Corn -vs- Rice

Talk about diets, exercise, and disease.
User avatar
Misskiwi67
Addicted to PBF
Posts: 10498
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 9:37 pm
Location: Iowa City, IA

Postby Misskiwi67 » Wed Nov 26, 2008 11:30 am

Um... no. More lies told to you by petstore food companies. I took a nutrition coarse in veterinary school, a full semester of training. Its becoming more and more common to require nutrition in vet school. The class I took was the equivalent number of lecture/lab hours I spent learning things like parasitology and Opthalmology, so I'd say I spent a fair number of hours in the classroom. I didn't count, so sorry I can't tell you an exact number of hours, but it was closer to 20, plus all the lunch lectures that do happen, but were much less biased than you would think. Vet students aren't stupid, we know what propaganda is and we knew who the sponsors were and took everything with a grain of salt.

For my nutrition class, the teacher was flown in for the class, and was therefore sponsored by Hills, but he was NOT a Hills employee. He was totally unbiased in his education, did not use prescription diets in his lectures, and did not EVER use brand names unless it was to tell us tidbits like Beggin Strips contain 11% salt.

Iams sponsored many of our scholarships in veterinary school, and Purina paid for a 1500 dollar lecture lunch for the entire vet school that I helped arrange... I do not recommend either of these foods on a regular basis (except Purina Pro Plan because I have fed it and liked it) because of the free stuff I received in vet school. I am only more familiar with their products, which makes me more likely to make educated decisions rather than blindly following a single company.

The free food I fed my dogs in vet school was Natura... NOT the big 5. They threw more money into the club they sponsored than any other food company, and their food representative was paid about double what the others were paid. Food companies are ALL full of propoganda, and in my opinion all created equal in their willingness to twist the truth to suit their own image.

The first link I sent was from NAVC, the most respected national veterinary continuing education center in the world. Their conferences and publications are second only to the peer reviewed publications of the AVMA.

Dogs are not wolves, they have been scavenging since they were domesticated. Dogs are often used in research for human nutrition due to the fact that their GI tracts are very similar to ours. Dogs don't produce amylase because they don't CHEW, it has nothing to do with their ability to digest carbohydrates. Once the ground grains hit the stomach, the digestive process and amount of time to digest is more similar to humans than you would think.

User avatar
Red Brindle
Adolescent Bully
Posts: 213
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 1:01 pm
Location: Washington DC

Postby Red Brindle » Wed Nov 26, 2008 11:57 am

Misskiwi67 wrote:The first link I sent was from NAVC, the most respected national veterinary continuing education center in the world. Their conferences and publications are second only to the peer reviewed publications of the AVMA.

Dogs are not wolves, they have been scavenging since they were domesticated. Dogs are often used in research for human nutrition due to the fact that their GI tracts are very similar to ours. Dogs don't produce amylase because they don't CHEW, it has nothing to do with their ability to digest carbohydrates. Once the ground grains hit the stomach, the digestive process and amount of time to digest is more similar to humans than you would think.


Sorry, but I can't agree with you here. This link http://www.cliniciansbrief.com/?p=ccmyth1_2 is sponsored by a corporation who benefits from selling its dog foods which contain a lot of grain and corn. It may be well respected in the vet world, but these companies have gotten a free pass when it comes to nutrition regardless of other areas of vet science where they may do fantastic work.

20 hours is a lot of time on nutrition, and I am impressed that your program would spend that much time on nutrition but that doesn't make you a qualified nutritionist. I mean that with the utmost respect because you are probably a great vet who has a trememdous love for animals. Animal nutrition has become a very hot area of study right now. Many schools are offering majors and certifications in specifically nutrition. One of my good friends is a vet and she will reluctantly admit the gross conflict of interest.

As far as dogs having similar digestive systems to humans, where did you hear that? The notion that somehow dogs digestive systems evolved since their domestication is not very convincing? Where and when did the selection happen that would give dogs with longer digestive systems an advantage? Or cause dogs with short digestive systems to not reproduce?

Also, evolution does not happen over a few hundred years, it happens over millions? The amount of time that dogs have been domesticated is not even a blink of an eye on an evolutionary timeline. Sorry to offend any users who do not believe in evolution.

Also, dogs don't chew? My dog chews. The chewing part is actually particularly relevant to a high protein diet. All of the sudden in the last decade or so we are supposed to brush our dogs teeth. I think something like 80% of all dogs get peredontal(sp) disease by the time they are 4 years old. Why? Because they are not chewing raw bones which clean their teeth. Dog food comes in kibble which doesn't clean the teeth.

Sorry to hijack this post about corn vs grains vs meal but the answer may lie in understanding a misconception about dog foods.

User avatar
Misskiwi67
Addicted to PBF
Posts: 10498
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 9:37 pm
Location: Iowa City, IA

Postby Misskiwi67 » Wed Nov 26, 2008 12:17 pm

No, I'm not a nutritionist, but I've got just as much "internet education" as anyone else on the board, as well as numerous hours of veterinary education.

There is an animal nutrition student on this board, maybe she can come in and add to this conversation since my education is not enough qualification for you.

User avatar
Misskiwi67
Addicted to PBF
Posts: 10498
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 9:37 pm
Location: Iowa City, IA

Postby Misskiwi67 » Wed Nov 26, 2008 12:23 pm

Red Brindle wrote:As far as dogs having similar digestive systems to humans, where did you hear that? The notion that somehow dogs digestive systems evolved since their domestication is not very convincing? Where and when did the selection happen that would give dogs with longer digestive systems an advantage? Or cause dogs with short digestive systems to not reproduce?


Um after countless hours of comparative anatomy, veterinary anatomy and surgery I've learned something... dogs do NOT have short digestive systems. They may not have a fermenting digestive system like that seen in true herbivores, but their cecum (an organ primarily for herbivorous purposes) is actually LARGER than humans, and their intestinal length is equivalent to many known omnivores, including humans, pigs, bears, racoons and many others.

Do you think dogs scavenging in ancient cities had large amounts of access to meat? Meat was a hot commodity during ancient times, and not something dogs would be getting a lot of unless they happened to be owned by the wealthy.

User avatar
Misskiwi67
Addicted to PBF
Posts: 10498
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 9:37 pm
Location: Iowa City, IA

Postby Misskiwi67 » Wed Nov 26, 2008 12:29 pm

Red Brindle wrote:Also, evolution does not happen over a few hundred years, it happens over millions? The amount of time that dogs have been domesticated is not even a blink of an eye on an evolutionary timeline. Sorry to offend any users who do not believe in evolution.


Last post before I head off to work.

If you read up on the african cichlids of lake Tanganyika, you will learn that under times of incredible stress (such as the introduction of a highly predatory species and population decimation) animals can evolve AND speciate in a rather short period of time. Speciation has been documented in the african cichlids over the coarse of the past 30 years or so. The few THOUSAND years since the domestication of the canine is more than enough time for their digestive system to make some minor adaptations of chemical processes.

User avatar
Red Brindle
Adolescent Bully
Posts: 213
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 1:01 pm
Location: Washington DC

Postby Red Brindle » Wed Nov 26, 2008 5:47 pm

Misskiwi67 wrote:
Red Brindle wrote:As far as dogs having similar digestive systems to humans, where did you hear that? The notion that somehow dogs digestive systems evolved since their domestication is not very convincing? Where and when did the selection happen that would give dogs with longer digestive systems an advantage? Or cause dogs with short digestive systems to not reproduce?


Um after countless hours of comparative anatomy, veterinary anatomy and surgery I've learned something... dogs do NOT have short digestive systems. They may not have a fermenting digestive system like that seen in true herbivores, but their cecum (an organ primarily for herbivorous purposes) is actually LARGER than humans, and their intestinal length is equivalent to many known omnivores, including humans, pigs, bears, racoons and many others.

Do you think dogs scavenging in ancient cities had large amounts of access to meat? Meat was a hot commodity during ancient times, and not something dogs would be getting a lot of unless they happened to be owned by the wealthy.


This website offers a different viewpoint. http://ezinearticles.com/?A-Dogs-Digest ... &id=961376
A dog's digestive system is a highly specialized anatomical structure. To gain an understanding of how it operates and what it requires it helps if you understand how it compares to the other types of digestive systems in the animal kingdom.

Herbivores (plant eaters) have the longest digestive tract in the mammalian kingdom. Some of them like, cows have multiple stomachs that are used to break down and ferment various plant materials. True herbivores have the ability to digest plant and vegetable cellulose and can rely on plants for complete nutrition. They have flat blunt teeth, which they use to grind cellulose and grain. Their jaws have the ability to move sideways and grind their food. Of course dogs don't fall in this category and their digestive organs were never designed to assimilate or catabolise plant based materials.

Omnivores: (plant and meat eaters) have one stomach and their intestines are shorter than the cow but longer than the dog. They have the ability to digest vegetation but they have enough enzymes and acid in their gut to digest animal protein as well. Their ability to break down cellulose is limited and they need both vegetation and animal protein for complete nutrition. Omnivores have a combination of sharp teeth used for tearing and ripping flesh and flat molars used for grinding grains and plants.

Carnivores: (meat eaters) like the dog has the shortest digestive system in the kingdom of mammals. Their jaws are hinged and contain sharp jagged blade like molars, which allows them to swallow large chunks of meat and gorge themselves. This ability enables dogs to consume a great deal of food and then rest until the next kill. Dogs are direct decedents of the wolf and they require meat protein to stay healthy and vibrant. Dogs do not have the ability to digest or assimilate cellulose and have no real need or craving for grain or vegetable based food.

The dog is a carnivore with a digestive system and process designed to break down and assimilate protein, bones, and fat. Their stomachs have a much higher level of hydrochloric acid to digest and assimilate meat protein.

Many commercial grade dog foods are produced on the premise that a dog's digestion is similar to humans. Because it's cheaper to make dog food with grains and plant materials many times the main ingredient in the dog food is corn, wheat, or some other type of plant-based carbohydrate.

Many veterinarians believe commercial grade dog food is garbage or even poison. Some of them have stated carbohydrates are not required at all for the nutritional need of dogs. It's not hard to understand if you consider a wolf will starve before it will eat corn or any other vegetable. Dogs require a vast array of amino acids that are only found in meat. To feed them vegetable products will only shorten their life and ruin their health.

msvette2u

Postby msvette2u » Wed Nov 26, 2008 5:58 pm

The dog is a carnivore with a digestive system and process designed to break down and assimilate protein, bones, and fat. Their stomachs have a much higher level of hydrochloric acid to digest and assimilate meat protein.

While the hydrochloric acid can help break down protein, it does not "assimilate" it, that's what we (and dogs) have digestive enzymes for.
I hope that is what you meant.

http://books.google.com/books?id=aqeCwx ... t#PPR16,M1

Unlike obligate carnivores, dogs CAN derive nutrition from other things that just meat, including grains.
http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/dog/ca ... ivore.html

User avatar
Red Brindle
Adolescent Bully
Posts: 213
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 1:01 pm
Location: Washington DC

Postby Red Brindle » Wed Nov 26, 2008 6:03 pm

Misskiwi67 wrote:
Red Brindle wrote:Also, evolution does not happen over a few hundred years, it happens over millions? The amount of time that dogs have been domesticated is not even a blink of an eye on an evolutionary timeline. Sorry to offend any users who do not believe in evolution.


Last post before I head off to work.

If you read up on the african cichlids of lake Tanganyika, you will learn that under times of incredible stress (such as the introduction of a highly predatory species and population decimation) animals can evolve AND speciate in a rather short period of time. Speciation has been documented in the african cichlids over the coarse of the past 30 years or so. The few THOUSAND years since the domestication of the canine is more than enough time for their digestive system to make some minor adaptations of chemical processes.


My opinion on this one isn't going to come from internet research since my girlfriend is a published author on fish genetics and I went to school for marine science.

Cichlids are a completely different case. These species differenciated due to biological barriers that necessitated finding new food sources to survive. They had to change to survive. Dogs survived based on their ability to co-exist with humans. The ones who were less shy then proved to be good guards flourished. Others remained in the wild.

Cichlids live for 3 years and have thousands of eggs more (it may be in the millions I don't specifically remember) which offers a lot more chance for mutations to occur to evolve quickly as needed. Mammals cannot evolve nearly as close. I don't think such a comparison is appropriate. I also am unsure where the selection happened that made dogs that could digest grains better happened. Most dogs aren't going to die from eating grains, it is just going to make them live longer and have more health problems. The only thing that mattered was if they were friendly to humans and barked when intruders apprached. They would live long enough to reproduce.

I am not trying to turn this into an argument about who knows more or what, but I FEEL VERY STRONGLY THAT THE MAJORITY OF KIBBLE OUT THERE IS BAD FOR DOGS AND THE CAUSE OF MANY HEALTH PROBLEMS. People should be aware of this.

msvette2u

Postby msvette2u » Wed Nov 26, 2008 6:08 pm

Well that debate has been beat to death and discussed into the ground around here, if you check the old threads :thumbsup:
So yes, we're aware of that opinion.

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

Postby starrlamia » Wed Nov 26, 2008 6:09 pm

it's true though, that most vets are not educated enough in animal nutrition to be able to educate their patients.
I dont know what kind of training misskiwi has so I cant comment on her.
I just assume most vets have little idea what they are talking about when it comes to nutrition as most Ive been too try and sell me science diet.

User avatar
texturejunkie
Newborn Bully
Posts: 51
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2008 8:20 pm
Location: Halifax, NS, Canada

Postby texturejunkie » Wed Nov 26, 2008 9:12 pm

<b>a vet selling food is a conflict of interest.</b>

think about it .. if you had diabetes, would you buy precooked - packaged food from your family doctor?
when was the last time your vet told you to "feed fresh foods in a wide variety" .. thats what our doctors tell us. im assuming if doctors started selling prescription food for people, that they would also stop telling us things like that. they may even go so far as to belittle you when you have the nerve to ask "can i make my own food?"

with low end ingredients such as ; meat by-products, artificial colors / flavors & preservatives, glutens and saw dust (powdered cellulose) there is just no explanation that could convince me to trust their judgment .. ever.

vets that sell any of the big name foods should be ignored on all issues regarding diet / nutrition. proof of this can be found in the difference between Hill's prescription diet and Hill's Science diet (vet line vs retail line) in the retail line they primarily use vitamin e as the preservative. in the vet line they primarily if not solely use bha or bht. why would any educated person ever think to feed such things to animals we call family .. or any animal at all for that matter.

User avatar
Misskiwi67
Addicted to PBF
Posts: 10498
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 9:37 pm
Location: Iowa City, IA

Postby Misskiwi67 » Thu Nov 27, 2008 12:33 am

Last time I checked there were a lot of frustrated doctors in my family who would LOVE to force people to eat right by providing pre-packaged meals. Yes, fresh is better, but avoiding innapropriate foods is even better yet.


Return to “Health Issues”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests