View Single Post
  #18  
Old October 8th 03, 12:46 AM
Steve Crane
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

(Liz) wrote in message . com...
Yes of course we wouldn't want to leave out the fact that chicken by
product meal is MORE digestible than plain chicken and contains less
ground up bone tissue ? good point.


Excellent point. Lets all free feed our cats Science Diet for two
weeks and Wellness or Felidae for two weeks and weigh their stools
daily. Both Wellness and Felidae produce much less stools than Science
Diet. That´s how digestible they are. And this is something anyone
here can try at home and see for themselves.

Of course the comment about heat
destroying nutrients is silly scaremongering nonsense. Manufacturers
have known the degradation rate of every vitamin for forty years,
based upon time and temperature.


Nonsense is your argumentation. Can you please explain this recent
hype of adding linoleic and linolenic acids (omega 6 and 3) to pet
foods? Both are easily destroyed by heat and both are essential. If
manufacturers had known degradation temperature of every vitamin for
forty years, why is this omega thing such a recent hype?


I guess I will break these up a bit. Yes the word is nonsense. Who do
you think pioneered adding high levels of Omega 3 and 6 fatty acids to
diets? in *1962* - Hill's. But you're right that was only 41 years
ago, not 50. There isn't a diet out there with more N3,6's than
products made by Hill's. The only "hype" around fatty acids is that
some manufacturers decided it would work to fool consumers. They
realized consumers wouldn't know if the food had N3,6's before or not.
So let's launch a great madison avenue marketing plan and tell
everybody we've added N3,6's to the diet.

Food
manufacturers know very little. Look at Hill´s launching an Atkin´s
type diet for cats with *15%* carbohydrates in it. That´s how much
Hill´s knows biochemistry: nothing at all. I bet they don´t have the
slightest understanding of what the Atkins does to the body and why
carbs have to be so reduced. Your nutrition researchers should all go
back to college.


What you fail to recognize, primarily becauaue you have followed down
the path of totally UNPROVEN carbophobia is that once the state of
metabolic acidosis is reached, it doesn't mater what the level of
carbs are - not one bit. It doesn't matter for treating weight loss or
for diabetes.


It's a no brainer to add in
sufficient vitamin X to accommodate loss. Further all competent
manufacturers test the FINAL product to insure it has all the
nutrients it is supposed to have at the right levels AFTER the
manufacturing process.


Yes, they can do that for the *known* nutrients. How about the
nutrients we still do not know about? How do they test for those? Or
do you think we already know all there is to know about nutrition?
Biochemistry is only the most underdeveloped science of all sciences
simply because it is so complex.


That's always the fall back isn't it. Play Chicken little and claim
the sky *might* be falling. I would suggest that you need to look at a
number of possible nutrients that are ONLY available when cooked. Be
sure to tell me how you are planning for these unknown nutrients that
are ONLY available in cooked foods.

Oh goodness. Now this is wild bs. Please state one. And let me remind
you that cellulose or starch are *not* necessary at all in a cat´s
diet.


Can you spell lycopene? trypsin in native states? and of course the
dreaded and evil carbohydrates, despite the myths and unsubstantiated
hypothesis of the carbophobics.