@aimee, presuming by “Borne’s paper on weight loss” you mean: Differential metabolic effects of energy restriction in dogs using diets varying in fat and fiber content by AT Bourne?
If so this is a supremely flawed study (for reasons I’ll get into below) using only 6 dogs in each cohort and it concludes by saying the differences in weight loss “did not reach statistical significance.” LOL.
If this is the best argument for a high carb diet for weight loss it is entirely unconvincing in the first place.
But let’s delve further. Borne didn’t actually compare a high carb diet with a high-fat diet. The so-called “high-fat” diet only had 32% of calories from fat. Way below the optimal 50-60% of calories from fat that I mentioned in an earlier post as optimal.
Instead, we have two low-fat formulas, one at 35.4% of calories from fat and the other at 24.5% of calories from fat. So both high carb rations. Then they added massive amounts of fiber to the lower-fat formula as a way to stuff the dog with fillers it would need to process and excrete as waste (imagine the about of poop!) vs low fiber in the less-high carb meal. They did this to trick dogs into feeling satisfied when they were actually deprived of essential nutrients.
In a “real diet,” (neither of these qualifies as such) a dog feels full when it consumes fat. There isn’t a need to overstuff the dogs with fillers and fiber.
The Borne study tried to game the outcome by having two variables going, different fat/carb ratios and also very different fiber ratios. Notan even playing field, and still the results “did not reach statistical significance.”
It certainly did not prove the contention that a high-carb diet is superior to a more natural high-protein/high-fat diet for maintaining an optimal weight and lean muscle mass in dogs.
I’d pity the dogs fed the higher-carb high fiber ration long term. A most uncomfortable, GI tract irritating, poop generating, vitality and stamina eliminating diet.
Egads!
Bill
