"Tutorial" guidance required for reading cat food labels - please help, anyone

(Liz) wrote in message . com...

You will not find anywhere in literature anything saying that dietary
phosphorus in the levels used in pet food and properly balanced with
calcium is detrimental to kidneys. What you will find is papers saying
that phosphorus is detrimental if there is too much phosphorus in
blood, a condition called hyperphosphataemia.

That is of course utter nonsense. In a dozen studies the level of
phosphorus in the FOOD provided the animal, vastly affected the
lifespan of the CRF animal. The primary dietary recommendation for the
condition of hyperphosphatemia is REDUUCING the level of phosphorus in
the diet. Since none of us have a crystal ball and cannot tell which
one of five cats will succumb to renal failure, it makes absolutely NO
sense to feed excessive levels of phosphorus in the diet. There is no
"good news" to feeding high phos. There isn't a single advantage to
feeding high levels of phosphorus. Since there is NO advantage, and
since nobody can determine which cat will succumb to CRF , and since
CRF is the second most common cause of death in cats, it makes
absolutely NO sense to feed excessive levels of phos to any animal.
It's just a stupid and avoidable risk.


A study showed that cutting down on phosphorus did
not increase the life expectancy of dogs in the terminal stage of
kidney disease.

Please provide a source for this wild statement. Given that the last
four Grade 1 published peer reviewed studies showed exactly the
opposite. My guess is that you are once again referring to Finco's
much bashed study wherein he fed the group of high phos dogs potassium
citrate, did not feed the low phos dogs potassium citrate, took three
dogs out of the study without acknowledgeing it, admitted that the
dogs on high phos diets had greater and more extensive uremic crisis,
and claimed that since the high phos dogs died of uremic crisis and
NOT renal failure there was no difference with high phos levels. Most
folks consider a dead dog a "negative outcome". Finco chose not to do
so.

In om,
Liz composed with style:


I addition to what others wrote, this is an informative page of info
on pet food labeling. (yes, Steve, this supports what you said about
the ingredient list).
http://www.fda.gov/cvm/index/consumer/petlabel.htm

And, of course, expect another war to start from this thread! LOL

Not from me dear, I'm pooped.

In om,
Liz composed with style:


I addition to what others wrote, this is an informative page of info
on pet food labeling. (yes, Steve, this supports what you said about
the ingredient list).
http://www.fda.gov/cvm/index/consumer/petlabel.htm

And, of course, expect another war to start from this thread! LOL

Not from me dear, I'm pooped.

You will not find anywhere in literature anything saying that dietary
phosphorus in the levels used in pet food and properly balanced with
calcium is detrimental to kidneys. What you will find is papers saying
that phosphorus is detrimental if there is too much phosphorus in
blood, a condition called hyperphosphataemia.

That is of course utter nonsense. In a dozen studies the level of
phosphorus in the FOOD provided the animal, vastly affected the
lifespan of the CRF animal.

Dozen?! I know of only one and in this one, the author states clearly
that it cannot be concluded that restriction of phosphorus increased
their lives. Please give me the references of the other 11.

A study showed that cutting down on phosphorus did
not increase the life expectancy of dogs in the terminal stage of
kidney disease.

Please provide a source for this wild statement.

I already did. Go back to the thread "Chronic Renal Failure" and read
my post with all the references.

Given that the last
four Grade 1 published peer reviewed studies showed exactly the
opposite.

Give me the reference for those four studies.

My guess is that you are once again referring to Finco's
much bashed study wherein he fed the group of high phos dogs potassium
citrate, did not feed the low phos dogs potassium citrate, took three
dogs out of the study without acknowledgeing it, admitted that the
dogs on high phos diets had greater and more extensive uremic crisis,
and claimed that since the high phos dogs died of uremic crisis and
NOT renal failure there was no difference with high phos levels. Most
folks consider a dead dog a "negative outcome". Finco chose not to do
so.

Can you give me proof of what you said above about his study? Did
anyone with a PhD bash his study in writing? If so, where is it?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the other thread, you have not answered many things I asked you. To
make it easier for you, I´ll bring them over to this thread:

What is the percentage of omega 3 and omega 6 in Science Diet Adult
Maintenance?

Levels of such nutrients are proprietary. While I can not share a
specific foods value I will give you some ranges
N3's range from 0.57% to 7.29%,
N6's range from 2.5% to 5.10%

If they are proprietary, how can you claim that Hill´s has more than
any other food? And this proprietary thing is bs. A chemist could
analyze the food at any moment and tell you exactly how much N3 or N6
is in there with an error margin below 0.005%.

My mistake, that should have been metaboic *ketosis*, not acidosis.
Once the state of metabolic ketosis is acheived, there is absolutely
no value is taking carbs any lower.

You are *not* going to reach metabolic ketosis with a 15% carb diet.
You won´t get anywhere near it. Tell me, why does metabolic ketosis
occur?

Absolutely WRONG!!!!!!!! Phos levels above 0.4% in cats and dogs with
early renal failure CAUSES early DEATH. No if's no ands, no buts.

Reference please.

Ricketts - Caused by excessive calcium in the diet. The excessive
calcium binds the vitamin D and the aniaml succumbs to ricketts.
Although a vitamin D *deficiency* can cause this, there hasn't been a
case of vitmain D deficient foods in 40 years.

magnesium - excessive magnesium can trigger struvite stone uroliths.

calcium - Excessd ietary calcium should be avoided to prevent
recrurrence of CaOx crystals.

Vitamin A - cervical spondylosis

Vitamin D - Hypercalcemia, calcinosis, anorexia, lameness

Vitmain E - increased clotting time,

Vitamin B1 - Decreased blood pressure, bradycardia,

Cobalamin B12 - Altered reflexes, reduction inn vascular reflexes,

Leaving aside vitamins A and D, please give me references for the
rest. Regarding struvites, I want a study *proving* that magnesium is
the culprit, not urinary pH. Do you have a study showing that
struvites precipitated in acidic urine? Regarding calcium, I want a
study *proving* that calcium is the culprit, that is, an oxalate-free
(i.e.,plant-free) diet. I also want a study showing that excess
calcium *without* excess vitamin D causes rickets.

It is not the least bit difficult to *add* anything to a diet
you would like to add.

Not difficult but expensive, depending on what you´re adding.

I could add Vitamin E at toxic levels for pennies.

What is the toxic level of vitamin E? And what are the effects of
vitamin E toxicity?

What is difficult to do is to keep unecessary and possibly
harmful things OUT of a diet. It's *cheap* to add things, very
expensive to keep them out.

Excuse me. What are you keeping out? Phosphorus? Tell me something,
which of the following diets has more phosphorus:

1) a diet composed of 25% meat and 35% corn
2) a diet composed of 25% corn and 35% meat

Which ingredient is cheaper, corn or meat?

Please give an example of a disease caused by nutritional excess,
other than obesity.

Let's take CRF, as it is one of the most common causes of death in
cats. Phosphorus, calcium, sodium excess will speed the animals death.
That has been proven is dozens of studies going back many years. While
nobody can say that excess of these minerals CAUSE renal failure,
there is no questions that excesses of these minerals speed a cat to
death much quicker.

Give me *one* reference of what you stated above (in the levels used
in cat food). Of course I can kill myself right now if I eat a pound
of sodium so lets establish limits.

You will not find anywhere in literature anything saying that dietary
phosphorus in the levels used in pet food and properly balanced with
calcium is detrimental to kidneys. What you will find is papers saying
that phosphorus is detrimental if there is too much phosphorus in
blood, a condition called hyperphosphataemia.

That is of course utter nonsense. In a dozen studies the level of
phosphorus in the FOOD provided the animal, vastly affected the
lifespan of the CRF animal.

Dozen?! I know of only one and in this one, the author states clearly
that it cannot be concluded that restriction of phosphorus increased
their lives. Please give me the references of the other 11.

A study showed that cutting down on phosphorus did
not increase the life expectancy of dogs in the terminal stage of
kidney disease.

Please provide a source for this wild statement.

I already did. Go back to the thread "Chronic Renal Failure" and read
my post with all the references.

Given that the last
four Grade 1 published peer reviewed studies showed exactly the
opposite.

Give me the reference for those four studies.

My guess is that you are once again referring to Finco's
much bashed study wherein he fed the group of high phos dogs potassium
citrate, did not feed the low phos dogs potassium citrate, took three
dogs out of the study without acknowledgeing it, admitted that the
dogs on high phos diets had greater and more extensive uremic crisis,
and claimed that since the high phos dogs died of uremic crisis and
NOT renal failure there was no difference with high phos levels. Most
folks consider a dead dog a "negative outcome". Finco chose not to do
so.

Can you give me proof of what you said above about his study? Did
anyone with a PhD bash his study in writing? If so, where is it?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the other thread, you have not answered many things I asked you. To
make it easier for you, I´ll bring them over to this thread:

What is the percentage of omega 3 and omega 6 in Science Diet Adult
Maintenance?

Levels of such nutrients are proprietary. While I can not share a
specific foods value I will give you some ranges
N3's range from 0.57% to 7.29%,
N6's range from 2.5% to 5.10%

If they are proprietary, how can you claim that Hill´s has more than
any other food? And this proprietary thing is bs. A chemist could
analyze the food at any moment and tell you exactly how much N3 or N6
is in there with an error margin below 0.005%.

My mistake, that should have been metaboic *ketosis*, not acidosis.
Once the state of metabolic ketosis is acheived, there is absolutely
no value is taking carbs any lower.

You are *not* going to reach metabolic ketosis with a 15% carb diet.
You won´t get anywhere near it. Tell me, why does metabolic ketosis
occur?

Absolutely WRONG!!!!!!!! Phos levels above 0.4% in cats and dogs with
early renal failure CAUSES early DEATH. No if's no ands, no buts.

Reference please.

Ricketts - Caused by excessive calcium in the diet. The excessive
calcium binds the vitamin D and the aniaml succumbs to ricketts.
Although a vitamin D *deficiency* can cause this, there hasn't been a
case of vitmain D deficient foods in 40 years.

magnesium - excessive magnesium can trigger struvite stone uroliths.

calcium - Excessd ietary calcium should be avoided to prevent
recrurrence of CaOx crystals.

Vitamin A - cervical spondylosis

Vitamin D - Hypercalcemia, calcinosis, anorexia, lameness

Vitmain E - increased clotting time,

Vitamin B1 - Decreased blood pressure, bradycardia,

Cobalamin B12 - Altered reflexes, reduction inn vascular reflexes,

Leaving aside vitamins A and D, please give me references for the
rest. Regarding struvites, I want a study *proving* that magnesium is
the culprit, not urinary pH. Do you have a study showing that
struvites precipitated in acidic urine? Regarding calcium, I want a
study *proving* that calcium is the culprit, that is, an oxalate-free
(i.e.,plant-free) diet. I also want a study showing that excess
calcium *without* excess vitamin D causes rickets.

It is not the least bit difficult to *add* anything to a diet
you would like to add.

Not difficult but expensive, depending on what you´re adding.

I could add Vitamin E at toxic levels for pennies.

What is the toxic level of vitamin E? And what are the effects of
vitamin E toxicity?

What is difficult to do is to keep unecessary and possibly
harmful things OUT of a diet. It's *cheap* to add things, very
expensive to keep them out.

Excuse me. What are you keeping out? Phosphorus? Tell me something,
which of the following diets has more phosphorus:

1) a diet composed of 25% meat and 35% corn
2) a diet composed of 25% corn and 35% meat

Which ingredient is cheaper, corn or meat?

Please give an example of a disease caused by nutritional excess,
other than obesity.

Let's take CRF, as it is one of the most common causes of death in
cats. Phosphorus, calcium, sodium excess will speed the animals death.
That has been proven is dozens of studies going back many years. While
nobody can say that excess of these minerals CAUSE renal failure,
there is no questions that excesses of these minerals speed a cat to
death much quicker.

Give me *one* reference of what you stated above (in the levels used
in cat food). Of course I can kill myself right now if I eat a pound
of sodium so lets establish limits.

"GAUBSTER2" wrote in message
...
A study showed that cutting down on phosphorus did
not increase the life expectancy of dogs in the terminal stage of
kidney disease.

Is this a very old study? There was a study done at the U. of Minnesota
back
in 2001 or 2002 that showed dogs fed a low phosphorus food lived over 3
times
as long (on average) and with 1/2 the uremic crisises (sp?) as dogs on a
"maintenance" food. (and these were dogs "in the terminal stage of kidney
disease). Actually kidney disease is always fatal, so at what point do
you
believe to be the "terminal stage" of kidney disease?

Keep in mind, Liz carefully picks her studies and uses only the studies
and/or parts of studies that support her agenda and omits or minimizes the
parts of the study and/or entire studies that contradict her agenda. She
tries to minimize the potential dangers of phosphorus to rationalize feeding
her high phosphorus diets.... and probably because Hill's diets are low in
phosphorus... and you know how much she hates Hill's! LOL!

Its a well-known *fact* that phosphorus restriction increases survival in
dogs and cats.

The Finco study - probably the most well-known phosphorus study in dogs
showed reduced phosphorus *indeed* increased survival. Here's an exact
excerpt from the abstract:

"Dog survival was significantly enhanced by 0.4% P diets (vs 1.4% P diets),
but survival was not significantly influenced by amount of dietary protein.
The 0.4% P diets (vs 1.4% P diets) significantly increased the period that
GFR remained stable before it decreased, but dietary protein did not have
significant effect."

Read the actual abstract yourself: http://tinyurl.com/99w6

In a similar study, GFR was higher and survival was longer in dogs fed lower
phosphorus and calcium diets.
Here's the other abstract http://tinyurl.com/99w6

Both studies were conducted at the Department of Physiology and Veterinary
Pathology - University of Georgia and published in the American Journal of
Veterinary Research... but of course Liz knows better! LOL! Like she knew
better about dissolving calcium oxalate uroliths with *water* in cats...even
though every veterinary university and publication says calcium oxalate
uroliths and crystals can't be dissolved...

I think there's something seriously wrong with her.... Every vet who read
her asinine theories thinks she's a "nut case" (exact quote) LOL! ...

"GAUBSTER2" wrote in message
...
A study showed that cutting down on phosphorus did
not increase the life expectancy of dogs in the terminal stage of
kidney disease.

Is this a very old study? There was a study done at the U. of Minnesota
back
in 2001 or 2002 that showed dogs fed a low phosphorus food lived over 3
times
as long (on average) and with 1/2 the uremic crisises (sp?) as dogs on a
"maintenance" food. (and these were dogs "in the terminal stage of kidney
disease). Actually kidney disease is always fatal, so at what point do
you
believe to be the "terminal stage" of kidney disease?

Keep in mind, Liz carefully picks her studies and uses only the studies
and/or parts of studies that support her agenda and omits or minimizes the
parts of the study and/or entire studies that contradict her agenda. She
tries to minimize the potential dangers of phosphorus to rationalize feeding
her high phosphorus diets.... and probably because Hill's diets are low in
phosphorus... and you know how much she hates Hill's! LOL!

Its a well-known *fact* that phosphorus restriction increases survival in
dogs and cats.

The Finco study - probably the most well-known phosphorus study in dogs
showed reduced phosphorus *indeed* increased survival. Here's an exact
excerpt from the abstract:

"Dog survival was significantly enhanced by 0.4% P diets (vs 1.4% P diets),
but survival was not significantly influenced by amount of dietary protein.
The 0.4% P diets (vs 1.4% P diets) significantly increased the period that
GFR remained stable before it decreased, but dietary protein did not have
significant effect."

Read the actual abstract yourself: http://tinyurl.com/99w6

In a similar study, GFR was higher and survival was longer in dogs fed lower
phosphorus and calcium diets.
Here's the other abstract http://tinyurl.com/99w6

Both studies were conducted at the Department of Physiology and Veterinary
Pathology - University of Georgia and published in the American Journal of
Veterinary Research... but of course Liz knows better! LOL! Like she knew
better about dissolving calcium oxalate uroliths with *water* in cats...even
though every veterinary university and publication says calcium oxalate
uroliths and crystals can't be dissolved...

I think there's something seriously wrong with her.... Every vet who read
her asinine theories thinks she's a "nut case" (exact quote) LOL! ...

"Liz" wrote in message
om...

Still trying to manipulate the facts in an attempt to minimize the potential
dangers of high phosphorus diets in order to rationalize feeding the high
phosphorus diets you feed and promote, eh? This is one of the reasons why
vets and ACVIM Diplomates think you're a "nut case" and "dangerous" (exact
quote)... and that was before they read your utterly asinine and extremely
dangerous theory of dissolving calcium oxalate uroliths water in cats.... I
shudder at the thought of cats dying of acute renal failure because their
owners accepted your asinine theory as fact...

And now, *again*, you're trying to put still more cats at risk of early
death by attempting to minimize the danger of high phosphorus diets simply
to support your fanatical fundamentalist agenda and asinine theory that are
also in direct opposition to mainstrean veterinary practice just as your
utterly *stupid* and asinine theory of dissolving calcium oxalate uroliths
with *water* in cats!


You will not find anywhere in literature anything saying that dietary
phosphorus in the levels used in pet food and properly balanced with
calcium is detrimental to kidneys.

Of course that's pure manipulated bullsh!t... as usual. Even the study you
tried to manipulate showed cats fed reduced phosphorus diets survived more
than *twice* as long as cats fed normal phosphorus diets.

You remember the study, don't you?

"median survival times of 264 days (interquartile range of 190 to 535 days)
and 633 days (interquartile range of 338 to 950 days) for the maintenance
diet and phosphate-restricted groups"

Its also the study that you *deliberately* and *deceitfully* omitted

"Plasma phosphate and PTH (parathyroid hormone) concentrations were assessed
at the mid-survival time point in each group. A significant increase in PTH
had occurred with time in the group that were not phosphate restricted,
whereas PTH concentrations were lower than at the time of entry to the study
in 69% of the group receiving phosphate restriction.".

....because it contradicted your asinine agenda and theory/

You were nice enough to include:

"Although this study was non-randomised and open rather than double blind
and placebo controlled, the cats that accepted the phosphate-restricted
treatment regimen lived considerably longer than those that were fed
standard maintenance diets. It cannot be concluded that phosphate
restriction was the only factor responsible for this finding but it seems
likely to have played a major part given the evidence from other
species,including the dog.'

But you *deliberately* omitted the last sentence because it contradicted
your asinine theory and fanatical agenda!

:To wit:

"Based on the results of this study and the evidence from experimental
studies, phosphate restriction should be a standard part of any treatment
regimen for CRF in cats".

Gee, how did you miss the last sentence and very important sentences
concerning the reduction of PTH with phosphorus restriction????

This is clear and incontrovertible *fact* that you *intentionally* and
*deliberately* and worst of all, **deceitfully** misinterpret, misrepresent,
and manipulate statements and studies to suit your fanatical agenda and
utterly asinine theories that are in absolute opposition to mainstream
veterinary literature and practice.



What you will find is papers saying
that phosphorus is detrimental if there is too much phosphorus in
blood, a condition called hyperphosphataemia.

Another one of your manipulations... or delusions... Studies in cats with
CRF showed that cats with normal dietary phosphorus intake had microscopic
renal mineralization and fibrosis and that mineralization and fibrosis were
prevented by decreasing the dietary phosphorus intake. Mineralization and
fibrosis leads to inflammation and destruction of renal tissue....

Hyperparathyroidism is very common in cats with CRF, even in cats that are
***normophosphatemic*** and phosphorus restriction results in a reduction in
plasma PTH (parathyroid hormone) concentration... and hyperparathyroidism
certainly *is* detrimental to the kidneys. Thus, phosphorus restriction
*is* beneficial - even in cats that are ***normophosphatemic***. .

Read it and weep: Journal of Small Animal Practice 1998;39:108-116

....or you'll find similar findings in the paragraphs you *deliberately* and
*deceitfully* omitted from your post in the CRF thread....

That is of course utter nonsense. In a dozen studies the level of
phosphorus in the FOOD provided the animal, vastly affected the
lifespan of the CRF animal.

Dozen?! I know of only one and in this one, the author states clearly
that it cannot be concluded that restriction of phosphorus increased
their lives.

That's because you only cite and/or use the studies and/or parts of studies
that support your agenda and omit or minimize the parts of the study and/or
entire studies that contradict your agenda.

Its a well-known *fact* that phosphorus restriction increases survival in
dogs and cats. Are you trying to re-write veterinary literature about CRF
like you tried to do with your asinine theory of dissolving calcium oxalate
uroliths with water in cats?

The Finco study - probably the most well-known phosphorus study in dogs
showed reduced phosphorus *indeed* increased survival. Here's an exact
excerpt from the abstract

American Journal of Veterinary Research 1992; 53: 157-163
Effects of dietary phosphorus and protein in dogs with chronic renal failure

"Dog survival was significantly enhanced by 0.4% P diets (vs 1.4% P diets),
but survival was not significantly influenced by amount of dietary protein.
The 0.4% P diets (vs 1.4% P diets) significantly increased the period that
GFR remained stable before it decreased, but dietary protein did not have
significant effect."

In another study, GFR was also higher and survival was also longer in dogs
fed lower phosphorus and calcium diets.

Read it and weep:

American Aournal of Veterinary Research 1992; 53: 157-163.

Sure looks like phosphorus restriction certainly does *increase* survival
and GFR, doesn't it? huh?

Both studies were conducted at the Department of Physiology and Veterinary
Pathology - University of Georgia and published in the American Journal of
Veterinary Research... But of course you, a backwoods, stump-jumping au
natural fanatical fundamentalist without any veterinary medical training,
knows more about CRF than veterinary pathologists LOL! I've thought all
along that there's something seriously wrong with you....



Please provide a source for this wild statement.

I already did. Go back to the thread "Chronic Renal Failure" and read
my post with all the references.

Steve works for a living, so he doesn't have as much free time to waste as
you have to go digging through previous threads all day.... Besides, you're
certainly not a credible source....

You have clearly proven that you *intentionally* and *deliberately* and
worst of all, **deceitfully** misinterpret, misrepresent, and manipulate
statements and studies to suit your fanatical agenda and utterly asinine
theories that are in absolute opposition to mainstream veterinary literature
and practice.

You are beyond the shadow of a doubt, the *worst*, deceitful, and most
*dangerous* sleazy character that has ever posted to this group. You are a
clear and present danger to cats and their owners.

The world for cats would be a *better* and *safer* place without you in it.



the remainder of your bullsh!t snipped due to nausea

"Liz" wrote in message
om...

Still trying to manipulate the facts in an attempt to minimize the potential
dangers of high phosphorus diets in order to rationalize feeding the high
phosphorus diets you feed and promote, eh? This is one of the reasons why
vets and ACVIM Diplomates think you're a "nut case" and "dangerous" (exact
quote)... and that was before they read your utterly asinine and extremely
dangerous theory of dissolving calcium oxalate uroliths water in cats.... I
shudder at the thought of cats dying of acute renal failure because their
owners accepted your asinine theory as fact...

And now, *again*, you're trying to put still more cats at risk of early
death by attempting to minimize the danger of high phosphorus diets simply
to support your fanatical fundamentalist agenda and asinine theory that are
also in direct opposition to mainstrean veterinary practice just as your
utterly *stupid* and asinine theory of dissolving calcium oxalate uroliths
with *water* in cats!


You will not find anywhere in literature anything saying that dietary
phosphorus in the levels used in pet food and properly balanced with
calcium is detrimental to kidneys.

Of course that's pure manipulated bullsh!t... as usual. Even the study you
tried to manipulate showed cats fed reduced phosphorus diets survived more
than *twice* as long as cats fed normal phosphorus diets.

You remember the study, don't you?

"median survival times of 264 days (interquartile range of 190 to 535 days)
and 633 days (interquartile range of 338 to 950 days) for the maintenance
diet and phosphate-restricted groups"

Its also the study that you *deliberately* and *deceitfully* omitted

"Plasma phosphate and PTH (parathyroid hormone) concentrations were assessed
at the mid-survival time point in each group. A significant increase in PTH
had occurred with time in the group that were not phosphate restricted,
whereas PTH concentrations were lower than at the time of entry to the study
in 69% of the group receiving phosphate restriction.".

....because it contradicted your asinine agenda and theory/

You were nice enough to include:

"Although this study was non-randomised and open rather than double blind
and placebo controlled, the cats that accepted the phosphate-restricted
treatment regimen lived considerably longer than those that were fed
standard maintenance diets. It cannot be concluded that phosphate
restriction was the only factor responsible for this finding but it seems
likely to have played a major part given the evidence from other
species,including the dog.'

But you *deliberately* omitted the last sentence because it contradicted
your asinine theory and fanatical agenda!

:To wit:

"Based on the results of this study and the evidence from experimental
studies, phosphate restriction should be a standard part of any treatment
regimen for CRF in cats".

Gee, how did you miss the last sentence and very important sentences
concerning the reduction of PTH with phosphorus restriction????

This is clear and incontrovertible *fact* that you *intentionally* and
*deliberately* and worst of all, **deceitfully** misinterpret, misrepresent,
and manipulate statements and studies to suit your fanatical agenda and
utterly asinine theories that are in absolute opposition to mainstream
veterinary literature and practice.



What you will find is papers saying
that phosphorus is detrimental if there is too much phosphorus in
blood, a condition called hyperphosphataemia.

Another one of your manipulations... or delusions... Studies in cats with
CRF showed that cats with normal dietary phosphorus intake had microscopic
renal mineralization and fibrosis and that mineralization and fibrosis were
prevented by decreasing the dietary phosphorus intake. Mineralization and
fibrosis leads to inflammation and destruction of renal tissue....

Hyperparathyroidism is very common in cats with CRF, even in cats that are
***normophosphatemic*** and phosphorus restriction results in a reduction in
plasma PTH (parathyroid hormone) concentration... and hyperparathyroidism
certainly *is* detrimental to the kidneys. Thus, phosphorus restriction
*is* beneficial - even in cats that are ***normophosphatemic***. .

Read it and weep: Journal of Small Animal Practice 1998;39:108-116

....or you'll find similar findings in the paragraphs you *deliberately* and
*deceitfully* omitted from your post in the CRF thread....

That is of course utter nonsense. In a dozen studies the level of
phosphorus in the FOOD provided the animal, vastly affected the
lifespan of the CRF animal.

Dozen?! I know of only one and in this one, the author states clearly
that it cannot be concluded that restriction of phosphorus increased
their lives.

That's because you only cite and/or use the studies and/or parts of studies
that support your agenda and omit or minimize the parts of the study and/or
entire studies that contradict your agenda.

Its a well-known *fact* that phosphorus restriction increases survival in
dogs and cats. Are you trying to re-write veterinary literature about CRF
like you tried to do with your asinine theory of dissolving calcium oxalate
uroliths with water in cats?

The Finco study - probably the most well-known phosphorus study in dogs
showed reduced phosphorus *indeed* increased survival. Here's an exact
excerpt from the abstract

American Journal of Veterinary Research 1992; 53: 157-163
Effects of dietary phosphorus and protein in dogs with chronic renal failure

"Dog survival was significantly enhanced by 0.4% P diets (vs 1.4% P diets),
but survival was not significantly influenced by amount of dietary protein.
The 0.4% P diets (vs 1.4% P diets) significantly increased the period that
GFR remained stable before it decreased, but dietary protein did not have
significant effect."

In another study, GFR was also higher and survival was also longer in dogs
fed lower phosphorus and calcium diets.

Read it and weep:

American Aournal of Veterinary Research 1992; 53: 157-163.

Sure looks like phosphorus restriction certainly does *increase* survival
and GFR, doesn't it? huh?

Both studies were conducted at the Department of Physiology and Veterinary
Pathology - University of Georgia and published in the American Journal of
Veterinary Research... But of course you, a backwoods, stump-jumping au
natural fanatical fundamentalist without any veterinary medical training,
knows more about CRF than veterinary pathologists LOL! I've thought all
along that there's something seriously wrong with you....



Please provide a source for this wild statement.

I already did. Go back to the thread "Chronic Renal Failure" and read
my post with all the references.

Steve works for a living, so he doesn't have as much free time to waste as
you have to go digging through previous threads all day.... Besides, you're
certainly not a credible source....

You have clearly proven that you *intentionally* and *deliberately* and
worst of all, **deceitfully** misinterpret, misrepresent, and manipulate
statements and studies to suit your fanatical agenda and utterly asinine
theories that are in absolute opposition to mainstream veterinary literature
and practice.

You are beyond the shadow of a doubt, the *worst*, deceitful, and most
*dangerous* sleazy character that has ever posted to this group. You are a
clear and present danger to cats and their owners.

The world for cats would be a *better* and *safer* place without you in it.



the remainder of your bullsh!t snipped due to nausea

I´m not going to go over the whole thing again. The only thing I will
say is that if what you and Hill´s state were in fact substanciated,
cats in zoos would not be fed such a rich phosphorus diet and those
two cats fed eggs and bacon for breakfast (remember bacon has a lot of
sodium) would never have lived that long. I also suggest you read more
on metabolic acidosis and how it affects proteins, bones and kidneys.

In one of your posts you said your cats died at 19, 20 and 22. What
did they die of? What did you feed them? How often did you vaccinate
them? Did they have any health problems?