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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Myths and truth
diddy none wrote in
: Every vet I've ever been to asks me what I'm feeding, Everytime. Especially when I had gastric issues with Danny, who went to many specialists (who was fed raw food) That makes sense, considering his health issues. And I would expect a similar attention to detail if an owner comes in with a dog with serious allergies, itchy feet, and recurring ear infections. Wouldn't a vet want to know what the heck that dog is eating? -- Shelly http://www.cat-sidh.net (the Mother Ship) http://esther.cat-sidh.net (Letters to Esther) |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Myths and truth
Robin Nuttall wrote in
newsuATk.435726$yE1.242238@attbi_s21: I've had a lot of vets ask me what I feed but they then sort of look puzzled, because I don't necessarily give the stock answer (Iams or Dog Chow). When I say, "Evo," they don't know what that is. I got that back when I was feeding Canidae and Wysong. I was sure the vet thought I was feeding bargain basement store brands. I think vets are now getting used to some of the newer (and not so newer) high end foods. Or they're just nodding their heads. On the flip side, apart from Hills c/d for Rory the cat's crystals, I've never had a vet try to *sell* me food. -- Shelly http://www.cat-sidh.net (the Mother Ship) http://esther.cat-sidh.net (Letters to Esther) |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Myths and truth
Shelly spoke these words of wisdom in
1: diddy none wrote in : Every vet I've ever been to asks me what I'm feeding, Everytime. Especially when I had gastric issues with Danny, who went to many specialists (who was fed raw food) That makes sense, considering his health issues. And I would expect a similar attention to detail if an owner comes in with a dog with serious allergies, itchy feet, and recurring ear infections. Wouldn't a vet want to know what the heck that dog is eating? I would hope so. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Myths and truth
"Shelly" wrote in message 1... "Dale Atkin" Why do you think most vets *ask* what you're feeding? They do? Because I've been to a lot of vets, and I've never had one ask me what I was feeding my dog. Even when we were discussing probable food allergies, she didn't ask me about specific foods. Hmmm. Interesting. That's a standard question prior to any physical exam at the clinic I'm at. Its also a standard question that the vet school has taught us to ask when we're collecting histories, its amazing how much extra information that one little question can bring out, even in an indirect manner (I for one will always ask). Dale |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Myths and truth
"Shelly" wrote... Robin Nuttall wrote in I've had a lot of vets ask me what I feed but they then sort of look puzzled, because I don't necessarily give the stock answer (Iams or Dog Chow). When I say, "Evo," they don't know what that is. I got that back when I was feeding Canidae and Wysong. I was sure the vet thought I was feeding bargain basement store brands. I think vets are now getting used to some of the newer (and not so newer) high end foods. Or they're just nodding their heads. On the flip side, apart from Hills c/d for Rory the cat's crystals, I've never had a vet try to *sell* me food. We try to look up any foods that we don't recognize (don't always have time, but we try). We also will follow up with a "Oh I haven't heard about that one before... where do you get it? What can you tell me about it?" If we're hit with an unusual sounding one (most of the time when we get a strange sounding one, its because the owner can't recall the name right, but occasionally they throw us a curve ball.) The only food we'll push is when its for a particular condition (Gastro diets, weight loss diets, urinary diets etc.). I think most vets recognize the conflict of interest they are in if they start promoting the 'preventative' diets (not that we don't sell those, the vets just don't push them). Dale |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Myths and truth
Dale Atkin wrote:
Hi chardonnay9, You seem to be very passionate about raw food diets. I was hoping we might have an open discussion about it. I know I can. How about you? I've noticed a few on here who aren't able to. First, my own views (I'd invite you to make similar statements of your basic views): I feed kibble. There are some crappy kibbles out there (in fact there are many crappy kibbles out there). Indeed, since I've seen what rawfed looks like I have to say that they are all crappy. On the raw groups it's called "crap in a bag" and I think with good reason. There are some crappy raw diets out there (in fact there are many crappy raw diets out there). I agree. Lots of people get into it without understanding what the goals are and why. Some raw diets are better than some kibble diets. Except for a few really ignorant raw feeders I'd say all raw diets are better than kibble diets. Some kibble diets are better than some raw diets. Not possible. Kibble is invented, created from left overs from the human food chain. Raw is what dogs were meant to eat. Their digestive systems show that very easily. Some other examples of invented food vs natural diet would be bird pellets. Touted as the best you can get, it was realized later on that it was killing birds. And then there is baby formula vs breastfeeding. When I was a baby my mother was told that formula was best for babies. Now we know that was never true at all. Studies show all sorts of advantages from consuming mother's milk, like higher IQ, etc. My attitude towards a diet is if it seems to be working for the dog, don't fix it. I agree with that. However, your average dog owner would not be aware that certain symptoms and problems and mannerisms could be diet related. Some dogs do fine on kibble but many do not. And I think that if the ones doing fine on kibble were to take a ten day raw vacation from kibble that they might notice improvements anyway. There are *many* people out there who will try to tell you a diet you should feed your dog. Most of these 'diets' are based on little more than what one person has decided is a good idea, and very little in the way of actual justification. Some of these diets are down right dangerous to feed long term because of nutritional inadequacies. Which is why thorough investigation on diet is imperative. I didn't take anyone's word for things, I studied, read a lot, tried things on my dogs, threw away what could not be backed up. I did not enter raw feeding lightly or on a whim. I'm just not the groupie type. I prefer to give my money to a company that has vested long term interest producing good results (some guy on the internet, or some guy trying to sell a book has no such motivation). Those companies are interested in profit only and don't care about your pets. Have you investigated just what it takes as far as studies go to get a food approved? It's a total joke. The FDA entrusts AAFCO to issue regulations governing ingredients, feeding trials, labels and nutritional claims. But AAFCO’s rules fall short of ensuring that America’s pets receive adequate nutrition, or even foods that won’t cause chronic digestive, skin, eye, and coat problems. The influence by the pet food industry over AAFCO manifests itself through AAFCO’s irrational regulations, including ingredient definitions which effectively prohibit organic chickens and vegetables, while blindly permitting thousands of euthanized cats and dogs to make their way into pet foods through the unsupervised rendering industry. Trusting, but uneducated, consumers purchase these commercial pet foods under the assumption that the FDA or some other regulatory body has ensured that the foods contain “balanced” meals, and “complete” nutrition. http://leda.law.harvard.edu/leda/dat...Patrick06.html AAFCO standards and nutrient profiles were established through collaboration between scientific experts in the industry, in academia (such as universities), and in the regulatory commission (National Research Commission, or NRC). These experts looked at the peer-reviewed literature and documented data available to them and then formulated nutrient profiles after collaboration. These nutrient profiles have been updated once and are scheduled to be updated again. At this point I would like to note that Nature's nutritional standards for dogs and cats has not changed within the past several thousand years since the species' existence (hundred thousand and even million years if you include their ancestors). Some argue that AAFCO profiles are the best there is, but others argue that AAFCO profiles are simply 'better than nothing.' Indeed, the standards can lull people into a false sense of security about the food they feed their pets. They think it is nutritionally complete, when in reality it may not be truly complete. Additionally, AAFCO profiles have not been tested or reproduced (and one of the biggest principles of science is that the method must be reproducible and the results verifiable.). There are no studies that prove "their adequacies or inadequacies" (Quinton Rogers, DVM, PhD, as quoted in "Alternative Feeding Practices" by Susan Wynn. To see the full article, click here.). It is, at best, an educated guess as to what our animals really need, and is based on less-than-scientific principles. There are several other things wrong with these standards that AAFCO uses to ensure foods are 100% 'complete and balanced.' The standards were developed based on the belief that dogs are omnivores and can be properly maintained on a grain-based diet. They are therefore irrelevant to raw diets. Why? First, to gain nutritional analysis, the food must be chemically denatured, cooked, purified, and otherwise manipulated, meaning that any reading is an inaccurate representation of the raw item. This also means that the interactions between nutrients are overlooked as each nutrient is studied separately rather than in conjunction with the others (and this will be discussed below). Second, the NRC profiles (which AAFCO used to develop its own profiles) assume 100% bioavailability. However, if a dog is fed as an omnivore, there are good amounts of nutrients unavailable to it that are contained in the indigestible plant matter. Phytates in particular (contained in abundance in grains and soy products—which kibbles often contain in substantial amounts) are well-known for interfering with valuable nutrients like iron, zinc, and calcium. Hence, you have to feed more of these nutrients in order for the dog to get the amount it needs; what the dog actually needs and uses is NOT the same amount of nutrient initially added. This results in skewed and biased standards, as they list the initial nutrient amount added, not the amount absorbed. Thus, bioavailability is less than 100%, and the nutrients in the standards are therefore inaccurate representations of what the dog really needs. There is a third reason why AAFCO standards are useless for raw foods. This deals with the reason the food is raw and not cooked. AAFCO standards are based on cooked or processed foods (processed in order to be evaluated), foods which already have a decreased nutritional value because of being cooked or processed. Cooking denatures proteins and collagen, destroys important nutrients, and generally makes the food less digestible and less bioavailable (the exception being grains and vegetables, which we have already determined should not be given to dogs anyway). This means essential vitamins and minerals must be added back in. But how much? In what amounts? Research has shown that synthetic vitamins do not work with the same efficiency as those found in their natural state (i.e. in raw foods). Additionally, many vitamins and minerals interact with each other both negatively and positively. For example, vitamin C increases the uptake of iron, whereas Vitamin E inhibits the uptake of iron. Vitamin C also lowers zinc and manganese uptake, whereas Vitamin E helps increase zinc and manganese absorption (www.acu-cell.com/nico.html). Commercial pet foods should contain all of these nutrients, but are they contained in the proper amounts? And just what is a 'proper amount'? The difficulties for establishing proper amounts have already been discussed. Do they have methods for monitoring the complex interactions of all these nutrients? Since feeding trials simply look at palatability, survival, and the appearance of health, these complex interactions are ignored. Cooking and processing food also kills enzymes that may help with the digestion of the food and the processing of nutrients, so the bioavailability of vitamins and minerals in cooked foods is further reduced (Lonsdale, T. 2001. Raw Meaty Bones. Chapter 4.). **Let us also look at the actual AAFCO feeding trials themselves. Are these really the 'Golden Seal of Approval' that pet food manufacturers make them out to be? AAFCO feeding trials consist of at least eight dogs being fed the same diet for a mere 26 weeks (approximately six months). During this time, 25% of the dogs (so, two animals) can be removed from the test and the dogs eating the food can lose up to 15% of their weight and condition; the food will still pass the test and be labeled "complete and balanced." But extrapolate these figures to the number of animals eating this food for much longer than 26 weeks and you will have much more of a problem! If a food caused dogs to start losing condition over the 26 week period yet still passed, imagine how many animals would fail to thrive in real life while being fed this food for years?** As long as the remaining dogs in the trial appear healthy and have acceptable weights and certain blood values, the food passes and is considered 'complete and balanced' nutrition for whatever lifestage for which it was tested (puppy, adult maintenance, geriatric, etc.). So it can now be fed to your pet for a period much longer than the six-month test period. However, AAFCO feeding trials were NOT designed to measure the long-term effects of commercial diets. It says so right in their mission statement (Lonsdale, T. 2001. Raw Meaty Bones. pg 216). AAFCO trials were designed to ensure that pet foods were not "harmful to the animal and would support the proposed life stage" (pg 216, Raw Meaty Bones.) for a period of 26 weeks. The AAFCO protocols were NOT designed to "examine nutritional relationships to long-term health or disease prevention" (pg 216). If a dog lives for six months with no noticeable ill effects on a kibble, then the food is considered 100% complete and balanced nutrition, even though long-term nutritional deficiencies may occur several years down the road. http://www.rawfed.com/myths/standards.html Vets will notice if all the dogs who come in eating brand x have a particular problem. Why do you think most vets *ask* what you're feeding? they are looking for correlations, and trying to get an idea for themselves as far as what works, and what doesn’t. They don't ask, they just look to treat symptoms and nevermind the underlying cause is ignored. As far as lack of scientific research goes, I think part of the issue is that the problem you're looking at is too big. That just isn't the way science generally works. You can't even ask a question like "What is better? Raw diets? Or kibble?" Its too broad, the experimenter can make the results come out any way they choose simply by the way they set up the experiment (the parameters, and measurements). A more appropriate question to ask might be to test one of the claims of the raw diet (or the kibble diet) and see if it stands up to analysis. There really is no comparison. Feeding a species appropriate diet always beats kibble hands down, even those that don't contain rendered pets and grains. After working with raw feeding for a number of years and seeing the results I could never say kibble is ever better. Just the time needed to digest shows this. Dogs have a very short system made for eating meat. Kibble doesn't move through nearly as fast and just that can cause problems, especially if they are mixing raw and kibble. Raw moves through fast enough that there are no problems with salmonella and such. The kibble could, however, slow down the raw enough to cause a problem. One claim is that cooking food destroys the nutritional value. Even that is somewhat too vague, as we haven't pinned down exactly what we mean by 'cooking'. Is cooking simply exposing to high heat? Are we boiling in liquid? Are we treating with chemicals? Cooking is treating with chemicals? I don't really think a definition is necessary. Cooking means heating till the food changes. That aside, all the evidence that I was able to find from a literature search points the other way (although not unequivocally). Cooking in fact (generally) enhances the bioavailability of nutrients, possibly by breaking down globular proteins in to more easily digested chunks. There is some loss in the process of total protein, but the amount that is actually available to be digested/absorbed increases. (see references in other thread). There may (potentially) be some preferential loss of certain amino acids more prone to breaking down under heat stress. A dog's digestive system was designed to eat raw meat, bones and organ meat. That was Nature's intent obviously. If kibble was the perfect food it would not block up the digestive system like it does. Even looking at human diets, it's common right now to push raw foods as much as possible, to get away from over processing till the ingredients are no longer as healthy. I've heard that a light steaming might enhance bioavailability but never that cooking for long periods was in any way healthy. Anyways, before I go too far, I'd like to hear your response. Dale Atkin |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Myths and truth
In article ,
chardonnay9 wrote: Not possible. Kibble is invented, created from left overs from the human food chain. Raw is what dogs were meant to eat. Their digestive systems show that very easily. Gosh, Dale - well done. -- Melinda Shore - Software longa, hardware brevis - Prouder than ever to be a member of the reality-based community |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Myths and truth
I don't have time for as in depth a reply as I'd like, right now (working on
a paper for school) so I'm going to have to leave off a few of your points for now. It's not to say that they aren't important, or I don't have anything to say about them (or that I'm ignoring them), but rather that I have much to say about them and can't devote the time required right now for a complete response. "chardonnay9" wrote in message ... Dale Atkin wrote: Hi chardonnay9, You seem to be very passionate about raw food diets. I was hoping we might have an open discussion about it. I know I can. How about you? I've noticed a few on here who aren't able to. As long as 'open' doesn't equate to believing everything you say without proof. Yes I can. I am very curious to speak to someone with a strong view on a raw diet. I'll warn you in advance that I'm not looking to switch to a raw diet, but more looking to understand your views. As long as we can keep the conversation on those terms, I think we'll do fine. There are some crappy raw diets out there (in fact there are many crappy raw diets out there). I agree. Lots of people get into it without understanding what the goals are and why. Care to share what makes a good raw diet in your mind? Some raw diets are better than some kibble diets. Except for a few really ignorant raw feeders I'd say all raw diets are better than kibble diets. I would hazard that most raw feeders are ignorant. I'm not saying that you're one of them, more that many, many people who try to get in to raw feeding don't have the slightest idea what they're doing. My feeling is that the people who hang out on the raw food newsgroups that you visit are probably the top fraction. What you don't tend to see are the people who just feed 'what they think their dog needs'. Was speaking to a vet friend of mine a couple of years ago. He was telling me about a large cat (don't recall the exact type, but something like a cougar) that was being fed by a zoo. The zoo decided that it would be appropriate to feed this cat on an exclusive raw meat diet. The animal ended up with severe bone deformities and had to be euthanized (the carcass was sent to the vet school while he was there for them to take a look at). I think this is partly where the disconnect between vets and raw feeders comes in. Those who are truly dedicated to feeding a raw diet can do it quite well. Where the problem comes in, is when people jump in without really knowing what they are doing, and figure that simply because its 'raw' it must be better. Some kibble diets are better than some raw diets. Not possible. Kibble is invented, created from left overs from the human food chain. Raw is what dogs were meant to eat. Their digestive systems show that very easily. I'm not buying your logic here. Firstly, not all kibble is 'created from leftovers from the human food chain' (I admit some is, but not all). Secondly, simply because a system has evolved under a certain input does *not* for a second mean that a different input is not more easily accepted, or that the nutrients are less accessible. And then there is baby formula vs breastfeeding. When I was a baby my mother was told that formula was best for babies. Now we know that was never true at all. Studies show all sorts of advantages from consuming mother's milk, like higher IQ, etc. I've read some of those studies in a psych class I took last year... they are generally very poorly controlled, and easy to poke holes in. What they tend to show is a correlation, rather than a causation (I'm not saying that a baby formula is better than breast milk here, just that those particular studies may be flawed.) I agree with that. However, your average dog owner would not be aware that certain symptoms and problems and mannerisms could be diet related. Some dogs do fine on kibble but many do not. And I think that if the ones doing fine on kibble were to take a ten day raw vacation from kibble that they might notice improvements anyway. This is purely anecdotal, so not really worth the bytes its sent on, but most people I know who have tried raw (many for more than 10 days), have said exactly the opposite. Their dogs were doing much better on kibble than on the raw diet that they switched to. (that being said, I do have one good friend who feeds raw, and has no complaints. Her dogs do fine on it, but I wouldn't say that they have less problems because of it). Which is why thorough investigation on diet is imperative. I didn't take anyone's word for things, I studied, read a lot, tried things on my dogs, threw away what could not be backed up. I did not enter raw feeding lightly or on a whim. I'm just not the groupie type. But how did you judge what you read? Just because someone tells you something that seems to make sense, doesn't mean its right for even a second. This is where my problem comes in. I know more about biology than a fairly high percentage of the population, and I have a very hard time seeing any degree of credibility in anything I read on the subject. Getting beyond the 'hype' is very difficult. I prefer to give my money to a company that has vested long term interest producing good results (some guy on the internet, or some guy trying to sell a book has no such motivation). Those companies are interested in profit only and don't care about your pets. I think to evaluate this statement, you have to look at the different groups of people buying pet food. There are (and will always be) the people who will buy what ever is cheapest at Wal-Mart. The cheaper the food, the more the company will sell. The companies catering to that market have nothing to worry about. Their clients won't associate any health problems with problems the food. Then there are people who will take exactly the opposite approach. They will buy whatever is most expensive, with the hope that its going to be better for their dog. These are the people the pet food companies have to worry about. They are fairly fickle in their allegiances They are going to change diets the moment they see that something isn't 'quite right'. In order to keep these clients (the ones who will pay top dollar for the food), the companies have to make sure that their products actually perform, at least as well, if not better than the competition. These are the companies that have the vested interest in making sure that their products actually do the job. Have you investigated just what it takes as far as studies go to get a food approved? It's a total joke. I'm aware of that. Are you aware of what it takes to get a raw food diet 'approved'? Nothing. You can put up your recipe on a website for free. Second, the NRC profiles (which AAFCO used to develop its own profiles) assume 100% bioavailability. Do you have estimates of what the actual bioavailability is? I assume its less than 100%, but how much? AAFCO standards are based on cooked or processed foods (processed in order to be evaluated), foods which already have a decreased nutritional value because of being cooked or processed. Cooking denatures proteins Why is denaturing a protein a bad thing? It would seem like a good thing to me (but for someone who doesn't know what denaturing a protein does, might seem questionable). destroys important nutrients Which nutrients? And how are they destroyed? (What bonds are being broken?) Hydrogen bonds, I'm willing to believe, but won't most of these be broken down in the gut anyways? For example, vitamin C increases the uptake of iron, whereas Vitamin E inhibits the uptake of iron. Vitamin C also lowers zinc and manganese uptake, whereas Vitamin E helps increase zinc and manganese absorption (www.acu-cell.com/nico.html). Quite possible, but surely this is the same as in raw foods? Any food which contains vitamin C and vitamin E will suffer from the same problem, raw or not. Commercial pet foods should contain all of these nutrients, but are they contained in the proper amounts? And just what is a 'proper amount'? The difficulties for establishing proper amounts have already been discussed. Is this not the same problem for raw food diets? How much work do most writers of raw food diets do to ensure that they are actually meeting all of these nutritional requirements? Do they have methods for monitoring the complex interactions of all these nutrients? Since feeding trials simply look at palatability, survival, and the appearance of health, these complex interactions are ignored. Please give another method by which these foods could be evaluated (other than the appearance of health). Cooking and processing food also kills enzymes that may help with the digestion of the food and the processing of nutrients, so the bioavailability of vitamins and minerals in cooked foods is further reduced (Lonsdale, T. 2001. Raw Meaty Bones. Chapter 4.). So, we're talking enzymes that are contained in the food that will autolyse the meat? Interesting argument. I find it interesting that this same argument was used against cooking earlier (that nutrients will be broken down by cooking), and is now being used the other way (that stuff contained in the meat that will break down nutrients will get destroyed by cooking...) This seems to be contradictory. Vets will notice if all the dogs who come in eating brand x have a particular problem. Why do you think most vets *ask* what you're feeding? they are looking for correlations, and trying to get an idea for themselves as far as what works, and what doesn’t. They don't ask, they just look to treat symptoms and nevermind the underlying cause is ignored. Some do. Some don't. Many do (and they are taught to ask in school). One claim is that cooking food destroys the nutritional value. Even that is somewhat too vague, as we haven't pinned down exactly what we mean by 'cooking'. Is cooking simply exposing to high heat? Are we boiling in liquid? Are we treating with chemicals? Cooking is treating with chemicals? I don't really think a definition is necessary. Cooking means heating till the food changes. You've underscored the need for an appropriate definition nicely. "Heating until the food changes". Changes how? We all know that if you cook your steak too long, it will burn. This can't be a good thing, but some intermediate level could certainly be. Are we talking rare? Or well done? There is a whole suite of changes here, and they aren't all necessarily nutritionally equal. My feeling (backed up by nothing more than my own logic), is that there is a 'goldilocks' amount that is required for optimal bioavailability. Cook too long, and you get charcoal. A dog's digestive system was designed to eat raw meat, bones and organ meat. That was Nature's intent obviously. If kibble was the perfect food it would not block up the digestive system like it does. I think I just found a major whole in this argument. You're only looking at half of the evolutionary equation. What about the animal that is being eaten? Surely it is of an evolutionary advantage to not be tasty and nutritious? To illustrate how this might work imagine two species. First our primitive dog (lets call him Dino). Dino can choose to spend his time hunting one of two strains of mice. One strain he can digest easily, the other strain not as easily. Lets assume that there is some way for the dog to tell the difference between these strains (its not unreasonable that a difference like this would have some observable phenotype). A dog who chooses to hunt the tastier strain will do quite well. A dog that chooses to hunt the harder to digest strain doesn't. The fraction of dogs that hunt the tasty strain will increase, and the faction that hunt the less tasty strain will decrease. This is bad for the tasty mice, and their relative population declines, and the numbers of less tasty mice increase. Now imagine a mutation which allows Dino's great grand children to extract more nutrients from the less tasty mice. Those offspring that can do this, will do quite well (they can live on an abundant food source that no one else can touch). This is bad for now tasty mice. There is going to be a new selection pressure on them to make themselves less tasty, and any mutation that does this, should be favoured. This kind of process should go on indefinitely with different species sequestering their nutrients as best as they can, until they are all relatively hard to get to. Now, enter human with fire. Fire is totally outside this evolutionary process. The nutrients were never 'designed' to be sequestered from heat any higher than normal body temperatures. They crack open easily under the stress of heat, and make themselves much more available. It is therefore natural, and logical that cooking should enhance bioavailability when looking at things from an evolutionary standpoint. Even looking at human diets, it's common right now to push raw foods as much as possible, to get away from over processing till the ingredients are no longer as healthy. Just because something is 'trendy' does not make it right. I put forth a challenge to you to find supporting evidence for this claim that 'cooking' as you've defined it makes things less healthy (I'm willing to take on faith that treating with certain chemicals, and that certain additives may not be healthy, but you've defined cooking as adding heat until the food changes. Lets stick with that, as it seems to be one of the main tenants underlying raw food.) I've heard that a light steaming might enhance bioavailability but never that cooking for long periods was in any way healthy. Did you read the references I provided in the other post? I'm not entirely happy with them, as they aren't talking about meat, but they are the best I could find, and I couldn't find anything to contradict them. I also can't see why meat would be different. Gotta run, Dale |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Myths and truth
In article OcMTk.685$jr4.111@edtnps82,
Dale Atkin wrote: I think I just found a major whole in this argument. You're only looking at half of the evolutionary equation. What about the animal that is being eaten? Surely it is of an evolutionary advantage to not be tasty and nutritious? Oh, Dale. And just when it didn't look possible that the discussion (er, "discussion") could possibly become more idiotic. I'm not sure when *your* dog's ancestors were domesticated, but *my* dogs' ancestors were domesticated millenia ago. They didn't "evolve." They were bred. They were not left to forage in the woods, although in the context of this stupid, stupid, stupid discussion it should probably be pointed out that a foraging dog left to its own devices would tend to do better if it could eat a broader range of foods (including grains and other carbohydrates) than if it could only survive on meats, which coincidentally is the case with dogs. Since we're just making **** up and using it as the basis for argument. "And the fairy dogmother descended from the heavens in a bubble of bird spit and waved her magic wand and suddenly dogs could thrive on candy corn and nobody had to cook, and Dale was the smartest boy in the land!" -- Melinda Shore - Software longa, hardware brevis - Prouder than ever to be a member of the reality-based community |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Myths concerning PitBulls | Hi Im WEEniE with MyFav4ite Midi | Dog behavior | 7 | November 29th 04 03:57 AM |