A cat forum. CatBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » CatBanter forum » Cat Newsgroups » Cat health & behaviour
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Food Question



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #453  
Old February 4th 04, 07:26 PM
Christina
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I thought you were moving on from this thread......



"Laura R." wrote in message
.. .
circa 04 Feb 2004 17:21:56 GMT, in rec.pets.cats.health+behav, Yngver
) said,
While you and Gaubster appear to be fascinated with who said what about

whom in
these food-related threads, and who ought to apologize to whom, you

should
realize that for the rest of us it's not of any real interest. So yes,

you are
right, none of that provides valuable information.

What she said.

Laura
--
I am Dyslexia of Borg,
Your ass will be laminated.



  #454  
Old February 4th 04, 07:26 PM
Christina
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I thought you were moving on from this thread......



"Laura R." wrote in message
.. .
circa 04 Feb 2004 17:21:56 GMT, in rec.pets.cats.health+behav, Yngver
) said,
While you and Gaubster appear to be fascinated with who said what about

whom in
these food-related threads, and who ought to apologize to whom, you

should
realize that for the rest of us it's not of any real interest. So yes,

you are
right, none of that provides valuable information.

What she said.

Laura
--
I am Dyslexia of Borg,
Your ass will be laminated.



  #455  
Old February 4th 04, 09:45 PM
Steve Crane
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Rona Yuthasastrakosol" wrote in message ...

I wouldn't agree with either statement. I don't read much of Gaubster so I
cannot comment on him, but I do find Steve Crane to be honest and
knowledgeable. There is very much a dichotomy here with much animosity
between the two groups. I value information from both but I do wish the
people involved were more respectful towards each other. I sometimes wonder
why any discussion between the two groups has to become an insult-match with
whomever hurling the most hurtful insults feeling like they've won.


Thank-you Rona,
I think conflicts are inevitable. Whatever I post here is based upon
the hard core science of nutrition. I often annotate what I post here
with sources when requested. I enjoy debate on issues. We all learn in
the process. I kind of have to snicker a bit. I spend my days with a
bunch of board certified diplomates of internal medicine, dermatology,
and nutrition. At those levels the debates are nearly as raucous.
I think it becomes an "insult" match when one side finds the facts
to be counter to thier expressed opinions and they are unable to find
any data to support the opinions they have developed. Once the
argument has been lost, name calling becomes the "argument" of choice.
It's usually a clear signal someone has lost the debate badly.
One thing I do recognize is that there are a lot of "lurkers" on
this NG. I get emails from folks like that several times a week with
questions about one thing or another.
  #456  
Old February 4th 04, 09:45 PM
Steve Crane
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Rona Yuthasastrakosol" wrote in message ...

I wouldn't agree with either statement. I don't read much of Gaubster so I
cannot comment on him, but I do find Steve Crane to be honest and
knowledgeable. There is very much a dichotomy here with much animosity
between the two groups. I value information from both but I do wish the
people involved were more respectful towards each other. I sometimes wonder
why any discussion between the two groups has to become an insult-match with
whomever hurling the most hurtful insults feeling like they've won.


Thank-you Rona,
I think conflicts are inevitable. Whatever I post here is based upon
the hard core science of nutrition. I often annotate what I post here
with sources when requested. I enjoy debate on issues. We all learn in
the process. I kind of have to snicker a bit. I spend my days with a
bunch of board certified diplomates of internal medicine, dermatology,
and nutrition. At those levels the debates are nearly as raucous.
I think it becomes an "insult" match when one side finds the facts
to be counter to thier expressed opinions and they are unable to find
any data to support the opinions they have developed. Once the
argument has been lost, name calling becomes the "argument" of choice.
It's usually a clear signal someone has lost the debate badly.
One thing I do recognize is that there are a lot of "lurkers" on
this NG. I get emails from folks like that several times a week with
questions about one thing or another.
  #459  
Old February 4th 04, 11:39 PM
Steve Crane
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Yngver" wrote in message
...
(GAUBSTER2) wrote:

Because the vast majority of people are feeding crap like 'Ol Roy and
Friskies,
Meow Mix, etc. If more people fed diets like Science Diet,


What are some other foods like Science Diet?

they would cut
their risk factors dramatically. Hill's products have controlled levels

of
fat, sodium, calcium, phosphorus, etc.

Gee, I don't think even Steve Crane himself would go so far as to make a
statement like this.


ROFL,
You are right I won't make that claim because I cannot factually support
it. Nobody can. It would be one of my dreams to have a huge clinical trial
with about 1,000 dogs/cats each on a dozen different company products for a
20 year period and see what the difference might be. I happen to think that
Science Diet would indeed come out on top. But that's merely my opinion and
cannot be supported by any clinical trials that have ever been done. The
costs of such a huge long term trial would break NASA's budget, much less
anyone else's.
I do think that excessive levels of anything are at best unnecessary and
at worst dangerous. Feeding excessive levels of phosphorus to cats is simply
unsupportable. There is no "good news" and we certainly know how common
renal failure in cats is. Thus feeding a food with high levels of phosphorus
to cats with undetected renal failure would be a very very bad idea.
Excessive levels of calcium are also equally unnecessary but it does provide
a clue to the quality of meat meals used by the manufacturer. The vast
majority of calcium in a food comes from the meat meals. The cheaper the
meat meal, the higher the percentage of ground up bone in the meat meal.
Thus high calcium is kind of "barometer" of meat meal quality.
Some other foods - Eukanuba generally does a good job, Royal Canin
generally does a good job, Precise, Sako Ito in Japan generally do a pretty
good job.


  #460  
Old February 4th 04, 11:39 PM
Steve Crane
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Yngver" wrote in message
...
(GAUBSTER2) wrote:

Because the vast majority of people are feeding crap like 'Ol Roy and
Friskies,
Meow Mix, etc. If more people fed diets like Science Diet,


What are some other foods like Science Diet?

they would cut
their risk factors dramatically. Hill's products have controlled levels

of
fat, sodium, calcium, phosphorus, etc.

Gee, I don't think even Steve Crane himself would go so far as to make a
statement like this.


ROFL,
You are right I won't make that claim because I cannot factually support
it. Nobody can. It would be one of my dreams to have a huge clinical trial
with about 1,000 dogs/cats each on a dozen different company products for a
20 year period and see what the difference might be. I happen to think that
Science Diet would indeed come out on top. But that's merely my opinion and
cannot be supported by any clinical trials that have ever been done. The
costs of such a huge long term trial would break NASA's budget, much less
anyone else's.
I do think that excessive levels of anything are at best unnecessary and
at worst dangerous. Feeding excessive levels of phosphorus to cats is simply
unsupportable. There is no "good news" and we certainly know how common
renal failure in cats is. Thus feeding a food with high levels of phosphorus
to cats with undetected renal failure would be a very very bad idea.
Excessive levels of calcium are also equally unnecessary but it does provide
a clue to the quality of meat meals used by the manufacturer. The vast
majority of calcium in a food comes from the meat meals. The cheaper the
meat meal, the higher the percentage of ground up bone in the meat meal.
Thus high calcium is kind of "barometer" of meat meal quality.
Some other foods - Eukanuba generally does a good job, Royal Canin
generally does a good job, Precise, Sako Ito in Japan generally do a pretty
good job.


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Science Diet question... Joe Canuck Cat health & behaviour 188 December 12th 03 01:30 AM
Reply for Phil -L. Cat health & behaviour 8 October 23rd 03 12:30 PM
Follow-up question about canned cat food Jerold Pearson Cat health & behaviour 34 August 8th 03 01:52 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:23 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CatBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.