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

Liz's Food recommendations



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old October 8th 03, 01:07 AM
Steve Crane
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

(Liz) wrote in message . com...
Part Two


Felidae Dry: 21% carbohydrates

First of all your calculations were in error on this one, according to
their web site they have: protein 32.0%, fat 20.0%, fiber 2.5%,
moisture 9.0%, ash 5.5% Total 69% 100-69 = 31% carbohydrates


How about the other ingredients you did not add up?

Omega-6 fatty acids - 3.5%
Digestive Enzymes - 1.5 %
Omega-3 fatty acids - 0.75%
Linoleic acid - 3,70%
Magnesium and taurine - ~0.3%


You don't add those up because they are a) part of the greater nurient
or b)inconsequential. Omega fatty acids, linoleic acid are counted in
the total fats. Magnesium is counted within the "ash". Digestive
enzymes are counted in the proteins.


Or are those things carbohydrates in your concept? I won´t bother
looking at the rest of your manipulated numbers.


No I suppose not since they proved you completely wrong and hey, who
wants to know that little bit of information AGAIN?



Now if you are going
to say something like "those things are included in proteins, fats and
ash," I say we write them and ask.


Go for it, you determind the method of measuring carbs, and I followed
your method, adding up the five primary nutrients in cats and the four
primary nutrients in dogs. Something I have been teaching vets and
staff members to do for over 20 years.


Why is it that you posted levels of calcium and phosphorus? Is it the
old scare tactics and innuendoes relating them to kidney damage? If
you have ONE study showing either of them to be toxic to kidneys
please post.


Give me a break, you had such studies posted here so many times it is
ridiculous. Nobody has EVER claimed on this NG that protein,
phosphorus, sodium or calcium CAUSE renal failure. But since renal
failure is the second most common REAL cause of death in cats, not
some fantasy fringe lunatic disease nobody has ever found kind of
death (from ethox for instance), it makes no sense to to have
excessive levels of anything in a diet. Excessive levels of nutrients
are the biggest cause of disease death in pets today. The treatment of
nearly every common disease in cats today starts with the reduction of
such excessive nutrients.

And don´t give me that old crap of the early stages of
kidney disease. Phosphorus is only harmful to kidneys if it is in
excess in *blood*, not in diet.


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.


Excess phosphorus in blood
(hyperphosphataemia) can be detected at any time, all it takes is a
blood panel.


Again WRONG - You cannot detect early renal failure with a "blood
panel". Not even close. I can't believe you are so damn stubborn about
defending your mistakes your carbophobia you would willingly put other
peoples animals at risk by making such a totally erroneous statement.


This philosophy of Hill´s (and some other companies)
treating consumers as morons infuriates me. It shows how much the
company respects their customer - nothing at all. They (customers) are
all a bunch of easily-manipulated imbeciles. So let´s go ahead and
launch the 15% carbs Atkin´s type diet even knowing it doesn´t work.
Who cares? We are making money and that´s all that matters.


Hello!! Earth to LIZ - Purina's dry DM product has the same level of
carbs. That's the diet that Greco preaches in favor of, that Debra
wrote her anti carb article in favor of. Of course the fact that it
has been proven to work and has now even passed the final studies on
diabetes, all of which will be in peer reviewed published journal
articles down the road won't bother you in the least will it. You'll
keep ranting and raving without foundation anyway.
  #22  
Old October 8th 03, 01:18 AM
Steve Crane
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Karen M." wrote in message ...
Steve Crane wrote:


If you want to compare products you ought to compare products within
the same category. Both Wellness and Felidae are "All Life Stage"
foods, which means they have passed AFFCO testing for growth and are
indeed "kitten" foods. Therefore the correct comparison would be to
compare one growth food to another.

Let's see how that works.

Science Diet Feline Kitten
Protein 33%, fat 23%, fiber 3%, moisture 10%, ash 7% Total = 76% thus
this food is 24% carbs.

Science Diet Nature's Best Feline Kitten
Protein 35%, fat 22%, fiber 2%, moisture 10%, ash 6% Total = 75% thus
this food is 25% carbs.

The Science Diet products are 21-33% *LOWER* in carbs than Felidae and
Wellness dry products.


No they're not! You're comparing the SD *kitten* food to the W & F. The
two regular SDs you compared were *higher*, even after your
"corrections". The W & F are *not* exclusive kitten foods, despite your
attempted slight of hand. If you want to be exact, SD *kitten* food is
lower in carbs if you're looking to feed a kitten. For an adult cat, it
is *higher* in carbs.

Karen


Karen,
Yes they are. The Wellnes and Felidae products passed AAFCO GROWTH
trials, that how they obtained an "All Life Stages" designation.
Hill's could have put "All Life Stages" on both of the kitten
products. All it woudl take is a change at the printers. If you are
going to compare foods of a type, you need to comapre the same types.
Science Diet Kitten is also an "All Life Stages" food under the law
and could have been labelled as such. Thus they are indeed far lower
in carbs than the other products. AS for the adult Science Diet
products being "higher", that's not entirely true as you know. Further
the difference between 32.5% and 34% is completely meaningless in
terms of nutrition.

I think a little self honesty is in order here. Had I given you the
same label numbers and told you it was Brand X, "naturally preserved"
made with "holistic" "human grade" ingredients, those anti Science
Diet people on this board would have given this food a 5 star rating.
In fact Hill's could very easily do exactly that. There is nothing to
stop them from calling Nature's Best kitten food "All Life Stages",
"naturally preserved", "holistic", "human grade". All of those terms
could be applied to the Nature's Best kitten product anytime Hill's
wanted to. If you are honest with yourself you will agree that under
those circumstances none of the anti Science Diet crowd would have
disliked the food at all.







Guess you'll be off to buy some Science Diet
won't you? Both are lower in carbs than your picks for a dry food
based upon the third grade nutrition of lowering carbs and ignoring
nutrients. The biggest irony of all is that if the Nature's Best
kitten was repackaged as Brand X and had claims all over the bag as
"holistic", "human grade", both of which terms could legally be
applied to these foods, they would be the perfect foods according to
your criteria. Oh never mind that won't work because you don't care
about the digestibility of ingredients, only that they sound good.
Since one food contains chicken by-products which are more digestible
than plain chicken you would still ignore one of them because what
goes on in the animals body isn't as important as an emotional
judgment made about how good ingredients SOUND.



Purina Cat Chow: 37.5% carbohydrates


Calcium 1.24%
Phosphorus 1.25%


Whiskas: 40% carbohydrates


Calcium 2.73%
Phosphorus 1.82%



Canned:
Science Diet: 5.5% carbohydrates (all grains)


Sigh, same errors actual by label is 5.7% carbs – How in the world you
can call this all grains is utterly beyond me. You claimed earlier
that the carbohydrates were exactly the amount of grains in a food.
Since this food is composed of 94.3% NON carbohydrates and only 5.7%
carbohydrates how you could claim it is "(all grains)" defies logic.



Felidae: 0% carbohydrates (perfect for cats with diabetes or excess
weight)


Calcium 1.32% - in excess of KNF maximum levels for an adult cat.
Phosphorus 1.32% - in excess of the KNF maximum levels for an adult
cat.



Wellness: less than 3% carbohydrates but no grains


Calcium 1.52% Exceeds maximum KNF levels for adult cats.
Phosphorus 0.96% Exceeds maximum KNF levels for adult cats.



Whiskas Ground Chicken Dinner: 0% carbohydrates


No data available, But let's look at another ZERO carb grocery store
food. Fancy Feast Turkey & Giblets canned = 0% carbohydrates
Calcium 2.1% *Greatly* in excess of maximum KNF's for calcium for a
healthy adult cat.
Phosphorus 1.9% *Greatly* in excess of maximum KNF's for phosphorus
for a healthy adult cat. I would expect the Whiskas product to fall
into the same category.



So, as you can see for yourself, Science Diet is much closer to
grocery store brands than it is to the super premium brands above


both

in low-quality ingredients and in percentage of carbs.



And you have now been proven wrong. I'm sure you didn't purposefully
distort the carb levels of the foods you offered. You're too smart to
think you wouldn't be checked, so I'll assume there was some math
error somewhere.

Felidae dry carbs = 31% with *excessive* calcium and phosphorus
Wellness Dry carbs = 27% with *excessive* levels of calcium and
phosphorus

Science Diet Original carbs = 32.5% within KNF guidelines for calcium
and phosphorus levels
Nature's Best Chicken carbs = 32.5% within KNF guidelines for calcium
and phosphorus levels.
Science Diet Kitten carbs = 24% within KNF guidelines for calcium and
phosphorus levels.
Nature's Best Kitten carbs = 25% carbs within KNF guidelines for
calcium and phosphorus levels.

Purina Cat Chow carbs 37.7% with *excessive* calcium and phosphorus.
Fancy Feast carbs 0% but with calcium double maximum KNF levels, and
phos more than double maximum levels.

So what you have proven is that Science Diet is anything but a
"grocery store" quality food as it was the only example which kept
calcium and phos levels down in the proper area. The clear message
here is that some manufacturers are using much less expensive meat
meals with very high percentages of ground up bone tissue in the meat
meals, whereas Science Diet has chosen to use more expensive low "ash"
(bone) meat meals.

The only other thing "proven" is that some people still cling to third
grade math levels of nutrition by basing their judgment on ingredients
and have yet to take the next step to high school math level nutrition
and carefully look at the nutrients.

  #23  
Old October 8th 03, 01:18 AM
Steve Crane
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Karen M." wrote in message ...
Steve Crane wrote:


If you want to compare products you ought to compare products within
the same category. Both Wellness and Felidae are "All Life Stage"
foods, which means they have passed AFFCO testing for growth and are
indeed "kitten" foods. Therefore the correct comparison would be to
compare one growth food to another.

Let's see how that works.

Science Diet Feline Kitten
Protein 33%, fat 23%, fiber 3%, moisture 10%, ash 7% Total = 76% thus
this food is 24% carbs.

Science Diet Nature's Best Feline Kitten
Protein 35%, fat 22%, fiber 2%, moisture 10%, ash 6% Total = 75% thus
this food is 25% carbs.

The Science Diet products are 21-33% *LOWER* in carbs than Felidae and
Wellness dry products.


No they're not! You're comparing the SD *kitten* food to the W & F. The
two regular SDs you compared were *higher*, even after your
"corrections". The W & F are *not* exclusive kitten foods, despite your
attempted slight of hand. If you want to be exact, SD *kitten* food is
lower in carbs if you're looking to feed a kitten. For an adult cat, it
is *higher* in carbs.

Karen


Karen,
Yes they are. The Wellnes and Felidae products passed AAFCO GROWTH
trials, that how they obtained an "All Life Stages" designation.
Hill's could have put "All Life Stages" on both of the kitten
products. All it woudl take is a change at the printers. If you are
going to compare foods of a type, you need to comapre the same types.
Science Diet Kitten is also an "All Life Stages" food under the law
and could have been labelled as such. Thus they are indeed far lower
in carbs than the other products. AS for the adult Science Diet
products being "higher", that's not entirely true as you know. Further
the difference between 32.5% and 34% is completely meaningless in
terms of nutrition.

I think a little self honesty is in order here. Had I given you the
same label numbers and told you it was Brand X, "naturally preserved"
made with "holistic" "human grade" ingredients, those anti Science
Diet people on this board would have given this food a 5 star rating.
In fact Hill's could very easily do exactly that. There is nothing to
stop them from calling Nature's Best kitten food "All Life Stages",
"naturally preserved", "holistic", "human grade". All of those terms
could be applied to the Nature's Best kitten product anytime Hill's
wanted to. If you are honest with yourself you will agree that under
those circumstances none of the anti Science Diet crowd would have
disliked the food at all.







Guess you'll be off to buy some Science Diet
won't you? Both are lower in carbs than your picks for a dry food
based upon the third grade nutrition of lowering carbs and ignoring
nutrients. The biggest irony of all is that if the Nature's Best
kitten was repackaged as Brand X and had claims all over the bag as
"holistic", "human grade", both of which terms could legally be
applied to these foods, they would be the perfect foods according to
your criteria. Oh never mind that won't work because you don't care
about the digestibility of ingredients, only that they sound good.
Since one food contains chicken by-products which are more digestible
than plain chicken you would still ignore one of them because what
goes on in the animals body isn't as important as an emotional
judgment made about how good ingredients SOUND.



Purina Cat Chow: 37.5% carbohydrates


Calcium 1.24%
Phosphorus 1.25%


Whiskas: 40% carbohydrates


Calcium 2.73%
Phosphorus 1.82%



Canned:
Science Diet: 5.5% carbohydrates (all grains)


Sigh, same errors actual by label is 5.7% carbs – How in the world you
can call this all grains is utterly beyond me. You claimed earlier
that the carbohydrates were exactly the amount of grains in a food.
Since this food is composed of 94.3% NON carbohydrates and only 5.7%
carbohydrates how you could claim it is "(all grains)" defies logic.



Felidae: 0% carbohydrates (perfect for cats with diabetes or excess
weight)


Calcium 1.32% - in excess of KNF maximum levels for an adult cat.
Phosphorus 1.32% - in excess of the KNF maximum levels for an adult
cat.



Wellness: less than 3% carbohydrates but no grains


Calcium 1.52% Exceeds maximum KNF levels for adult cats.
Phosphorus 0.96% Exceeds maximum KNF levels for adult cats.



Whiskas Ground Chicken Dinner: 0% carbohydrates


No data available, But let's look at another ZERO carb grocery store
food. Fancy Feast Turkey & Giblets canned = 0% carbohydrates
Calcium 2.1% *Greatly* in excess of maximum KNF's for calcium for a
healthy adult cat.
Phosphorus 1.9% *Greatly* in excess of maximum KNF's for phosphorus
for a healthy adult cat. I would expect the Whiskas product to fall
into the same category.



So, as you can see for yourself, Science Diet is much closer to
grocery store brands than it is to the super premium brands above


both

in low-quality ingredients and in percentage of carbs.



And you have now been proven wrong. I'm sure you didn't purposefully
distort the carb levels of the foods you offered. You're too smart to
think you wouldn't be checked, so I'll assume there was some math
error somewhere.

Felidae dry carbs = 31% with *excessive* calcium and phosphorus
Wellness Dry carbs = 27% with *excessive* levels of calcium and
phosphorus

Science Diet Original carbs = 32.5% within KNF guidelines for calcium
and phosphorus levels
Nature's Best Chicken carbs = 32.5% within KNF guidelines for calcium
and phosphorus levels.
Science Diet Kitten carbs = 24% within KNF guidelines for calcium and
phosphorus levels.
Nature's Best Kitten carbs = 25% carbs within KNF guidelines for
calcium and phosphorus levels.

Purina Cat Chow carbs 37.7% with *excessive* calcium and phosphorus.
Fancy Feast carbs 0% but with calcium double maximum KNF levels, and
phos more than double maximum levels.

So what you have proven is that Science Diet is anything but a
"grocery store" quality food as it was the only example which kept
calcium and phos levels down in the proper area. The clear message
here is that some manufacturers are using much less expensive meat
meals with very high percentages of ground up bone tissue in the meat
meals, whereas Science Diet has chosen to use more expensive low "ash"
(bone) meat meals.

The only other thing "proven" is that some people still cling to third
grade math levels of nutrition by basing their judgment on ingredients
and have yet to take the next step to high school math level nutrition
and carefully look at the nutrients.

  #24  
Old October 8th 03, 04:36 AM
Philip ®
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In ,
PawsForThought being of bellicose mind
posted:
From: (Liz)


This philosophy of Hill´s (and some other companies)
treating consumers as morons infuriates me. It shows how much the
company respects their customer - nothing at all. They
(customers) are all a bunch of easily-manipulated imbeciles. So
let´s go ahead and launch the 15% carbs Atkin´s type diet even
knowing it doesn´t work. Who cares? We are making money and
that´s all that matters.


Have you checked out Hill's newest "formula" called Advanced
Protection? Ingredients:
Brewers rice, chicken by-product meal, corn gluten meal, corn
meal, animal fat (preserved with mixed tocopherols and citric
acid), dried egg product, chicken liver flavor, fish oil
(preserved with mixed tocopherols and ascorbic acid),
DL-methionine, L-lysine, natural flavor, taurine, L-cysteine,
L-carnitine, preserved with mixed tocopherols and citric acid,
minerals (potassium chloride, calcium sulfate, calcium carbonate,
salt, ferrous sulfate, zinc oxide, copper sulfate, manganous
oxide, calcium iodate, sodium selenite), rosemary extract,
beta-carotene, vitamins (choline chloride, vitamin A supplement,
vitamin E supplement, vitamin D3 supplement,
L-ascorbyl-2-polyphosphate (a source of Vitamin C), niacin,
thiamine mononitrate, calcium pantothenate, riboflavin, pyridoxine
hydrochloride, folic acid, biotin, vitamin B12 supplement).

Again, it looks like another grain based diet, cooked to death,
and then they throw some vitamins in. I still haven't figured out
exacftly what dried egg product is, and once again, they add
chicken liver "flavor" but no chicken liver. Animal fat could be
from any source, who knows? Ah wait, I just found this website:
http://www.hillssciencediet.info/DEFINITION.htm

Lauren
________


The only thing I look for on a can of cat food is the ABSENCE of
"meat byproducts."
--

~~Philip "Never let school interfere
with your education - Mark Twain"




  #25  
Old October 8th 03, 04:36 AM
Philip ®
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In ,
PawsForThought being of bellicose mind
posted:
From: (Liz)


This philosophy of Hill´s (and some other companies)
treating consumers as morons infuriates me. It shows how much the
company respects their customer - nothing at all. They
(customers) are all a bunch of easily-manipulated imbeciles. So
let´s go ahead and launch the 15% carbs Atkin´s type diet even
knowing it doesn´t work. Who cares? We are making money and
that´s all that matters.


Have you checked out Hill's newest "formula" called Advanced
Protection? Ingredients:
Brewers rice, chicken by-product meal, corn gluten meal, corn
meal, animal fat (preserved with mixed tocopherols and citric
acid), dried egg product, chicken liver flavor, fish oil
(preserved with mixed tocopherols and ascorbic acid),
DL-methionine, L-lysine, natural flavor, taurine, L-cysteine,
L-carnitine, preserved with mixed tocopherols and citric acid,
minerals (potassium chloride, calcium sulfate, calcium carbonate,
salt, ferrous sulfate, zinc oxide, copper sulfate, manganous
oxide, calcium iodate, sodium selenite), rosemary extract,
beta-carotene, vitamins (choline chloride, vitamin A supplement,
vitamin E supplement, vitamin D3 supplement,
L-ascorbyl-2-polyphosphate (a source of Vitamin C), niacin,
thiamine mononitrate, calcium pantothenate, riboflavin, pyridoxine
hydrochloride, folic acid, biotin, vitamin B12 supplement).

Again, it looks like another grain based diet, cooked to death,
and then they throw some vitamins in. I still haven't figured out
exacftly what dried egg product is, and once again, they add
chicken liver "flavor" but no chicken liver. Animal fat could be
from any source, who knows? Ah wait, I just found this website:
http://www.hillssciencediet.info/DEFINITION.htm

Lauren
________


The only thing I look for on a can of cat food is the ABSENCE of
"meat byproducts."
--

~~Philip "Never let school interfere
with your education - Mark Twain"




  #26  
Old October 8th 03, 01:45 PM
Steve Crane
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

olitter (PawsForThought) wrote in message ...

Animal fat could be from any source, who knows? Ah wait, I just found
this website:
http://www.hillssciencediet.info/DEFINITION.htm

Lauren


Lauren,
I'm begining to think you are purposefully being deceitful. You
have "just found" that same website for months. Never mind that proof
of the effectiveness of the very high levels of antioxidants matching
those in AP have been published in peer reviewed journals.
It should give a logically thinking grown-up some pause to wonder
why 99.99% of all practicing veterinarians, EVERY board certified
diplomate of the American College of Veterinary Nutrition, and every
Board certified diplomate of the American College of Veterinary
Internal Medicine refuses to endorse the BARF philosophy. You have to
wonder what causes people to get so wrapped up in emotional judgements
that they refuse to accept what hard scientific proof and every
recognized expert suggests.
  #27  
Old October 8th 03, 01:45 PM
Steve Crane
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

olitter (PawsForThought) wrote in message ...

Animal fat could be from any source, who knows? Ah wait, I just found
this website:
http://www.hillssciencediet.info/DEFINITION.htm

Lauren


Lauren,
I'm begining to think you are purposefully being deceitful. You
have "just found" that same website for months. Never mind that proof
of the effectiveness of the very high levels of antioxidants matching
those in AP have been published in peer reviewed journals.
It should give a logically thinking grown-up some pause to wonder
why 99.99% of all practicing veterinarians, EVERY board certified
diplomate of the American College of Veterinary Nutrition, and every
Board certified diplomate of the American College of Veterinary
Internal Medicine refuses to endorse the BARF philosophy. You have to
wonder what causes people to get so wrapped up in emotional judgements
that they refuse to accept what hard scientific proof and every
recognized expert suggests.
  #30  
Old October 8th 03, 02:11 PM
Alison Perera
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
(Steve Crane) wrote:

In article ,
(Steve Crane) wrote:

If you want to compare products you ought to compare products within
the same category. Both Wellness and Felidae are "All Life Stage"
foods, which means they have passed AFFCO testing for growth and are
indeed "kitten" foods. Therefore the correct comparison would be to
compare one growth food to another.



Science Diet adult products are designed and developed for adult
animals, not puppies or kittens and thus would not be subjected to the
growth trial. It would be purely a guess on my part, but I would guess
some might pass and others might not. Science Diet puppy and kitten
products could be labelled for "All Life Stages", however Hill's feels
this may mislead a pet owner into feeding a growth product to an
adult. Hill's has a tradition and history of treating disease with the
Prescription Diet products. As a consequence the level so fnutrients
like calcium and phosphorus that are so critical in renal failrue and
other diseases get particular attention. As a consequence dietary
development is always looking at the disease we see and trying to
avoid them. 50 years ago we saw pets in veterinary clinics with
examples of deficiencies in the diets, today we see only the results
of excesses in the veterinary clinic. (Outside of the occasional
animals dumped on the road and suffering from mal nutrition)


So there would be nothing precluding Science Diet Adult from
participating in a feed trial for growth, and no reason it wouldn't pass
except for nutrient levels that cause nutritional deficiency in young
growing animals.

Even the most bargain-basement Walmart and grocery store foods around
here have the AAFCO feed trial label for all life stages.

Either Science Diet is less nutritious than Dad's Original Cat Food, or
it's hypocritical for you to criticize a boutique brand because it plays
to the marketing hype and shoots for the "All Life Stages" label that
appeals to consumers.

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

-Alison in OH
 




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
Before commercial cat food..... Kitten M Cat health & behaviour 716 October 18th 03 02:04 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:23 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 CatBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.