1_2 x-privat.org> <1127506163.505131.208560 f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <17udnaladcEW5KneRVn-vQ giganews.com> <1127516023.554893.56760 z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> <nPKdnauzYq12BaneRVn-oA giganews.com> <1127523667.460827.67360 o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> <gc6dne0tva8PWaneRVn-pg giganews.com> <1127592879.228645.142830 g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
> Subject: Re: Phil P - what you recommend from Purina
> Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 06:57:45 -0400
> X-Priority: 3
> X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
> X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1506
> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1506
> Message-ID: <tIKdnZ4fia_-HqveRVn-pQ giganews.com>
> Lines: 24
> X-Trace: sv3-j0qeQTFCVzLEPV8KDBIcFLQKaQHBt240cWrM07oCepJHS9bfoA 336HjiCbgBbyEePhFQfI1DElfATfg!GApL/2NkQdDekd/LBTNE7YWNrfy+rbq8DWn7LGQX0CzX2GRoBaeaRpUvAhh8
> X-Complaints-To: abuse giganews.com
> X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
> X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
> X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
> X-Postfilter: 1.3.32
> Xref: newsmst01b.news.prodigy.com rec.pets.cats.health+behav:407382
>
>
> <treeline12345 yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1127592879.228645.142830 g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> Phil P. wrote:
>> > No thanks are necessary. Its always a pleasure to compliment an anal
>> > retentive.
>>
>> and complement I might add.
>
>
> You don't get it, do you? You may be book smart but you don't have any
> common sense. Your pedantic blather about trivial and extraneous details is
> not only tiresome, it also confuses and frustrates people who just want
> simple answers for how to feed their cats properly or to get their cats to
> lose weight safely.
>
> If you want to show off your scientific knowledge about the universe- show
> it off to people who give a ****.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

John Doe
October 29th 05, 07:18 AM
A comedian in his own mind.

"Phil P." <phil maxshouse.com> wrote:

> Path: newsdbm05.news.prodigy.com!newsdst02.news.prodigy. com!newsmst01b.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!newsco n06.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.net!border1.nntp.dca. giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local01.nntp.dca.gi ganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 07:44:21 -0500
> From: "Phil P." <phil maxshouse.com>
> Newsgroups: rec.pets.cats.health+behav
> References: <nPKdnauzYq12BaneRVn-oA giganews.com> <1127523667.460827.67360 o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> <gc6dne0tva8PWaneRVn-pg giganews.com> <1127592879.228645.142830 g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <tIKdnZ4fia_-HqveRVn-pQ giganews.com> <1127667710.131662.205430 g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <tPGdnfPtVf3roarenZ2dnUVZ_tCdnZ2d giganews.com> <1127705582.530009.89030 o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> <6u-dnUgODLxREqreRVn-rA giganews.com> <1127716083.171310.166270 g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <-pKdnYN9vtFiOqreRVn-hA giganews.com> <1127742969.331432.102340 g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <T8mdnSmrjPQlx6XeRVn-2Q giganews.com> <1127780000.986563.202720 z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> <_JadnSNMfYD0QKXeRVn-hg giganews.com> <1127868956.237177.134860 g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <maydnbzJ8M_QgafeRVn-uA giganews.com> <1127921138.488564.251440 g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
> Subject: Re: Phil P - what you recommend from Purina
> Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 08:41:10 -0400
> X-Priority: 3
> X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
> X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1506
> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1506
> Message-ID: <efudnfiLHIc4fKbeRVn-iQ giganews.com>
> Lines: 63
> X-Trace: sv3-rPzX5O0uoZC9NWA6GwqdAArVyCMTsQs9z9hLR8dUlfWkv71vwZ qiU2Fg6N9z2a8jPW74nYqxryol8uH!guZPzHR9HJ8mw4D2YUEi jpP/WH6ocMwumnGyzeL9cqJvezM5TGuNZJQavN6V
> X-Complaints-To: abuse giganews.com
> X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
> X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
> X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
> X-Postfilter: 1.3.32
> Xref: newsmst01b.news.prodigy.com rec.pets.cats.health+behav:407878

....
> But you think the "one single, sole" three-year-old study you cited is "tons
> of good work". LOL!

John Doe
October 29th 05, 07:23 AM
" > wrote:
> Topaz wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>> > Topaz wrote:

....
>> > > Are you middle eastern?

>> > Thank you. You know the way to a man's heart, except I have an
>> > upset tummy, hence my losing my usual sweet, kind and loving
>> > countenance. So what do you say, we have a felafel somewhere?

>> So you are indeed middle eastern?

> The Mid-Atlantic states are middle eastern, literally.

LOL




And you're from
> the Bible Belt, mais oui?
>
>

No More Retail
October 29th 05, 02:30 PM
if he is such a troll kill fill him and get it over
by commenting on every post you are becoming the troll

John Doe
October 29th 05, 09:44 PM
"No More Retail" > wrote:

> if he is such a troll

When dealing with people he doesn't get along with, Phil P is a nasty
troll.

> kill fill him and get it over

Kill filing does not work (even assuming no nym-shifting). You just end
up tripping over others' replies to the people in your kill file.

I prefer subject based filtering, the ability to ignore subthreads
(thread branches). That takes care of most trolling. It's really neat
when you need information and don't want to wade through the garbage.

Phil P.
October 31st 05, 03:54 AM
"John Doe" > wrote in message
...
> "No More Retail" > wrote:
>
> > if he is such a troll
>
> When dealing with people he doesn't get along with,


....which are usually dimwitted assholes like you. I get along just fine with
the majority of people. You just happen to be in the 10% asshole category.


Phil P is a nasty
> troll.

That's not what a troll is, moron. Your mentality is really hilarious!
ROTFL!

Phil P.
October 31st 05, 04:02 AM
"No More Retail" > wrote in message
om...
> if he is such a troll kill fill him and get it over
> by commenting on every post you are becoming the troll

He's not a troll - he's not smart enough- too stupid. He's just a stupid
jerk.

Watch him- he posts "troll" along with all the headers to every post he
doesn't like- 100s of them. He effectively doubles the amount of spam to
the groups -- the idiot even crossposts his "troll" messages! LOL!

..