On 2/24/2010 10:33 AM, sighthounds & siberians wrote:
On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 17:16:27 -0500,
wrote:

On 2/20/2010 10:23 AM, sighthounds& siberians wrote:
On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 17:52:47 -0500,
wrote:

sighthounds& siberians wrote:

Dogs aren't carnivores. They're omnivores. If you had a dog, you
would know that.

That is one of the most stupid things I've ever heard. Dogs have a
carnivorous mouth, carnivorous teeth and the total digestive system of a
carnivore.

We are omnivores. We have teeth that grind vegetable matter, not ones
that rip meat. We have a longer digestive system to break down what we
eat and our digestive juices are not as strong as that of dogs.

Boy, I feel like I'm back in school! These basics of anatomy were taught
in grade school for crying out loud.

The dog (Canis lupus familiaris,[2] pronounced /?ke?.n?s ?lu?p?s
f??m?li??r?s/) i

s a domesticated form of the wolf, a member of the Canidae family of the
order

Carnivora.

Do you understand what the order Carnivora contains? Carnivores! Very good!

I guess your dogs don't eat grass. Also, when my dogs eat squirrels
or rabbits, they eat whatever is in the squirrels or rabbits.

Your dogs are eating much smaller prey than most wild dogs and wolves
do. It is more natural for them to eat an elk or a deer than a squirrel.
They tend to eat such small prey only in midwinter when they can't find
anything better to eat.

Wolves are not domestic dogs. I am not sure what you mean by "wild
dogs", but they aren't domestic dogs either. If you think that
centuries of domestication doesn't change dogs' "natural diet", you
have some more reading to do.

Yet you can't provide any evidence to back up what you present here
while I can. Their natural diet has not changed. Wolves are the absolute
closest relatives dogs have and their digestive systems are totally
identical.

http://rawfed.com/myths/changed.html

The domestic dog is an extremely close relative of the gray wolf,
differing from it by at most 0.2% of mDNA sequence...

Dogs are so much like wolves physiologically that they are frequently
used in wolf studies as a physiological model for wolf body processes
(Mech, L.D. 2003. Wolves: Behavior, Ecology, and Conservation).
Additionally, dogs and wolves share 99.8% of their mitochondrial DNA
(Wayne, R.K. Molecular Evolution of the Dog Family). This next quote is
from Robert K. Wayne, Ph.D., and his discussion on canine genetics
(taken from www.fiu.edu/~milesk/Genetics.html).

From mouth to anus, dog and wolf physiology and basic anatomy are
almost precisely the same. What is the significance of this? This means
dogs should still be fed a carnivorous diet to meet their needs. What
does it matter if they don't have the same digestive capabilities as a
wolf? How does that justify feeding them an even harder-to-digest meal
of commercial pet food or cooked food? How does that justify feeding
them any differently from a prey model diet that has been proven by
nature to be completely sufficient?

On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 12:13:24 -0500, Char
wrote:


Yet you can't provide any evidence to back up what you present here
while I can. Their natural diet has not changed. Wolves are the absolute
closest relatives dogs have and their digestive systems are totally
identical.

http://rawfed.com/myths/changed.html

The domestic dog is an extremely close relative of the gray wolf,
differing from it by at most 0.2% of mDNA sequence...

Dogs are so much like wolves physiologically that they are frequently
used in wolf studies as a physiological model for wolf body processes
(Mech, L.D. 2003. Wolves: Behavior, Ecology, and Conservation).
Additionally, dogs and wolves share 99.8% of their mitochondrial DNA
(Wayne, R.K. Molecular Evolution of the Dog Family). This next quote is
from Robert K. Wayne, Ph.D., and his discussion on canine genetics
(taken from www.fiu.edu/~milesk/Genetics.html).

From mouth to anus, dog and wolf physiology and basic anatomy are
almost precisely the same. What is the significance of this? This means
dogs should still be fed a carnivorous diet to meet their needs. What
does it matter if they don't have the same digestive capabilities as a
wolf? How does that justify feeding them an even harder-to-digest meal
of commercial pet food or cooked food? How does that justify feeding
them any differently from a prey model diet that has been proven by
nature to be completely sufficient?

Here are some of your false, misleading statements:

1) kibble fed dogs [all] have health problems that are caused by the
kibble

2) commercial dog food has nutritional value similar to cardboard

3) raw fed dogs do not have health problems

You've been asked countless times to provide evidence to back up these
statements, and yet you haven't. Why? Because you can't.

"Char" wrote
On 2/23/2010 9:00 PM, sighthounds & siberians wrote:

At least I can write a coherent sentence, which you can't.

Exactly who is the one attacking grammar cshenk?

Char, you have issues if you cant figure that one out. Hint, look back and
the comnent was made by another.

On 2/24/2010 9:33 PM, cshenk wrote:
"Char" wrote
On 2/23/2010 9:00 PM, sighthounds & siberians wrote:

At least I can write a coherent sentence, which you can't.

Exactly who is the one attacking grammar cshenk?

Char, you have issues if you cant figure that one out. Hint, look back
and the comnent was made by another.



Yes of course it was. You pointed a finger at me for attacking someone
when it *was* someone else. I was pointing that finger where it
belonged- at Sally. I hate having to be so blunt but you were the one
not figuring that out, not me.

So now I have issues because you can't figure out who is doing what? ROFLOL!

On 2/24/2010 2:18 PM, sighthounds & siberians wrote:
On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 12:13:24 -0500,
wrote:


Yet you can't provide any evidence to back up what you present here
while I can. Their natural diet has not changed. Wolves are the absolute
closest relatives dogs have and their digestive systems are totally
identical.

http://rawfed.com/myths/changed.html

The domestic dog is an extremely close relative of the gray wolf,
differing from it by at most 0.2% of mDNA sequence...

Dogs are so much like wolves physiologically that they are frequently
used in wolf studies as a physiological model for wolf body processes
(Mech, L.D. 2003. Wolves: Behavior, Ecology, and Conservation).
Additionally, dogs and wolves share 99.8% of their mitochondrial DNA
(Wayne, R.K. Molecular Evolution of the Dog Family). This next quote is
from Robert K. Wayne, Ph.D., and his discussion on canine genetics
(taken from www.fiu.edu/~milesk/Genetics.html).

From mouth to anus, dog and wolf physiology and basic anatomy are
almost precisely the same. What is the significance of this? This means
dogs should still be fed a carnivorous diet to meet their needs. What
does it matter if they don't have the same digestive capabilities as a
wolf? How does that justify feeding them an even harder-to-digest meal
of commercial pet food or cooked food? How does that justify feeding
them any differently from a prey model diet that has been proven by
nature to be completely sufficient?

Here are some of your false, misleading statements:

1) kibble fed dogs [all] have health problems that are caused by the
kibble

2) commercial dog food has nutritional value similar to cardboard

3) raw fed dogs do not have health problems

You've been asked countless times to provide evidence to back up these
statements, and yet you haven't. Why? Because you can't.


I never made any of those statements. I see you have to make up stuff to
argue over so I guess you can't find fault with what I really said.

Which is:
Kibble fed dogs are way more likely to have health problems because the
food is not appropriate for dogs, grains especially. Kibble does cause
health problems but not all dogs end up with all problems, just like all
smokers don't get lung cancer. I've shown you where grains cause
problems in people (omnivores) as well. It's not limited to carnivores.
And grains are by no means the only problem with commercial foods.

Commercial food is cooked so much that very much of the nutritional
value has been cooked out which is why there are so many additions to it
in an attempt to put them back in. The aftermarket for supplements to
add to kibble is a huge and thriving business because of that. Do you
deny that kibble has many vitamins and minerals added in to try and make
it healthy? Have you bothered reading the label?

Raw fed dogs don't have nearly as many health problems as kibble fed
dogs do. Allergies go away as well as diabetes, kidney problems and much
more.

On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 03:05:50 -0500, Char
wrote:


Here are some of your false, misleading statements:

1) kibble fed dogs [all] have health problems that are caused by the
kibble

2) commercial dog food has nutritional value similar to cardboard

3) raw fed dogs do not have health problems

You've been asked countless times to provide evidence to back up these
statements, and yet you haven't. Why? Because you can't.


I never made any of those statements. I see you have to make up stuff to
argue over so I guess you can't find fault with what I really said.

You have, but apparently you don't archive your posts and I can't find
the cardboard post. You compared nutritional value of kibble to that
of cardboard; I certainly didn't come up with that. Anyone can
believe me or not; it's really not important. What is important is
that you stop making sweeping, generalized statements such as:
"Kibble is full of grains which make dogs
sick."
This is not the same as saying that grains can make some dogs sick.
It implies that all dogs get sick when they eat grains, which is
simply not true.

Kibble does cause
health problems but not all dogs end up with all problems,

Finally.

just like all
smokers don't get lung cancer. I've shown you where grains cause
problems in people (omnivores) as well. It's not limited to carnivores.

No, you haven't "shown me" that; you've alleged that "grains" cause
diabetes in humans. There's no scientific basis for that claim,
either.

Commercial food is cooked so much that very much of the nutritional
value has been cooked out which is why there are so many additions to it
in an attempt to put them back in. The aftermarket for supplements to
add to kibble is a huge and thriving business because of that. Do you
deny that kibble has many vitamins and minerals added in to try and make
it healthy? Have you bothered reading the label?

Yes, I read labels.

Raw fed dogs don't have nearly as many health problems as kibble fed
dogs do. Allergies go away as well as diabetes, kidney problems and much
more.

Some raw fed dogs don't have as many health problems as some kibble
fed dogs. Some allergies go away. Etc. You can't back up any of
these claims because there has never been a scientific study
establishing that they're true. Anecdotes do not equal evidence. If
they did, I could say that the kibble I feed is the healthiest thing
out there because my dogs don't have health problems. And I bet I've
had more dogs than you, so my anecdotal evidence outweighs yours.
Also, I know of dogs that have had health problems on raw diets. So,
raw food can be bad for dogs too.

I'm not anti-raw. I'm anti making sweeping, unfounded statements,
especially in a forum where some people may not know the difference.
That's irresponsible.

On 2/25/2010 10:38 AM, sighthounds & siberians wrote:
On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 03:05:50 -0500,
wrote:


Here are some of your false, misleading statements:

1) kibble fed dogs [all] have health problems that are caused by the
kibble

2) commercial dog food has nutritional value similar to cardboard

3) raw fed dogs do not have health problems

You've been asked countless times to provide evidence to back up these
statements, and yet you haven't. Why? Because you can't.


I never made any of those statements. I see you have to make up stuff to
argue over so I guess you can't find fault with what I really said.

You have, but apparently you don't archive your posts and I can't find
the cardboard post. You compared nutritional value of kibble to that
of cardboard; I certainly didn't come up with that. Anyone can
believe me or not; it's really not important. What is important is
that you stop making sweeping, generalized statements such as:
"Kibble is full of grains which make dogs
sick."

You want me to stop telling the truth? Wish in one hand and **** in the
other and see which one fills up first.

This is not the same as saying that grains can make some dogs sick.
It implies that all dogs get sick when they eat grains, which is
simply not true.

There ya go, inventing things to be mad about. It doesn't imply anything
like that except in your echoing mind.



Kibble does cause
health problems but not all dogs end up with all problems,

Finally.

just like all
smokers don't get lung cancer. I've shown you where grains cause
problems in people (omnivores) as well. It's not limited to carnivores.

No, you haven't "shown me" that; you've alleged that "grains" cause
diabetes in humans. There's no scientific basis for that claim,
either.

Anyone with a glucose meter can show you what happens when they eat grains.


Commercial food is cooked so much that very much of the nutritional
value has been cooked out which is why there are so many additions to it
in an attempt to put them back in. The aftermarket for supplements to
add to kibble is a huge and thriving business because of that. Do you
deny that kibble has many vitamins and minerals added in to try and make
it healthy? Have you bothered reading the label?

Yes, I read labels.

Raw fed dogs don't have nearly as many health problems as kibble fed
dogs do. Allergies go away as well as diabetes, kidney problems and much
more.

Some raw fed dogs don't have as many health problems as some kibble
fed dogs. Some allergies go away. Etc. You can't back up any of
these claims because there has never been a scientific study
establishing that they're true.


And you've never wondered why commercial pet food companies don't put
themselves up against species appropriate diets? It would instantly put
them out of business.

Anecdotes do not equal evidence. If
they did, I could say that the kibble I feed is the healthiest thing
out there because my dogs don't have health problems. And I bet I've
had more dogs than you, so my anecdotal evidence outweighs yours.

You do realize you just contradicted yourself right?


Also, I know of dogs that have had health problems on raw diets. So,
raw food can be bad for dogs too.

I'm not anti-raw.

Bullshit.


I'm anti making sweeping, unfounded statements,
especially in a forum where some people may not know the difference.
That's irresponsible.

You are against making unfounded statements yet you made 4 unfounded
statements. Yeah, that makes sense....

On 2/25/2010 10:38 AM, sighthounds & siberians wrote:
What is important is
that you stop making sweeping, generalized statements such as:
"Kibble is full of grains which make dogs
sick."
This is not the same as saying that grains can make some dogs sick.
It implies that all dogs get sick when they eat grains, which is
simply not true.

Kibble does cause
health problems but not all dogs end up with all problems,

Finally.

just like all
smokers don't get lung cancer. I've shown you where grains cause
problems in people (omnivores) as well. It's not limited to carnivores.

No, you haven't "shown me" that; you've alleged that "grains" cause
diabetes in humans. There's no scientific basis for that claim,
either.



http://www.mercola.com/article/insulin.htm
Reduce Grains and Sugar to Lose Weight and Improve Health

For several million years, humans existed on a diet of animals and
vegetation. It was only with the advent of agriculture a mere 10,000
years ago -- a fraction of a second in evolutionary time -- that humans
began ingesting large amounts of sugar and starch in the form of grains
(and potatoes) into their diets. Indeed, 99.99% of our genes were formed
before the advent of agriculture; in biological terms, our bodies are
still those of hunter-gatherers.

While the human shift to agriculture produced indisputable gains for man
-- modern civilization is based on this epoch -- societies where the
transition from a primarily meat/vegetation diet to one high in cereals
show a reduced lifespan and stature, increases in infant mortality and
infectious disease, and higher nutritional deficiencies.

Contemporary humans have not suddenly evolved mechanisms to incorporate
the high carbohydrates from starch- and sugar-rich foods into their
diet. In short, we are consuming far too much bread, cereal, pasta, corn
(a grain, not a vegetable), rice, potatoes and Little Debbie snack
cakes, with very grave consequences to our health. Making matters worse,
most of these carbohydrates we consume come in the form of processed food.

That 65% of Americans are overweight, and 27% clinically obese, in a
nation addicted to sesame seed buns for that hamburger, with a side of
French fries and a Coke, is no coincidence. It is not the fat in the
foods we eat but, far more, the excess carbohydrates from our starch-
and sugar-loaded diet that is making people fat and unhealthy, and
leading to epidemic levels of a host of diseases such as diabetes.

Any meal or snack high in carbohydrates generates a rapid rise in blood
glucose. To adjust for this rise, the pancreas secretes the hormone
insulin into the bloodstream, which lowers the glucose. Insulin is,
though, essentially a storage hormone, evolved over those millions of
years of humans prior to the agricultural age, to store the excess
calories from carbohydrates in the form of fat in case of famine.

Even worse, high insulin levels suppress two other important hormones --
glucagons and growth hormones -- that are responsible for burning fat
and sugar and promoting muscle development, respectively. So insulin
from excess carbohydrates promotes fat, and then wards off the body's
ability to lose that fat.

Excess weight and obesity lead to heart disease and a wide variety of
other diseases. But the ill effect of grains and sugars does not end
there. They suppress the immune system, contributing to allergies, and
they are responsible for a host of digestive disorders. They contribute
to depression, and their excess consumption is, in fact, associated with
many of the chronic diseases in our nation, such as cancer and diabetes.

"sighthounds & siberians" wrote
Char wrote:

I like your logical approach. Unfortunately some people don't think in
linear progression and require a tangental approach.

My commments added below:

Here are some of your false, misleading statements:

2) commercial dog food has nutritional value similar to cardboard

I believe this was said to me. It may haver been a repeat of something said
many times but i am new here so do not know.

I never made any of those statements. I see you have to make up stuff to
argue over so I guess you can't find fault with what I really said.

You have, but apparently you don't archive your posts and I can't find
the cardboard post. You compared nutritional value of kibble to that

I read, reply and delete. Look back for that one though in very recent
times.

of cardboard; I certainly didn't come up with that. Anyone can
believe me or not; it's really not important. What is important is
that you stop making sweeping, generalized statements such as:
"Kibble is full of grains which make dogs
sick."

*Cats* have issues sometimes with life long feeding on 'kitty kibble' but i
am not aware of any valid info that shows dogs do. Oh I am sure if I search
I can find a wacky site that says it, just like you can find ones that say
'Rice has horrible complications for Humans' (ignoring all other countries
where it is a mainstay eaten 3 times a day).

No, you haven't "shown me" that; you've alleged that "grains" cause
diabetes in humans. There's no scientific basis for that claim,
either.

Huh? She said that too sometime before I entered here?

I'm not anti-raw. I'm anti making sweeping, unfounded statements,
especially in a forum where some people may not know the difference.
That's irresponsible.

I dont have a problem feeding my dog (or cat) some raw meat. My cat
particularily loves raw minced chicken livers and will fight the dog off for
them. Hehe it's funny as hell to see a 9lb cat hold a 54lb dog off his own
food bowl while she munches some of his after eating her own. (This only
works because he's not a liver fan extremo). Daisy-cat is particularily fond
of raw salmon while Cash-pup will just sniff it and wander off.

I add what they seem to need and want.

"Char" wrote
sighthounds & siberians wrote:

No, you haven't "shown me" that; you've alleged that "grains" cause
diabetes in humans. There's no scientific basis for that claim,
either.

http://www.mercola.com/article/insulin.htm
Reduce Grains and Sugar to Lose Weight and Improve Health

I can point out just as many wacked out sites that refute that. Grains do
not 'cause' diabetes in humans. The causes can be many but that is not one
of them. They may need to be 'limited' if one develops it, but the same is
true of all starchy items like rice and potatoes.

The key for a diabetic is how fast the food item processes to blood glucose
(all foods do that, even raw meat).

Check the AMA about it.