|
| 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. |
|
|||||||
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#251
November 4th 03, 05:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
#252
November 4th 03, 05:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#253
November 4th 03, 05:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#254
November 4th 03, 05:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#256
November 4th 03, 10:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
(Steve G) wrote in message . com...
(GAUBSTER2) wrote in message ... (...) "others" as in: other people on this ng, not just you and/or other people in real life, not just on this ng. Ah, a mysterious collective 'others'; shadowy figures incanting: 'some people define human-grade food as food that contains some human-grade items, although not necessarily all human-grade items. Even though every food contains at least some human-grade stuff'. Odd people, these 'others'. Wonder who they are? Very good, now you admit that "every" food contains some human-grade ingredients. Never said otherwise (feel free to provide evidence to the contrary). And, some non-edible items contain edible components! It's a specious argument, you see. Any particular food may claim "contains human grade ingredients" and they would be correct (in most cases). It took a while but not you get my point. You didn't get my point though, i.e., that your argument is meaningless. Or, that in an attempt to 'defend' SD et al, you overreached. I imagine that people who want 'human-grade' foodstuffs in their pet food are actually speaking of all major ingredients being 'human-grade' - or, perhaps, choosing 'human-grade' is perceived as a way to avoid getting chicken ears etc. in the food. So, let's nail the hammer home he are you saying that the byproduct meal used in Hills (or other, indeed) cat foods is suitable for human consumption? I suppose it would depend on the by-product being used. You didn't define exactly what by-product you were referring to. "the by-product meal used in Hills (or other, indeed) cat foods". Don't people eat liver or heart? I do. Well, not heart. Liver and onions - god's own breakfast. I'm sorry Steve, but GAG ME!!  We raised our our beef cattle growingup and my grandmother would occasionally try to get us to eat liver and onions. Thank god, that was the one thing my dad would not try to make us eat, because he hated it just as much as we did. So we would feed it to our friends' kids, who for some reason looooooved her liver and onions. Got us off the hook, though! She made us try heart, liver, tongue - disguising them as "roast". I could always tell after one teeny taste it was another "organ pass-off".  One fun thing - after butchering we would put the offal in our kitchen sink and blindfold friends and stick their hands in it.... hee hee hee K Some by-products are good and some are bad. Not all by-product is bad...another point I've been making for years. When I think of 'byproducts', I'm thinking specifically of byproduct meal, used in cat foods. I would term the (edible) internal organs in isolation to be 'offal'. I don't think anyone disputes that internal organs per se are fine. The byproduct argument seems to center around any potential 'junk' that may get into said meal. Tangentially, I recently ate some beef franks, where the slogan 'no byproducts' was emblazoned on the packet! So it's not just furry freak food... What, even though - as posted by Steve Crane - ALS, kitten and maintenance foods overlap in their required nutritional characteristics?? Absurd! Some do and some do not. It depends on the food. Well, the *requirements* (or recommendations) overlap, but - yes - not all ALS foods fall into the overlap zone. I think you may be seeing the light at the end of the tunnel. Let's hope it's not a train. As a general rule, why would you feed a food that meets the (higher) nutrient demands of a kitten if you have a senior cat? Hm, are we now talking about old-aged cats now? Moreoever, even for foods which are relatively (e.g.) calorific, you have provided no data to show that such foods are dangerous for the furry ones. You are twisting the argument AGAIN. I never said dangerous. I did discuss risk factors. You implied that the foods under discussion may be deleterious to the health of cats. If you are at all concerned about risk factors, you would see what I'm talking about. What risk factors, exactly? Hypertension, kidney disease, FLUTD, etc. And you think that the general mass of ('premium') foods are likely to contribute to these problems. Even though few seem to have 'pathological' levels of (e.g.) sodium, phosphorous, etc. You think that *any* non-pathological canned food will precipitate FLUTD? Or indeed any canned food at all? (...) Good lord! I'm not sure what more I can do to show your error to you, other than hopping over there, and personally tapping a morse-code message onto your skull, using a can of Wellness. You think I am categorically wrong on this one? When you claim that SD has lower levels of nutrients than 'all' other foods, you are categorically wrong. In fact, I doubt you can claim any single nutrient where SD is lower than *every* other food. You are really stretching and looking for grey areas to exploit. When I look at the nutrient profiles of cat foods, I see a vast swathe of gray, with maybe a tingle of black and white at each side! And here's some more gray for your palette: The (e.g., proximate) nutritional analyses are some form of average. As such, the values will show variability. Any differences between the foods are thus even less clear then the black 'n' white figures indicate. More confusion still: some foods labelled as maintenance will contain higher levels of some nutrients than some of the ALS foods! More more confusion: When we start expressing nutrients on a per unit calorie basis, the differences between foods become even less clear! ALS foods may mean something different abroad, Where? but please show me why a company would formulate a food that is higher in nutrients for kittens and then market it to adult and senior cats? Well, a marketing reason could well be simplicity! A health reason might be that, for many nutrients, you might as well err on the side of caution, somewhat. ALS foods (as a general rule, you can probably find an exception or 2) are formulated w/ higher nutrients than adult foods are. Well, IMO it's more correct to say that 'some ALS foods are higher than some adult foods for some nutrients, sometimes'! You are trying to make it more complicated than that. I'm trying to make it as complicated as it is. (...) If you can post any cites that show any of the ALS foods (or at least any that I may feed) significantly increase the risk of ill health in cats, I would (will) change what I feed to il freaks furries, no question. You're asking for something that probably doesn't exist. I think you are probably correct. I can play your game too, but I won't. Let's try this as an example. (...) Feeding an ALS food (met the higher nutrient requirements for kittens) to a senior cat could put that cat at risk for further exacerbating the "hidden" kidney disease. No? As I understand it - and I haven't read the orginal publications - feeding *any* food with 'high' levels of phosphorous will hasten the disease of CRF cats. So, if I were in a position to advise anyone, I would not advise feeding 'high' levels of phos to a(n aging) cat. However, given the wide range of phosp values in different foods, I would be unable to make a clear statement regarding kitten, ALS and maint foods. Prediction: You cannot, will not, will never be able to provide such citations. That's the thing about risk factors. They are precautions that one takes, "just in case". There is no guarantee of a undesirable outcome, yet why not err on the side of caution? Been doing drugs lately? Sheesh! Absolutely. Caffeine. Ethanol. Acetaminophen. Ibuprofen. Fluoride. Capsaicin. Allicins. (...) I suspect that you are thinking of SC's list of vitamin toxicities / the effects of vitamin overdoses? All well and good, if any of the foods we feed contain vitamin levels which could lead to said toxicities. They do not? Ah - I see - another straw man, then. I love it when you people answer your own questions w/o bothering to hear from the person you ask the question of! My apologies. I though you were probably referring to the above, given that it was a recentish thread. I'm talking disease conditions that can be caused or exacerbated by ingesting excessive levels of protein, fat, salt, phosphorus, calcium, magnesium, etc. If a cat is taking in their required daily amount of calories, then they will not be taking in excess protein and fat! In general they will also not be taking in excess salt, phos, and so on. They are exceptions, of course. Remember that what's really important is not the %values per se, but how much of nutrient x the cat actually takes in. This is one reason why it may be better to express nutrients on a 'per calorie' basis (rather than on a equal-weight basis). (...) If I said the earth was round, but didn't "back it up", does that mean I'm wrong? Some differences between the statement 'the Earth is round' and many of your assertions: - It is possible to give evidence that the Earth is round, - The fact that the Earth is round has been established for many 100's of years. It is not in dispute! (...) They didn't work for me. I clicked on the links and got an error message from "makeashorterlink.com". Have patience, and you get redirected! (...) - You're not too hot on the world outside the US, either No, quite frankly I'm not. (...) Well, that's fine - but it puts you on dodgy ground when you suggest Norway as a hotbed of steaming drug-addled fruitcakes. ?? You had a mild anti-fjord stance a short while back. (...) You disagree w/ me so **I'M** wrong? Good for you! No, no - other way round: you're wrong, so I disagree with you! Steve.
|
|
#257
November 4th 03, 10:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
You are twisting the argument AGAIN. I never said dangerous. I did
discuss risk factors. You implied that the foods under discussion may be deleterious to the health of cats. I have specifically said RISK FACTORS. Feeding one cat a food that is high in salt and phosphorus may cause or exacerbate hypertension or kidney disease in one cat and do absolutely nothing for another cat. We all hear stories of the old age cat that ate nothing but Friskies. I wouldn't recommend Friskies per se, based on the excessive levels of nutrients. Is a cat eating Friskies condemned to a bunch problems? Not necessarily. If you are at all concerned about risk factors, you would see what I'm talking about. What risk factors, exactly? Hypertension, kidney disease, FLUTD, etc. And you think that the general mass of ('premium') foods are likely to contribute to these problems. If those premium foods only focus on what ingredients are in the food and not the excessively high levels of certain nutrients....perhaps! You think that *any* non-pathological canned food will precipitate FLUTD? Or indeed any canned food at all? You're changing the question and only focusing on FLUTD and not renal disease, hypertension, heart disease. I'm not focusing strictly on canned diets, are you? When you claim that SD has lower levels of nutrients than 'all' other foods, you are categorically wrong. Generally speaking (for wellness diets, specifically) the Hill's line of foods is lower in phosphorus, calcium, sodium, sugar, magesium, etc. than anyone else's line of foods. There may be a specific diet here or there, but again, generally speaking, the Hill's line is lower while still meeting the KNFs of the individual lifestage. but please show me why a company would formulate a food that is higher in nutrients for kittens and then market it to adult and senior cats? Well, a marketing reason could well be simplicity! A health reason might be that, for many nutrients, you might as well err on the side of caution, somewhat. You are not erring in the side of caution when you have foods that have TOO MUCH of any single (or a combination of) ingredients. Perhaps that is what a dog food or cat food maker would say. That is not what a small animal nutrition company (which Hill's is) would do. If you can post any cites that show any of the ALS foods (or at least any that I may feed) significantly increase the risk of ill health in cats, I would (will) change what I feed to il freaks furries, no question. You're asking for something that probably doesn't exist. I think you are probably correct. You disagree w/ me so **I'M** wrong? Good for you! No, no - other way round: you're wrong, so I disagree with you! Let me correct you. You think I'm wrong so you disagree w/ me. I suppose it would depend on the by-product being used. You didn't define exactly what by-product you were referring to. "the by-product meal used in Hills (or other, indeed) cat foods". Hill's uses the "good" by-product, not feathers, beaks, feet, etc. They very well may use "human grade" ingredients that can technically be classified under the AAFCO rules as "by-product". They do use other ingredients that are "human-grade" (using the definition as other people would intend for it to be used). Some by-products are good and some are bad. Not all by-product is bad...another point I've been making for years. When I think of 'byproducts', I'm thinking specifically of byproduct meal, used in cat foods. I would term the (edible) internal organs in isolation to be 'offal'. I don't think anyone disputes that internal organs per se are fine. The byproduct argument seems to center around any potential 'junk' that may get into said meal. The "by-product argument" is misleading. People have an emotional reaction to that term, but I'll say it AGAIN....there is good by-product and bad by-product. Don't get misled into believing that just because a bag has "by-product" listed, that it is a bad thing. Hill's uses "good" by-products such as what you describe above. As for "junk", one person's junk is another person's treasure, no? By-product is not always "junk" although the anti-Hill's people would have you believe think so!.
|
|
#258
November 4th 03, 10:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
You are twisting the argument AGAIN. I never said dangerous. I did
discuss risk factors. You implied that the foods under discussion may be deleterious to the health of cats. I have specifically said RISK FACTORS. Feeding one cat a food that is high in salt and phosphorus may cause or exacerbate hypertension or kidney disease in one cat and do absolutely nothing for another cat. We all hear stories of the old age cat that ate nothing but Friskies. I wouldn't recommend Friskies per se, based on the excessive levels of nutrients. Is a cat eating Friskies condemned to a bunch problems? Not necessarily. If you are at all concerned about risk factors, you would see what I'm talking about. What risk factors, exactly? Hypertension, kidney disease, FLUTD, etc. And you think that the general mass of ('premium') foods are likely to contribute to these problems. If those premium foods only focus on what ingredients are in the food and not the excessively high levels of certain nutrients....perhaps! You think that *any* non-pathological canned food will precipitate FLUTD? Or indeed any canned food at all? You're changing the question and only focusing on FLUTD and not renal disease, hypertension, heart disease. I'm not focusing strictly on canned diets, are you? When you claim that SD has lower levels of nutrients than 'all' other foods, you are categorically wrong. Generally speaking (for wellness diets, specifically) the Hill's line of foods is lower in phosphorus, calcium, sodium, sugar, magesium, etc. than anyone else's line of foods. There may be a specific diet here or there, but again, generally speaking, the Hill's line is lower while still meeting the KNFs of the individual lifestage. but please show me why a company would formulate a food that is higher in nutrients for kittens and then market it to adult and senior cats? Well, a marketing reason could well be simplicity! A health reason might be that, for many nutrients, you might as well err on the side of caution, somewhat. You are not erring in the side of caution when you have foods that have TOO MUCH of any single (or a combination of) ingredients. Perhaps that is what a dog food or cat food maker would say. That is not what a small animal nutrition company (which Hill's is) would do. If you can post any cites that show any of the ALS foods (or at least any that I may feed) significantly increase the risk of ill health in cats, I would (will) change what I feed to il freaks furries, no question. You're asking for something that probably doesn't exist. I think you are probably correct. You disagree w/ me so **I'M** wrong? Good for you! No, no - other way round: you're wrong, so I disagree with you! Let me correct you. You think I'm wrong so you disagree w/ me. I suppose it would depend on the by-product being used. You didn't define exactly what by-product you were referring to. "the by-product meal used in Hills (or other, indeed) cat foods". Hill's uses the "good" by-product, not feathers, beaks, feet, etc. They very well may use "human grade" ingredients that can technically be classified under the AAFCO rules as "by-product". They do use other ingredients that are "human-grade" (using the definition as other people would intend for it to be used). Some by-products are good and some are bad. Not all by-product is bad...another point I've been making for years. When I think of 'byproducts', I'm thinking specifically of byproduct meal, used in cat foods. I would term the (edible) internal organs in isolation to be 'offal'. I don't think anyone disputes that internal organs per se are fine. The byproduct argument seems to center around any potential 'junk' that may get into said meal. The "by-product argument" is misleading. People have an emotional reaction to that term, but I'll say it AGAIN....there is good by-product and bad by-product. Don't get misled into believing that just because a bag has "by-product" listed, that it is a bad thing. Hill's uses "good" by-products such as what you describe above. As for "junk", one person's junk is another person's treasure, no? By-product is not always "junk" although the anti-Hill's people would have you believe think so!.
|
|
#259
November 4th 03, 11:14 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
From: (GAUBSTER2)
Hill's uses "good" by-products Hill's uses the "good" by-product, not feathers, beaks, feet, etc. They very well may use "human grade" ingredients that can technically be classified under the AAFCO rules as "by-product". They do use other ingredients that are "human-grade" (using the definition as other people would intend for it to be used). You know this how? Since you claim not to work for the company, I just wonder how you know this to be a fact? ________ See my cats: http://community.webshots.com/album/56955940rWhxAe Raw Diet Info: http://www.holisticat.com/drjletter.html http://www.geocities.com/rawfeeders/ForCatsOnly.html Declawing Info: http://www.wholecat.com/articles/claws.htm
|
|
#260
November 4th 03, 11:14 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
From: (GAUBSTER2)
Hill's uses "good" by-products Hill's uses the "good" by-product, not feathers, beaks, feet, etc. They very well may use "human grade" ingredients that can technically be classified under the AAFCO rules as "by-product". They do use other ingredients that are "human-grade" (using the definition as other people would intend for it to be used). You know this how? Since you claim not to work for the company, I just wonder how you know this to be a fact? ________ See my cats: http://community.webshots.com/album/56955940rWhxAe Raw Diet Info: http://www.holisticat.com/drjletter.html http://www.geocities.com/rawfeeders/ForCatsOnly.html Declawing Info: http://www.wholecat.com/articles/claws.htm
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| "Science Diet" Hairball Control Sensitivity | Alaininsd | Cat health & behaviour | 286 | October 26th 03 03:42 PM |
| Liz's Food recommendations | Steve Crane | Cat health & behaviour | 454 | October 20th 03 08:20 PM |
Linear Mode
