Food Question

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


Analyzing a food based on ingredients is like third grade
math. Some people prefer to stay stuck at that level of understanding
simply
because it requires no further work and allows them to keep and hold
emotionally developed decisions about various foods. Some people fear
taking
the next step and analyzing foods based upon nutrients, for fear it
would
illustrate to themselves the errors they made originally.

This is one of most ridiculous things I've ever heard, but pathetic that
you
believe this. But then again I suppose if you're feeding a highly
processed
corn based food containing chicken by-product meal, corn meal, brewers
rice,
corn gluten meal, animal fat (what animal exactly would that be?), chicken
liver flavor with synthetic vitamins added in, maybe you should look at
your
nutrients, because the ingredients sure are crap. Does your employer,
Hill's
Science Diet, know that you post such nonsense? LMAO

Such "nonsense" is unquestionably supported by facts, clinical trials, peer
reviewed and published data and in veterinary nutrition text books printed
in dozens of languages.

As I have commented here many many times before, my comments here are my own
personal beliefs and may or may not represent the position of the company I
work for. No one should mistake my posts here as having any representation
of the company I work for. They are my thoughts, and my thoughts alone.
Which of course Lauren knows quite well. On the other hand I've been
teaching small animal clinical nutrition to vets and their staff members for
over 20 years, I have well over 2,000 hours of CE credits at scientific
sessions and nowadays I spend my time surrounded by DVM's, PhD's, MD's, and
Diplomat's of the American College of Veterinary Nutrition, Diplomat's of
the American College of Veterinary Internal Medicine, Diplomat's of the
American College of Veterinary Dermatology whom I work with on a daily and
hourly basis.

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


Analyzing a food based on ingredients is like third grade
math. Some people prefer to stay stuck at that level of understanding
simply
because it requires no further work and allows them to keep and hold
emotionally developed decisions about various foods. Some people fear
taking
the next step and analyzing foods based upon nutrients, for fear it
would
illustrate to themselves the errors they made originally.

This is one of most ridiculous things I've ever heard, but pathetic that
you
believe this. But then again I suppose if you're feeding a highly
processed
corn based food containing chicken by-product meal, corn meal, brewers
rice,
corn gluten meal, animal fat (what animal exactly would that be?), chicken
liver flavor with synthetic vitamins added in, maybe you should look at
your
nutrients, because the ingredients sure are crap. Does your employer,
Hill's
Science Diet, know that you post such nonsense? LMAO

Such "nonsense" is unquestionably supported by facts, clinical trials, peer
reviewed and published data and in veterinary nutrition text books printed
in dozens of languages.

As I have commented here many many times before, my comments here are my own
personal beliefs and may or may not represent the position of the company I
work for. No one should mistake my posts here as having any representation
of the company I work for. They are my thoughts, and my thoughts alone.
Which of course Lauren knows quite well. On the other hand I've been
teaching small animal clinical nutrition to vets and their staff members for
over 20 years, I have well over 2,000 hours of CE credits at scientific
sessions and nowadays I spend my time surrounded by DVM's, PhD's, MD's, and
Diplomat's of the American College of Veterinary Nutrition, Diplomat's of
the American College of Veterinary Internal Medicine, Diplomat's of the
American College of Veterinary Dermatology whom I work with on a daily and
hourly basis.

olitter (PawsForThought) wrote in message ...
"Steve Crane" wrote:


Analyzing a food based on ingredients is like third grade
math. Some people prefer to stay stuck at that level of understanding simply
because it requires no further work and allows them to keep and hold
emotionally developed decisions about various foods. Some people fear taking
the next step and analyzing foods based upon nutrients, for fear it would
illustrate to themselves the errors they made originally.

This is one of most ridiculous things I've ever heard, but pathetic that you
believe this. But then again I suppose if you're feeding a highly processed
corn based food containing chicken by-product meal, corn meal, brewers rice,
corn gluten meal, animal fat (what animal exactly would that be?), chicken
liver flavor with synthetic vitamins added in, maybe you should look at your
nutrients, because the ingredients sure are crap. Does your employer, Hill's
Science Diet, know that you post such nonsense? LMAO

Lauren
________

Sooner you killfile Crane and the Glob, the better your life will
be...don't waste the bandwidth.

-L.

olitter (PawsForThought) wrote in message ...
"Steve Crane" wrote:


Analyzing a food based on ingredients is like third grade
math. Some people prefer to stay stuck at that level of understanding simply
because it requires no further work and allows them to keep and hold
emotionally developed decisions about various foods. Some people fear taking
the next step and analyzing foods based upon nutrients, for fear it would
illustrate to themselves the errors they made originally.

This is one of most ridiculous things I've ever heard, but pathetic that you
believe this. But then again I suppose if you're feeding a highly processed
corn based food containing chicken by-product meal, corn meal, brewers rice,
corn gluten meal, animal fat (what animal exactly would that be?), chicken
liver flavor with synthetic vitamins added in, maybe you should look at your
nutrients, because the ingredients sure are crap. Does your employer, Hill's
Science Diet, know that you post such nonsense? LMAO

Lauren
________

Sooner you killfile Crane and the Glob, the better your life will
be...don't waste the bandwidth.

-L.

"Steve Crane" wrote:

It's not quite that simple. A suggestion was made for "better" foods based
upon Laurens thinking of what consitutues a better food. In her case that is
always very elementary ingredient examination. Subsequently it was
discovered that at least two of the four foods (the other two are unwilling
to share nutrients levels) were excessive for calcium and phosphorus.

And Special Kitty is not? I still fail to see how you can reasonably separate
the recommendations made from the context.

Such
excesses are innappropriate according to the Diplomates of the Americna
College of Veterinary Nutrition who members established Key Nutitional
Factors for gorthw, adult and senior cats. Lauren objected that someone
would "dis" her food suggestions based upon nutrient values.

That may well be, but the question Lauren was addressing asked for a better
alternative to Special Kitty. You take issue with her recommendations, which of
course anyone has a right to do, but ignore the actual question raised: are
these foods a better choice than Special Kitty? If you base your criticism on
calcium and phosphorous levels, are these greater or less than Special Kitty?


Subsequently a specific food was offered on another thread. Lauren and Jon C
both accused me of lying about the carb levels in that food. Both were
proven wrong and the 800 number to that food company was offerred for anyone
on the NG to prove the reported values correct. I suspect, although I cannot
prove, that Lauren fully knew she was in error, but instead of admiting the
erro she chose to launch on a campaign of name calling suggesting I should
"eat ****". As I commented at the time it was hardly a mature reaction to
discovering she was in error.

Analyzing a food based on ingredients is like third grade
math. Some people prefer to stay stuck at that level of understanding
simply
because it requires no further work and allows them to keep and hold
emotionally developed decisions about various foods. Some people fear
taking
the next step and analyzing foods based upon nutrients, for fear it would
illustrate to themselves the errors they made originally.

So in essence what you and Gaubster are complaining about here is that you
think Lauren should have recommended other foods than the ones she did,
when
the OP asked about feeding something better than Special Kitty?


I am not "complaining" in any way about what foods she recommends. That is
certainly her right to recommend any food she chooses. What is in clear
error and illustrative of her immaturity is that when she is faced with hard
facts a) excess calcium and phosphorus and b) carb levels which were
actually higher than the food she often denigrates, she chose to ignore the
facts began a name calling campaign. It would be my opinion that sharing
factual information has some value. Instead of admitting she was wrong about
the calcium and phosphorus levels and the carb levels of the third food in
question she responds by suggesting others are "liars" and that I should
"eat ****". I have no objection to any recommendation and by the same token
she should be adult enough to take criticism of her recommendations when
other disagree with recommendations. Instead she reverts to name calling and
obfuscation to the nth degree. The NG's are open for anyone. If you make
suggestions or posts notes and someone disagrees you should be expecting
counterpoint to your suggestions and an adult will take this as open and
honest debate. Unfortunately when challenged with facts she cannot refute
she appears unable to accept such criticism in an adult fashion.

I think what you and Gaubster don't want to admit is that Wellness and Felidae
are still in all likely to be better choices than Special Kitty, because you
prefer to disagree with Lauren. I would have liked to see your criticisms of
the recommended foods placed in the proper context, that's all. I'm not arguing
with the information itself that has been presented.

"Steve Crane" wrote:

It's not quite that simple. A suggestion was made for "better" foods based
upon Laurens thinking of what consitutues a better food. In her case that is
always very elementary ingredient examination. Subsequently it was
discovered that at least two of the four foods (the other two are unwilling
to share nutrients levels) were excessive for calcium and phosphorus.

And Special Kitty is not? I still fail to see how you can reasonably separate
the recommendations made from the context.

Such
excesses are innappropriate according to the Diplomates of the Americna
College of Veterinary Nutrition who members established Key Nutitional
Factors for gorthw, adult and senior cats. Lauren objected that someone
would "dis" her food suggestions based upon nutrient values.

That may well be, but the question Lauren was addressing asked for a better
alternative to Special Kitty. You take issue with her recommendations, which of
course anyone has a right to do, but ignore the actual question raised: are
these foods a better choice than Special Kitty? If you base your criticism on
calcium and phosphorous levels, are these greater or less than Special Kitty?


Subsequently a specific food was offered on another thread. Lauren and Jon C
both accused me of lying about the carb levels in that food. Both were
proven wrong and the 800 number to that food company was offerred for anyone
on the NG to prove the reported values correct. I suspect, although I cannot
prove, that Lauren fully knew she was in error, but instead of admiting the
erro she chose to launch on a campaign of name calling suggesting I should
"eat ****". As I commented at the time it was hardly a mature reaction to
discovering she was in error.

Analyzing a food based on ingredients is like third grade
math. Some people prefer to stay stuck at that level of understanding
simply
because it requires no further work and allows them to keep and hold
emotionally developed decisions about various foods. Some people fear
taking
the next step and analyzing foods based upon nutrients, for fear it would
illustrate to themselves the errors they made originally.

So in essence what you and Gaubster are complaining about here is that you
think Lauren should have recommended other foods than the ones she did,
when
the OP asked about feeding something better than Special Kitty?


I am not "complaining" in any way about what foods she recommends. That is
certainly her right to recommend any food she chooses. What is in clear
error and illustrative of her immaturity is that when she is faced with hard
facts a) excess calcium and phosphorus and b) carb levels which were
actually higher than the food she often denigrates, she chose to ignore the
facts began a name calling campaign. It would be my opinion that sharing
factual information has some value. Instead of admitting she was wrong about
the calcium and phosphorus levels and the carb levels of the third food in
question she responds by suggesting others are "liars" and that I should
"eat ****". I have no objection to any recommendation and by the same token
she should be adult enough to take criticism of her recommendations when
other disagree with recommendations. Instead she reverts to name calling and
obfuscation to the nth degree. The NG's are open for anyone. If you make
suggestions or posts notes and someone disagrees you should be expecting
counterpoint to your suggestions and an adult will take this as open and
honest debate. Unfortunately when challenged with facts she cannot refute
she appears unable to accept such criticism in an adult fashion.

I think what you and Gaubster don't want to admit is that Wellness and Felidae
are still in all likely to be better choices than Special Kitty, because you
prefer to disagree with Lauren. I would have liked to see your criticisms of
the recommended foods placed in the proper context, that's all. I'm not arguing
with the information itself that has been presented.

(-L.) wrote in message m...

olitter (PawsForThought) wrote in message

Sooner you killfile Crane and the Glob, the better your life will
be...don't waste the bandwidth.

-L.


An excellent idea! Then you won't have to troubled by those pesky
facts that keep getting in the way of the latest internet fantasies.

(-L.) wrote in message m...

olitter (PawsForThought) wrote in message

Sooner you killfile Crane and the Glob, the better your life will
be...don't waste the bandwidth.

-L.


An excellent idea! Then you won't have to troubled by those pesky
facts that keep getting in the way of the latest internet fantasies.

From: (-L.)

Sooner you killfile Crane and the Glob, the better your life will
be...don't waste the bandwidth.

-L.

Yeah, you wouldn't want to be exposed to helpful information and the facts.
"L" on the other hand has posted dangerous information here on this ng numerous
times. When you get taken to task for it, you respond with the good 'ol
"troll" namecalling. In fact, you've promised to killfile me in the past and
have never done so. I guess you're a liar just like Lauren.

From: (-L.)

Sooner you killfile Crane and the Glob, the better your life will
be...don't waste the bandwidth.

-L.

Yeah, you wouldn't want to be exposed to helpful information and the facts.
"L" on the other hand has posted dangerous information here on this ng numerous
times. When you get taken to task for it, you respond with the good 'ol
"troll" namecalling. In fact, you've promised to killfile me in the past and
have never done so. I guess you're a liar just like Lauren.