Vet vs Med

[SmallBlock]

---

Members do not see this ad.

[/IMG]

ring any bells???? Why do you think carbohydrates would be important in the diet of any animal??? I don't know... maybe cause they need it to LIVE...

You really think that raw meat (the meat you would feed your house pet) has all the essential vitamins and minerals that a dog needs... calcium, vitamin D, vitamin B, zinc, iodine, etc, etc

Also, ever see wolves do things like this:

Yeah, they eat grass, just like dogs do.

Also, have you ever watched a wolf eat a meal... they leave nothing but the bones behind and very few bones at that. They eat intestines, stomach, heart, lungs, etc, etc.... do you plan on feeding those to your house dog? No, you feed the muscles, just like what we eat. All of those other areas have different nutritional compositions and help to provide the wolf with what it needs. Contrary to popular belief, wolves do not only eat meat... they will graze on grass and other vegetation in addition to eating meat.

You don't need to be condescending.

Notice in diagram of the metabolic process that proteins can also be utilized for energy. While the atkins diet may not be the best nutrition for a human, can you provide actual evidence that it isn't appropriate for a canine that evolved to utilize protein as the primary energy source?

I have seen dogs and wolves eat grass. It's common knowledge that coyotes eat anything and everything. Many animals of different species are known to eat various plants for medicinal purposes. How often do you suppose these wolves eat these plants? Is it for supplementation or is it a staple in their diet. I think you'll find its the former.

Depending on the raw diet you subscribe to- I prefer the prey model. Which means the animal is fed not just muscle meat but also bone, liver, kidney, heart, skin, and offal aside from intestines. Dogs are more omnivorous than cats, admittedly, but vegetation does not make up the majority of their diet.

 

[Orion12]

Correct. But humans can just as easily get sick from mishandling raw meat for their own consumption. Proper sanitation is must in any environment, whether you have a dog or not. Dogs shed bacteria, including salmonella, in their feces regardless of whether or not they are raw fed. Might the bacteria load be higher in a raw-fed dog? I bet so. But again, humans getting sick from contamination is the human's fault, not the dogs. Another reason why raw feeding isn't for every owner.

I agree its not for every owner and even if you do think that it works for your dog (which is fine) there are still a lot of risks even if you do it "right". Its not completely safe from the study above.... more dogs shed salmonella with a raw food diet (14% of animals tested) compared to 0% of dogs fed a non-raw diet.

Bacteria on meat is a huge problem. It doesn't matter if you lysol everything everyday in your kitchen there is still loads of PATHOGENIC bacteria on meat. People get sick from mishandling raw meat when they don't cook it right, which is why cooking directions are on every label.

I go with the science over opinion. It just makes more sense for me to do so.

Side note: I don't think you can compare dogs and wolves. They might have the similar genetics but they can't be compared due to environmental factors. They are just not the same. Period. If they were I could push my 7 pound Pomeranian out the door and he could adjust to the wild life. But that would never happen so no use comparing the two. Plus with wolves human health does not need to be taken into account. With your family dog... it does.

 

[cs5910]

I just noticed your pre-vet status. I do hope that you try to remain open-minded in vet school. This statement falls in line with just the kind of dogma that most conventional vets today preach.

There's no need to be condescending... Yes, I am pre-vet. If I am not mistaken, you are a PRE-med, the same level as I am. I never put an opinion to begin with. Yes, I will be starting school in the fall with a very open mind to this debate because I believe animal diets are a very anthropomorphic issue, one where the clients wishes and individual animal's needs must be taken into account.

 

[DVMDream]

You don't need to be condescending.

Notice in diagram of the metabolic process that proteins can also be utilized for energy. While the atkins diet may not be the best nutrition for a human, can you provide actual evidence that it isn't appropriate for a canine that evolved to utilize protein as the primary energy source?

I have seen dogs and wolves eat grass. It's common knowledge that coyotes eat anything and everything. Many animals of different species are known to eat various plants for medicinal purposes. How often do you suppose these wolves eat these plants? Is it for supplementation or is it a staple in their diet. I think you'll find its the former.

Depending on the raw diet you subscribe to- I prefer the prey model. Which means the animal is fed not just muscle meat but also bone, liver, kidney, heart, skin, and offal aside from intestines. Dogs are more omnivorous than cats, admittedly, but vegetation does not make up the majority of their diet.

Yes, proteins can be taken to pyruvate and then turned back into oxaloacetate and then taken through gluconeogenesis and turned into glucose, it is highly inefficient and costs loads of energy. There is also that greater risk of running into an issue where oxaloacetate runs out... therefore the process will not occur... you will need to top up oxaloacetate in order to keep the cycle going... so that mention of supplementation you had above... yeah, it is very possible that wolves start eating vegetation if something like this occurs... But wolves will graze on vegetation in periods where food is scarce as well, no it is not the main staple of their diet, but it is none the less important...

Also, why would they need it as supplementation if the meat that they consume is enough nutritionally? Supplementation indicates that something is missing and therefore this needs to be added... but according to you, meat is completely nutritionally balanced.

I am just telling you from the class that I had in vet school on nutrition from the nutritionist who studies this stuff that a raw based dog food is incredibly difficult to maintain and that the dog will need more than just meat in order to get the proper balance and nutrients that it needs.

 

[BillrothI]

While the atkins diet may not be the best nutrition for a human, can you provide actual evidence that it isn't appropriate for a canine that evolved to utilize protein as the primary energy source?

I find it hard to imagine that this hasn't been studied extensively. Aren't there veterinary journals somewhere that have looked at this? It seems like it would be a pretty straightforward design.

Regarding potential bias in research - the fact that "Purina" pays for the studies does not necessarily invalidate them. The money has to come from somewhere. Financial backing is indeed something to look at, but I think there's a tendency to discount perfectly valid research if the sponsors have a vested interest in the results.

-Bill R.

 

[Orion12]

I am just telling you from the class that I had in vet school on nutrition from the nutritionist who studies this stuff that a raw based dog food is incredibly difficult to maintain and that the dog will need more than just meat in order to get the proper balance and nutrients that it needs.

This is a huge problem in big cat sanctuaries as well when people just feed straight meat off the store shelves.... Cats are carnivores too but they need the full carcass to get all of the nutrients. Tons of nutritional deficiencies with those large cats.

Can you feed your pet a raw carcass safely in your home. Probably not.

 

[felinelvr44]

I find it hard to imagine that this hasn't been studied extensively. Aren't there veterinary journals somewhere that have looked at this? It seems like it would be a pretty straightforward design.

Regarding potential bias in research - the fact that "Purina" pays for the studies does not necessarily invalidate them. The money has to come from somewhere. Financial backing is indeed something to look at, but I think there's a tendency to discount perfectly valid research if the sponsors have a vested interest in the results.

-Bill R.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v495/n7441/full/nature11837.html

 

[puppyloomp]

Another reason why raw feeding isn't for every owner.

I think you're arguing what everyone here is arguing; that ultimately if you could provide every nutritional component of a dog's diet with raw/unprocessed foods, it would be healthier (just like if a human ate all unprocessed foods, it is "healthier" than eating processed foods all the time like most people today do). However, never eating processed foods yourself or feeding your a nutritionally sound raw diet is impossible for the majority of the population, due to lack of knowledge of nutrition as well as a lack of resources (because that can be expensive!!!). It would be irresponsible for every get to try and get every owner who comes into their office to feed their dog only raw foods, because the majority of people would get the diet wrong and the dog's health would be more negatively affected from lack of important nutritional components than just feeding a kibble diet, which is processed, but nutritionally sound. Kibble is not the dog equivalent to coco puffs; it is more along the lines of special K when compared to human foods. Yeah, it would be better to go out and grow your own vegetables and fruit and eat them for breakfast, but not many people are going to do that.

This problem comes up a lot with rabbits. Kibble isn't really good for them, but it keeps them fed and gives them all the vitamins and protein they need. However, people often read online it's better to not feed them their pellets and instead give them raw vegetables and people who have no understanding of nutrition or are too lazy to research or don't have enough money to buy anything else just go get them iceburg lettuce and carrots, which is 100% worse than just feeding them the pellets. Although a rabbit raw food diet is a heck of a lot easier to figure out and implement successfully than a dog one, a lot of people still are not able to do it correctly and damage their pets health. The minimal health benefits that may result from a completely raw diet do not outweigh people being unable to implement one correctly and the drastic negative health consequences that can result. A vet's job is to keep the animal healthy, and in the majority of cases a dog will be healthier if the owner gives kibble than raw food since there is less of a chance something will go wrong with the kibble and even the most well meaning person will probably not be able to feed a dog correctly on a raw food diet due to the difficulty.

 

[DVMDream]

This problem comes up a lot with rabbits. Kibble isn't really good for them, but it keeps them fed and gives them all the vitamins and protein they need. However, people often read online it's better to not feed them their pellets and instead give them raw vegetables and people who have no understanding of nutrition or are too lazy to research or don't have enough money to buy anything else just go get them iceburg lettuce and carrots, which is 100% worse than just feeding them the pellets. Although a rabbit raw food diet is a heck of a lot easier to figure out and implement successfully than a dog one, a lot of people still are not able to do it correctly and damage their pets health. A vet's job is to keep the animal healthy, and in the majority of cases a dog will be healthier if the owner gives kibble than raw food since there is less of a chance something will go wrong with the kibble and even the most well meaning person will probably not be able to feed a dog correctly on a raw food diet due to the difficulty.

A rabbit is a hind gut fermenter like a horse... better to go buy some hay and feed that then feeding lettuce and carrots. People just don't know how to do a little bit of research that is the problem.

 

[rb121]

I've noticed that for cats, the kibble/wet food diets tend to be worse because cats are carnivores and do not really need carbs, yet the number one ingredient on most commercial pet food diets is corn. Cats don't need corn. It just makes them fat. They'll eat and eat to gain the proper nutrition they need (protein) gaining a lot of fat in the process. I noticed a huge difference when I switched my cats from a kibble to a high-protein wet food. Evo 99% protein. They poop two little nuggets compared to the large, stinky, greasy poops they had before. Here's a great website that contains recipes. She also is a vet.

http://www.catinfo.org/?link=makingcatfood

If I had the time, I would make my own pet food and ask a vet to go over it with me to make sure it had the proper nutrition. I don't trust pet food companies and the amount of crap that's put into these diets would make you sick. They're allowed to use dead, diseased and dying animals for meat, and they're allowed to use rotting vegetables and its the reason why there are so many recalls.

 

[notbobtrustme]

This:

ring any bells???? Why do you think carbohydrates would be important in the diet of any animal??? I don't know... maybe cause they need it to LIVE...

There's no such thing as an essential carbohydrate.

You would know that if you actually took biochemistry.

 

[SmallBlock]

There's no need to be condescending... Yes, I am pre-vet. If I am not mistaken, you are a PRE-med, the same level as I am. I never put an opinion to begin with. Yes, I will be starting school in the fall with a very open mind to this debate because I believe animal diets are a very anthropomorphic issue, one where the clients wishes and individual animal's needs must be taken into account.

I'm glad to hear your open-minded. Again I'm sorry I came off condescending in that first post.

Yes, proteins can be taken to pyruvate and then turned back into oxaloacetate and then taken through gluconeogenesis and turned into glucose, it is highly inefficient and costs loads of energy. There is also that greater risk of running into an issue where oxaloacetate runs out... therefore the process will not occur... you will need to top up oxaloacetate in order to keep the cycle going... so that mention of supplementation you had above... yeah, it is very possible that wolves start eating vegetation if something like this occurs... But wolves will graze on vegetation in periods where food is scarce as well, no it is not the main staple of their diet, but it is none the less important...

Also, why would they need it as supplementation if the meat that they consume is enough nutritionally? Supplementation indicates that something is missing and therefore this needs to be added... but according to you, meat is completely nutritionally balanced.

I am just telling you from the class that I had in vet school on nutrition from the nutritionist who studies this stuff that a raw based dog food is incredibly difficult to maintain and that the dog will need more than just meat in order to get the proper balance and nutrients that it needs.

I don't believe I ever said meat was completely nutritionally balanced. You stated that muscle meat alone was not, and I agreed, and offered that a proper raw diet includes other nutrients offered in other parts of the prey animal. Depending on the individual animal, some other dietary supplements are probably necessary. For example, grain-finished livestock are low in Omega-3 fatty acids, but high in Omega-6 fatty acids, both of which are important and in the proper balance, so a supplement is needed. This is the fine-tuning I was talking about. In truth, this isn't even the heart of the argument though. The real issue is whether a raw diet or a processed kibble diet is better for the health of your pet. In my opinion, vets should work to find the optimum treatment for their pets, and the immediate dismissal of a raw diet in favor of dry processed kibble is unfortunate.

This is a huge problem in big cat sanctuaries as well when people just feed straight meat off the store shelves.... Cats are carnivores too but they need the full carcass to get all of the nutrients. Tons of nutritional deficiencies with those large cats.

Can you feed your pet a raw carcass safely in your home. Probably not.

I've actually had the opportunity to intern at a zoo in animal care. Our lions received what was basically animal-grade hamburger made from horse. Once a week they would receive a whole bone-in haunch or something similar. As you say, nutritional deficiencies were common.

But as a matter of fact, you can feed a whole raw carcass. Dogs that are big enough can eat whole chickens, cornish game hens, I've even heard of hunters feeding their dog squirrels they've trapped (certainly wouldn't be my first recommendation...) But the point is, there are certainly whole prey animals that parallel what a canine would eat in the wild, and it isn't that difficult to feed them in the home.

I agree its not for every owner and even if you do think that it works for your dog (which is fine) there are still a lot of risks even if you do it "right". Its not completely safe from the study above.... more dogs shed salmonella with a raw food diet (14% of animals tested) compared to 0% of dogs fed a non-raw diet.

Bacteria on meat is a huge problem. It doesn't matter if you lysol everything everyday in your kitchen there is still loads of PATHOGENIC bacteria on meat. People get sick from mishandling raw meat when they don't cook it right, which is why cooking directions are on every label.

I go with the science over opinion. It just makes more sense for me to do so.

Side note: I don't think you can compare dogs and wolves. They might have the similar genetics but they can't be compared due to environmental factors. They are just not the same. Period. If they were I could push my 7 pound Pomeranian out the door and he could adjust to the wild life. But that would never happen so no use comparing the two. Plus with wolves human health does not need to be taken into account. With your family dog... it does.

The science you're referring to shows that there was salmonella shed in feces, but were any of the dogs actually infected? Whether or not salmonella specifically is shed is sort of irrelevant, since there are plenty of other nasty pathogens in dog feces. But you make a valid point - a vet needs to consider what's best for the whole family health and not just what is best for the dog. So for sure the ease and general sanitary qualities of dry kibble may be a good fit for families. But I'm more interested in the best health for the pet. It also seems that you are arguing against having raw meat in a household at all. With proper sanitary practices, there is no more risk to humans when feeding raw meat to their dog than there is when they cook at eat meat themselves.

I did a quick wiki search for Poms. They've been around since at least the 17th century. What do you suppose they ate before processed kibbles were available in the early 20th century?

 

[SmallBlock]

I find it hard to imagine that this hasn't been studied extensively. Aren't there veterinary journals somewhere that have looked at this? It seems like it would be a pretty straightforward design.

Regarding potential bias in research - the fact that "Purina" pays for the studies does not necessarily invalidate them. The money has to come from somewhere. Financial backing is indeed something to look at, but I think there's a tendency to discount perfectly valid research if the sponsors have a vested interest in the results.

-Bill R.

You're right, money has to come from somewhere. If you were Purina, and someone applied to you for a grant to study the positive health benefits of eating a raw diet, would you fund them? If the study is successful, you will have just funded research that counters your entire business model.

 

[SmallBlock]

There's no such thing as an essential carbohydrate.

You would know that if you actually took biochemistry.

Good point. There are quite a few mammals and other vertebrates that DO exist on a completely meat-based diet with no carbohydrates.

 

[BillrothI]

You're right, money has to come from somewhere. If you were Purina, and someone applied to you for a grant to study the positive health benefits of eating a raw diet, would you fund them? If the study is successful, you will have just funded research that counters your entire business model.

I think there's a misconception that the scientists who execute the studies are employees of the company. That is rarely the case. And even though Purina might not fund a study looking solely at "the positive health benefits of eating a raw diet," they would almost certainly be interested in studies comparing kibble and raw food, different types of kibble, kibble versus wet food, etc.

I don't know much about pet nutrition. I was just curious if this had been studied before, as our vet indicated that the recipe he recommended was "science-based."

-Bill R.

 

[kernel]

Nutritional closed-mindedness: This is a biggie for me. As someone who has studied ecology and evolution as well as taxonomy and systematics extensively, I cannot fathom how conventional vets could, in good conscience, continue to recommend that owners feed their pets dry, processed kibble.

I..wh...what? I'm not even going to get into a discussion about dog nutrition because I'm so boggled by the fact that we are completely disregarding nutritional close-mindedness in the HUMAN realm. Dry and processed? America lives off of potato chips and Oreos!!! I'd say the world of human food is far more effed up than doggie world.

Also, last I checked, domestic dogs are not wolves, and they don't live like wolves. Just sayin'.

 

[SmallBlock]

I think there's a misconception that the scientists who execute the studies are employees of the company. That is rarely the case. And even though Purina might not fund a study looking solely at "the positive health benefits of eating a raw diet," they would almost certainly be interested in studies comparing kibble and raw food, different types of kibble, kibble versus wet food, etc.

I don't know much about pet nutrition. I was just curious if this had been studied before, as our vet indicated that the recipe he recommended was "science-based."

-Bill R.

I would love to see more research done on raw diets. Admittedly, my opinions aren't based on scientific study, just my own research and experience. I think the best thing a pet owner can do is research themselves and find what will work best to make their pet the healthiest possible. I believe conventional vets do their clients a disservice by not even providing it as an option.

 

[485501]

Domestic dogs and wolves have quite different digestive capabilities. This is pretty new research:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v495/n7441/full/nature11837.html

There's a debate that is still going on about the AVMA's current policy recommending that people not feed raw diets to their pets - they recommend a commercial or home-cooked diet. This is based on research showing that there is a significantly greater risk of food-bourne infections for pets and people if pets are fed raw human-quality meat. The AVMA's website has a lot of information on this and links to various papers.

 

[SmallBlock]

I..wh...what? I'm not even going to get into a discussion about dog nutrition because I'm so boggled by the fact that we are completely disregarding nutritional close-mindedness in the HUMAN realm. Dry and processed? America lives off of potato chips and Oreos!!! I'd say the world of human food is far more effed up than doggie world.

Also, last I checked, domestic dogs are not wolves, and they don't live like wolves. Just sayin'.

The difference is that humans have the choice to eat processed crap, and there are plenty of proponents for natural, healthy diets. Dogs don't have a choice in what they eat; it's up to the owner to make the best choices for them.

Domestic dogs are considered a subspecies of the gray wolf. They look different and experience a different environmental conditions, but are genetically and physiologically almost identical.

 

[kernel]

The difference is that humans have the choice to eat processed crap, and there are plenty of proponents for natural, healthy diets. Dogs don't have a choice in what they eat; it's up to the owner to make the best choices for them.

I would respectfully argue that some people are too stupid to know what's good for them.

 

[SmallBlock]

Domestic dogs and wolves have quite different digestive capabilities. This is pretty new research:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v495/n7441/full/nature11837.html

There's a debate that is still going on about the AVMA's current policy recommending that people not feed raw diets to their pets - they recommend a commercial or home-cooked diet. This is based on research showing that there is a significantly greater risk of food-bourne infections for pets and people if pets are fed raw human-quality meat. The AVMA's website has a lot of information on this and links to various papers.

Very cool research. I'll have to see if I can get ahold of a full length.

Based on the abstract, I would like to see more, though. Genes showing signs of selection is very different from saying digestive capabilities are different. Also, the abstract doesn't differentiate between fat metabolism and starch digestion. Fats are important in the dog's diet, so this in and of itself isn't conclusive.

It does make sense though. Dogs have been selectively bred for a long time, and since kibbles have been in production, those that were thriving on it were probably selected for. I imagine this is how humans started being able to process cooked meat. Still, I think there is a large evolutionary distance to go before processed diets might be more biologically appropriate than raw

 

[SmallBlock]

I would respectfully argue that some people are too stupid to know what's good for them.

Raw feeding, and I would say pets in general, are not good options for stupid people either.

 

[Foxhunter]

Reasoning that dogs are domesticated as an argument that they should not eat raw meat is common practice among the vets I've worked with. It's a biased and uninformed opinion.

Did you see the study that came out (nature I think) about how humans and dogs coevolved to exist off of higher carb diets than our ancestors?

Raw diets are possible, but most people aren't capable of actually getting a truly balanced diet into a raw/natural diet they make their dogs at home.

 

[Foxhunter]

Re the whole Purina paying for the study thing. You DO realize that most case studies aren't funded at all. A single n=1 case study simply consists of the treating vet or vets writing up the case for publishing. Doesn't require much funding to do that.

In my nutrition class (as an undergrad), we had a whole lecture on the differences in dog/cat diets and how they've evolved. Also, saw some really horrible pictures of animals that had been fed raw diets that weren't nutritionally sound. We're talking soft and bent bones on a 4 month old puppy, cats going blind, etc.

 

[Orion12]

Admittedly, my opinions aren't based on scientific study, just my own research and experience. I think the best thing a pet owner can do is research themselves and find what will work best to make their pet the healthiest possible.

I have to respectfully disagree with this one. I have read some crazy stuff on the internet based on peoples opinions. Like how colloidal sliver can cure parvo and dogs should not be allowed to touch grass because its "dangerous".

If all you do is go off your own research which are not based on scientific studies and your experience then you could possibly be harming your pet more then helping it. You have no idea what is going on inside of your dogs body. Just because it has a shiny hair coat does not mean its healthy.

Good medicine is based on science and research. Without that you are just guessing...

I am a little worried about you going into human med... are you going to prescribe drugs or treatments to your clients without looking at the scientific studies first? That's just inviting a lawsuit or worse... you could kill someone. There shouldn't be any guessing or blind opinions in health care.

 

[BlackDog17]

There's no such thing as an essential carbohydrate.

You would know that if you actually took biochemistry.

Vet students have taken biochemistry.

You would know that if you actually took your head out of your butt. 🙄

 

[DVM882029]

I am a little worried about you going into human med... are you going to prescribe drugs or treatments to your clients without looking at the scientific studies first? That's just inviting a lawsuit or worse... you could kill someone. There shouldn't be any guessing or blind opinions in health care.

Or just prescribe meds which came about by the studies done by all the reputable drug companies out there...

oh wait, was that an oxymoron?

 

[SmallBlock]

I have to respectfully disagree with this one. I have read some crazy stuff on the internet based on peoples opinions. Like how colloidal sliver can cure parvo and dogs should not be allowed to touch grass because its "dangerous".

If all you do is go off your own research which are not based on scientific studies and your experience then you could possibly be harming your pet more then helping it. You have no idea what is going on inside of your dogs body. Just because it has a shiny hair coat does not mean its healthy.

Good medicine is based on science and research. Without that you are just guessing...

I am a little worried about you going into human med... are you going to prescribe drugs or treatments to your clients without looking at the scientific studies first? That's just inviting a lawsuit or worse... you could kill someone. There shouldn't be any guessing or blind opinions in health care.

There is plenty of crazy information on the Internet, I agree. I don't take my health or the health of my pet lightly. When conventional medicine failed her miserably, I turned to alternative methods. Alternative, but professional. And I made the effort to educate myself so that I knew exactly what treatments were available and what might be effective so I could communicate intelligently with my vet.

I too believe that good medicine is based on good scientific research. How much good research there really is in veterinary medicine I think is debatable. Also keep in mind that all research starts as an unexplored, untested idea. It has to start somewhere. Would I suggest a patient go on some ludicrous untested treatment plan? No. But if I honestly thought they might be better served by a holistic approach rather than western convention, I feel I would owe it o them to make sure they too are informed of every option open to them so they can make an appropriate decision for their care.

 

[Foxhunter]

How much good research there really is in veterinary medicine I think is debatable.

*foxhunter's head explodes*

Why is this debatable? Frankly, I trust a lot less human studies than veterinary studies. Much more corporate money goes to funding drug trials for humans than animals. As long as you're reading peer-reviewed veterinary stuff, I'd mostly trust it. I mean I'm a scientist, so I go in with that eye and make my own judgments of the methods, etc. But seeing as how little money there is to be made in veterinary medicine when compared to humans, not a ton of money is poured into these studies by corporate America. We fight and claw for what funds we have. Please don't knock a whole profession when you don't have a ****ing CLUE. I guess you can get away with saying this **** in pre-allo. I'm a DVM/PhD student. The program I'm in is harder to get into than most MSTP programs. Yet it's attitudes like this that completely screw up everyone's opinions of veterinary medicine, research, and careers. Our research is generally probably less flawed than human research, we scramble for money, a lot of researchers are funded by private donors, not drug companies. The work I'm doing is funded by the AKC, a non-profit. Even though veterinary research is critical to understanding human health (let's talk about what horrible models mice and rats have turned out to be, and the fact that dogs can provide naturally occurring disease processes that closely resemble the human diseases [MD, von Willebrands, urinary incontinence, hemophilia, etc]), few people think of it as necessary or important.

Forgive me as I overreact and somewhat take this the wrong way, I am currently slaving away here over my laboratory notebook and data from a study I am performing at a measly veterinary school at some public state university, not a high brow human medicine study at some prestigious university.

 

[NontradCA]

Vet students have taken biochemistry.

You would know that if you actually took your head out of your butt. 🙄

Fight! Fight! Fight!

 

[Foxhunter]

Vet students have taken biochemistry.

You would know that if you actually took your head out of your butt. 🙄

Bull ****. My vet school syllabus (Y1)- Nutrition brought to you by Hills, Cutting Balls Off- brought to you by Cutco, Spays (or just feel around in there til you find the baby maker then rip it out)- funded by Kermit Gosnell, Really Really Small Things Inside You That Aren't Important, Because You're "Just" Going to be a Vet (I think this is biochem in med school), World War You (immunology), and of course Raw Diets Suck Here's a Backpack Full of Cash- obviously sponsored by Purina.

 

[kittyterran]

You're there to treat the animal, not your own ego. Plenty of human patients don't respect their doctors at all, so you're in for a rude awakening if you end up choosing human medicine for the respect factor.

I'm sorry if I offended you, when I was talking about respect I did expect some backlash. To be matter of fact, prestige/respect is an important factor in most pre-medical students' decisions to go into the medical field. I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing though--you need an ego to confidently cope with being responsible for another's health.

And in my defense, I just don't know if it would be worth it to go through so much schooling and education, to be so limited in how you can treat your patient. I've had many similar experience to some other posters, where whenever a patient is in critical condition and a vet's actions can save it from death, the owners end up euthanizing anyway. I think it definitely sells the veterinarian short of his/her abilities. On the other hand, humans hold their kind to a higher level and if their were their health or their family's they would allow medicine to be utilized to its highest potential if it meant they would be healthier. This is what I mean by "respect".

Also, as an update I have a shadow date with an emergency doctor. I think this affords an really cool opportunity to compare emergency veterinary medicine to emergency human medicine (I worked about half the time as an e-vet assistant). I have an inkling it will be like night and day. I just hope I don't faint or embarrass myself! Something about the elasticity/ hairlessness of human skin makes me feel less at ease. Thanks for all the opinions/advice. I hope I find a passion in one field or the other soon.

 

[SmallBlock]

*foxhunter's head explodes*

Why is this debatable? Frankly, I trust a lot less human studies than veterinary studies. Much more corporate money goes to funding drug trials for humans than animals. As long as you're reading peer-reviewed veterinary stuff, I'd mostly trust it. I mean I'm a scientist, so I go in with that eye and make my own judgments of the methods, etc. But seeing as how little money there is to be made in veterinary medicine when compared to humans, not a ton of money is poured into these studies by corporate America. We fight and claw for what funds we have. Please don't knock a whole profession when you don't have a ****ing CLUE. I guess you can get away with saying this **** in pre-allo. I'm a DVM/PhD student. The program I'm in is harder to get into than most MSTP programs. Yet it's attitudes like this that completely screw up everyone's opinions of veterinary medicine, research, and careers. Our research is generally probably less flawed than human research, we scramble for money, a lot of researchers are funded by private donors, not drug companies. The work I'm doing is funded by the AKC, a non-profit. Even though veterinary research is critical to understanding human health (let's talk about what horrible models mice and rats have turned out to be, and the fact that dogs can provide naturally occurring disease processes that closely resemble the human diseases [MD, von Willebrands, urinary incontinence, hemophilia, etc]), few people think of it as necessary or important.

Forgive me as I overreact and somewhat take this the wrong way, I am currently slaving away here over my laboratory notebook and data from a study I am performing at a measly veterinary school at some public state university, not a high brow human medicine study at some prestigious university.

It's debatable because there are absolutely studies funded by big name pet food companies that together comprise billions of dollars in industry. I never said all veterinary research was bogus or biased. But some definitely is, just as some human medical research is biased. I think there's no doubt about that. I'm sure the work you do with the AKC is legitimate and I'm glad there are researchers like you out there.

I'm also not knocking a whole profession. Vets do wonderful things for pets, I think that much is clear. My problem is specifically with the way nutrition is researched, taught, and presented to the client.

 

[BuggerDoodle]

How much good research there really is in veterinary medicine I think is debatable.

I have to agree with Foxhunter in that I have huge issues with this statement. I also do veterinary research and we are held to the same standards that human medical research is. If veterinary medical research was not good research, would institutions such as NIH, FDA, NCA, or any of the many others fund it as well as human medical research? Also, there is a lot of crossing over between human and veterinary medical research such that there are many procedures and medicines that are now commonly used in human medicine that were originally developed in veterinary medicine. Most schools, both med and vet, push the concept of One Health or of veterinarians and MDs/DOs working together because there is a lot we can learn from each other and hopefully as professionals, we can all work together and not discount the other just because of biases like the one you seem to have.

As far as feeding a dog goes, with any dog/cat food, you need to look for the AAFCO statement. There are regulations in most states on pet foods and most state use the AAFCO recommendations for labeling and contents. Don't believe all the marketing that some of the companies put out on tv. As long as a food has an AAFCO statement stating something along the lines of "Animal feeding tests using AAFCO procedures substantiate that ______ dog food provides complete and balanced nutrition for maintenance of adult dogs" or "formulated to meet the nutritional levels established by the AAFCO Dog Food Nutrient Profiles for maintenance of adult dogs", the food is a quality food that will keep your pet healthy. My personal preference for my animals are foods done with a feeding trial but either one meets the minimum needs.

 

[jdh71]

I feed my dog whatever is left over from dinner - pizza, pancakes, chicken soft tacos, toaster strudels, whatevrer.

He loves it. Shiny coat.

Gets horrible dogfarts and sometimes the super nasty sh*ts, but it seems legit.

 

[Foxhunter]

It's debatable because there are absolutely studies funded by big name pet food companies that together comprise billions of dollars in industry. I never said all veterinary research was bogus or biased. But some definitely is, just as some human medical research is biased. I think there's no doubt about that. I'm sure the work you do with the AKC is legitimate and I'm glad there are researchers like you out there.

I'm also not knocking a whole profession. Vets do wonderful things for pets, I think that much is clear. My problem is specifically with the way nutrition is researched, taught, and presented to the client.

So you're saying you have issues with veterinary nutrition studies that are backed by big name companies. That is a tiny percentage of veterinary medical research studies, yet you called them all debatable. That's my first issue. Those studies exist, however, they should all disclose the conflict of interests, so one can inform oneself and think critically. Next, you're really overestimating this if you're truly talking about peer-reviewed scientific study. Also, how much do you know about the research of nutrition and subsequent teaching to veterinary students. I'm guessing very little, so don't act like you know. Lastly, vets do a lot more than "wonderful things for pets," we're critical to public health, moving almost all areas of health research forward, conservation, environmental issues, national defense, and a hell of a lot more. Believe it or not, not all of us go into this profession to try to "do wonderful things for pets" despite the fact that some clients like to be jack ass know it alls who question our credentials and undervalue our services. Thanks but no thanks.

 

[kittyterran]

I feed my dog whatever is left over from dinner - pizza, pancakes, chicken soft tacos, toaster strudels, whatevrer.

He loves it. Shiny coat.

Gets horrible dogfarts and sometimes the super nasty sh*ts, but it seems legit.

LOL
👍 just don't give him grapes, chocolate, or onions.

 

[jdh71]

LOL
👍 just don't give him grapes, chocolate, or onions.

He won't eat grapes. Just polishes it. I'm pretty sure he's not certain if it is a ball or not.

Round can be confusing to some dogs. The shape of a slice of pizza does not seem to cause the same issue.

This should probably be studied by vet science. It's the kind of cracker jack thing that they would be good at.

 

[Foxhunter]

He won't eat grapes. Just polishes it. I'm pretty sure he's not certain if it is a ball or not.

Round can be confusing to some dogs. The shape of a slice of pizza does not seem to cause the same issue.

This should probably be studied by vet science. It's the kind of cracker jack thing that they would be good at.

This is a much better topic for my thesis:
"Dog food preferences by shape, and effect of food shape on size, smell, and consistency of fecal matter"
Foxhunter, DVM, PhD

 

[jdh71]

This is a much better topic for my thesis:
"Dog food preferences by shape, and effect of food shape on size, smell, and consistency of fecal matter"
Foxhunter, DVM, PhD

it's what I'm saying

 

[jdh71]

NIH should be all over this - or whoever . . . funds the stuff that vets call "research"

 

[Foxhunter]

NIH should be all over this - or whoever . . . funds the stuff that vets call "research"

Purina is going to fund it. We're going to discover that octagonal shaped food results in low density feces that smell like roses, repel flies and mosquitoes, and bag themselves. Purina will then use my thesis as the research to support its new line of dog food- Octadogal- I will obviously get $5/ bad sold.

 

[SmallBlock]

I have to agree with Foxhunter in that I have huge issues with this statement. I also do veterinary research and we are held to the same standards that human medical research is. If veterinary medical research was not good research, would institutions such as NIH, FDA, NCA, or any of the many others fund it as well as human medical research? Also, there is a lot of crossing over between human and veterinary medical research such that there are many procedures and medicines that are now commonly used in human medicine that were originally developed in veterinary medicine. Most schools, both med and vet, push the concept of One Health or of veterinarians and MDs/DOs working together because there is a lot we can learn from each other and hopefully as professionals, we can all work together and not discount the other just because of biases like the one you seem to have.

As far as feeding a dog goes, with any dog/cat food, you need to look for the AAFCO statement. There are regulations in most states on pet foods and most state use the AAFCO recommendations for labeling and contents. Don't believe all the marketing that some of the companies put out on tv. As long as a food has an AAFCO statement stating something along the lines of "Animal feeding tests using AAFCO procedures substantiate that ______ dog food provides complete and balanced nutrition for maintenance of adult dogs" or "formulated to meet the nutritional levels established by the AAFCO Dog Food Nutrient Profiles for maintenance of adult dogs", the food is a quality food that will keep your pet healthy. My personal preference for my animals are foods done with a feeding trial but either one meets the minimum needs.

Isn't AAFCO unregulated? Obviously pet food should have some sort of standard so I'm glad AAFCO is in place. How are their standards set, anyway?

So you're saying you have issues with veterinary nutrition studies that are backed by big name companies. That is a tiny percentage of veterinary medical research studies, yet you called them all debatable. That's my first issue. Those studies exist, however, they should all disclose the conflict of interests, so one can inform oneself and think critically. Next, you're really overestimating this if you're truly talking about peer-reviewed scientific study. Also, how much do you know about the research of nutrition and subsequent teaching to veterinary students. I'm guessing very little, so don't act like you know. Lastly, vets do a lot more than "wonderful things for pets," we're critical to public health, moving almost all areas of health research forward, conservation, environmental issues, national defense, and a hell of a lot more. Believe it or not, not all of us go into this profession to try to "do wonderful things for pets" despite the fact that some clients like to be jack ass know it alls who question our credentials and undervalue our services. Thanks but no thanks.

I never said all research was debatable. I don't even know what that statement means; it doesn't make sense on it's own. I said specifically the amount of good research was debatable. Since you are debating it, I would say that pretty much proves the whole point. I never said I thought most research was problematic or even a little research was problematic. You just think I implied it. And no matter how few and far between poor, biased, non-peer-reviewed studies are, if Purina can run an ad for their dog food and cite their "study" and it gets people do buy their product, would you agree that that's a problem?

You're right, I don't really know how nutrition is taught to vets. I haven't been to vet school. How were you taught nutrition? Doing wonderful things is an oversimplification, I admit. I apologize if that offended you. I have worked with and been a client of many veterinarians, and none of them have failed to balk at the idea of a raw diet, and none of them could offer legitimate evidence as to how they know dry kibble is a balanced, appropriate diet. If you have some insight, please share it.

 

[Orion12]

Would I suggest a patient go on some ludicrous untested treatment plan? No. But if I honestly thought they might be better served by a holistic approach rather than western convention, I feel I would owe it o them to make sure they too are informed of every option open to them so they can make an appropriate decision for their care.

Then why would you think a veterinarian would suggest that a patient go on a treatment plan that has been shown to be dangerous for the pet and its family? It's not even an untested treatment plan, and you even said that you would not prescribe a untested plan... so why prescribe one that shows harmful effects?

You honestly can't be mad at your veterinarian for not prescribing raw when there is tons of data out there that supports more harm then good. Especially when there are alternative cooked diets that are healthier.

Clients should not be given options in hope that they should be able to "make there own decision". Why would you prescribe something with that high of a risk?

Whats the point of medicine then? I could go to Dr. google and look up tons of options and decide for myself.

If you are arguing the evolutionary stand point... well domesticated dogs evolved along side of humans. Did people feed there dogs only the best meat? Hell no. Meat was sparse and the good meat was not given to the dog. Dogs ate the left overs and meat was not on the menu most days for most people. When dogs did get meat it was probably the un-edible left over scraps from the carcass.

You won't listen to science, you wont listen to your vet, but you will listen to the internet and then blame vets for not having enough nutritional education. I just don't see how you can get someones opinion off the internet with no research or science behind it and call that professional.

There is no use in trying to educate you further because you are close minded to every point of logical reason. We have given you so many great resources and you have given us "some opinion you heard while searching the web". Show us some research or this "professional" place you are getting your information. I personally have never seen a credible source that says its a good diet.

Ps. Dog breeders are not creditable sources. They want to sell you something as much as the pet food companies.

 

[SmallBlock]

Then why would you think a veterinarian would suggest that a patient go on a treatment plan that has been shown to be dangerous for the pet and its family? It's not even an untested treatment plan, and you even said that you would not prescribe a untested plan... so why prescribe one that shows harmful effects?

You honestly can't be mad at your veterinarian for not prescribing raw when there is tons of data out there that supports more harm then good. Especially when there are alternative cooked diets that are healthier.

Clients should not be given options in hope that they should be able to "make there own decision". Why would you prescribe something with that high of a risk?

Whats the point of medicine then? I could go to Dr. google and look up tons of options and decide for myself.

If you are arguing the evolutionary stand point... well domesticated dogs evolved along side of humans. Did people feed there dogs only the best meat? Hell no. Meat was sparse and the good meat was not given to the dog. Dogs ate the left overs and meat was not on the menu most days for most people. When dogs did get meat it was probably the un-edible left over scraps from the carcass.

You won't listen to science, you wont listen to your vet, but you will listen to the internet and then blame vets for not having enough nutritional education. I just don't see how you can get someones opinion off the internet with no research or science behind it and call that professional.

There is no use in trying to educate you further because you are close minded to every point of logical reason. We have given you so many great resources and you have given us "some opinion you heard while searching the web". Show us some research or this "professional" place you are getting your information. I personally have never seen a credible source that says its a good diet.

Ps. Dog breeders are not creditable sources. They want to sell you something as much as the pet food companies.

I think the concept of raw feeding deserves further research. Single case studies are interesting, but not definitive. There are plenty of case studies for sick dogs that are fed dry kibble as well. Here's one: http://www.cabdirect.org/abstracts/20103100631.html This dog fortunately was able to improve just by feeding a higher quality dry diet. I'll say again that raw feeding isn't for everyone.

I would hardly call raw feeding untested. It may be anecdotal evidence, but thousands of people feed their pets raw meat without issue. And dogs and their ancestors have been eating raw meat for hundreds of thousands of years. This is not something I read on the internet, it was something I learned in my graduate education. I am simply applying this concept critically.

Many raw feeders cite Pottenger's cats as a basis for feeding raw, though i don't necessarily agree. Essentially, this scientist bred cats for 10 years and fed one group cooked meat, and the other group raw meat. The cooked meat group did miserably, accumulating all sorts of illnesses in adults and newborns. The raw meat group did very well. Now, that's a really old study and there are all kinds of problems with it, but I think it offers a good starting point for further research, but there hasn't really been much that I know of. Perhaps someone else can point us to some? As I said before, all research has to start somewhere.

What harmful effects are you referring to, specifically? The danger of human infection from dogs fed raw meat? Here's a recent study describing how salmonella was transmitted to humans from dogs who ate dry kibble. http://www.cabdirect.org/abstracts/20103100631.html This doesn't mean raw meat is better, necessarily, but it offers evidence that proper sanitation is necessary, no matter what you feed your pet. I'd still like to know why you think feeding raw meat in a home is any different from cooking raw meat in a home for human consumption, given proper sanitation.

I'm also not sure what high risk you're referring to. I believe human patients should be given enough information so that they can make an informed decision. If a doc thinks you should have surgery, you would listen to his reasoning and in the end, you're the one who makes the final decision and signs the consent, or doesn't. That's what I'm talking about.

My opinion is based on evolutionary science, for which I have two degrees. It is not based off something I read on the internet. Dogs have evolved alongside humans for several thousands of years, true. But processed dried kibbles have been around for only one hundred years or so. No matter how much evolution occurred up to this point, 100 years is simply not enough time for significant adaptation to have occurred, even at the enhanced speed brought about by breeding selection on the part of humans. Another poster cited the new research that shows signs of a genetic shift toward an increased capacity to digest starches in dogs as compared to wolves. This is an excellent finding and it shows that indeed, dogs are resilient creatures and our selection is changing them. But again, its a long way from meaning that kibble is biologically appropriate diet.

And to call me closed-minded is simply name-calling. I've already conceded to you that raw feeding is not the best option for everyone and that vets need to consider the health of a whole family when considering care and diet. And I don't know why you mention breeders, I haven't.

 

[notbobtrustme]

Vet students have taken biochemistry.

You would know that if you actually took your head out of your butt. 🙄

Then he didn't take the right lessons from biochemistry.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=gluconeogenesis

 

[that redhead]

If I had the time, I would make my own pet food and ask a vet to go over it with me to make sure it had the proper nutrition. I don't trust pet food companies and the amount of crap that's put into these diets would make you sick. They're allowed to use dead, diseased and dying animals for meat, and they're allowed to use rotting vegetables and its the reason why there are so many recalls.

I certainly hope the animal is dead before it gets put into food 😉

Joking aside, I switched my dog to a high protein diet with minimized carbohydrates (no corn, brewer's grains, etc). This argument (bolded above) was made on several of the sites where I did my research before the switch. But if you think about it (and I admit to it), this is largely just our preferences as human beings - we would not want to eat diseased/dying animals (although it happens more than most consumers think) and we project this preference onto our pets.

For those that make the wolf argument, consider this: which animals are predators most likely to go after - the young, healthy one that can easily outrun them and waste their energy? Or the old, diseased, dying (or already dead, in some cases) ones that are easier to catch and thus more efficient on energy? Of course they go for the easier to catch ones. So one can't really make the argument that dogs are exactly like wolves and thus should eat like one and then turn around and say that they don't want their pet eating old/diseased/dying animals.

 

[vetwannabe1]

I don't have a veterinary degree. I have a degree in ecology and evolution, with a strong preference for animal physiology. I am happy to admit that I don't know everything and all that I've written is my opinion. My whole point in mentioning any of this is that I would hate to pay for four years of vet school and lose my ability to think critically.

Like I wrote before, if you'd like to engage in intelligent discussion, feel free to voice your opinion. Sarcastic jabs don't mean much.

It is arrogant A** HOLES like you that turn many intelligent students away from human medicine. I have decided that I would rather practice veterinary medicine over human medicine partly because I cannot imagine spending the rest of my life in a career saturated with people like you. You are PRE med and listen to yourself, you are already speaking as if you are better than people who have the same education as you simply because you are predicting that you will one day be a human doctor. What makes you think that vet school causes students to lose their ability to think critically any more than med school? I would argue that vets often have greater critical thinking skills because they need to figure out the problem is without the patient telling them what hurts/ how they are feeling/ what they ate yesterday/ etc. There is a LOT of thought put into diagnosing an animal with the million different things that could be wrong with it. But all hail to the pre med kid who decided that vet students lose their ability to think critically (as if you have any clue what you are talking about). GET OVER YOURSELF.

 

[sinombre]

I have decided that I would rather practice veterinary medicine over human medicine partly because I cannot imagine spending the rest of my life in a career saturated with people like you.

I'm assuming you're exaggerating, but that's obviously a terrible reason. There are arrogant a-holes in every profession. Human medicine is hardly "saturated" with them.

I would argue that vets often have greater critical thinking skills because they need to figure out the problem is without the patient telling them what hurts/ how they are feeling/ what they ate yesterday/ etc.

This is about as bad as what you're replying to... was using the term "greater" really necessary?

 

[SmallBlock]

It is arrogant A** HOLES like you that turn many intelligent students away from human medicine. I have decided that I would rather practice veterinary medicine over human medicine partly because I cannot imagine spending the rest of my life in a career saturated with people like you. You are PRE med and listen to yourself, you are already speaking as if you are better than people who have the same education as you simply because you are predicting that you will one day be a human doctor. What makes you think that vet school causes students to lose their ability to think critically any more than med school? I would argue that vets often have greater critical thinking skills because they need to figure out the problem is without the patient telling them what hurts/ how they are feeling/ what they ate yesterday/ etc. There is a LOT of thought put into diagnosing an animal with the million different things that could be wrong with it. But all hail to the pre med kid who decided that vet students lose their ability to think critically (as if you have any clue what you are talking about). GET OVER YOURSELF.

Offering a dissenting opinion and my background as justification doesn't make me arrogant. I'm only offering my knowledge and experience in the hopes of an intelligent, polite discussion. There is no reason to become unecessarily fired up in the face of a little healthy criticism.

Now, in fairness to you, I may have overstated the issue a little. But here's why I said what I said: In my personal experience from both working with vets and as a client, nutritional advice tends to be pretty standard - feed a high quality dry kibble. But everything I know of evolution and ecology indicates that this can't possibly be the best nutrition for an animal. Presumably, veterinary students at some point learned basic evolution and taxonomy, so there must be some disconnect somewhere; something I'm missing. This has nothing to do with the diagnostic skill of veterinarians.

I'm sure that there is dogma within human medicine and much of it archaic or inappropriate. I wouldn't be surprised if there was more in human medicine than in animal medicine, for that matter. But I think there is more of an opportunity to avoid these sorts of practices in human medicine.