THE MYTH of High Protein Dogfood

Talk about diets, exercise, and disease.
User avatar
jlphilli
Pit Bull Forum Addict
Posts: 1813
Joined: Tue May 08, 2007 11:12 pm
Location: Raleigh, NC

Postby jlphilli » Sat Sep 20, 2008 9:40 am

I don't see that this has been mentioned, but you do know that something that is 70% water and 24% protein is actually a much higher protein amount on a dry matter basis...right? The dog is getting ~40-50% protein in actuality (I'd have to know the fat %, etc to make an exact calculation).

User avatar
kaliya5
Super Bully
Posts: 690
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2008 8:27 pm
Location: NC

Innova Evo

Postby kaliya5 » Mon Sep 22, 2008 9:34 pm

I understand the math used in previous posts as an argument against feeding high protein dry food. However, Evo also makes wet foods as well. Plus, I do not feed my guys 1 lb of kibble a day. They eat far less.

My Boss is a big boy but he only eats about 2 cups daily (which is a lot less than he ate on cheaper brands). I have noticed great improvements in the health of all my dogs since starting them on Evo. We are all very active and they need the protein, plus I love that it has zero grain.

I think everyone should do what is best for their individual pet. If your pet is not very active then a high protein food may not be necessary. However, I do think that it benefits muscular breeds and active dogs.

Feeding raw is the most natural way to feed your dog, but I do think that grain free, protein rich dry foods are a good alternative if you can't go that route.

Some math I worked up:

Raw/B.a.r.f.:
If Boss eats 1lb per day of raw that is 453.59237 grams of food (I used http://www.onlineconversion.com/weight_common.htm to calcuate that conversion). At 24% protein (since that is the figure used by the previous poster) that is 453.59237 x .24 =108.862 grams of protein a day. Pretty good.

With Evo:
2 cups of Evo = 255.29 grams of food. (I calculated that based on the 126.58 g/cup estimated by Innova's website).
2 Cups with 42% protein is 255.29 g x .42 = 107.2218 g of protein.

It's about the same protein intake per day but but more convenient.

Just my take.

JerzIrocz88
Newborn Bully
Posts: 137
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 8:10 am
Location: North Haledon, NJ
Contact:

Postby JerzIrocz88 » Tue Sep 23, 2008 1:20 am

Here is my take on it, it is all about the balance in the food. First of all wild dogs dont count calories or watch protein count or what foods give them high cholestoral. That is human thinking. In the wild, no carnivore will go looking for grains, potatoes, corn, or anything that the kibble has in it to full out the total percent of the food. 1lb of raw flesh, is 70% water and 24% protein and saw what the other 6% consisting of fats and essential minerals. Now by comparsion 1lb of dry kibble 44% protein and 7% percent water and i guess about another 6% of fats and essential minerals so that leaves 43% (just an est.) just for fillers and stuff, just to get to 100.

So to me it isnt wither or not if it is high protein or not but what goes along side all the protein should be the real question.

Just a few thoughts of mine

User avatar
starrlamia
Addicted to PBF
Posts: 7375
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2008 11:59 pm
Location: Canada

Postby starrlamia » Tue Sep 23, 2008 8:03 am

Yes, you should watch what is in your dog food besides protein, moisture and fat, some brands are just crap but alot use that extra percentage for carbs and other beneficial veggies etc.

Kaliya if you are referring to my math, I was using it as an arguement for high protein foods hehe.
Thanks for including your math in there, I think we just disproved the Myth of "the myth of high protein dog food"
seeing as no one has replied with any arguement....

User avatar
kaliya5
Super Bully
Posts: 690
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2008 8:27 pm
Location: NC

Clarification

Postby kaliya5 » Tue Sep 23, 2008 10:09 am

Sorry for the misunderstanding. I was referring to the article that started this thread claiming that 24% protein in raw meat is the ideal while suggesting that 42% in high protein food gives a dog, hypothetically, too much protein. The article that started this thread seemed to assume that a dog would eat equal amounts of raw and kibble. Because of the high water content in raw food, a dog will eat far more raw than kibble. It has to eat greater quantities of raw food to get enough protein because of water content.

Again, I think feeding raw is ideal but not a viable option for everybody. I just did that math to show the increase in protein percentages for high-protein dry foods is a necessity to simulate the protein intake a dog would get if it was eating raw. (Plus I'm a nerd and I like math problems lol )

I used to feed my guys the supposedly "top" brands of dog food but when I actually read the labels and saw the protein content and the ingredient lists I was shocked. Everyone should do their own research and find a food that their dog loves and is good for them.

JerzIrocz88 is right about needing to look at more than just protein. The fillers make a huge impact on your dog's health. But there are dry foods available with good ingredient lists.

User avatar
starrlamia
Addicted to PBF
Posts: 7375
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2008 11:59 pm
Location: Canada

Postby starrlamia » Tue Sep 23, 2008 10:23 am

dont worry Im a nerd too, and had fun doing the math with Mary Ellen's dogs.
I think the problem with the diet issue is that no one does the research for themselves, they read an article here or there and assume what is written is true. Im the opposite, if I find myself loving or hating a point of view I like to figure out if it's right or wrong, or misguided etc.

This has been a great learning experience for me, as Im used to having obligate carnivores where they need high protein with no disputing that fact.

Raw is such a great thing, I cant wait till I have the freezer space to be able to switch all of my critters over.

johanns
Adolescent Bully
Posts: 223
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 1:40 pm
Location: Dirty Jersey

question

Postby johanns » Thu Sep 25, 2008 12:19 pm

can someone recommend a good book on feeding RAW. i want to start and i wanna do it right. :thumbsup:

User avatar
jlphilli
Pit Bull Forum Addict
Posts: 1813
Joined: Tue May 08, 2007 11:12 pm
Location: Raleigh, NC

Re: Clarification

Postby jlphilli » Thu Sep 25, 2008 1:03 pm

kaliya5 wrote:Sorry for the misunderstanding. I was referring to the article that started this thread claiming that 24% protein in raw meat is the ideal while suggesting that 42% in high protein food gives a dog, hypothetically, too much protein. The article that started this thread seemed to assume that a dog would eat equal amounts of raw and kibble. Because of the high water content in raw food, a dog will eat far more raw than kibble. It has to eat greater quantities of raw food to get enough protein because of water content.


Actually, that's not true and a common misconception. That is correct if you are looking at calorie content, but protein is a different matter. The moisture content simply "dilutes" the protein value your dog is actually consuming.

For example:

Raw has 24% protein and 70% moisture.
-Take 24 and divide it by the reciprocal of the moisture content (30), then multiply by 100
-[24/30]x100
-That means raw food has a dry matter protein value of 80% !!!!

EVO has 42% protein and 10% moisture.
-[42/90]x100
-46.6% protein on a dry matter basis.

The dry matter content is the actual content they are consuming. Now, the only reason you have to feed more RAW than kibble is because the water content prevents the amount of calories consumed.

Does this make sense? :)

User avatar
jlphilli
Pit Bull Forum Addict
Posts: 1813
Joined: Tue May 08, 2007 11:12 pm
Location: Raleigh, NC

Postby jlphilli » Thu Sep 25, 2008 1:10 pm

I wanted to correct my last sentance b/c it was worded funny.

I meant to say that you have to feed more of a high-moisture food because the water content "takes the place" of where calories could be. It sounds stupid, but it's a space issue....kind of like the idea that a donut w/ a hole in the middle has less calories than a donut that has no hole.

Have I gone too far with the donut thing? lol

User avatar
starrlamia
Addicted to PBF
Posts: 7375
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2008 11:59 pm
Location: Canada

Postby starrlamia » Thu Sep 25, 2008 1:18 pm

I would like a donut now. yeesh thanks :P

It makes complete and utter sense, water does fill you up but doesnt contain all of the essential nutrients needed to be healthy.

Thanks for posting that :)

User avatar
kaliya5
Super Bully
Posts: 690
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2008 8:27 pm
Location: NC

clarification

Postby kaliya5 » Sun Sep 28, 2008 9:03 am

You are right jlphilli, and I may have phrased that part of my post unclearly. We are in agreement here. :) When I say dogs have to eat more raw to get enough protein b/c of water content, I don't mean that that is a bad thing. Just that due to water content that have to consume a greater quantity of food. Truthfully, that is the best way to feed. Like humans, dogs don't always drink enough water and having some in their food to is great. Raw is the absolute best way to feed.

I guess my concern with this thread (or it's title at least) is that since many people cannot feed raw (lack of resources, or lack of affordable resources, etc.) and like the convenience of dry and canned food, the conclusion they might come to from reading the Cali Jack article is "Oh no! Too much protein is bad for my dog! I'd better switch him to a low protein food!". I've even heard of people trying to feed their dog vegetarian foods, which is so stupid it makes my head spin. Switching your dog to a lower protein dry food wouldn't give them nearly enough protein, PLUS the lower protein foods typically have many unhealthy fillers in them. High protein food (typically) is more geared towards the natural diet of carnivores and omits many of the fillers we as pet parents should be avoiding.

Dry foods have only been widely consumed by pets in the last 60-70 years. Before that they ate more natural diets of meat from hunting or scraps from their family. True, dogs are scavengers and when they are hungry they will eat grains and rice. But that is only if they HAVE to. A hungry dog will eat crap that is unhealthy for him. But our pets should not have to.

I have heard people argue that dogs have had time to adapt to a carb high diet b/c of the thousands of years of domestication. Not only that is wrong (the time for their digestive systems and metabolism to evolve to process grains would take far longer than a few thousand years) but it is inaccurate in that really it's only been about 70 years that they have been eating all this crap.

I just don't want the thread title giving fuel for the "dogs have evolved over the course of 70 years to be able to eat foods that are totally unnatural for them. That's why I feed Ol'Roy!" argument. lol

User avatar
jlphilli
Pit Bull Forum Addict
Posts: 1813
Joined: Tue May 08, 2007 11:12 pm
Location: Raleigh, NC

Postby jlphilli » Sun Sep 28, 2008 11:07 am

I totally agree with you! I wish I had the time, patience, and resources to feed raw, but I barely have time to cook/prepare food for myself! lol

I occasionally will feed one raw meal for both my dogs after we go running around the lake (twice a month on average) or do anything "strenuous." I usually give Falon a whole chicken leg or two (and Wolfie a whole chicken wing--he's only 9lbs) with ground cooked carrots and sweet potatoes....they LOVE it.

User avatar
6pak
Bully Ambassador
Posts: 2230
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 9:47 pm
Location: Arizona

Postby 6pak » Sun Sep 28, 2008 11:50 am

Sounds like more propaganda put out from the raw food industry or someone who is not qualified to make these nutritional statements.
The scientific fact of the matter is that there is no nutritional advantage to feeding raw, only the risk of contracting a mild to severe and potentially deadly gastrointestinal disease. The best recommendation is to cook all surfaces of the meat and not to feed raw ground meat. (The pathogens are usually on the surface of the meat, but will be mixed throughout the meat in the grinding process) Feeding rare is safer than feeding raw. Many of the eggs in the USA are infected with Salmonella, and therefore should never be fed raw.

User avatar
BrokenAquarian
Addicted to PBF
Posts: 11122
Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2006 8:43 pm
Location: 39° 24′ 35″ N, 123° 21′ 20″ W

Postby BrokenAquarian » Sun Sep 28, 2008 11:54 am

I can't believe that when I know that raw food tastes, looks, feels and digests differently than cooked food. There is a difference between the two. Something cannot possibly stay the same when it is changed by heat. It is physically impossible to change, but stay the same.

User avatar
6pak
Bully Ambassador
Posts: 2230
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 9:47 pm
Location: Arizona

Postby 6pak » Sun Sep 28, 2008 1:37 pm

There is very little nutritional difference between cooked piece of meat vs. a raw piece of meat. Cooking improves digestibility and kills microbes. There is no documented benefit to feeding raw meat over cooked meat in a balanced diet but there are documented health issues.
The change in nutrient profile is insignificant to the whole diet when the final diet is balanced. Cooking or not cooking food is a safety issue and should not be a nutritional issue.


Return to “Health Issues”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests