Phil P - what you recommend from Purina

"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/B...stem-Chart.jpg


Phil

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/B...stem-Chart.jpg

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/B...stem-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.

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

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/B...stem-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.

"Diane" wrote in message
...
In article . com,
" 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!

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...

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 ...

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.

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.