PDA

View Full Version : Ping Phil: Cats and fasting


Kiran
May 17th 06, 07:39 AM
Found this. How does it square with conventional wisdom that cats
should not go without food for more than a day or so?

http://www.felinefuture.com/nutrition/bpo_ch9.php

"Fasting
It is very beneficial for healthy adult cats, to withhold all food for
a 48hour period on occasions. This extended fast will enable the body
to clear some accumulated toxins from fat tissue, and completely empty
the bowl. Healthy cats don't fast voluntarily, but are frequently faced
with an involuntary fast in a natural setting through unavailability of
prey, or repeated unsuccessful hunts. They will, however, frequently
refuse food when unwell as a possible means to speed recovery. Cats are
unharmed by the absence of food for several days, and in extreme times
of famine may loose up to 50% of their body mass and still survive. It
is, however, critical that the cat has unrestricted access to fresh
water during fasting."

stan beck
May 17th 06, 01:04 PM
Again, what do cats naturally do in the wild -- if they fast naturally,
then fasting is good. If they don't, then it's not.

Stan

www.Kitten-Pictures.com
For the most adorable Kitten Pictures on the net!

WILLIAM HOLDEN
May 17th 06, 04:25 PM
"Kiran" > wrote in message
...
> Found this. How does it square with conventional wisdom that cats
> should not go without food for more than a day or so?

When I worked in a vivarium several years back, I worked the "cat house" for
a few months. It was standard procedure to withhold feed every Sunday. The
official reason was that it was healthier for the animals to fast for 24
hours. Doing this on a regular schedule reduced stress to the cats because
it didn't occur unexpectedly. Of course it was also cheaper too but
compared to the money spent on housing and environmental control one day of
feed was insignificant. Other than Sundays food was provided ad lib. and
clean fresh water was available at all times including Sundays.

May 18th 06, 07:20 PM
WILLIAM HOLDEN wrote:
> "Kiran" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Found this. How does it square with conventional wisdom that cats
> > should not go without food for more than a day or so?
>
> When I worked in a vivarium several years back, I worked the "cat house" for
> a few months. It was standard procedure to withhold feed every Sunday. The
> official reason was that it was healthier for the animals to fast for 24
> hours. Doing this on a regular schedule reduced stress to the cats because
> it didn't occur unexpectedly. Of course it was also cheaper too but
> compared to the money spent on housing and environmental control one day of
> feed was insignificant. Other than Sundays food was provided ad lib. and
> clean fresh water was available at all times including Sundays.

According to the early scientific literature on longevity in regards to
Caloric Restriction and Adequate Nutrition or CRAN, by Walford and
Weindruch, animals fed every other day lived far longer than animals
fed every day. But whether this would work specifically for cats, I do
not know. The animals fed restricted calories, that is low calories,
lived even longer than those fed every other day. So far, the last I
read a few weeks ago, it appears to be holding up. And a recent study
appears to support CRAN for humans, at least in the short run of a few
years going by a reduction in diseases.

WILLIAM HOLDEN
May 19th 06, 05:40 AM
> wrote in message
oups.com...
> WILLIAM HOLDEN wrote:
> > "Kiran" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Found this. How does it square with conventional wisdom that cats
> > > should not go without food for more than a day or so?
> >
> > When I worked in a vivarium several years back, I worked the "cat house"
for
> > a few months. It was standard procedure to withhold feed every Sunday.
The
> > official reason was that it was healthier for the animals to fast for 24
> > hours.

(snip)

> According to the early scientific literature on longevity in regards to
> Caloric Restriction and Adequate Nutrition or CRAN, by Walford and
> Weindruch, animals fed every other day lived far longer than animals
> fed every day.

(snip)

And a recent study
> appears to support CRAN for humans, at least in the short run of a few
> years going by a reduction in diseases.

Oh hell. Does this mean that I would be healthier and live longer if I were
not over weight? The next thing you'll tell me is that drinking a case of
beer every week end can adversely effect my health. :^)
Seriously though, do you know if there is a web reference to the study you
cited?

Thnkx,

RPS
May 19th 06, 10:47 AM
WILLIAM HOLDEN > wrote:

: Seriously though, do you know if there is a web reference to the study you
: cited?

No but I paid attention to it and can tell you the essense, The study
was extremely misleading.

Suppose you buy a machine, but never use it, just do minimal
maintenance. Then it will "last longer" because there is no wear and
tear. But that defeats the purpose, usually we talk about a long
lasting machine we mena to be able to *use* it longer.

Similarly, our bodies are machines too. If you don't really live (no
work, no emotions, no sex, no enjoyment), just vegetate with minimal
maintenace of survival functions, then you too can last longer. That's
what they found. If you cut down calories so much that the body is in
maintenance survival mode but doesn't have energy to do anything that
will cause any "wear and tear", then the body will last longer,
essentially as a vegetable. But is that any life, for you or your pet?
I'd rather we live normal lives and go when God calls us.

Phil P.
May 21st 06, 04:59 AM
"Kiran" > wrote in message
...
> Found this. How does it square with conventional wisdom that cats
> should not go without food for more than a day or so?
>
> http://www.felinefuture.com/nutrition/bpo_ch9.php

Sorry for the delayed reply. I'm buried in kittens and I've been busy
breaking laws prohibiting feeding ferals.

Feline Future has some good information but they tend to be a little
extreme- if not a little fanatical. I don't think you'll find many
mainstream vets or vet nutritionists that would encourage unnecessary
fasting.

Phil

Matthew aka NMR
May 21st 06, 05:09 AM
"Phil P." > wrote in message
...
>
> "Kiran" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Found this. How does it square with conventional wisdom that cats
>> should not go without food for more than a day or so?
>>
>> http://www.felinefuture.com/nutrition/bpo_ch9.php
>
> Sorry for the delayed reply. I'm buried in kittens and I've been busy
> breaking laws prohibiting feeding ferals.
>
> Feline Future has some good information but they tend to be a little
> extreme- if not a little fanatical. I don't think you'll find many
> mainstream vets or vet nutritionists that would encourage unnecessary
> fasting.
>
> Phil
>
Feed them Phil sometimes the crime is dam sure worth the time

Phil P.
May 21st 06, 08:01 AM
"Matthew aka NMR" > wrote in message news:fKRbg.24216$

> Feed them Phil sometimes the crime is dam sure worth the time

One of the towns passed an ordinance: $2,000 fine for feeding ferals!
Next they'll be calling in SWAT or declaring martial law.

-L.
May 21st 06, 05:37 PM
Phil P. wrote:
> "Matthew aka NMR" > wrote in message news:fKRbg.24216$
>
> > Feed them Phil sometimes the crime is dam sure worth the time
>
> One of the towns passed an ordinance: $2,000 fine for feeding ferals!
> Next they'll be calling in SWAT or declaring martial law.

To they have a desginated group doing TNR or "trapping to pound", or
*anything*?

-L.

May 21st 06, 08:31 PM
Phil P. wrote:


> Sorry for the delayed reply. I'm buried in kittens and I've been busy
> breaking laws prohibiting feeding ferals.
>

How do you distinguish a feral from an outdoor cat?

Someone I know has a cat that hangs around her property. She feeds it
regularly, and it spends most of the day hanging out in her yeard. (It
cant come indoors because her kids are severely allergic.) While it
started out feral (or probably lost or offloaded) it has adopted her
and vice versa.

So legally what makes one cat a feral and another an outdoor pet?

-L.
May 23rd 06, 12:46 AM
Phil P. wrote:
> > To they have a desginated group doing TNR or "trapping to pound", or
> > *anything*?
>
> The city counsel of bureaucratic buffoons voted against TNR based on bogus
> myths and misinformation and completely ignored all the data that proves TNR
> works including vet journal studies and testimonies from ACOs of other
> towns. The original hearing notice was a tiny two-line ad buried somewhere
> in the local newspaper. I think their decision was strongly influenced by a
> couple of slimy, local vets that were afraid they would have to perform
> low-cost neuters if TNR was adopted.


Yeah, God forbid they should help the homeless pet/feral overpop
problem...I just totally do not get this mentality. One thing I do
admire about the main guy I worked for is he did low and no-cost S/N as
a routine service. He probably generated more (side) business for
himself that way, and retained more clients than any other vet in the
area.

>
> The city attorney is as inept as the slimy vets, he drew up the ordinance
> with more holes in it than a hurricane fence- and one, especially huge
> gaping hole that I'll drive through with a truck every day- twice! I wish I
> could tell you more but I can't right now.

Well, if I ever need help jumping through loopholes, I may just email
you! So far our city has been cooperative <knock on wood>.

-L.