[Spy Car]

Have you tried feeding frozen or semi-frozen?

Bill

[Spy Car]

Sorry, but homeopathy is a scam.

There is no scientific basis for believing the vibrational memories of a substance that has been diluted to the point where no molecules of the supposedly “active” ingredient remains, has any effect.

If it did all the water in the world would carry every sort of homeopathic “cure.”

Desperation often sets people up to be scammed. Don’t fall for quackery.

I wish I had an answer to the OP’s problem. Sounds vexing.

Bill

[Spy Car]

Hey aimee, after digging I’ve found a grand total of one self-described “controversial” study that claims to contradict all the previous studies that show dogs produce no salivary amylase. This study claims salivary alpha-amylase can be detected. But seemingly in such microscopic amounts (my term) that it would have no practical bearing on a dog’s ability to digest starches. LOL.

New World monkeys, like Spider Monkeys, appear not to be “omnivores” who thrive on grains and other starches but are in a sub-class of “frugivorous” animals who eat 80-90% ripe fruit (thus very simple sugars) in the wild, with most of the rest being seeds.

When fed starches (like Monkey Chow) in captivity they tend to become obese, just like dogs fed who are fed kibble.

Bill

• This reply was modified 5 years, 10 months ago by Spy Car.

[Spy Car]

@anon101, on the contrary, I did read the linked articles on the Skeptvet site. He is quite dubious of the efficacy. Now you have written that your vet recommended supplementation and you linked to a formula that claims to be rich in glucosamine.

So I asked if your thoughts had changed? A legitimate question in my book. That’s not an “attack”(LOL) but a request for clarification. Please don’t mischaracterize my posts. Adding the word “politely” to a mischaracterization doesn’t make it acceptable.

I don’t really have a fixed position on glucosamine. I’m dubious that taking it would reverse joint damage. So other than surgery (which is sometimes necessary) the best option in my estimation is to drop body fat while preserving muscle mass.

Bill

[Spy Car]

@aimee, thanks for the comedy routine. I got a good laugh.

I read the NRC report. It says dogs have no essential need for carbohydrates. None!

Zero. Zip. Nada.

Every study ever conducted shows that dogs fed a high-carb diet have substantially less stamina and endurance than dogs eating a high-fat diet.

Anyone with eyes can see the differences in the quality of teeth between dogs fed a PRM-style raw diet and dogs fed a standard kibble diet. The former leaves teeth clean and white vs the tartar and plaque stained teeth of kibble-fed dogs, 60% of whom develop periodontal disease.

Nor can anyone with eyes fail to see the body type differences between PMR raw fed (zero calorie) dogs and those fed a high-carb diet.

De-conditioning dogs via diet–which is what feeding high-carb diets do, as shown in the scientific veterinary evidence does–takes a huge toll on health and promotes obesity.

As to pancreatic enzymes, of course the “enzymes” themselves are not “confused.” LOL. What happens is dogs become conditioned to releasing ratios of enzymes based on their diets. Kibble fed dogs release a lot of amylase.

When such dogs have an unusually high-fat meal and their pancreas releases an amount of amylase that is excessive for that “meal” (instead of the lipase that works to digest fats) that excessive amylase destroys tissue in the pancreas.

Interesting that id cats are recognized as carnivores the same pet food companies that produce cereal-based kibbles for dogs market similar formulas for cats. These companies exist to make profits not to serve pet health.

High-carb diets rob dogs of their vitality. The are no advantages and plenty of downsides to such high-carb diets.

Bill

[Spy Car]

I’m a little confused on your position here @anon101.

Upthread, in your response to Jan’s question about feeding glucosamine-rich foods (like chicken feet) you linked to a website that featured a host of articles that question the efficacy of glucosamine.

Now, if I understand you, you are looking at glucosamine supplementation and are linking to glucosamine-rich dog food formulas.

Has something changed? Have you broken with Skeptvet on this issue?

Bill

• This reply was modified 5 years, 10 months ago by Spy Car.

[Spy Car]

Absolutely no cause for tears Patricia, you are doing fine. Simple adjustments. Cutting the rations just a tad. I’d mostly from the kibble portion if it were me.

BTW: The reason I asked Ryan about his dog’s thyroid is mainly because hypothyroidism can elevate triglycerides.

Please let us know how your dog fares.

Best,

Bill

[Spy Car]

@ Ryan, my post address to you above should have read 1/2 teaspoon ground eggshell PER POUND OF MEAT [emphais added on the missing detail].

Bill

[Spy Car]

@Patricia thanks for the links. I took a quick look and am not really well acquainted with these products (as I feed PRM style).

It is hard for me to tell how much of the dog’s diet comes from each and what comes from toppers and other such items. All told, it seems like the aggregate would be fairly low carb, especially when compared to a standard kibble.

The kibble is pretty low fat, but the freeze-dried Stellas and the Primal help compensate.

I prefer “no carb” but also don’t believe in making the perfect the enemy of the good.

At this point, I’d advise cutting down the rations slightly, especially the kibble (perhaps eliminating it entirely?), and seeing how that goes.

As I mentioned previously, palpate your dog’s ribs to get a good impression of how much of a fat layer is there and work on reducing it over time.

Sounds like you still need to cut overall calories and I’d try to make the reduced calories come from reduced carbohydrates. See how your dog’s vitality and desire to walk responds to the diet changes.

Bill

[Spy Car]

@Patricia, the good news is that you are seeing higher vitality (longer walks). That’s good.

Could you list or link to the specific foods you are serving?

The Stella kibble I’m seeing is only 14% fat. Despite being 36% protein (which is good), that means a lot of the calories are still coming from carbohydrates, which will disrupt fat-metabolism and slow weight loss.

One also has to account for the higher calories in nutritionally dense food and adjust accordingly. Feed by condition and not by formula. Too many calories are still too many calories even if they come from optimal food sources.

And the Stellas kibble I see is not optimal.

Best, Bill

[Spy Car]

Ryan, would you consider a short-term trial boiling up some lean chicken and perhaps either lean beef heart and/or lean pork (like tenderloin) and a small amount of liver and kidney (5% of each)?

Then adding 1/2 teaspoon of finely ground eggshell to the cooled mix to maintain a calcium/phosphorus mineral balance. No rice.

Has the vet given any suggestion there is an emergent problem with pancreatitis or other good reasons for restricting fats? I would not make a decision on a new kibble without that knowledge. Otherwise, I’ve expressed my strong preference for a high-protein/high-fat diet over a high-carb option, all things being equal.

Have you spoken with the vet about checking for hypothyroidism and diabetes? These can whack out triglyceride levels.

I’m sorry you and your dog are suffering so much. You are an obviously conscientious owner. Sorry to see you in such a tough spot.

Best,

Bill

• This reply was modified 5 years, 10 months ago by Spy Car.

[Spy Car]

@aimee, they did not measure a high-fat ration vs a high-carb ration.

They measured two high carb rations (both of which lack the benefits of a high-protein/high-fat-diet) against each other and found a very marginal difference in weight loss. Differences likely attributable to the drastic differences in fiber in the two meals.

This study doesn’t resolve anything.

The reason that people like myself who’ve read the literature don’t endorse carbohydrates in the diet is due to the demonstrated consequences of high-carb diets negatively impacting aerobic capacity and cutting endurance in dogs, in addition to the obesity, bad skin, bad teeth, and stresses on GI tract and organ health.

There are no advantages to feeding carbs (aside from reducing costs of the feed). Only downsides to health.

I’m not going to take seriously a study that allows domestic dogs to consume as much raw food as they want as satiety test. LOL. There is enough of the primitive canine mind resident in dogs that I’d be shocked if a dog didn’t gorge when given the opportunity to eat raw meat, fat, organs, and bone. LOL.

But a raw-fed dog given calorically appropriate meals will not act food crazed. Ask me how I know?

Such dogs will be lean, vital, and hard-muscled vs the de-condition that results directly from feeding a high-carb cereal-based diet.

I’ve seen the differences with my own eyes. No comparison.

Thank you for your interest.

Bill

• This reply was modified 5 years, 10 months ago by Spy Car.
• This reply was modified 5 years, 10 months ago by Spy Car.

[Spy Car]

Raw food isn’t “disgusting.” LOL.

Good grief. Nothing could be more natural than a dog eating fresh/or frozen whole animal-based food.

What’s disgusting is knowing what little “meat” is in processed kibbles likely comes from products that were condemned at the slaughterhouse, including items from dead, dying, or diseased animals and contaminated by-products that are deemed unfit for human consumption.

All these are perfectly legal (and common) ingredients in commercial kibble. As long as it gets rendered, any of these disgusting ingredients are perfectly legal for pet food manufacturers to use.

Ther rest of the ration (the majority) is made up of cheap carbohydrates that have no essential place in a dogs diet and that contribute to ill health.

Some of the things one reads on this forum challenge credulity.

Bill

• This reply was modified 5 years, 10 months ago by Spy Car.
• This reply was modified 5 years, 10 months ago by Spy Car.

[Spy Car]

@Ryan, your dog is likely sedentary as a direct result of being fed a high-carb ration.

That is to say, high carb diets directly reduce stamina and vitality. Such dogs will show very poor aerobic capacity when tested on treadmills and their VO2 Max scores are tested. The food actually de-conditions the dogs.

A study was done on such dogs. Overweight couch potato types who were fed high-carb diets. The VO2 max scores were terrible. The same dogs were shifted to a high-protein/high-fat diet. When re-tested after a time on this diet (with no other changes in lifestyle) the VO2 Max score soared to nearly the same levels as highly conditioned dogs, based on that dietary change alone.

The reason is that dogs have an amazingly efficient capacity to metabolize fat for sustained energy. It is the food they thrive on. In contrast, a dog fed a high-carb diet will have a brief period of energy and then a bust where it crashes and sleeps.

Sadly, I think too many dog owners like the effect of “tranquilizing” their dogs through bad diets, sorry to say. Those de-conditioning diets lead to ill health on a variety of levels.

Dogs with stamina and vitality have those things in direct relationship with their diets. The increased metabolic activity helps keep such dogs trim and well-muscled.

I’m very happy to hear about the good test results! Definitely work with the vet to ensure there is no contraindicating condition for moving to a higher fat diet (like emerging pancreatitis), but overall it is a much healthier option for dogs.

Your dog certainly can (and should) eat like a sled dog, it just requires much less food. You’d see a big increase in vitality and health.

When dogs are fed junk food all the consequences, from obesity, to bad lipid profiles, to bad skin, bad teeth, to stressed organs, follows.

proper nutrition is not for sled dogs and sporting dogs alone. The falsehood that is is is one of the most damaging untruths in canine nutrition (or should we say malnutrition) and is the reason so many dogs suffer needlessly from ill health.

Again, congrats on the good test results!

Bill

[Spy Car]

@aimee, labeling the obvious as “propaganda” and horse manure is….

Dogs were not shaped by evolution to consume carbohydrates. That’s a fact.

Dogs have no capacity to produce salivary amylase (the enzyme necessary to digest starches/sugars/carbohydrates) all omnivores possess. When omnivores chew plant matter those salivary enzymes start working to digest the food.

This doesn’t/can’t happen with dogs, as they lack the capacity.

Dogs, in a trait that is unevenly distributed in the population, have acquired a capacity to produce amylase in their pancreas. This aided them, as opposed to their wolf species-mates (who have less capacity) in surviving as opportunistic carnivores in a relationship with humans.

But producing pancreatic amylase is not the optimal or normal condition for dogs and –as mentioned–the capacity is highly variable.

To take a marginal capacity (that is a dog’s ability to produce enough pancreatic amylase) a push it to the maximum by feeding dogs highly unnatural carbohydrate-rich cereal-based diets puts tremendous strain on that organ. It is an assault on the pancreas. It sets up a dog to be sick.

Often the precipitating event that leads to pancreatitis is the consumption (by a sickened dog) of a high-fat meal that it is unaccustomed to eating. This happens because the pancreas becomes conditioned to spilling the “wrong” digestive enzymes to metabolize fat and in the confusion, those “wrong” enzymes instead attack the tissues of the pancreas causing damage.

Fat gets “blamed” for pancreatitis and the stressed and ill effects of a high-carb diet in sickening the pancreas is ignored. Dogs who eat a high-fat diet as a matter of course (and as intended my nature) do not work their pancreases overtime. Nor do they confuse the pancreas with which digestive enzymes to release. As a result, pancreatitis is very rare among those dogs and not-at-all uncommon in dogs fed high-carb kibble diets.

The pancreas has two functions.

One is to release digestive enzymes, and high-carb diets clearly undermine pancreatic health through a demand for excessive levels of pancreatic enzymes and causing a predisposition for pancreatitis.

The other is to regulate blood sugars. Again, an unnatural high-carb causes wild swings in a bogs blood sugar levels. Boom and bust. The pancreas has to work overtime in an attempt to control for a diet that isn’t species appropriate. This also takes a toll on pancreatic health.

Such a diet sets up a dog for pancreatic problems.

In contrast, fat metabolism keeps a dog’s blood sugars extremely even. They produce steady glucose supplies easily and on demand in a slow and steady fashion that places no strain on the pancreas. This promotes good pancreatic health.

So with both pancreatic functions, the “endocrine function” that regulates blood sugars) and the “exocrine function” (that produces digestive enzymes) fat metabolism works with nature to promote pancreatic health and high vitality.

In contrast, a high-carb diet taxes the pancreas by requiring it to produce excessive (and wholly unnatural) amounts of pancreatic amylase due to feeding a modern processed cereal-based food. Then the stress on the pancreas is compounded on the exocrine by the wild ride of trying to control blood sugars.

Those assaults on pancreatic health set up high-carb eating dogs to be sick. Not “propaganda,” but an honest evaluation of dog physiology. The junk-food diet is at the root of the problem. That’s what happens when species inappropriate food is marketed for dogs.

Bill

[Spy Car]

Ryan, do you have a fasting triglyceride result back yet?

I was under the impression the re-test results were not back yet, yes/no?

I’d work with your vet to rule out obvious issues like hypothyroidism or diabetes before jumping to a conclusion that your dog has pancreatic issues.

The same unhealthful high carb diets can stress the pancreas (by causing an unnatural demand on pancreatic amylase) and that can be a factor in dog’s developing pancreatitis. If the dog does have signs of pancreatitis then a high-fat diet would be counter-indicated. It’s a bad cycle.

One thing I think we can all agree on is work with the vet to know what’s actually going on.

Bill

[Spy Car]

Ryan, I appreciate the spot you are in getting diametrically opposed advice.

In the years I’ve fed a PMR style raw diet I’ve come to be able to spot raw fed dogs when I see them. It has happened a good number of times when I met “strange dogs,” and usually getting the “how did you know…well, of course, you know” type responses.

And I’ve been on the other side, where strangers have approached me and known immediately that my dog is raw fed.

You can tell when a dog doesn’t eat carbs. Every part of their condition from the skin, fur, teeth, breath and especially lean muscle mass with low body fat is vastly better. They stand out markedly from the condition of kibble-fed dogs.

Second-best is feeding a kibbled ration that reduces carbs as much as possible.

Here is a link to the type of formula I’d like to see.

https://victorpetfood.com/product-items/grain-free-ultra-pro/?portfolioCats=133%2C134%2C165%2C135%2C153%2C159%2C160

Disclaimer, I’ve never fed this food (as I feed raw) and I have no relationship with Victor’s. It is just an example of a reasonably inexpensive alternative called Victor Ultra Pro. It is a 42% protein/22% fat formula that they claim is 81% animal protein and has 14% carbs. Hard to do better than that with a kibbled diet.

It is nutrient dense (high calorie) at 479kcal/cup, so you’d probably need to feed about 2/3 the portion of a less dense food (depending). Maybe less. That also figures in cost. The volume of poop would also be cut significantly. Not just nice for you, but much kinder for a dog (especially one with issues) not to move extraordinary amounts of waste through their GI tract.

Since the fat provides a sustained energy supply, you could feed once a day (at days end) and your dog could then go to sleep instead of carrying around a belly full of food (which is actually really hard on dogs, especially breeds like yours with his conditions).

The fat in this sort of food would keep him satisfied (w/o the need for obscene amounts of fiber) and would supply steady energy.

I’d expect triglycerides to improve on the small chance the problem is diet related.

I would definitely ask for a thyroid panel to be run at the vet. I’m a little surprised they have not done so already.

I’d resist the low-fat/high-fiber-diet. I think your dog would suffer from such diet. It is no wonder he doesn’t like it. No diet could be more unnatural for a canine to eat. I’ve seen too many dogs on this misguided sort of diet, they never fare well. It is about the worst diet one could feed a dog in terms of nutrition.

I’m sorry you are getting contradictory advice. But there is no question which way I’d go based on the nutritional needs of dogs described in the veterinary science.

Best,

Bill

• This reply was modified 5 years, 10 months ago by Spy Car.

[Spy Car]

@ aimee, dogs are not people. We have evolved with very different nutritional needs.

Human beings have salivary amylase, for example, the digestive enzyme necessary to convert starches. Dog’s lack salivary amylase.

it is a common problem that pet owners anthropomorphize their dogs and (wrongly) believe they have the same nutritional requirements and same metabolism we do, but that runs against evidence-based science.

Fat is an essential nutrient for dogs, as is protein. Carbohydrates are nonessential. Completely unnecessary in a canine diet. Their needs are not the same as those of humans.

Your accusations of ignoring the veterinary literature are false. Satiety studies involving low-fat rations require loading rations with fiber, which is hellish for dogs. Moving that much waste (and creating that much poop) is very hard on dogs vs the efficiency of metabolizing much smaller quantities of fat and protein.

I think you are confusing healthful salads and greens that are great for people with what’s good for dogs. And that ain’t a high carb diet. Nothing could be a less appropriate choice for good canine health.

Carbs are in modern processed dog food to make food inexpensive. That comes at a cost to dog’s health. A dog fed a balanced raw diet will have a dramatically better condition, less body fat and more muscle. A high protein/high-fat diet that reduces carbs as much as possible is a distant second choice, but miles ahead of an unhealthful fiber and cereal-based “low-fat” diet.

Bill

• This reply was modified 5 years, 10 months ago by Spy Car.

[Spy Car]

@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

[Spy Car]

Again, about the worst thing one can do for a dog experiencing abdominal pain is to stuff it with low-calorie high-fiber foods.

When a dog is fed a low-fat diet the difficulty is that the dog will not experience the kind of satiety that have when they are fed the essential fats they were shaped by evolution to thrive on. So such dogs always feel hungry and act hungry. In response, pet food companies add massive amounts of fiber to such formulas, often in the neighborhood of 28% fiber. The poor dogs fed such a ration have to carry and move all this excessive fiber through their systems, producing massive amounts of stool in the process. It is both uncomfortable, irritating to the GI tract, and is extra weight to carry in their bellies.

It is unkind, in the extreme, to have a dog with hip or disk issues (and digestive issue) to place such an extreme tax on its digestive track in my estimation.

And for what purpose? To deny it the fuel it actually needs for optimal energy delivery and good health so it can be (poorly) substituted with not essential calories from carbohydrates.

The less food, by mass, that a dog in such a condition needs to move the better. Think about it.

The higher fat ration provides the nutrients a dog actually needs and reduces the need to add fillers that are hard to process. All that extra poop (and it will be dramatically more) is evidence of what a dog needs to process to manage such an unnatural and unhealthful diet.

Ryan, try to find a formula with over 20% fat. The high-carb/low-fat road really isn’t a good one. I really isn’t species appropriate. The amount of fiber is an assault on the digestive track designed to make the dog feel “full.”

Instead, much smaller amounts of high protein/high-fat foods would serve your dog much (much) better.

Ryan, I realize you are getting diametrically opposed advice. I’d ask yourself what makes sense? What did nature shape dogs to optimally consume? Was it heavily processed cereal loaded with extra fiber to fool a dog into thinking it was getting the fuel it needs? Or actually giving dogs a proper portion of what they thrive on?

Think about it.

If triglycerides are high, the likeliest culprit is hypothyroidism. Has your vet ruled that out?

If this is related to diet it is far (far) more likely that it is related to high-carbs than fat.

Best,

Bill

• This reply was modified 5 years, 10 months ago by Spy Car.
• This reply was modified 5 years, 10 months ago by Spy Car.

[Spy Car]

@aimee, there is no such thing as “nonessential fats.” Using the term in this fashion is scientifically incorrect. The fact is any level of carbohydrates in a canine diet is what is nonessential. Dogs do not require ANY carbohydrates in their diets to thrive. And the calories are better derived from essential fat and protein sources.

Optimal calories from fat are about 50-60% of calories (remembering fat has 2.25 times as many calories per gram as either protein or carbohydrates.

Replacing too many calories from protein with carbs leads to muscle tears and inadequate protein to build and repair muscle tissues and carbohydrate calories replacing fat reduces aerobic capacity and endurance, while promoting weight gain and tooth decay.

The reason pet food companies have so-called “weight loss” formulas built around high carb foods (besides the low-quality and low-cost carbs being a way to maximize profits) is that too many people don’t cut back on the amount of food when they feed higher-quality high-protein/high-fat alternatives. But stuffing a dog with a high carb diet is the path to obesity, It doesn’t work.

It is much better to serve smaller portions of high-calorie food. The fat in high-protein/high-fat meals satisfies a dogs hunger (and provides sustainable energy) where a dog fed high carb meals is always hungry and lacks the energy stores for sustained activity.

Trying to get a dog to lose weight on high carb rations is a recipe for failure. It doesn’t work.

Best to get rid of the nonessential calories from carbohydrates that are unnecessary in a canine diet. Just look at the body type of any PMR-style raw fed dog to see the drastic difference eating no carbohydrates makes in promoting a lean muscular body type.

The best thing one can do for a dog for a dog with disk or hip issues is to get it lean and strong. A high-protein/high-fat diet is the key to that end. High-carb diets cut vitality, crowd our essential nutrients, and lead to obesity and health issues.

Bill

[Spy Car]

My pleasure Ryan. I’d still palpate your dog as described above and decide how much of a fat layer you are willing to accept. It really isn’t about “weight” per se, but how much body fat a dog is carrying. Muscle “weight” (to a point) is beneficial in taking strain off joints.

Body fat, in contrast, is just a tax on the hips. I prefer my dogs run very lean while being athletically hard-muscled. That preference would only grow in importance were a dog showing signs of hip dysplasia. I’d want to trim body fat to the minimum while supporting muscle mass.

In my humble opinion, a 32/14 formula would get you just over the minimum threshold of protein but would be very deficient in fat. Such a formula would still have too many calories from carbs for my taste. I’d like to see a minimum of 20% fat.

If you are the researching type go to Google Scholar and search the veterinary literature for high-protein/high-fat vs high-carb studies. There have been many with sled dogs, hunting dogs, racing greyhounds, and even couch potato dogs. All the studies come to the same conclusions. Dogs burn fat with amazing efficiency and it is sustainable energy. In contrast, carbs load the muscles with blood glycogen initially, but then the energy stores are depleted. This is a boom-and-bust cycle.

Carb burning also cuts aerobic capacity.

Humans are different. We metabolize carbs pretty well as a source of long-term energy. We also tend to think fat will make us fat. It tends to be the opposite with dogs. Obviously one needs to take care with portion control with high-calorie rations. But feeding less food (by mass) with a higher caloric content (ie higher fat) will provide sustained energy. Such a formula makes it much easier to promote a strong lean body type.

A 32/14 formula would still have too many calories from carbohydrates IMO. Read the research if you’re interested.

The one caution I’d make if you do decide to go to a high-protein/high-fat diet is to transition slowly. It is always recommended to transition foods, but often that’s being “cautious.” Transitioning towards fat burning is different than just switching between different brands of high-carbohydrate kibble. Many changes have to happen from the release of different digestive enzymes by the pancreas to changes in the mitochondria at a cellular level.

So go slowly if you do decide to follow this advice. Then keep palpating the dog and checking the tuck with the aim of hitting that optimal balance of leanness and muscle. It is the kindest thing one can do with a dog developing hip pain or hip dysplasia, save surgical interventions for dogs who require it.

I hope this is helpful to you. Best with your dog.

Bill

[Spy Car]

@anon101, I have no intention of violating my veterinarian’s privacy. To attack me for acting responsibly isn’t reasonable and it contributes to an environment of hostility towards those who have reasoned differences with you based on the finding of both experience and the evidence of science-based veterinary medicine.

Fat metabolism is superior to carbohydrate metabolism in dogs. The latter cuts aerobic capacity and endurance. The former supplies sustained energy and lifts aerobic capacity. These facts have been shown in dozens of studies and are some of the least controversial issues in canine nutrition.

Bill

[Spy Car]

@anon101, please refrain from making personal attacks. You asked for vet’s opinions. I shared the experience I’ve had. The name calling is unnecessary.

You are free to link (repeatedly) to the same anti-raw veterinarian if you choose, but I see the extremely positive results with my own eyes. I have a very happy vet. And a very happy dog.

I place great reliance on the expert opinion of my veterinarian. She is not a raw food advocate but loves the condition and health of my dog. You have no cause to question her judgement or my honesty in relating it.

Please stop.

Bill

[Spy Car]

The problem with Pro Plan is Purina plays the labeling game which allows “chicken” to be placed as item #1 due to water weight.

But the insidious item is the corn gluten (listed as #2). Using this by-product allows Purina to use this incomplete plant-based product to inflate the “protein” levels in this cereal-based ration instead of supplying complete animal-based proteins.

It is a fraud on the consumer that’s unfortunately legal under current US labeling laws.

Bill

[Spy Car]

@anon101, you ask for vet’s opinions on raw feeding and then reject what you hear, seemingly because you don’t like the answer.

My dog as great blood work. And is in top-notch health. All aspects of his condition are optimal, from clean white teeth to a hard muscled lean body that makes him look years younger than his 4.5 years. His vet, who as I mentioned has high breed-specific knowledge of Vizslas, is thrilled with his health and condition.

Science-based veterinary medicine shows that feeding carbohydrates to dogs profoundly reduces their stamina and aerobic capacity.

Sorry, but you are on the wrong path here.

Bill

[Spy Car]

Hey Ryan,

The best way to feed is always “by condition” rather than any fixed about. That means reducing calories if the dog is too heavy and increasing if the dog is getting too lean. On the last point, Americans tend to have very skewed ideas about what’s a healthy weight for dogs. It is best for dogs to be lean.

The two best ways to assess “condition” are:

1) To palpate the ribs with an eye towards assessing the degree of fat layer over the ribs. Ideally, that fat layer is very slight. In an obese dog, there will be a thick fat layer. Either way, this is your standard of measure as you adjust diet. It gives you a “bechmark.”

2) The other useful measure is to observe the dog from overhead and see to what degree it has a “tuck” (waist). Obese dogs will have very little (or no) tuck. Again, the tuck becomes a secondary benchmark.

As to diet, feeding low-fat is the worst thing one can do to reduce weight, While it seems counter-intuitive, dogs naturally metabolize fats as their optimal energy source. It was what they were shaped by evolution to thrive on. Carbohydrates on the other hand cut stamina and lead to obesity.

If you can’t do a balance PMR style raw diet the best thing you could do is to slowly transition to a high protein/high fat (low carb) diet and to feed fewer overall calories while you slowly bring down the weight.

The worst move is to increase the carbohydrates (by cutting fats) because those carbs (along with overfeeding and diet-linked de-conditioning) are the culprits in promoting obesity.

Best,

Bill

[Spy Car]

What is your purpose @anon101?

You can attempt to discredit the experience of others and outstanding veterinarian that have cared for our dogs over their lifetime and run blood tests and done physical exams.

Too bad the findings run counter to your anti-raw mission.

Bill

[Spy Car]

@aimee, with due respect it isn’t an “internet myth” that dogs metabolize fats with an efficiency that contrasts markedly with the boom-and-bust energy release of carbohydrate metabolism.

This scientific fact has been demonstrated in dozens of scientific studies (nearly all funded by the pet food industry).

Fat isn’t “non-essential.” LOL. Fats are essential to canine nutrition, carbohydrates are not. This has been established by the National Research Council of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. The NRC is the world’s recognized leading authority on canine nutrition.

Calories do need to be reduced, so it is best to eliminate non-essential calories from carbohydrates rather than cutting essential protein and fat.

Fat metabolism increases stamina. In one study funded by Iams, dogs ate a high-carb ration and who were de-conditioned “couch potato types) had their VO2 max (aerobic capacity) measured on a treadmill. As expected the results were very poor.

Then, the same dogs were put on a high-protein/high-fat diet. After a time (during which there was no alteration in their lifestyles) they were re-tested on the treadmills. The VO2 Max scores rocketed up nearly as high as those of elite highly-conditioned dogs.

Cutting non-essential empty calories, promoting weight loss, and increasing stamina is the smart path to weight reduction.

I doubt a surgeon would like to perform a hip replacement on a Lab carrying 140 lbs. Getting the weight down is critical.

Bill

[Spy Car]

@anon101, my very outstanding traditional (one with a high degree of breed specific knowledge with Vizslas as she owns the grand-sire my dog) had some concerns when she learned I was feeding my (then 8-week old pup) a raw diet.

Prime among them was a legitimate concern that the diet provides a proper mineral balance. When I explained my awareness of the calcium/phosphorus ratios and my dietary plan to address the needs, her concerns went away.

In the 4 and a half years since, she has been blown away by the health and condition of my Vizsla. His teeth are gleaming white. Breath fresh. Shiny fur. Strong and clearly rippling muscles. Eyes clear. He doesn’t smell. He carries no body fat. His stamina is off the charts. He winds down easily when it is time. And his blood work is optimal.

My vet loves what raw feeding has done for my dog. She knows Vizslas intimately and is very encouraging of what balanced raw feeding has done for my dog.

He has not suffered from the dental problems, obesity, lack of energy, skin and fur problems, and other ills typical of kibble fed dogs. We had a large “puppy group” who used to meet up almost daily when our pups were young, who still get together. Those dogs (all kibble fed) are beginning to look aged compared with my Vizsla. Not a close call. Other owners comment on the difference. It isn’t subtle.

Strangers who meet my Vizsla always assume he’s a big puppy. It is what vibrant health looks like.

I understand you have an anti-raw position. I think it is very misguided.

Bill

[Spy Car]

Rosemarie, the raw mackerel bones are very soft and really aren’t an issue. I feed mackerel frequently, and I’m very risk-averse when it comes to bones.

If you want to maximize “the chewing” of raw mackerel my suggestion is to serve the mackerel (or mackerel cross sections) frozen.

If you feel uncomfortable serving bone-in mackerel, they are not difficult to fillet.

Problems with BARF include:

1) Feeding too much bone. Bone at 20% does not meet the universally recognized need to have a 1.2 : 1 Calcium to Phosphorus ratio.

2) Grinding meats and bones unnecessarily.

3) Too many “recreational bones” that pose risks to teeth and obstructions.

4) The inclusion of non-essential carbohydrates in the form of fruits and vegetables Dogs have higher vitality when they are fueled primarily by energy from fat (with protein secondary). Carbohydrate metabolism interrupts fat metabolism and is a negative for canine health.

Also, understand that some raw fish contains an enzyme called “thiaminase” that disrupts a dog’s ability to use thiamine. IMS Pacific mackerel has “thiaminase” while Atlantic mackerel does not.

The smart way to feed raw fish IMO is to do it is a spaced out fashion (as “thiaminase” is said to dissipate quickly) as opposed to feeding daily. Daily feeding of thiaminase-rich fish can cause serious problems.

Best,

Bill

[Spy Car]

It is not necessary to grind raw mackerel bone. It is soft and easily chewed.

The BARF model, unfortunately, leads people astray from letting dogs chew and tear their own food. This isn’t to the dog’s advantage.

Bill

[Spy Car]

Keeping a Lab that’s experiencing hip pain or hip dysplasia at 140 lbs isn’t sustainable.

That means something needs to be done to gradually reduce the dog’s weight. The best way to accomplish the weight loss is to eliminate the portion of the diet that provides non-essential calories. Namely, carbohydrates. Carbohydrates are nor essential in a canine diet according to the Nation Reseach Council (which is the world’s recognized authority).

There is nothing “drastic” about feeding a dog the sort of diet it was shaped by evolution to consume. An unnatural carb-rich diet is literally crippling this dog.

A balanced PRM-style diet is the best thing one could do for this dog in portions designed to promote slow weight loss.

Bill

[Spy Car]

Hello Jan,

I strongly believe that raw feeding is the healthiest diet for dogs, but it is not a panacea.

The greatest benefit would be to reduce the weight of your lab. Reducing (or eliminating) carbohydrates via a raw diet (or mixed diet) helps. Dogs burn fat very efficiently and while it seems counter-intuitive, fat metabolism helps with weight loss.

The pork femur bones, sadly, are a poor choice, as a bone source. They are too hard to the “eaten” and therefore pose a hazard to teeth and risk obstructions id swallowed in large pieces. Bone-in chicken pieces are far preferable.

On a budget, you’d spend less if you find whole ingredients and feed according to the Prey Model 80/10/10 (meat/soft-edible bones/organs) formula.

Chicken feet are a good source of edible bone and do contain a lot of glucosamine. Couldn’t hurt. But weight loss is the critical issue.

Aim to slowly reduce weight. A raw diet promotes a lean body type. Getting rid of the carbs is key.

Best,

Bill

[Spy Car]

[Content in violation of our commenting policy has been removed by the moderator]

Back to your problems. There are a number of improvements you could (should) make.

More towards an 80/10/10 ratio (meat/organs/bone). Try to make as much of the meat portion “whole” meat rather than grinds. Beef heart and pork leg (or shoulder) tend to be procurable cheap cuts.

Fat is to be embraced as a great source of energy (the ultimate source of energy for dogs). Because a canine digestive system needs to re-adapt to fat metabolism after a dog eats a carbohydrate-rich diet, it is wise to limit fat initially (during the transition). And to then work up to full-fat meals. Fat is very beneficial for dogs and not something to avoid or to restrict, except during a “transition.”

“Lean” meat is not a positive in the long term. Dogs thrive on fat metabolism. Fat is essential.

Don’t grind the meat. Let the dog chew and tear whole pieces. Much better for dental health.

The number of organs in your typical meal is too high. Stick with 5% (of the total) as liver and 5% “other” secreting organs (such as kidney, melts/spleen, sweetbreads, etc). Together that’s 10% organs as the total.

The biggest problem is with the bone. Forget giving beef or turkey bones and instead turn to bone-in chicken or similar soft edible bone. You want bone sources that will be well chewed and digested and that minimize the risk of tooth damage and/or obstructions.

Beef bones and turkey bones are poor choices.

Eating soft edible bone will keep stools ideally firm. There is no reason to feed pumpkin if the edible bone content is kept in the proper target range. Chewing soft-edible bone will also keep teeth sparkling white. Do not grind the bone. Feed soft-edible bone that the dog can chew.

The USDA website has bone percentages for common chicken pieces that can help you when figuring the 80/10/10 ratios.

Good luck.

Bill

• This reply was modified 5 years, 10 months ago by Mike Sagman. Reason: Text removed by moderator

[Spy Car]

Carrots are not beneficial for dogs and will likely pass through undigested.

If you want a high-quality treat, feed meat.

Bill

[Spy Car]

Unfortunately, this forum is trolled by anti-raw zealots who repeatedly post the same tired links.

Those interested in a raw diet would do well to seek out Prey Model Raw (PMR) resources.

Fruits, vegetables, and other carbohydrates are not essential to a canine diet, and in fact are negative ingredients.

A PP was correct about by-products being useful in a raw diet. There is, however, a world of difference between feeding fresh and wholesome by-products and the sort of contaminated/condemned items that can legally be swept off slaughterhouse floors to be included in pet food, so long as these items are first sent to a rendering plant.

[Spy Car]

Hey Cannoli,

Homes are filled with a myriad of items that can be considered choking hazards for dogs (and children). People starting raw feeding should monitor their dogs to make sure they get the hang of chewing bone (which is about as natural an instinct as canines could have). Feeding larger sized pieces of bone-in parts (like chicken quarters) that can’t be gulped is always smart, as is supervising a dog new to raw feeding.

But dogs are hard wired to chew. The risks of choking on appropriately sized chicken bones are very low and diminish to near zero as dogs get accustomed to it. Intestinal blockages from items like chicken bones are exceedingly rare. I’d worry a lot more about socks.

The calcium (and its bioavailability) from bone is not in question. Concerns about absorption are misplaced. Getting calcium from bone is what canines were shaped by evolution to do. It is superior to artificial supplementation.

The PMR style of feeding with 10% bone keeps the Calcium Phosphorus ratios at the perfect 1.2:1 levels recommended by the leading authorities as optimal. It is spreading a false fear that rotational feedings with calcium supplements are necessary to maintain mineral balances:it simply isn’t so.

The act of chewing is good for dogs. It is relaxing for them. It builds good dental health (encouraging strong gums and clean teeth) and builds strong neck and jaw muscles, in a fashion that feeding calcium powder does not.

If an owner wishes to brush teeth on top of raw feeding, great! I just know how many conventionally fed dogs I know and they nearly all have tartar-stained yellowing (if not rotten teeth) in marked contrast to raw fed dogs whose teeth stay nice and white (with fresh breath).

When we get phobic or fearful about very natural ways of being it has a cost. This is true both with dogs and with children. One can cut off “play” because someone might get hurt, but that comes at a cost. The risks of feeding soft edible bones to dogs is very (very) low, Cutting them out of the diet due to inflated assessments of the risks has a cost.

The advantages to feeding soft edible bone vastly outweigh the risks. Feeding powdered calcium is sub-optimal.

Bill

• This reply was modified 7 years, 7 months ago by Spy Car.
• This reply was modified 7 years, 7 months ago by Spy Car.
• This reply was modified 7 years, 7 months ago by Spy Car.

[Spy Car]

Removing soft edible bone from the diet (or replacing it with pre-ground bone) removes one of the prime benefits of feeding raw in the first place. It really makes little sense unless there is a good cause for doing so (like an old dog with dental issues).

Chewing soft edible is important for good dental health in addition to providing calcium. It is a reason for embracing raw feeding, not something to figure out how to avoid.

Bill

[Spy Car]

As I mentioned in the other thread, both you and your dogs are likely to be a lot better off following a Prey Model diet as opposed to using recipes by Dr Pitcairn that undermine the advantages of a raw diet by including unnecessary (and counterproductive) grains and vegetables and excluding highly positive soft edible bones.

Feeding whole foods in the right ratios will eliminate the need for supplementation, and optimize health. Also easier on you.

Dr Pitcairn’s approach is outmoded and not widely followed or esteemed in the raw feeding community. It is too much like trying to emulate commercial food at home, instead of feeding a natural whole food diet.

As to bones, I don’t personally feed turkey legs, but some people do. I do feed turkey necks. All chicken bones (raw) are good.

Oily-fish is good, but limit to twice a week feedings (not daily) as most of the most-beneficial fish species have a substance that can block Vitamin B12. This substance, called Thaminaise, passes quickly. It is not a big deal unless you feed a lot of fish on a daily basis.

What are health cuts for dogs are cuts that include plenty of fat. Lean cuts, like inexpensive trimmed beef heart and be supplemented with animal fat. Dogs need to transition to fat burning, so better to being with lean meals and work up slowly. And you need organs.

Once growth plateaus you are better feeding once a day (post wind down from the day’s activities). When not fed grains/carbohydrates (as it ideal, and a prime reason to do a raw diet) dogs turn to the superior (for them) fat metabolism. When fat burning dogs have nearly unlimited stores of energy, so don’t need multiple meals throughout the day. Better if durning their active time they run and play on empty stomachs (especially in large breeds that have risks of GVD aka bloat/torsion).

I’d ditch Dr Pitcairn, which is what I’d suspect you’ll hear from virtually all the raw feeders you encounter. It is both a hassle and a diet with highly questionable downsides.

Bill

[Spy Car]

Courtney, I’d advocate you really consider PMR.

Feeding soft edible bone (like chicken bones) really isn’t scary. An 80/10/10 model of diverse sources will keep the nutrition on track.

One place where I’d diverge from the advice of some raw feeding websites is on the issue of delaying organs. I think this is a very bad idea on two fronts. One, the nutrients from organs are vital (especially in growing puppies). Two, delay increases the odds of a dog developing an aversion to organs. I’ve read of people delaying organs (and advocating the practice) and then saying they need to virtually force-feed them later (as organs are not optional).

My advice if you choose PMR is to introduce organs as soon as you have stable stools. Organs can lossen stools, so it is a good idea to start adding them in in wee amounts and build up to PMR percentages over time.

Relax about chicken bones. Do monitor the dogs as they start to make sure they are not gulpers (bigger pieces help ensure chewing). There are hard bones that are best avoided to prevent tooth damage, but chicken is easy.

There is no value in adding carbohydrates to the meals. Dogs process fat much more efficiently as their primary energy source, with sustained energy and peak aerobic capacity vs the quick peaks and valleys of carbohydrates that cut stamina and aerobic capacity.

Bill

[Spy Car]

Hey Molly,

I’d suggest you look into the Prey Model of feeding raw foods. I think it would be a better match for your desire to feed whole food ingredients to your dog, and is more healthful than Dr Picairn’s regimen which is heavy on vegetables and grain, and lacks soft edible bone.

Keeping the calcium:phosphorus ratios in the correct target range is important, but by feeding PMR ratios (10% soft edible bone) it is also pretty simple. Dogs get all the nutrients they need from eating diverse animal products.

Following the 80/10/10 model (“meat”/organs/soft edible bones) while diversifying the components is a very straightforward way to feed and get the highest nutritional levels to your dog.

The elaborate recipes of some raw feeding variants put a lot of needless strain on owners, and actually reduce the nutritional value of the diet.

Soft edible bones (like chicken bones) are a great natural source of calcium. Chewing bone also tends to keep dog’s teeth clean, and it promotes strong teeth, strong jaw and neck muscles, and it relaxes dogs to chew.

Best wish on your journey.

Bill

[Spy Car]

PMR calls for 10% secreting organs (half of that being liver). Vitamin D is fat-soluble, so it is stored in the body and need not be supplied in the same levels daily.

Personally, I feed 10% organs daily with one day being liver and the alternate day being kidney, pancreas, spleen, or other to avoid getting “behind,” which “balance over time” (a preference of some raw feeders, but not an intrinsic part of PRM) practices can lead to if people don’t actually keep organs in the weekly diet.

I’m still not seeing that it is obvious how Vitamin D levels were critically low if Toby was getting PMR levels of liver, plus eggs and other Vitamin D sources on a fairly regular basis.

Bill

[Spy Car]

There is no doubt about what mineral imbalances are present, because the blood chemistry panel tests for everything. Both his levels of calcium & phosphorous were normal (Ca 9.2 & Phos 4.1), while he displayed no signs whatsoever of liver problems, which is what low ALP usually indicates. So by process of elimination, it was determined that his vitamin D levels were lacking. I have no reason to disbelieve the Vet, and my own research is only confirming what he told me.

********

Have you been feeding PMR levels of liver (5%)? If so, did your vet offer an explanation of how your dog might have a Vitamin D deficiency?

I wonder (and don’t know) over what period of time a blood test establishes a proper calcium-phosphorus balance? Is it a snap-shot in time (and variable in reflecting recent meals, or does it show a longer term value?

Fellow raw feeders should be aware that osteomalacia can be brought on not only by Vitamin D deficiencies, but also by calcium-phosphorus imbalances due to feeding the improper ratios of meat, bones, and organs.

Best wishes with your dog.

Bill

• This reply was modified 7 years, 7 months ago by Spy Car.
• This reply was modified 7 years, 7 months ago by Spy Car.

[Spy Car]

If you’ve been feeding Prey Model Raw levels of liver (5%) I’d suspect the cause of the Osteomalacia was due to an imbalance in calcium to phosphorus levels in the diet, as opposed to insufficient Vitamin D.

Feeding 10% bone (as the PRM calls for) should keep Ca:P near the optimal 1.2:1 ratio. Unfortunately too many raw feeders are contemptuous of the need to maintain the correct mineral balance by carefully considering the amount of meat vs bones (and organs) are being fed, and too often too much bone gets fed as a result. Too little bone (relative to meat) can also be a problem with Osteomalacia.

I’d advise doubling down on your understanding of the edible bone content in the ingredients you are feeding with a determined effort put into balancing the calcium:phorosphus ratios in the diet, as this is the likely source of the problem.

Bill

[Author]

Posts