dog study, diet related, different from wolves

This is a dedicated place for all of your questions and answers about Raw Diets. There are also some really cool groups like "Raw Fed" on the topic you can join. This forum is for people who already know they like the raw diet or sincerely want to learn more. Please remember that you are receiving advice from peers and not professionals. If you have specific health-related questions about your dog's diet, please contact your vet!

(Page 4 of 5: Viewing entries 31 to 40)  
1  2  3  4  5  

I'm triple- superior MAD- now!
Barked: Sun Jan 27, '13 9:32am PST 
What Duke wrote. I went into raw feeding annoyed because I was throwing away bones when I cooked chicken for dog food but the amazing changes in Max's condition kept me going. I ended up throwing cooked bones away after a while anyway. I hate boning raw chicken!

Max was fine on kibble+fish oil or so I thought. Digested it fine, no smells or itching and ears weren't that bad. Possibly he could eat a high protein grain free kibble and be as good as he is on raw but *I* am not capable of feeding the miniscule amount he would need. I did feed through 2 large bags of Evo and didn't see any change in his condition though which included greasy ears with small amounts of black ear wax, nasty sticky fur, goopy eyes, poor muscle tone and high reactivity. Those were issues that changed after feeding raw, I never thought they could be changed as he was on a decent kibble. After working with him on raw I have found that he is sensitive to some grains and even a fish Veggies seem to go through undigested judging from the amount of stool produced.

If times get tough and he cannot eat prey model raw then I am glad he is fine with starch. I am sure many dogs have sensitive guts just because they don't do well with starch digestion. I wish this study was read by all dog owners so they might attempt reducing the load on the pancreas by eliminating starches from the diet rather than trying kibble after kibble. And grains are starches but so are sweet potatoes, quinoa and carrots.

The world is my- food bowl!
Barked: Sun Jan 27, '13 9:51am PST 
I apologize if I started making this a pro/anti raw argument. My first and only real issue with the article was the last statement-- which I can't seem to find now since the site appears to be down, but it sounded like the author was advocating high-carb low-protein diets. I just don't think we should take the article as a reason to endorse this or to think that diets suddenly require carbohydrates to work.

The people in this forum feed a carnivorous diet and see excellent results. I'm content with the use of testimony as a "study", if the results are always so consistent.

Barked: Sun Jan 27, '13 11:47am PST 
Here's the study for those who are curious.
The genomic signature of dog domestication reveals adaptation to a starch-rich diet.

Member Since
Barked: Sun Jan 27, '13 4:37pm PST 
"Have you ever fed your dog a vegetable and seen how it exits the other side?"

Yes, and fruits as well. Even whole bodied fruits and veggies raw. My dog of 12 years has been getting them her whole life and I can say that they're not distinguishable in her feces. You can't make out anything that she's eaten in her fecal matter. My other dog who's been with me for just over a year is another story. You can see whole formed fruits and veggies but in time, I'm wondering if they're become more processed as well since she's only been eating them semi-recently.

I find it strange that some people are disparaging peer reviewed research. You'd think that as much science as possible to back up our diet choices would be a good thing rather than feeding based on mere opinions and hoping for the best. In fact, isn't it commonly said by raw advocates that there need to be more studies done on raw vs. cooked food and meat diets vs. other food product diets? When is a lack of information ever a good thing when it comes to caring for others? Shouldn't we all strive to make INFORMED decisions? One person's "common sense" isn't necessarily another person's common sense.

With more and more companies producing commercial raw diets, maybe we can hope to see some more studies soon. But it's all really down to the individual if they want to accept findings if they're not inline with what they want to be true.

I'm not lazy,- I'm just waiting- to play..
Barked: Sun Jan 27, '13 8:34pm PST 
I think some people took the cake analogy a little too literally.... Maybe I should have said 'as part of a balanced diet'? shrug Do people really believe that just because you can digest something it is the best for you?

This study proves ONLY that dogs have a better ability than wolves to digest starch. It proves that dogs are not obligate carnivorous which many people already know. It does NOT prove that dogs NEED starch in their diet. It states that dogs 'thrived' on high starch diets, which there is no proof or any evidence of in the study. The only proven fact is that they SURVIVED on a high starch diet. The study also does NOT prove that a dog cannot get all of its needed nutrients from a raw diet, and therefore needs starch. And yet this is a quote from an article about the study:

"Robert Wayne, a geneticist at the University of California, Los Angeles, who is also studying ancient dog genomes, says that starch metabolism could have been an important adaptation for dogs....
Nevertheless, the study adds to evidence that dogs should not eat the same food as wolves, says Wayne, who points out that dog food is rich in carbohydrates and low in protein compared with plain meat. “Every day I get an email from a dog owner who asks, should they feed their dog like a wolf," says Wayne. "I think this paper answers that question: no.”" http://www.nature.com/news/dog-s-dinner-was-key-to-domestication-1.1 2280.

Where is the specific evidentiary PROOF that a dog (in general) CANNOT eat and thrive on the same diet as a wolf? Because it doesn't come from this article.

Barked: Mon Jan 28, '13 1:47pm PST 
And you are ignoring the evidence and the contradictions in your arguments

"It states that dogs 'thrived' on high starch diets, which there is no proof or any evidence of in the study. The only proven fact is that they SURVIVED on a high starch diet."

And the evidence that they thrived comes from the genetic observation that they were able to out-compete those canids without multiple copies. "Thrived" is being used in comparison.

And as far as only SURVIVING. The same is true for all life. Wolves don't thrive, they survive. And not very long either because in the wild they die by age 6. (YNP wolves)

"The study also does NOT prove that a dog cannot get all of its needed nutrients from a raw diet, and therefore needs starch. "

If you want to talk about 'need' then Purina's 14 year long study on diet proves that they don't need raw diet at all. There is no comparable study to make the same argument for raw.

"Where is the specific evidentiary PROOF that a dog (in general) CANNOT eat and thrive on the same diet as a wolf? Because it doesn't come from this article."

And now you make the jump again from NEED to THRIVE. Your position is all over the place.
Savannah Blue Belle

A Heart of Gold!
Barked: Tue Jan 29, '13 1:37pm PST 
Well, my opinion is much more simple than that. Dogs...my dogs...when fed a grain heavy kibble had all kinds of issues.

When switched to raw, problems resolved themselves.

Not scientific, but factual. Why would I feed them anything but what THEY thrive on?

Member Since
Barked: Tue Jan 29, '13 7:34pm PST 
No one's telling you what to feed your dogs. It was a study, that was all.

I think it's safe to say that everyone's doing what they feel is right by their pets, which is how it should be.
Savannah Blue Belle

A Heart of Gold!
Barked: Wed Jan 30, '13 6:05am PST 
Didn't suggest that, Member...just saying that all I need is the proof I see.
Winnie Mae

Just let me jump- it!
Barked: Wed Jan 30, '13 4:42pm PST 
I've seen this all over the place ... and I DO wish they would have tested jackals, dingoes, New Guinea Singing Dogs, coyotes, and any other wild canids I can't think of at the moment! My guess is that dogs, coyotes, jackals, and dingoes would all be more suited to digesting starches than wolves, merely based on their behavior. When dogs go feral, they behave mostly like jackals or some coyotes: hanging around cities and feeding off human trash. The feral dogs in Puerto Rico live quite well off people's scraps. My guess is that jackals, dogs, dingoes, and probably coyotes all have those genes because of their close association with humans. Foxes are a bit of a toss-up because they can be so very much like scavengers in some places and so very much predators in others. Coyotes are also that way, I guess. The NGSDs seem to be a type all their own, and I would be very interested in more detailed research on their kind.

Well, maybe that wasn't so on-topic, but it really does frustrate me that there is so much research available regarding dogs and wolves, and so little on other wild canids. Really, they are all closely related, and there is a lot we dog people can learn from the other canids.

Edited by author Wed Jan 30, '13 4:43pm PST

  (Page 4 of 5: Viewing entries 31 to 40)  
1  2  3  4  5