Liz's Food recommendations

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'll take a stab at it...how about excess sodium causing hypertension and heart
disease (among other things)?

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.


Actually there was some sort of campaign to educate consumers about the dangers
of obesity sponsored by Hill's and the University of Chicago earlier this
year??

Yes of course we wouldn't want to leave out the fact that chicken by
product meal is MORE digestible than plain chicken and contains less
ground up bone tissue ? good point.

Excellent point. Lets all free feed our cats Science Diet for two
weeks and Wellness or Felidae for two weeks and weigh their stools
daily. Both Wellness and Felidae produce much less stools than Science
Diet. That´s how digestible they are. And this is something anyone
here can try at home and see for themselves.

Not scientifically it isn't. Once you take out the water weight in the stool,
THEN you'll have an accurate comparison. Every comparison needs to be done on
a dry matter basis. So, I would bet you're wrong on this one.

Food
manufacturers know very little. Look at Hill´s launching an Atkin´s
type diet for cats with *15%* carbohydrates in it. That´s how much
Hill´s knows biochemistry: nothing at all. I bet they don´t have the
slightest understanding of what the Atkins does to the body and why
carbs have to be so reduced. Your nutrition researchers should all go
back to college.

You're taking a single nutrient/aspect of that diet and applying it to the
whole disease category itself. Why not look at the entire package and not just
one aspect of that package?

This is rich! Are you going on the record and advocating that cats be fed
excessively high levels of phosphorus in their food?? Read on:

Why is it that you posted levels of calcium and phosphorus? Is it the
old scare tactics and innuendoes relating them to kidney damage?

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. Excess phosphorus in blood
(hyperphosphataemia) can be detected at any time, all it takes is a
blood panel. This philosophy of Hill´s (and some other companies)
treating consumers as morons infuriates me.

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.

How do you know it doesn't work? Have you seen their clinical studies or tried
the food for yourself? Have you seen their data? I figure the answer to all
of those questions is a resounding NO, so quit making assumptions about things
you don't know about.

Yes of course we wouldn't want to leave out the fact that chicken by
product meal is MORE digestible than plain chicken and contains less
ground up bone tissue ? good point.

Excellent point. Lets all free feed our cats Science Diet for two
weeks and Wellness or Felidae for two weeks and weigh their stools
daily. Both Wellness and Felidae produce much less stools than Science
Diet. That´s how digestible they are. And this is something anyone
here can try at home and see for themselves.

Not scientifically it isn't. Once you take out the water weight in the stool,
THEN you'll have an accurate comparison. Every comparison needs to be done on
a dry matter basis. So, I would bet you're wrong on this one.

Food
manufacturers know very little. Look at Hill´s launching an Atkin´s
type diet for cats with *15%* carbohydrates in it. That´s how much
Hill´s knows biochemistry: nothing at all. I bet they don´t have the
slightest understanding of what the Atkins does to the body and why
carbs have to be so reduced. Your nutrition researchers should all go
back to college.

You're taking a single nutrient/aspect of that diet and applying it to the
whole disease category itself. Why not look at the entire package and not just
one aspect of that package?

This is rich! Are you going on the record and advocating that cats be fed
excessively high levels of phosphorus in their food?? Read on:

Why is it that you posted levels of calcium and phosphorus? Is it the
old scare tactics and innuendoes relating them to kidney damage?

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. Excess phosphorus in blood
(hyperphosphataemia) can be detected at any time, all it takes is a
blood panel. This philosophy of Hill´s (and some other companies)
treating consumers as morons infuriates me.

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.

How do you know it doesn't work? Have you seen their clinical studies or tried
the food for yourself? Have you seen their data? I figure the answer to all
of those questions is a resounding NO, so quit making assumptions about things
you don't know about.

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?

Not an accurate analogy. Please try again.

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?

Not an accurate analogy. Please try again.

Have you checked out Hill's newest "formula" called Advanced Protection?

Again, it looks like another grain based diet, cooked to death, and then they
throw some vitamins in.

Have you even SEEN the product? Pardon me, but....YOU CAN'T JUDGE THE EFFICACY
OR NUTRITIONAL CONTENT OF A FOOD BY LOOKING AT THE INGREDIENT'S LABEL!!!!!
Lauren, you have an anti-Hill's agenda and I still don't know why. All I can
come up with is you just aren't very bright. For months (and probably longer)
it's been shown here to one and all that reading the list on a bag of food
means absolutely ZERO. Yet you cling to the ingredient's list as if you life
depends on it. Why? Do you even know what the difference between this product
and others is?

I still haven't figured out exacftly what dried egg
product is, and once again, they add chicken liver "flavor" but no chicken
liver.

Because it would upset the nutrient balance. Again, avoiding nutrient excesses
that are risk factors for disease conditions is a goal of Hill's and you can't
get out of your grade school mentality about ingredient lists. SHRUG

You well know that the website you listed is an anti-Hill's site. Not an
accurate source of information, btw. I suppose you can list the websites of
people who think the earth is flat to "prove" that point, too?

Have you checked out Hill's newest "formula" called Advanced Protection?

Again, it looks like another grain based diet, cooked to death, and then they
throw some vitamins in.

Have you even SEEN the product? Pardon me, but....YOU CAN'T JUDGE THE EFFICACY
OR NUTRITIONAL CONTENT OF A FOOD BY LOOKING AT THE INGREDIENT'S LABEL!!!!!
Lauren, you have an anti-Hill's agenda and I still don't know why. All I can
come up with is you just aren't very bright. For months (and probably longer)
it's been shown here to one and all that reading the list on a bag of food
means absolutely ZERO. Yet you cling to the ingredient's list as if you life
depends on it. Why? Do you even know what the difference between this product
and others is?

I still haven't figured out exacftly what dried egg
product is, and once again, they add chicken liver "flavor" but no chicken
liver.

Because it would upset the nutrient balance. Again, avoiding nutrient excesses
that are risk factors for disease conditions is a goal of Hill's and you can't
get out of your grade school mentality about ingredient lists. SHRUG

You well know that the website you listed is an anti-Hill's site. Not an
accurate source of information, btw. I suppose you can list the websites of
people who think the earth is flat to "prove" that point, too?

How many people would have the time and
money to prepare a balanced raw diet?

I don't know of anybody who eats raw meat.

How many lawsuits would they be against the veterinary
community if they acquired toxo by handling meat for their pets?

Why would vets be responsible for people's actions? Oh that's right--in your
wacko socialist world, people don't have to take responsibility for their
actions--they can sue someone else!

How many people would have the time and
money to prepare a balanced raw diet?

I don't know of anybody who eats raw meat.

How many lawsuits would they be against the veterinary
community if they acquired toxo by handling meat for their pets?

Why would vets be responsible for people's actions? Oh that's right--in your
wacko socialist world, people don't have to take responsibility for their
actions--they can sue someone else!

There isn't a diet out there with more N3,6's than
products made by Hill's. The only "hype" around fatty acids is that
some manufacturers decided it would work to fool consumers. They
realized consumers wouldn't know if the food had N3,6's before or not.
So let's launch a great madison avenue marketing plan and tell
everybody we've added N3,6's to the diet.

Ah so that's why Hill's just launched that new food, huh? Trying to fool
consumers again? LOL

Lauren, you've missed the point again! That reading comprehension thing you
rail about??.......try it for yourself!