Science Diet, nutrients and quality ingredients?

In article .com,
Houseboo wrote:
Does that mean that some of these boutique foods aren't good - no, it
doesn't. Some of them are fine, even good, but the thing that gets
sorely missed in this forum is just because a food like "Blue" passes
the muster, doesn't mean that Hill's is this evil empire wanting to
make dogs sick and terminally ill.

Well, a couple of things: 1) I think that the basic argument
that the Hills guys are presenting is undeniably true, that
it's the nutrition that's of primary interest and that the
list of ingredients on the bag is completely insufficient to
determine whether or not the food is "good;" 2) Hills food,
in practice, often doesn't produce as good subjective
results as many other so-called premium feeds and there's
this consequent gap between what the Hills guys are saying
and what those of us who have tried their foods have seen;
3) the individuals from Hills who post here have behaved so
badly that not many people read their posts for content
anymore or want to bother engaging in a serious discussion
with them, but instead waste a lot of electrons on content-
free flamage. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
--
Melinda Shore - Software longa, hardware brevis -

2/3 of the Social Security Trustees are political appointees

Paws - there you go again. Please provide us with any documented
evidence that your contention is correct. Bear in mind there are
literally hundreds of peer reviewed published clinical trials on
satiety in dogs. Not one of which suggests your theory is correct. But
I will suspend judgment while you provide us with the facts to back up
your claims. Here's a few to get you started.


Borne AT, Wolfsheimer KJ, Truett AA, et al. Differential metabolic
effects of energy restriction in dogs using diets varying in fat and
fiber content. Obesity Res 1996; 4: 337-345.

Jewell DE, Toll PW. Effects of fiber on food intake in dogs. Vet Clin
Nutr 1996; 3: 115-118.

Jackson JR, Laflamme DP, Keltner G. Effects of dietary fiber content on
satiety in dogs. Vet Clin Nutr 1997; 4: 130-134.

Hannah SS, Laflamme DP. Increased dietary protein spares lean body mass
during weight loss in dogs (abstract). J Vet Intern Med 1998; 12: 224.

Jewell DE, Toll PW, Novotny BJ. Satiety reduces adiposity in dogs. Vet
Therapeutics 2000; 1: 17-23.


And a couple abstracts so you don't have to try finding them.

Jewell DE, Toll PW. Effects of fiber on food intake in dogs. Vet Clin
Nutr 1996; 3: 115-118.
Synopsis: The objective of this study was to evaluate if dietary fiber
can influence food consumption and food-seeking activities, and
therefore, energy intake in dogs. In a two-phase study, investigators
randomly assigned 30 beagle dogs to one of two groups. In the first
phase, one group was offered a 45-minute meal consisting of a low-fiber
commercial dog food (2% dry matter crude fiber) and the other group a
medium-fiber commercial dog food (12% dry matter crude fiber). After
14 days the groups were fed the opposite food for two more weeks. A
second 45-minute meal (called an intruded meal) was offered on Days 7,
14, 21 and 28. The same crossover design was used in Phase 2; however,
two different foods were fed. The first commercial dog food contained
low fiber (2% dry matter crude fiber); the second commercial dog food
contained high-fiber levels (21% dry matter crude fiber). Dogs fed the
medium (12% crude fiber, Phase 1) and high-fiber (21% crude fiber,
Phase 2) commercial foods consumed less energy in their daily meals and
in the intruded meals. Dogs in the high fiber group also consumed less
dry matter during the intruded meal.
Clinical relevance: Increasing fiber in canine foods decreases
voluntary food intake, a measure of satiety. Commercial foods
containing 12 to 21% crude fiber on a dry matter basis increase satiety
and voluntary reduction of energy consumption, compared to commercial
foods containing less than 2% crude fiber.

Jewell DE, Toll PW, Novotny BJ. Satiety reduces adiposity in dogs. Vet
Therapeutics 2000; 1: 17-23.
Synopsis: Twelve beagle dogs were fed either a low-fiber (Eukanuba
Veterinary Diets=EF=83=92 Restricted-Calorie=EF=83=94/Canine) or a high-fib=
er
(Prescription Diet=EF=83=92 Canine r/d=EF=83=92) dry food that had previous=
ly been
shown to cause a difference in satiety. After 3 weeks the groups were
fed the opposite food. Dogs were fed all they would voluntarily consume
during one 45-minute meal per day. Each dog served as its own control.
Although dogs consumed approximately equal amounts of food on a weight
basis, they voluntarily ate significantly fewer calories (27% less)
when fed the high-fiber food. Dogs lost four times as much fat mass
when fed the high-fiber food versus when fed the low-fiber food.
Clinical relevance: Foods enhanced with fiber increase satiety and
reduce adiposity in dogs.

Borne AT, Wolfsheimer KJ, Truett AA, et al. Differential metabolic
effects of energy restriction in dogs using diets varying in fat and
fiber content. Obesity Res 1996; 4: 337-345.
Synopsis: The role of dietary fat and fiber in energy restriction for
the management of obesity was examined. Twelve male castrated dogs were
energy restricted for 7 weeks by feeding 60% of their calculated
maintenance energy requirements for ideal body weight. Six dogs were
restricted on a high-fat (35.4% fat calories), low-fiber (2.9% dry
matter) food, while the other six dogs were restricted on a low-fat
(24.5% fat calories), high-fiber (27% dry matter) food. Compared with
the high-fat, low-fiber food, energy restriction on the low-fat,
high-fiber food resulted in significantly greater decreases in body fat
and total serum cholesterol concentrations. Reductions in body weight
and mean arterial blood pressure were also greater on the low-fat food;
however, these food effects did not reach statistical significance.
Clinical relevance: Fat and fiber content of the food during energy
restriction and weight loss are important factors in management of
obesity. Canine r/d=EF=83=92 is an appropriate low-fat, high-fiber food for
management of obesity.

Actually no. Years ago it used to bother me when people fed foods that
were inappropriate, but then I had an epiphany of thought. All those
folks buying high calcium high phosphorus foods are the major
contributors to my 401K - when they have to revert to a more
expensive therapeutic diet.

Since you made the accusation - let's see if you can back it up with
some facts. Please show us any published data that indicates that any
nutrient level or ingredient contained in any Sciecne Diet food is a
risk factor. We'll have to start another list for you as well - kind of
like the list for rocket man of unsubstantiated claims which you never
bother to support with any facts.

Steve,

There you go again... more diversions and smoke screens. Can someone
let us know what the original question was again?
BTW, I never even mentioned peanut hulls, cellulose or human grade so
get your facts straight. Nor have I ever debated what nutrients are
best for large breed puppies? Maybe you're confusing me with the group
of people you met with on your phantom trip to the Solid Gold Global
HQ?

Regarding Corn being bad for dogs, you know corn, soy and wheat are
common allergens to dogs. Two of my dogs would regularly throw up
immediately after eating Science Diet, Pro Plan or any Corn based food
and the last time I checked, I've never seen a pack of dogs harvesting
Corn and Soybeans' for their nightly feast! Can you provide us with
peer reviewed studies that prove that Corn Meal, Soybean meal, Ground
Wheat and Chicken By-products are better than the respective
ingredients in Wellness Super5Mix Chicken or Innova?

Finally, the original poster asked why Science Diet does not use a
quality low ash chicken meal instead of by-products / soybean meal and
why you don't use whole grains instead of Corn Meal? I think it's a
good question; do you have a good answer?

If your answer is the whole nutrient profile BS, I guess I'll ask my
butcher the next time I'm in why he bothers with all those choice cuts
of meat and why he just doesn't sell buckets of by-products for the
same price? And then I'll ask the lady in the produce isle where I can
pick up some corn meal and soybean meal instead of all those silly
fresh fruits and veggies. And then I'll wash it all down with a big
fat anti-oxidant supplement so my body can fight off all the rancid,
free radical generating garbage I just ingested. According to you,
that's just as good as a meal at Ruth's Chris, right?

Can you provide us with peer reviewed studies that prove that Corn
Meal, Soybean meal, Ground Wheat and Chicken By-products are better
than the respective
ingredients in Wellness Super5Mix Chicken or Innova?

Actually, the onus would be on you to prove that corn meal, soybeal
meal, ground wheat and chicken by-product have causative links to
undesirable conditions and illnesses. I believe what you are asking is
for him to prove a negative. That cannot be done. The way you worded it
is a matter of symantics, but there is no scientific way to prove
"better" in the way you're asking it. What you want him to do is prove
that SD doesn't cause x, y and z and that's simply impossible.

Why don't you just show us proof of your objections? That is the
truthful way to accurately present your arguement.

Steve Crane wrote:
Paws - there you go again. Please provide us with any documented
evidence that your contention is correct. Bear in mind there are
literally hundreds of peer reviewed published clinical trials on
satiety in dogs. Not one of which suggests your theory is correct.
But
I will suspend judgment while you provide us with the facts to back
up
your claims. Here's a few to get you started.


Borne AT, Wolfsheimer KJ, Truett AA, et al. Differential metabolic
effects of energy restriction in dogs using diets varying in fat and
fiber content. Obesity Res 1996; 4: 337-345.

Jewell DE, Toll PW. Effects of fiber on food intake in dogs. Vet Clin
Nutr 1996; 3: 115-118.

Jackson JR, Laflamme DP, Keltner G. Effects of dietary fiber content
on
satiety in dogs. Vet Clin Nutr 1997; 4: 130-134.

Hannah SS, Laflamme DP. Increased dietary protein spares lean body
mass
during weight loss in dogs (abstract). J Vet Intern Med 1998; 12:
224.

Jewell DE, Toll PW, Novotny BJ. Satiety reduces adiposity in dogs.
Vet
Therapeutics 2000; 1: 17-23.


And a couple abstracts so you don't have to try finding them.

Jewell DE, Toll PW. Effects of fiber on food intake in dogs. Vet Clin
Nutr 1996; 3: 115-118.
Synopsis: The objective of this study was to evaluate if dietary
fiber
can influence food consumption and food-seeking activities, and
therefore, energy intake in dogs. In a two-phase study,
investigators
randomly assigned 30 beagle dogs to one of two groups. In the first
phase, one group was offered a 45-minute meal consisting of a
low-fiber
commercial dog food (2% dry matter crude fiber) and the other group
a
medium-fiber commercial dog food (12% dry matter crude fiber). After
14 days the groups were fed the opposite food for two more weeks. A
second 45-minute meal (called an intruded meal) was offered on Days
7,
14, 21 and 28. The same crossover design was used in Phase 2;
however,
two different foods were fed. The first commercial dog food
contained
low fiber (2% dry matter crude fiber); the second commercial dog
food
contained high-fiber levels (21% dry matter crude fiber). Dogs fed
the
medium (12% crude fiber, Phase 1) and high-fiber (21% crude fiber,
Phase 2) commercial foods consumed less energy in their daily meals
and
in the intruded meals. Dogs in the high fiber group also consumed
less
dry matter during the intruded meal.
Clinical relevance: Increasing fiber in canine foods decreases
voluntary food intake, a measure of satiety. Commercial foods
containing 12 to 21% crude fiber on a dry matter basis increase
satiety
and voluntary reduction of energy consumption, compared to commercial
foods containing less than 2% crude fiber.

Jewell DE, Toll PW, Novotny BJ. Satiety reduces adiposity in dogs.
Vet
Therapeutics 2000; 1: 17-23.
Synopsis: Twelve beagle dogs were fed either a low-fiber (Eukanuba
Veterinary Diets=EF=83=92 Restricted-Calorie=EF=83=94/Canine) or a high-f=
iber
(Prescription Diet=EF=83=92 Canine r/d=EF=83=92) dry food that had previo=
usly
been
shown to cause a difference in satiety. After 3 weeks the groups were
fed the opposite food. Dogs were fed all they would voluntarily
consume
during one 45-minute meal per day. Each dog served as its own
control.
Although dogs consumed approximately equal amounts of food on a
weight
basis, they voluntarily ate significantly fewer calories (27% less)
when fed the high-fiber food. Dogs lost four times as much fat mass
when fed the high-fiber food versus when fed the low-fiber food.
Clinical relevance: Foods enhanced with fiber increase satiety and
reduce adiposity in dogs.

Borne AT, Wolfsheimer KJ, Truett AA, et al. Differential metabolic
effects of energy restriction in dogs using diets varying in fat and
fiber content. Obesity Res 1996; 4: 337-345.
Synopsis: The role of dietary fat and fiber in energy restriction for
the management of obesity was examined. Twelve male castrated dogs
were
energy restricted for 7 weeks by feeding 60% of their calculated
maintenance energy requirements for ideal body weight. Six dogs were
restricted on a high-fat (35.4% fat calories), low-fiber (2.9% dry
matter) food, while the other six dogs were restricted on a low-fat
(24.5% fat calories), high-fiber (27% dry matter) food. Compared with
the high-fat, low-fiber food, energy restriction on the low-fat,
high-fiber food resulted in significantly greater decreases in body
fat
and total serum cholesterol concentrations. Reductions in body weight
and mean arterial blood pressure were also greater on the low-fat
food;
however, these food effects did not reach statistical significance.
Clinical relevance: Fat and fiber content of the food during energy
restriction and weight loss are important factors in management of
obesity. Canine r/d=EF=83=92 is an appropriate low-fat, high-fiber food f=
or
management of obesity.

Steve;

Geesh Steve that is all very informative documentation. Have you been
following the news this week? Did you hear about all the people with
high risk heart disease being told to take vitamin E based on some
study, only to find out years later that it had no positive effects,
and actually caused more heart problems? All of these studies are just
university graduates and other scientists wanting to get a government
research grant to make a job. It seems more and more these days you
read about studies and medicines being created that eventually are
disproven or have a negative effect on those who take it. Wasn't some
medicine, whos effects were studied by a scientist and proven to work
and cause no major ill effects prior to release, pulled off the shelf
recently because it caused major ill effects? How can this be if the
research is so conclusive? As far as humans creating healthy food for
dogs, we can't even feed ourselves properly. I read today that 1 in 3
americans are overweight.

We fed our last dog basically what we ate. She lived for over 17 years,
her mother 16 years and her brother 15 years. Only the one who died at
15 had a health problem that lasted a week or two and was what did him
in.

Steve Crane wrote:
I suspect a troll here but let's see.

So my questin still wasn't aswered by the SD expert(s). Whether or
not
Innova or Canidae or any other higher end dog food really uses
high
or
low grade meat, Why does SD use low grade ingredience?

On what basis would you define Innova or Canidae as having "better"
ingredients? Please define what that term means. Does it mean that
the
ingredient "sounds better" to you from an emotional point of view, or
that the ingredient brings a higher level of digestibility, broader
spectrum of amino acids, lower levels of calcium and phosphorus, much
higher level of proven antioxidants? What measureable things would
you
use to define "better".


I would be in
SD's corner if they used brown rice or flaxseed instead of peanut
hulls.

Flax seed does not contain sufficient insoluble fiber to effect
satiety
in obese dogs. The only place Hill's uses cellulose and penaut hulls
is
in diets designed for obesity. Of course you know that, you're just
hoping readers on this NG will be ignorant enough to believe you when
you try to insinuate cellulose and peanut hulls are used in all
Hill's
foods. Flax seed would contribute additional fats which would be
contraindicated in obese prone animals.


Or chicken meal instead of soy meal.
The first ingredient listed in Science Diet Canine adult is chicken,
not soy meal so I'm guessing you'll start singing the praises of
Science Diet now? . Please let us know just exactly why soy meal is
"bad" for dogs? Please be sure to cite your references for this
claim.


My old vet who was really old, told me that Hill's used to
be a great company when they were independent. But when they got
bought
up buy these corporations like their current owners
Colgate-Palmolive
their ingredience had really gone down hill. He could no longer
prescribe their use.

Good grief your vet must have graduated from vet school well over 35
years ago. Hasn't he gotten to the point of retiring yet? Colgate
bought Hill's in 1976. What a silly thing to say without checking
your
facts. You just end up looking kind of ignorant. Unless of course you
once again hoped that readers on this NG would be so ignorant they
would buy this nonsensical story as well.

No my vet is not ready to retire yet! He is 75 years young and has such
a long waiting list of clients that it is hard for new clients to get
in. He still has an old SD decal on his window from when he used to
sell it. It has a copyright date of 1973. He is a lost cause vet
meaning he take pets that other vets have been told to put to sleep and
works miracles with them. He did so with my dog. He is not an advocate
of raw diets but he believes in quality commercial diets as well as
home made cooked diets for specific ailments. When SD I/d diet wasn't
working for my dog, he put her on cottage cheese and oatmeal with
vitamins. I was told to put her to sleep not only by the vet that
prescibed SD but by CSU veterinary school. With his treatment she lived
a quality life another 4 years until she was 17!

PawsForThought wrote:


Ah yes, Hill's marketing ploys, and their "prescription" foods to
treat
the ills caused by their regular line of foods, LOL Maybe if their
food was higher quality there wouldn't be a need for so many of these

"prescription" foods, hmmm?


LOL! I always thought that you were a bit of a kook, and this is just
one of the conspiracy theories that Hill's Haters (like yourself) bring
up every once in awhile...that Hill's "causes" problems and the "fixes"
those same problems later. Watch out for those black helicopters!

Care to prove that particular allegation?? I didn't think so!

Melinda Shore wrote:


Well, a couple of things: 1) I think that the basic argument
that the Hills guys are presenting is undeniably true, that
it's the nutrition that's of primary interest and that the
list of ingredients on the bag is completely insufficient to
determine whether or not the food is "good;"

Right.

2) Hills food,
in practice, often doesn't produce as good subjective
results as many other so-called premium feeds and there's
this consequent gap between what the Hills guys are saying
and what those of us who have tried their foods have seen;

If that was the case, then why is so much Science Diet sold all around
the world? Are you insinuating that discerning pet owners that feed
Science Diet products with wonderful results are idiots? I get
compliments all the time on how great my dog looks and guess what....he
eats Science Diet!


3) the individuals from Hills who post here have behaved so
badly that not many people read their posts for content
anymore or want to bother engaging in a serious discussion
with them, but instead waste a lot of electrons on content-
free flamage. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Wrong again...I guess 1 out of 3 isn't too bad for you, no?

Really, just because you don't agree with someone, doesn't mean that
they have "behaved badly". As for those who don't want to read posts
for content, then what are they doing in a forum such as this? And if
the "content" is really that bad, then why not just use your killfile?
Surely, you don't proclaim to speak now, for everybody, Melinda?

I am involved with a Greyhound rescue group and of all the dogs that
many of adoptee's feed the various SD products, I have never seen one
of these Greyhounds thriving! It is only after they switch to foods
like Innova, Candae, Wellness, Nutro even Eukanuba that the dogs
"Bloom". On SD they have the poor coat, dandruff, bald thighs bad
breath and tooth problems as well a being unable to keep weight on. The
owners typically feed around 4 cups a day to keep weight on 65 to 75 lb
dogs. The resue I currently have was first in a home for 4 years which
fed SD. He was exhibiting all the problems I mentioned above. When I
switched him to Innova, his coat bloomed. His hair grew back on his
thighs. His breath and teeth improved even without my brushing them,
which I do now. He also gained up to a healthy weight on only 1 and
3/4th cup of food a day plus a couple of Innova cookies! And he is not
hungry! This Idea that you need to fill dogfood up with peanut hulles
for satiaty is bullshit. Many greyhound I have seen on Innova and
Canidae that are free fed, only eat the required amount to keep them at
healthy weights and they are not hungry begging for more. My dog is
totally satisfied.