If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
In article . net,
"Philip ®" wrote: I'm more interested in the justification for restricting nutrients, including minerals, protein etc., in order to stave off some disease that is directly caused by excess. Yes, from what I understand obesity leads to diabetes in cats. Obesity is not a light-weight matter 8-O, it's just not the kind of thing I am looking for. -Alison in OH You've got a conclusion and are looking for supporting evidence. Not a good research discipline. You're right, I should rephrase. Steve says: 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. Ie, Hill's Science Diet is formulated to prevent nutritional excess. This is apparently a strong motivator for Hill's R & D for the pet market, and it's been repeated by folks such as Phil and Chris who believe strongly that Hill's research represents the pinnacle of dietary development. I ask Steve what an example of disease caused by nutritional excess is, because "dietary development is always looking at the disease we see and trying to avoid them [sic]". I am not expecting an answer that "obesity is a problem caused by nutritional excess" because then Hill's would be developing and marketing an educational campaign to get people to feed their cats less food--including Hill's food, of course. -Alison in OH |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Steve Crane wrote: "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. Sorry Steve, I have to disagree with you. SD made their kitten food with *kittens* in mind. W & F made theirs with the idea that higher protein benefits *all* life stages in cats. Two different philosophies, therefore two different kinds of food. Your philosophy is different, but don't try to fool people, which is exactly what you're trying to do. You're trying to make SD sound low-carb now, for some reason. 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. Wrong. There's no way in hell I would buy a food with so much corn in it (i.e. carbs and plant-based protein). I don't care who made it. You can tell yourself people just want to hate Hill's but some of us don't like it for a *reason*. My reason? It doesn't work with my animals, and that's 5 different animals from completely different walks of life all responding poorly to the same brand of food. I found two different foods that work great with them *all* of them and I'm sticking to it. Period. 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. |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Steve Crane wrote: "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. Sorry Steve, I have to disagree with you. SD made their kitten food with *kittens* in mind. W & F made theirs with the idea that higher protein benefits *all* life stages in cats. Two different philosophies, therefore two different kinds of food. Your philosophy is different, but don't try to fool people, which is exactly what you're trying to do. You're trying to make SD sound low-carb now, for some reason. 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. Wrong. There's no way in hell I would buy a food with so much corn in it (i.e. carbs and plant-based protein). I don't care who made it. You can tell yourself people just want to hate Hill's but some of us don't like it for a *reason*. My reason? It doesn't work with my animals, and that's 5 different animals from completely different walks of life all responding poorly to the same brand of food. I found two different foods that work great with them *all* of them and I'm sticking to it. Period. 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. |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Then I started feeding her a 75% California Natural & 25% Science Diet
Nature's Best. Everything changed around mealtime... she now meows for me to fill up the dish. She now seems to try to ferret out the Science Diet chunks from the California Natural. If I have no treats on hand, she will happily consider the pure Science Diet Nature's Best chunks as a treat. Do you have kids? Get a bowl of icecream or some chocolate chip cookies and a bowl of steak and put both in front of the child. Most children will go for the icecream or cookies. Does that mean this is the best for them? |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
Then I started feeding her a 75% California Natural & 25% Science Diet
Nature's Best. Everything changed around mealtime... she now meows for me to fill up the dish. She now seems to try to ferret out the Science Diet chunks from the California Natural. If I have no treats on hand, she will happily consider the pure Science Diet Nature's Best chunks as a treat. Do you have kids? Get a bowl of icecream or some chocolate chip cookies and a bowl of steak and put both in front of the child. Most children will go for the icecream or cookies. Does that mean this is the best for them? |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
Not to mention all the sulfate salts. Sulfates consume (destroy)
vitamin E. What grade should we give them for their new formula? LOL |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
Not to mention all the sulfate salts. Sulfates consume (destroy)
vitamin E. What grade should we give them for their new formula? LOL |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
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. I would say they are being responsible. Heck, people can´t even take care of themselves when it comes to eating and you expect them to do a good job with their pets? How many people would have the time and money to prepare a balanced raw diet? And how many of these would handle meat safely, both for them and for their pets? How many people are in fact hygienic? How many people wash their hands before they handle meat? How many lawsuits would they be against the veterinary community if they acquired toxo by handling meat for their pets? If I were a vet, I would definitively be hesitant to advocate raw without first giving a lecture about feeding raw. Afterall, a vet simply does not know what kind of a person (or pig) they´re dealing with. The fact that they don´t advocate raw does not necessarily mean raw is not the best for the animal. |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
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. I would say they are being responsible. Heck, people can´t even take care of themselves when it comes to eating and you expect them to do a good job with their pets? How many people would have the time and money to prepare a balanced raw diet? And how many of these would handle meat safely, both for them and for their pets? How many people are in fact hygienic? How many people wash their hands before they handle meat? How many lawsuits would they be against the veterinary community if they acquired toxo by handling meat for their pets? If I were a vet, I would definitively be hesitant to advocate raw without first giving a lecture about feeding raw. Afterall, a vet simply does not know what kind of a person (or pig) they´re dealing with. The fact that they don´t advocate raw does not necessarily mean raw is not the best for the animal. |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
I guess I will break these up a bit. Yes the word is nonsense. Who do
you think pioneered adding high levels of Omega 3 and 6 fatty acids to diets? in *1962* - Hill's. But you're right that was only 41 years ago, not 50. There isn't a diet out there with more N3,6's than products made by Hill's. What is the percentage of omega 3 and omega 6 in Science Diet Adult Maintenance? What you fail to recognize, primarily becauaue you have followed down the path of totally UNPROVEN carbophobia is that once the state of metabolic acidosis is reached, it doesn't mater what the level of carbs are - not one bit. It doesn't matter for treating weight loss or for diabetes. Who said anything about metabolic acidosis? I´m talking about the Atkin´s diet. How did you go from the Atkin´s diet to metabolic acidosis? That's always the fall back isn't it. Play Chicken little and claim the sky *might* be falling. I would suggest that you need to look at a number of possible nutrients that are ONLY available when cooked. Be sure to tell me how you are planning for these unknown nutrients that are ONLY available in cooked foods. Oh dear, someone really needs to be a genious to figure this one out. For how long have cats (or humans) existed? And for how long have we been cooking our food? For how long have cats been cooking their food? If any essential nutrient were only available after cooking, we wouldn´t be here, don´t you think? Oh goodness. Now this is wild bs. Please state one. And let me remind you that cellulose or starch are *not* necessary at all in a cat´s diet. Can you spell lycopene? trypsin in native states? and of course the dreaded and evil carbohydrates, despite the myths and unsubstantiated hypothesis of the carbophobics. Lycopene. Red pigment only present in certain plants. Cats do not eat plants. Should we assume lycopene is essential to cats? Does cooking actually affect lycopene or does it rupture the cell wall of plants making its contents available to us or cats, both uncapable of breaking through the cell wall of plants? And a correction: lycopene is more available in cooked plants than raw plants, it´s not *only* available in cooked plants. Trypsin is an enzyme and all enzymes are proteins. Proteins are denatured by heat and the more denatured they are, the harder they become to digest until they become completely undigestible. Please give me the source of your information as I will *definitively* check this one. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
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 |