Hills science diet

[LetItSnow]

Yet, I find it funny that people on here are saying that it's perfectly okay to feed their animals corn and brewers yeast. That's not natural. Have you seen a dog shuck a head of corn and consume it

Yes, in fact, I have. Four of them, actually (corn cobs, that is).

My Husky once took four ears of sweet corn off the counter while we were gone. She very neatly shucked them and ate the kernels. When we returned home, the poles were laying in one pile and the husk and silk in another pile. It was all ridiculously organized and tidy.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[bbeventer]

Yes, in fact, I have. Four of them, actually (corn cobs, that is).

My Husky once took four ears of sweet corn off the counter while we were gone. She very neatly shucked them and ate the kernels. When we returned home, the poles were laying in one pile and the husk and silk in another pile. It was all ridiculously organized and tidy.

Hehe too bad you could not have got that on video! That would of been hilarious to see!!

 

[Bigcatlover]

Just a thought . . . for those of us who are trying to slim down our obese pets, fillers are a GOOD thing, because it means that my cat won't be done eating in 5 minutes and feeling hungry for the next 12 hours until the next meal. Fillers like soy bean hulls or beet pulp increase bulk so that they get full with fewer calories. High-fiber diets also improve blood glucose regulation in diabetic cats, so there may be other metabolic benefits to so-called fillers.

ETA: I just compared the EVO Weight Loss dry cat food with the Innova Low Fat dry cat food last night (both made by Natura). EVO is supposed to be the premium, grain free line of cat food with most of their non-weight loss products boasting 95% meat. According to the energy needs of my cat calculated by quantized, The Rotund One would get 3/4 cup per day of Innova but only 1/2 cup per day of EVO, because the Innova food contains more fillers.

This is a really good point eventualeventer, unless of course the fillers are high in calories like corn or something.

One of my cats is most likely allergic to chicken, so I have a hard time finding food without any chicken in it. Right now I have my two on Duck and Green Pea Natural Balance, although one eats way more than the other and is getting a bit chunky. It's so hard to regulate a cat's weight when you have more than one.

Also, I've read so much about how canned food is supposed to be better than dried, and I used to give mine a can everyday since they were kittens, but they just don't seem to like it much anymore. They never finish it and the one who is overweight ends up eating way more than the skinny one.

 

[nyanko]

Yet, I find it funny that people on here are saying that it's perfectly okay to feed their animals corn and brewers yeast. That's not natural. Have you seen a dog shuck a head of corn and consume it

I've seen a dog eat an alarm clock. Literally, he bolted the entire thing down.

All joking aside, I don't feel that going by what a dog would eat "naturally" is relevant here. It isn't "natural" for your dog to live indoors, walk on a leash, get vaccinated, be neutered, or pretty much anything that we subject dogs to. Dogs would have a really different style of eating if they were in their "natural" habitat (which honestly with domestication....can you really say what that is?). They'd have to hunt and catch their meals, and wouldn't eat every day, nevermind multiple times a day. So like, obviously what they eat in a domestic situation either has to be less energy dense or they need to eat a lot less of it at a time.

 

[turnandburn]

You can make a meal to these standards out of McDonald's food, or out of seaweed, synthetics, oils, etc. It would provide 100% of what an animal needs for maintenance, however since these requirements say nothing about the quality/source/availability, that doesn't make it a good, healthy food. "Balanced" is not subjective - it is right above you.

This is true, and if someone ate a broiled chicken sandwhich, side salad, and fruit smoothie from McDonalds I can honestly say it would be healthier than I eat daily Just because it's from McDonalds doesn't make it unhealthy.

Here is the ingredient list from a food that meets AAFCO standards:
The only source of animal protein is beef and bone meal - the rest comes from soybean meal. I have bolded the ingredients that are strictly fillers/additives for palatability and making bulk in the food. Personally, even though this food meets AAFCO standards, I would rather feed my dog McDs. No dog food needs corn syrup, and even though corn is not bad, the first three ingedients are grains that many dogs are allergic to or have better alternatives. There are better options.

As I already stated, those first ingredients are NOT the most common allergens for dogs. A common misconception.

So just because AAFCO says it confers 100% of the basic nutrients to maintain life doesn't mean that it's perfectly healthy.

I don't think anyone is saying that. AAFCO are guidelines to avoid nutrient deficiencies/excesses. It's adequate, but not optimal. No one knows what optimal is.

Every ingredient is there for a reason - and for some pet food ingredients, the reason is to make a dog feel full while giving it absolutely 0 nutrition or bigger feces (cellulose powder, for one). Not every ingredient is there for a "nutritious and healthful" benefit, some are there just to provide a cheap source of filler.

Satiety is important.

 

[vetme]

Just a thought . . . for those of us who are trying to slim down our obese pets, fillers are a GOOD thing, because it means that my cat won't be done eating in 5 minutes and feeling hungry for the next 12 hours until the next meal. Fillers like soy bean hulls or beet pulp increase bulk so that they get full with fewer calories. High-fiber diets also improve blood glucose regulation in diabetic cats, so there may be other metabolic benefits to so-called fillers.

ETA: I just compared the EVO Weight Loss dry cat food with the Innova Low Fat dry cat food last night (both made by Natura). EVO is supposed to be the premium, grain free line of cat food with most of their non-weight loss products boasting 95% meat. According to the energy needs of my cat calculated by quantized, The Rotund One would get 3/4 cup per day of Innova but only 1/2 cup per day of EVO, because the Innova food contains more fillers.

This is a really good point eventualeventer, unless of course the fillers are high in calories like corn or something.

One of my cats is most likely allergic to chicken, so I have a hard time finding food without any chicken in it. Right now I have my two on Duck and Green Pea Natural Balance, although one eats way more than the other and is getting a bit chunky. It's so hard to regulate a cat's weight when you have more than one.

Also, I've read so much about how canned food is supposed to be better than dried, and I used to give mine a can everyday since they were kittens, but they just don't seem to like it much anymore. They never finish it and the one who is overweight ends up eating way more than the skinny one.

Ok, TongaPup, You have some interesting points, but I agree With the above statements. Part of a pet's quality of life is having some satiety. If he feels full he is more likely to be happy. So fillers are an important part of pet food. If all we gave was the concentrated form of nutrients, it would be like trying to live on vitamin supplements, IMO.

 

[LetItSnow]

Part of a pet's quality of life is having some satiety. If he feels full he is more likely to be happy.

Feeling full just gives me gas, which makes me really happy but dramatically decreases my wife's quality of life.

 

[twelvetigers]

Bahahaha y'all have to read this...

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2011/01/25/wheres-beef-taco-bell-sued-ingredients/

Yo quiero Taco... what?

 

[vetme]

Bahahaha y'all have to read this...

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2011/01/25/wheres-beef-taco-bell-sued-ingredients/

haha sounds like the human food industry is just as bad as the pet food industry

 

[david594]

haha sounds like the human food industry is just as bad as the pet food industry

I must have missed it. Whats bad about the pet food industry?

They sell nutritionally balanced diets that satisfy all of your animal's needs and are safe and affordable?

And I recently switched my cat from a more "premium" food to one with more "fillers" because she was not happy with the quantity she was limited to eating in accommodating her calorie requirements. Now she can eat nearly twice as much while still staying within her calorie needs and is much happier about it.

Happiness being judged by the amount of time she no longer spends trying to tear into anything food containing in the household.

 

[crazycatduncan]

My cat eats the expensive stuff (that we don't get for free) because I can feed him less and he poops less.

 

[vetme]

I must have missed it. Whats bad about the pet food industry?

They sell nutritionally balanced diets that satisfy all of your animal's needs and are safe and affordable?

And I recently switched my cat from a more "premium" food to one with more "fillers" because she was not happy with the quantity she was limited to eating in accommodating her calorie requirements. Now she can eat nearly twice as much while still staying within her calorie needs and is much happier about it.

Happiness being judged by the amount of time she no longer spends trying to tear into anything food containing in the household.

It was a joke

 

[Shadow23]

Less poop is indeed indicative of a diet with little indigestible material, but fillers DO have a place. Another example (to the ones listed above) are anal glands. Smaller poop equals less pressure on anal glands which can equal frequent scooting and trips to the clinic to express the glands, which would ideally be expressed every time a dog defecates. I know some dogs just have weirdly placed glands and other problems necessitating frequent manual expression, but smaller poop due to food is definitely a cause. I was speaking with my vet about this just a couple months ago, when he noted an increase in the number of dogs needing their glands expressed on a regular basis. Just something to think about.

 

[thedogisgreen]

haha sounds like the human food industry is just as bad as the pet food industry

yuck. i'm glad i'm vegetarian.. tho i don't want to think about weird things that could be in my food!
there's much less publicity/outrage at this than fillers in pet food! strange world.

 

[Cautionary Tail]

Less poop is indeed indicative of a diet with little indigestible material, but fillers DO have a place. Another example (to the ones listed above) are anal glands. Smaller poop equals less pressure on anal glands which can equal frequent scooting and trips to the clinic to express the glands, which would ideally be expressed every time a dog defecates. I know some dogs just have weirdly placed glands and other problems necessitating frequent manual expression, but smaller poop due to food is definitely a cause. I was speaking with my vet about this just a couple months ago, when he noted an increase in the number of dogs needing their glands expressed on a regular basis. Just something to think about.

This is true... and, as the owner of a cat with abysmal anal glands (placement seems a bit odd, and I suspect this is the issue), I definitely feel their pain.

I definitely didn't mean to imply that the use of filler ingredients is invariably a negative. My issue is with certain foods being primarily filler-based... especially when we're talking about cats, who are obligate carnivores. (While they may be able to subsist on a diet that amounts to little more than fortified, taurine-laced chicken-basted Corn Pops, it's really not ideal.) I have no qualms with the inclusion of some filler.

 

[EllieGirl89]

a diet that amounts to little more than fortified, taurine-laced chicken-basted Corn Pops, it's really not ideal.)

 

[turnandburn]

(While they may be able to subsist on a diet that amounts to little more than fortified, taurine-laced chicken-basted Corn Pops, it's really not ideal.) I have no qualms with the inclusion of some filler.

Hyperbole like this is a little funny, but kind of makes me cringe too. Repeating statements like these unfortunately just perpetuates the myths... Less informed owners take stuff like this at face value.

 

[Cautionary Tail]

This is my stance on the Hill's diets as well. It is loaded with fillers. That said I would choose Hill's prescription diet over Purina''s any day.

Just spotted this and had to weigh in... one of my cats is on a Purina prescription diet. I've tried a number of other diets I've seen touted as 'better' or 'more appropriate' elsewhere, but for whatever reason, Thomas' condition hasn't responded nearly as favorably to the other products as it has to what Purina has to offer. I'm not crazy about some of the ingredients, but the numbers don't lie... he's doing really well, so we stick with it.

And Purina's lactating bunny chow helped buy my rabbit an additional eight months (after receiving a prognosis that included the word "weeks") when she developed cancer and started dropping the pounds on everything else.

(That and... Krispy Kreme donuts. I know all the bunny enthusiasts are probably going to materialize and slay me for that, but she was terminally ill, we were having a hell of a time keeping any weight on her, and she loved the things. Yes, she could've potentially gone into stasis... and I'm not advocating any of this... but at the very end, she couldn't consume enough bunny-friendly food to counteract the wasting. We needed to find something highly palatable and calorically dense that she was actually willing to eat. Her body condition improved significantly and she eked out an extra three quality months on the "North Beach Diet". Bad CT. Bad, bad. )

So... yeah. I can't really slam Purina. And if you've mistaken me for an obsessive nutrition stickler, now you know otherwise.

 

[Cautionary Tail]

Hyperbole like this is a little funny, but kind of makes me cringe too. Repeating statements like these unfortunately just perpetuates the myths... Less informed owners take stuff like this at face value.

Fair enough. Still, there are plenty of foods being marketed towards the feline populace that contain very little actual animal-based protein. When we're talking about an obligate carnivore, if the bulk of the product reads like something you'd find on the side of a cereal box, with some beef tallow, chicken fat, and poultry-by products lurking halfway down the list of ingredients under a barrage of corn, wheat, and soy, you're not dealing with an optimal diet for that species. I'm not talking about the line broached by the OP, but some of the really bottom of the barrel stuff. I'm not about to judge individuals who feed those foods (particularly when they can't afford to do otherwise), but I do wish that those manufacturers would improve their offerings a little.

That said, I'm not a buzzwords-and-hyperbole sort of person... and when someone is actually trying to prove a point (I was just trying to be light-hearted, and perhaps failing miserably ), resorting to emotionally loaded buzzwords and exaggeration kills it for me. (I have major issues with most of the online feline diabetes communities and a lot of the "foodie" sites for this very reason.) I apologize if I'm guilty of traipsing into obnoxious territory. It wasn't intentional.

 

[turnandburn]

Fair enough. Still, there are plenty of foods being marketed towards the feline populace that contain very little actual animal-based protein. When we're talking about an obligate carnivore, if the bulk of the product reads like something you'd find on the side of a cereal box, with some beef tallow, chicken fat, and poultry-by products lurking halfway down the list of ingredients under a barrage of corn, wheat, and soy, you're not dealing with an optimal diet for that species. I'm not talking about the line broached by the OP, but some of the really bottom of the barrel stuff. I'm not about to judge individuals who feed those foods (particularly when they can't afford to do otherwise), but I do wish that those manufacturers would improve their offerings a little.

I'm not going to disagree with you here. The remarkable thing is, most cats (when fed appropriate amounts) do well on these foods (as far as we can tell). Are they in optimal health? How do we know? So how much do macro- and micronutrient sources really matter? Huge differences among individuals' genetics and environment also make it hard to come up with concrete answers. I really wish more nutrition courses were part of the curriculum at my school because this is an area that interests me, and I feel my knowledge is severely lacking overall.

 

[NStarz]

I'm not going to disagree with you here. The remarkable thing is, most cats (when fed appropriate amounts) do well on these foods (as far as we can tell). Are they in optimal health? How do we know? So how much do macro- and micronutrient sources really matter? Huge differences among individuals' genetics and environment also make it hard to come up with concrete answers. I really wish more nutrition courses were part of the curriculum at my school because this is an area that interests me, and I feel my knowledge is severely lacking overall.

Both you and CT really hit the nail on the head. I really wish more funding was allocated to research these sorts of questions. I also hope that some research is done that is not sponsored by the pet food industry (which, although they are a large source of funding and obviously have an interest in furthering nutritional knowledge, there may be some ethical grayness that is not being adequately addressed).

Furthermore, vet med education should definitely include a good deal of nutrition (some schools don't even have a nutrition class), since that is one of the best ways to maintain health in any animal. I think part of the problem is that we are trying to squeeze in (in vet school) medicine for every species except one in about half the time it takes physicians to study one species (if you count in internship/residency years). Also, vet med encompasses a lot more than human med, when you consider that we also need to learn dentistry, rehab, nutrition, and other things that aren't addressed in medical school because there are separate careers for it. I'm not saying that we should tack on another four years to our education, but one has to wonder if limited licensure might have its place sometime in the future (unfortunate, but likely).

I've also wondered if maybe some of the medical issues we're seeing in cats that are increasing in number: obesity, kidney issues, etc., may be influenced either positively or negatively by diet. I definitely think that is something that should be looked into further. Though, cats have been eating this diet for almost 100 years. Then again, cats probably didn't start going to the vet in large numbers until the last few decades (so these things wouldn't have been caught and treated). Not sure.

 

[Cautionary Tail]

I'm not going to disagree with you here. The remarkable thing is, most cats (when fed appropriate amounts) do well on these foods (as far as we can tell). Are they in optimal health? How do we know? So how much do macro- and micronutrient sources really matter? Huge differences among individuals' genetics and environment also make it hard to come up with concrete answers. I really wish more nutrition courses were part of the curriculum at my school because this is an area that interests me, and I feel my knowledge is severely lacking overall.

I agree.

I think genetics is often sorely overlooked, and that's probably one of my biggest gripes with a lot of the more outspoken individuals in both the nutrition and diabetes camps. Oversimplification... and, at times, a lack of understanding that correlation doesn't necessarily imply causation.

I'd love to see more empirical research in the nutrition department. I'm not a big nutrition buff, but I know that this is an area where clients are invariably going to have questions and/or strong opinions, and there is such a wealth of unsubstantiated (and, in some cases, suspect) information out there for the taking. Anecdotal evidence can be compelling, but I'd like to have something more concrete to fall back on.

Without research, it's hard to get a handle on what the long-term impact of a particular diet may be for the average pet. My aunt's Corgi mix thrived until he was nearly 20 on cheap, low-quality kibble. My cat developed diabetes at two or three while living in a feral colony and consuming a prey-based diet that was about as "natural" as it gets. His mom disappeared nine months prior (we were unable to trap her) following a condition that looked suspiciously like untreated diabetes. Had they been born indoors and reared on your standard commercial fare, it might have been tempting to jump on the bandwagon and point fingers at the food when the inevitable happened... but the reality is, these particular cats ultimately would have developed diabetes at a young age anyway. Even on an extremely low-carb diet. That's the problem with anecdotal evidence alone. It's generally impossible to know whether or not a pet might have been spared a particular condition if you'd done something differently, whether they'd have lived longer on Brand X or Brand Y.

 

[nyanko]

And as I've mentioned before, somebody needs to fund this research and that's exactly where the problem is...

 

[168135]

And as I've mentioned before, somebody needs to fund this research and that's exactly where the problem is...

With the mark-up on Hills, they could fund themselves... but no... they'd rather give vet students free foods

 

[Cautionary Tail]

With the mark-up on Hills, they could fund themselves... but no... they'd rather give vet students free foods

I'd venture that they probably already have funded a fair amount of research, particularly with regards to their line of prescription foods.

I'm guessing you'll be unlikely to see the pet food industry shelling out big bucks for research that doesn't directly stand to benefit them or the development of their products, though... which is kind of understandable, seeing as these are ultimately companies seeking to turn a profit.

I can't really fault them for providing vet students with freebies. You can debate the ethics of it, but from a business standpoint, it's a pretty ingenious idea... though I don't know that today's students are necessarily as quick to jump on the Hill's bandwagon as they have been in the past.

 

[nyanko]

With the mark-up on Hills, they could fund themselves... but no... they'd rather give vet students free foods

They do fund a lot of the research, hence people bitching about all the research being funded by pet food companies...

 

[nyanko]

I'm guessing you'll be unlikely to see the pet food industry shelling out big bucks for research that doesn't directly stand to benefit them or the development of their products, though... which is kind of understandable, seeing as these are ultimately companies seeking to turn a profit.

Was it you who was lamenting the lack of genetics being taken into account when discussing food development? I don't know that you should be so quick to jump to conclusions without doing some basic research first...

 

[Cautionary Tail]

Was it you who was lamenting the lack of genetics being taken into account when discussing food development? I don't know that you should be so quick to jump to conclusions without doing some basic research first...

I wasn't so much complaining about the lack of genetics being taken into account with regards to food development itself as I was the fact that the role of genetics is often overlooked by those engaging in the food debate (i.e. the assertions I often encounter that certain diets cause diabetes in cats). I was talking more about all the severely oversimplified/anecdotal stuff that frequently gets touted as fact by sources online that some pet owners seem to regard as gospel. The whole 'X feeding regime causes/cures condition Y' sans regard for other possible mitigating factors (like genetics) drives me batty. I probably wasn't clear... posting during a state of extreme sleep deprivation= bad idea.

I wasn't aware that Hills was involved in that, though... very cool!

 

[turnandburn]

Don't drug companies often fund their own studies?

 

[sunshinevet]

And if Hills funded research, a lot of people would not take it seriously if it cast their products in a positive light. Ideally, the research needs to be done by people who have no financial investment in the product itself. If a research study says "Hills XD is the best" and the study is run by Hills....well, you wonder what they may have tweaked to get that result

Hills DOES do TONNES of research! However, they dont do "our food is better than yours research" - instead they do tonnes and tonnes of research into the theraputic benefits of their diets. And it is all published in peer review journals. Yes, it would be better if it was independantly performed research, but its better than nothing. If you looked up any of their prescription diets, you would find multiple studies about the different theraputic benefits of it.

 

[ekchad]

Why animal protein in the first place anyways? To play off of someone's earlier post "It is the profile of the protein, not the source that matters". We all know what amino acids are and that they make up proteins. If we get a protein with 1) the right amino acid profile (ie right amount of amino acids in the right proportions) that 2) can be easily digested and 3) can be appropriately absorbed by the cat, then it is counted as a quality protein, regardless of source. Moreover if one protein doesn't balance amino acids exactly the way you want, another type of protein can be added that can perhaps make up for an amino acid deficiency.

Nyanko is right, there needs to be more money directed at research directed at nutrition and I would say nutritional physiology in particular. That said, nutritional physiology (like all physio) is extremely complicated.

On a somewhat related note, there has been some really cool research on cat milk that helped improve cat milk replacer (it was deficient in arachidonic acid). Pubmed- "domestic cat milk"
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19774762

 

[bunnity]

Just wanted to point out that as vet students we can get free Purina and free Natura (Innova, EVO...) products as well. And lots of other discounts and free products. So it's not like Hills has the monopoly on us

 

[incendium04]

The available free products vary by school. Someone mentioned that they can get more Purina than Hill's; UC Davis students currently get up to 40lb of Hill's and only a single item (12 pack of cans or single bag) from Purina. We no longer get food from Innova.

 

[sunshinevet]

We get NOTHING free at Murdoch. No Hills, No Royal canin, not even free flea/tick/heartworm products Makes me sad!

Luckily I live in a clinic and get my food for free there

 

[HopefulAg]

Hills could mean boarded vet nutritionists, or they could just be using the term for vets that enjoy learning about nutrition - point is that we don't know.

Isn't 'veterinary nutritionist' a protected term? If the veterinarians who enjoy learning about nutrition aren't board certified, legally they can't be called a veterinary nutritionist. That's my understanding, at least.

Now, "animal nutritionist"...seems like every Tom, Dick, and Mary is one of those.

Don't drug companies often fund their own studies?

Yup.

 

[StartingoverVet]

Dogs would have a really different style of eating if they were in their "natural" habitat (which honestly with domestication....can you really say what that is?)..

I totally agree and want to reiterate.....my dogs natural environment is a couch filled with microfiber throws. I guess if they eat what's in their natural environment it would be crumbs beneath the pillows.

 

[MustLoveCats]

I was browsing this post and couldn't find many weigh-ins on Royal Canin... About a year ago I switched my cats from science diet to a Royal Canin novel protein diet. Both of them lost weight, have much softer healthier coats, and their stools are less dry and clumpy. Plus! my chronic vomiter is doing much less vomiting! I'll be starting vet school this fall, and I can't decide if I'll resist the urge of free food or not. I already know that they don't do well on normal Science diet food, but I know that they do offer novel protein diets like RC. Does anyone know anything about the science diet novel protein diets? and what is everyone's opinion of Royal Canin? (I'm kind of assuming it's the same as SD with fillers and everything, but I figured I'd ask...)

 

[Minnerbelle]

I was browsing this post and couldn't find many weigh-ins on Royal Canin... About a year ago I switched my cats from science diet to a Royal Canin novel protein diet. Both of them lost weight, have much softer healthier coats, and their stools are less dry and clumpy. Plus! my chronic vomiter is doing much less vomiting! I'll be starting vet school this fall, and I can't decide if I'll resist the urge of free food or not. I already know that they don't do well on normal Science diet food, but I know that they do offer novel protein diets like RC. Does anyone know anything about the science diet novel protein diets? and what is everyone's opinion of Royal Canin? (I'm kind of assuming it's the same as SD with fillers and everything, but I figured I'd ask...)

Have you tried some of the prescription diets from purina? You can get those free at CSU, and they deliver to your door! I agree with you that it's probably not a fair comparison to compare regular diets of one brand to prescription diets of another brand... so I'd keep an open mind and try it out. If it is that your cats just need special protein sources, it might not even matter what brand. Free food will save you a ton of cash that you can use on something else!