Food Question

From: ospam (Yngver)

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.

Hill's products DO have controlled levels of fat, sodium, calcium phosphorus,
magnesium, etc. Do you dispute that?

From: ospam (Yngver)

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.

Hill's products DO have controlled levels of fat, sodium, calcium phosphorus,
magnesium, etc. Do you dispute that?

"Yngver" wrote in message
...

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,

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.

Excessive levels of the nutrients I listed are indeed risk factors. No?

"Yngver" wrote in message
...

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,

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.

Excessive levels of the nutrients I listed are indeed risk factors. No?

Steve Crane" wrote:

(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.

I know. That was my point. Gaubster is rather over-exuberant sometimes when
extolling the wonders of Science Diet.

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'm not sure it could really be done, funding aside. Consider how many
variables would enter into such a study. And by the time it was done, what
would it mean? The leading pet food manufacturers would have changed
(presumably to improve) their formulations over the course of twenty years.


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.

Thank you for the recommendations. Now, I can't recall--is it Eukanuba or is it
SD that advertises a new formula that will give our lazy cats more energy? I'm
waiting for it to kick in.

Steve Crane" wrote:

(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.

I know. That was my point. Gaubster is rather over-exuberant sometimes when
extolling the wonders of Science Diet.

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'm not sure it could really be done, funding aside. Consider how many
variables would enter into such a study. And by the time it was done, what
would it mean? The leading pet food manufacturers would have changed
(presumably to improve) their formulations over the course of twenty years.


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.

Thank you for the recommendations. Now, I can't recall--is it Eukanuba or is it
SD that advertises a new formula that will give our lazy cats more energy? I'm
waiting for it to kick in.

(GAUBSTER2) wrote:

From: ospam (Yngver)

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.

Hill's products DO have controlled levels of fat, sodium, calcium phosphorus,
magnesium, etc. Do you dispute that?

Sneaky snippage there, Gaubster, but Steve explained why he would never make
the claim that you did.

(GAUBSTER2) wrote:

From: ospam (Yngver)

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.

Hill's products DO have controlled levels of fat, sodium, calcium phosphorus,
magnesium, etc. Do you dispute that?

Sneaky snippage there, Gaubster, but Steve explained why he would never make
the claim that you did.

Steve Crane" wrote:
"Yngver" wrote in message
...
"Steve Crane" wrote:

OK
I think I understand what you are saying - were suggestions better or
worse than Special Kitty brand pet food?

Yes, thank you. It seemed to me that in view of what the OP was feeding,
many
foods would constitute an improvement--including the ones Lauren
recommended.

Unfortunately I cannot remember why
the OP was using that food in the first place,

Cost.
nor am I familiar with the
brand. If the OP meant Purina Special Care Kitten,

No, it's Walmart's private label cat food. It would be interesting to find
out
who makes it, but I haven't seen that info anywhere.

If the only criteria for the food was cost, no disease issues, no special
"problems" etc, then it is likely that almost any food would be better than
a "generic" food.

Agreed, and that was the point I was making. One might say that a food like
Wellness is not optimal, but it's hard to argue that it would be a worse food
to feed than is Special Kitty.

Most of the time "store brands" are least cost bid foods.
ABC Grcoery Chain decides to provide the ABC Cat food. They develop the
criteria for the food. In some very rare case the criteria are developed
based upon nutritional reasons. In most cases the criteria are cost issues.
When you formulate a food based on least cost - you get what you pay for. I
cannot comment on the Wal-Mart product. They have two lines of food in Wal
Mart. The cheapest Old Roy types and then a "Maxximum Nutrition" line. The
Maxximum nutrition group tends to be higher end foods with fair quality. I
don't know which line this particualr product belongs to.

I've seen Walmart's Special Kitty brand kitty litter. I don't know whether the
OP meant Ol' Roy actually--or if in some Walmart stores Ol' Roy is branded as
Special Kitty. In Canada, perhaps?

If it's the price
concious Old Roy product, then indeed almost any food would be an
improvement. Wal-Marts foods have been manufactured by Doanes for many
years. Doanes is the fourth/fifth largest pet food manufacturer in the US
and most people have never heard of them. They produce many of the "store
brands" like Safeway, Kroger etc generic foods.

If cost was a factor then moving the OP to plain old Purina Cat Chow might
have been an improvement and one that the OP might have been willing to
accept since the cost is not substantially higher. In many cases a premium
food can be fed for less cost than a regular cat food because the cat
consumes so much less food. In that case IAMS at Wal Mart might have been a
good choice. It would have been cheap enough to get the OP to buy it and
been better than the Special Kitty product.

This is very informative--I'm sure the OP has long since stopped reading this
thread but I'd think it would be helpful for others who are trying to choose a
low-priced food.

Suggestion of one food or another are still subject to comment by others on
the NG. Even if the suggestions might have been better than the Special
Kitty, a discussion of the merits of any particular food serve to enlighten
everyone to what those particular foods provide. In the case of the foods
originally suggested 2 of 4 were excessive in calcium and phos at the time.
Since then I have managed to get a complete analysis of Nature's Variety
products and find the majority of those *really* high in calcium and phos,
far more so than the other two discussed.

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.

Yngver,
When I posted the actual values of the foods, I was immediately called a
liar. When I posted the calculated values for carbs and the process for
calculating DMB values from guarantees on another food I was once again
called a liar. Subsequently the facts about the calcium levels were
unquestionably proven to be correct and the facts about the carb level in
the third food concluded by finding that my calculated values were off and
the food actually contained far more carbs than even my calculations
predicted. I posted the 800 number for the company who manufactures the high
carb canned food for anyone to confirm the values I provided. I'm quite sure
that several called the company and found out I was correct. At that point I
was instructed to "eat ****".
There is some valuable information in learning that some on this NG are
opposed to factual information. It gives other readers an opportunity to
evaluate the quality of information provided. The complete and total lack of
integrity and the immature name calling is illustrative of the poster and
again aids in understanding and evaluating the value of whatever that person
posts. If the response to a post is always "You're a liar" and "eat ****",
others on the NG can make a judgment call on the future contributions of
that individual. Had either of the three individuals involved in the
discussion on the carb levels ever had the integrity and probity to come
back to the boards and admit the mistake, the value of that persons comments
would have been greatly elevated. Unfortunately it appears that none of the
three have that level of personal integrity.

Without getting into it myself, I can nevertheless appreciate that your
feelings have been wounded. Yes, there is much valuable information posted on
this ng, but I hope that most readers realize that nothing should be taken at
face value--or nothing important, anyway--and evaluate the info presented here
for themselves. I'm sure that you agree with that.

I haven't followed all of the food war threads, but I have followed some, and
I've learned a lot.

Steve Crane" wrote:
"Yngver" wrote in message
...
"Steve Crane" wrote:

OK
I think I understand what you are saying - were suggestions better or
worse than Special Kitty brand pet food?

Yes, thank you. It seemed to me that in view of what the OP was feeding,
many
foods would constitute an improvement--including the ones Lauren
recommended.

Unfortunately I cannot remember why
the OP was using that food in the first place,

Cost.
nor am I familiar with the
brand. If the OP meant Purina Special Care Kitten,

No, it's Walmart's private label cat food. It would be interesting to find
out
who makes it, but I haven't seen that info anywhere.

If the only criteria for the food was cost, no disease issues, no special
"problems" etc, then it is likely that almost any food would be better than
a "generic" food.

Agreed, and that was the point I was making. One might say that a food like
Wellness is not optimal, but it's hard to argue that it would be a worse food
to feed than is Special Kitty.

Most of the time "store brands" are least cost bid foods.
ABC Grcoery Chain decides to provide the ABC Cat food. They develop the
criteria for the food. In some very rare case the criteria are developed
based upon nutritional reasons. In most cases the criteria are cost issues.
When you formulate a food based on least cost - you get what you pay for. I
cannot comment on the Wal-Mart product. They have two lines of food in Wal
Mart. The cheapest Old Roy types and then a "Maxximum Nutrition" line. The
Maxximum nutrition group tends to be higher end foods with fair quality. I
don't know which line this particualr product belongs to.

I've seen Walmart's Special Kitty brand kitty litter. I don't know whether the
OP meant Ol' Roy actually--or if in some Walmart stores Ol' Roy is branded as
Special Kitty. In Canada, perhaps?

If it's the price
concious Old Roy product, then indeed almost any food would be an
improvement. Wal-Marts foods have been manufactured by Doanes for many
years. Doanes is the fourth/fifth largest pet food manufacturer in the US
and most people have never heard of them. They produce many of the "store
brands" like Safeway, Kroger etc generic foods.

If cost was a factor then moving the OP to plain old Purina Cat Chow might
have been an improvement and one that the OP might have been willing to
accept since the cost is not substantially higher. In many cases a premium
food can be fed for less cost than a regular cat food because the cat
consumes so much less food. In that case IAMS at Wal Mart might have been a
good choice. It would have been cheap enough to get the OP to buy it and
been better than the Special Kitty product.

This is very informative--I'm sure the OP has long since stopped reading this
thread but I'd think it would be helpful for others who are trying to choose a
low-priced food.

Suggestion of one food or another are still subject to comment by others on
the NG. Even if the suggestions might have been better than the Special
Kitty, a discussion of the merits of any particular food serve to enlighten
everyone to what those particular foods provide. In the case of the foods
originally suggested 2 of 4 were excessive in calcium and phos at the time.
Since then I have managed to get a complete analysis of Nature's Variety
products and find the majority of those *really* high in calcium and phos,
far more so than the other two discussed.

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.

Yngver,
When I posted the actual values of the foods, I was immediately called a
liar. When I posted the calculated values for carbs and the process for
calculating DMB values from guarantees on another food I was once again
called a liar. Subsequently the facts about the calcium levels were
unquestionably proven to be correct and the facts about the carb level in
the third food concluded by finding that my calculated values were off and
the food actually contained far more carbs than even my calculations
predicted. I posted the 800 number for the company who manufactures the high
carb canned food for anyone to confirm the values I provided. I'm quite sure
that several called the company and found out I was correct. At that point I
was instructed to "eat ****".
There is some valuable information in learning that some on this NG are
opposed to factual information. It gives other readers an opportunity to
evaluate the quality of information provided. The complete and total lack of
integrity and the immature name calling is illustrative of the poster and
again aids in understanding and evaluating the value of whatever that person
posts. If the response to a post is always "You're a liar" and "eat ****",
others on the NG can make a judgment call on the future contributions of
that individual. Had either of the three individuals involved in the
discussion on the carb levels ever had the integrity and probity to come
back to the boards and admit the mistake, the value of that persons comments
would have been greatly elevated. Unfortunately it appears that none of the
three have that level of personal integrity.

Without getting into it myself, I can nevertheless appreciate that your
feelings have been wounded. Yes, there is much valuable information posted on
this ng, but I hope that most readers realize that nothing should be taken at
face value--or nothing important, anyway--and evaluate the info presented here
for themselves. I'm sure that you agree with that.

I haven't followed all of the food war threads, but I have followed some, and
I've learned a lot.