chardonnay9 wrote:
FurPaw wrote:
chardonnay9 wrote:
FurPaw wrote:
chardonnay9 wrote:

There is no harm in feeding a thin dog food that will fatten him up.

Like a lot of carbs? Carbs will have that effect, in quantity...

We are discussing a diabetic dog here. Carbs aren't going to do
anything but more harm. You trying to kill this dog or what?

Goodness, Chard, since when are "carbs" not a type of "food"?

If you can't follow along why post something so stupid?

You're the one not following.

She was teasing you for not being clear and
only using the generic word "food" in your
description. You missed it completely.

You didn't
specify the type of food, and so I wondered whether you were
advocating feeding a thin dog carbs. _I_ didn't advocate feeding a
thin dog carbs, you, by your nonspecific use of the word "food" did.

Look, your statement, in its generality, is just plain
irresponsible, and I hope that anyone reading it will recognize it
as such.

Instead of just making statements tell us why the statement is
irresponsible.

I did, in the sentence that followed. Look below.

Otherwise nobody will recognize it as such.

Oh, I think a few others might have...

If a dog has diabetes, or a heart condition, or arthritis, or
breathing difficulties, or any number of underlying medical
conditions, it is very unwise to try to "fatten him up," because
that will simply exacerbate the condition.

Please read for comprehension. The dog is underweight to begin with.
We are looking to bring it up to a healthier weight, not make it
obese. That will not exacerbate the situation.

Hmmm... you think "fatten him up" only implies "bringing it up to a
healthier weight?" Interesting... Of course, depending on how you
choose to "fatten him up," and what underlying medical conditions the
dog might have, "fattening him up" certainly could make the condition
worse.

Chicken leg quarters will make diabetes worse?

Once again, she was pointing out that your
lack of clarity in your writing (especially
when giving advice to folks with sick dogs)
can lead to some bad misinterpretations.

"Food" is pretty generic. She was playing
with that idea.

And when you hear "diabetes," you should at least ask if there
are other things wrong, such as atherosclerosis, because diabetes is
rarely an "only" disease.

My response was about Diabetes only. Nothing wrong with that. It means I
stayed on topic.


And pancreatitis, which can result from an overdose of
fat, is very painful for the dog. I've seen it once, and I hope
never to see it again.

Nobody including me is recommending an overdose of fat and nobody is
recommending to make the dog obese.

A raw chicken leg clad in skin could deliver an overdose of fat,
depending on the size of the dog and how he metabolizes the fat.

No it can't.

Um....yes actually it can. And I've seen it
do exactly that.

You missed the part where she gave the
context of "depending on the size of the dog
and how he metabolizes fat". And she's
absolutely right.

Tara Green wrote:


Once again, she was pointing out that your lack of clarity in your
writing (especially when giving advice to folks with sick dogs) can lead
to some bad misinterpretations.

More like intentional misinterpretations.

chardonnay9 wrote:
Tara Green wrote:


Once again, she was pointing out that your lack of clarity in your
writing (especially when giving advice to folks with sick dogs) can
lead to some bad misinterpretations.

More like intentional misinterpretations.

In that case, given that she does indeed know
better than to take what you're saying at
face value, yes. For the purpose of an
example, it was obvious to everyone (except
you perhaps) that was intentional.

Someone who doesn't know better might well
have misinterpreted innocently. That was the
point.

Tara Green wrote:
chardonnay9 wrote:
Tara Green wrote:


Once again, she was pointing out that your lack of clarity in your
writing (especially when giving advice to folks with sick dogs) can
lead to some bad misinterpretations.

More like intentional misinterpretations.

In that case, given that she does indeed know better than to take what
you're saying at face value, yes. For the purpose of an example, it was
obvious to everyone (except you perhaps) that was intentional.

Someone who doesn't know better might well have misinterpreted
innocently. That was the point.

Yup. It's generally unwise to assume that you know precisely
what a writer intends when the writing is vague and overly general.

(Thanks)

FurPaw

--
Don't believe everything that you think.

To reply, unleash the dog.

"Tara Green" wrote in message
...
A. Brain wrote:
What about some fruit that is high in antioxidants? Like
blueberries or cantaloupe? He loves cantaloupe and used
to get quite a bit of it. It's relatively low in carbs and sugar.

I'm thinking that I need to grind up broccoli and put
it in another favorite of his, cottage cheese.

Also, Kroger has a really good canned green bean
product called "really green" or something like that.

Even suitable for human consumption, unlike most
canned vegetables.

My dog is underweight. How do I fatten
him up without overloading his system with carbs?

And if fat is not a problem and, as some suggest,
an underweight dog may need less fiber, how about
cheese? He loves that too.



Usually, giving veggies that are high fiber like the ones you
mentioned are for dogs that need to lose weight, so I would probably
avoid giving that to a dog I'm trying to put weight on.

The food you mentioned (Innova) is actually a very good food. I used
to use it years ago to keep weight on my "tough keeper" who lost
weight too easily (Oh that I had that problem ;-)

At this point, I would approach your dog's diet very systematically
and not be tempted to throw foods at him willy nilly. You need to make
sure the diabetes is under control first. Then you need to put a
little bit of weight on him (maybe). What criteria are you using for
this? What most people think of as the correct weight for dogs is
actually bordering on obese. Even a lot of vets have difficulty with
this. I've seen more than one vet tell the owners their dog could use
a few pounds on *highly* conditioned, well toned dogs. They were just
so used to seeing obese dogs that their perspective had been skewed.

Once you have a good handle on those two, you might find that you no
longer even want to experiment with fruits and veggies (not a good
plan, IMO).

I have to admit that I was extremely confused by your description of
events during your dog's crisis. It could be my bout with the flu, but
I could barely make sense of it. Am I misremembering that you don;t
like or trust your vet at all?

I had no problems with my regular vet, except that I
really had to do independent research myself--always
a good idea even with human doctors, or especially
with them. (See Groopman's HOW DOCTORS THINK
for a number of reasons why).

I am currently feeding him a combination of various canned
meats (tuna, sardines, turkey) or scraps of baked chicken
along with a Purina vet food called DCO--dual fiber control
that was prescribed by the regular vet back when we thought
he was only borderline and before his episodes of ketoacidosis.

It was one of the ER vets that I did not like. I think she should
have recognized that he needed insulin. After almost 36 hours
of his being in apparent DKA, I conferred with the regular vet
and he agreed that my little guy needed insulin. Quite by
accident, he got a high dose (3 units of Vetsulin; the vet had
recommended 3 units and I did not know that Vetsulin was
different), I now think that this saved his life.

What are your thoughts on the regular Innova? And
do you think low-fat cottage cheese is ok?

Thanks to all for their help and suggestions!

--
A. Brain



Remove NOSPAM for email.

FurPaw wrote:
Tara Green wrote:
chardonnay9 wrote:
Tara Green wrote:


Once again, she was pointing out that your lack of clarity in your
writing (especially when giving advice to folks with sick dogs) can
lead to some bad misinterpretations.

More like intentional misinterpretations.

In that case, given that she does indeed know better than to take what
you're saying at face value, yes. For the purpose of an example, it
was obvious to everyone (except you perhaps) that was intentional.

Someone who doesn't know better might well have misinterpreted
innocently. That was the point.

Yup. It's generally unwise to assume that you know precisely what a
writer intends when the writing is vague and overly general.


I suggested that meat with fat on it would be a better way of increasing
weight, especially on a diabetic dog that would be hurt by carbs more
than your average dog.

Tara keeps suggesting that this dog will die if it eats a chicken leg
quarter.

I don't see anything vague about it. It's just more mumbo jumbo from the
idiots who think I will leave if constantly attacked, just like most
people do who come here.

I'm not going anywhere. Get a hobby other than one that consists on
sitting in front of a computer being nasty to people. Better yet, get a
life. I'm not going anywhere.

Char

In article ,
chardonnay9 wrote:
Tara keeps suggesting that this dog will die if it eats a chicken leg
quarter.

No, she doesn't. Why don't you point out specifically where
she does that? You know, try supporting your argument, just
once.
--
Melinda Shore - Software longa, hardware brevis -

Prouder than ever to be a member of the reality-based community

chardonnay9 wrote:

Tara keeps suggesting that this dog will die if it eats a chicken leg
quarter.

I have never once made that assertion. Prove
it or shut up.

That's one of the bigger differences here,
and the huge complaint about you:

You show consistently that you can't tell the
difference between an assertion and
presenting a possible outcome.

You make assertions.

I presented possible outcomes of your assertions.

Language is really cool that way.


I don't see anything vague about it. It's just more mumbo jumbo from the
idiots

Oh lookie. Poor little persecuted Chard makes
yet another personal attack on someone who
opted to point out flaws in her argument
rathe than flaws in her character.

Once again, you show your complaints of being
victimized to be outright nonsense. You
attack personally more than just about anyone
here.

who think I will leave if constantly attacked, just like most
people do who come here.


The only one making personal attacks in this
thread is YOU.

Everyone else is attacking *your assertions*.

You do know there's a difference between an
assertion and a person, right? Huge difference.

I'm not going anywhere. Get a hobby other than one that consists on
sitting in front of a computer being nasty to people.

Once again, you might take your own advice.
No one has been nasty to you. People *have*
taken you to task for giving irresponsible
advice.

The only one making nasty personal comments
here is you.

So yeah, I agree. You should definitely get a
different hobby then being nasty on the computer.

Better yet, get a
life. I'm not going anywhere.

Who cares?

People here just want you to stop giving out
bad advice and then lying about it. That'd be
plenty.

http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/war...tinyyapper.htm