"Dogs need by products"-Vet

Talk about diets, exercise, and disease.

Re: "Dogs need by products"-Vet

Postby El_EmDubya » Fri Aug 12, 2011 12:58 pm

kagnew wrote:Yeesh - sorry. There I go. I just feel so passionately about this issue. I absolutely respect (most) vets. They have a great deal of very expensive education and (most) care passionately about animals. I absolutely defer to their expertise and experience when my pets are ill or injured. But I do not apologize for the fact that I have a real problem with the peddling of poor quality nutrition.


Ditto.

I now consider most vets as disease managers rather than health providers as too much of their training focuses on managing disease rather than providing optimal health. It is, unfortunately, the same issue with MDs.
User avatar
El_EmDubya
Bully Lover 4 Life
 
Posts: 1367
Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 6:21 pm
Location: Today? Overlooking Alcatraz or the French Alps

Re: "Dogs need by products"-Vet

Postby Misskiwi67 » Fri Aug 12, 2011 1:21 pm

kagnew wrote:The problem was (and still is) that those problems have become the "norm." Most dogs seem to have the same issues to varying degrees and we just accept it. They're dogs. They stink. They have bad breath and itchy skin and rotten teeth and stinky ears and they get cancer and have all manner of "people type" diseases... We accept these things as a natural progression in the lives of our dogs. (Well, some of us do anyway.) Poor nutrition people!!!

My oldest Pug will be 15 in February. He has been raw fed for 4 years. He is virtually odorless. Thick, velvety, glossy coat. He has fewer teeth than he started with, but the ones he has look good and work fine. I don't bathe my dogs. At all. The last time I bathed one of my dogs was 2 years ago when our Lab, Bear (RIP) was skunked. People stop us out in public and ask why our dogs don't smell and how we get their coats so soft and touchable.

Yeesh - sorry. There I go. I just feel so passionately about this issue. I absolutely respect (most) vets. They have a great deal of very expensive education and (most) care passionately about animals. I absolutely defer to their expertise and experience when my pets are ill or injured. But I do not apologize for the fact that I have a real problem with the peddling of poor quality nutrition.

Donning flame-retardant suit and stepping off (no climbing down from) my soapbox...


No need for a flame retardent suit... these types of stories are why I WILL someday feed my dogs a raw diet. You are right that smelly old tumor-covered dogs are the norm, and if we can do better I want to know about it. Right now there isn't any research out there, and its possible dogs like yours COULD be the new norm. Its also possible your dog has never been obese and is aging well because of your good care. But nobody knows for sure yet, and the scientist in me needs to know for sure before I recommend something. Until then, I'll keep speaking out for the craziness and quietly watching and learning when sound reasonable advice is given, and there's plenty of both to go around here.

Someday I will have the freezer space and money to feed my dogs a raw diet. I will feed the crazy expensive pre-packaged raw because I'm convinced I would do more harm than good. I'm currently eating re-hydrated chinese doused in mongolian sauce, with some sesame seeds on top to make it feel real. The dogs are better off with kibble than my cooking at the moment!
User avatar
Misskiwi67
Addicted to PBF
 
Posts: 10505
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 9:37 pm
Location: Iowa City, IA

Re: "Dogs need by products"-Vet

Postby Sarah » Fri Aug 12, 2011 1:56 pm

kagnew wrote:My oldest Pug will be 15 in February. He has been raw fed for 4 years. He is virtually odorless. Thick, velvety, glossy coat. He has fewer teeth than he started with, but the ones he has look good and work fine. I don't bathe my dogs. At all. The last time I bathed one of my dogs was 2 years ago when our Lab, Bear (RIP) was skunked. People stop us out in public and ask why our dogs don't smell and how we get their coats so soft and touchable.
.


But that means your dog was not raw fed until he was already elderly, so how much of his aging gracefully can really be attributed to his diet?

My dogs are kibble fed, and I don't bathe them for odor, unless it's odor caused by something they rolled in. I bathe them because I want them to look more clean for a show, or for the occasional flea infestation (no fleas this year! yay!); or just because I want clean dogs. It doesn't matter how good the diet is, anything gets dirty after awhile. Nice to knock the dust off once in awhile.
User avatar
Sarah
Dabbling Dog Coddler
 
Posts: 10396
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2003 1:21 am

Re: "Dogs need by products"-Vet

Postby El_EmDubya » Fri Aug 12, 2011 2:43 pm

Sarah wrote:But that means your dog was not raw fed until he was already elderly, so how much of his aging gracefully can really be attributed to his diet?


Actually QUITE a bit of aging can be slowed with a ketogenic diet, so the raw fed (Prey Model, esp) dogs do have quite a bit of science behind what we are seeing, as owners. From regulating hormones (cholesterol based) to maintaining protective brain structures, and CBF (Cerebral Blood Flow, google it!), ketogenic diets have been shown to have amazing results for those with Parkinson's disease, alzheimers, and other neurological disorders.

This low carb, high medium chain triglicerides (MCT) safety net carries through to the whole body and will likely be used by future human generations to minimize age and diet ("Metabolic Syndrome") related chronic diseases.

Here's some research for ya:

http://www.nutritionreview.org/library/mcts.php (MCTs)
[url]bms.ucsf.edu/sites/ucsf-bms.ixm.ca/files/varoninjillian_04072011.pdf[/url] (Diabetes)
[url]onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1471-4159.2010.06768.x/pdf[/url]
(cholesterol deficiency decrease synapse vesicle recycling)
[url]jcs.biologists.org/content/123/4/595.full.pdf[/url]
(Cholesterol and synapses)


Sarah wrote:My dogs are kibble fed, and I don't bathe them for odor, unless it's odor caused by something they rolled in. I bathe them because I want them to look more clean for a show, or for the occasional flea infestation (no fleas this year! yay!); or just because I want clean dogs. It doesn't matter how good the diet is, anything gets dirty after awhile. Nice to knock the dust off once in awhile.


I hear ya! Monte gets a bath every 10-14 days and he is a very clean dog, regardless.

LMW
User avatar
El_EmDubya
Bully Lover 4 Life
 
Posts: 1367
Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 6:21 pm
Location: Today? Overlooking Alcatraz or the French Alps

Re: "Dogs need by products"-Vet

Postby Sarah » Fri Aug 12, 2011 3:29 pm

El_EmDubya wrote:
Sarah wrote:But that means your dog was not raw fed until he was already elderly, so how much of his aging gracefully can really be attributed to his diet?


Actually QUITE a bit of aging can be slowed with a ketogenic diet, so the raw fed (Prey Model, esp) dogs do have quite a bit of science behind what we are seeing, as owners.

LMW


Doesn't really answer the question that the Pug used as anecdotal evidence was already a senior when he started the raw diet. So if the dog wasn't already showing a lot of signs of aging, it seems likely that the dog was lucky enough to inherit good longevity genes.

ie; if we're using humans as examples, my dad is 80 years old, and hasn't been a model of healthy lifestyle (though his girlfriend has him watching his diet a bit more, so he's lost a bit of weight). There's no mistaking him for a young man at this point, but when we walk together, he isn't any more tired from the walk than I am. I doubt anyone would take him for 80 if they didn't know that is his age. Mentally, he's sharp as ever. His parents both lived well into their 80's, and he will probably at least see 90. There is a strong component to genetics in longevity.
User avatar
Sarah
Dabbling Dog Coddler
 
Posts: 10396
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2003 1:21 am

Re: "Dogs need by products"-Vet

Postby El_EmDubya » Fri Aug 12, 2011 4:23 pm

Sarah wrote:
El_EmDubya wrote:
Sarah wrote:But that means your dog was not raw fed until he was already elderly, so how much of his aging gracefully can really be attributed to his diet?


Actually QUITE a bit of aging can be slowed with a ketogenic diet, so the raw fed (Prey Model, esp) dogs do have quite a bit of science behind what we are seeing, as owners.

LMW


Doesn't really answer the question that the Pug used as anecdotal evidence was already a senior when he started the raw diet. So if the dog wasn't already showing a lot of signs of aging, it seems likely that the dog was lucky enough to inherit good longevity genes.

ie; if we're using humans as examples, my dad is 80 years old, and hasn't been a model of healthy lifestyle (though his girlfriend has him watching his diet a bit more, so he's lost a bit of weight). There's no mistaking him for a young man at this point, but when we walk together, he isn't any more tired from the walk than I am. I doubt anyone would take him for 80 if they didn't know that is his age. Mentally, he's sharp as ever. His parents both lived well into their 80's, and he will probably at least see 90. There is a strong component to genetics in longevity.


Yes, epigenetics is definitely a factor in aging. I'm in the same position as you with a 70 year old mother who has six-pack abs and recently chopped down a 70 foot Maple tree her backyard, by herself. My father, on the otherhand, is an 80 year old with PD and AD. Both had similar diets, minus the copious amounts of coffee and sugar consumed by my father, but clearly there is more to aging than just lifestyle and diet.

My comment regarding ketogenic diets is an explanation of why those of us adopting mature/older dogs still seem to have amazing long-term results on Raw. IMHO a lot of this probably has to do with brain chemistry and managing inflammation. (Glucose as it is not the optimal food source for the brain, despite what scientists have previously believed. Science is an occupation of evolution, btw, and one must move with the most recent knowledge.)

We adopted Monte as a graying "mature" intact male. His dental and physical aging (skin condition and gray) put him in the ~5-7 y/o range according to 3 vets who saw him when we first got him. His current vet, who saw him then, now thinks he is 7-9, and we've had him for 6 years.

Every time we take him in for a chiro adjustment, she wants to change his age from 12ish to 7ish. I've laughed with/at her about this as she is firmly against Raw feeding and still doesn't believe in ketogenic diets. She attended vet school in the 80s and still under the belief that carbs are a good source of nutrition. (We like each other and the sparring over nutrition (and holistic medicine) and I sincerely appreciate all that she has taught me and thus contributed to Monte's health.)

These results are consistent within the circle of raw feeders I know and sadly we, with +10 y/o dogs, are now experiencing watching their non-Raw, high carb doggie friends age rapidly. Monte has lost two similarly aged PBs in the last 6 months and two other doggie friends are on a downward spiral. The PBs died of quickly spreading tumors, and the other two (Pug and lab mix) have degenerative spinal issues. All had high carb diets, with lots of treats and much love, exercise, and happiness in their lives.

(Yes, this is a small sample size, but when you expand this to the Raw feeders I know, we're all seeing the same thing.)

As you can probably guess, I'm concerned about the epigenetic issues in my family, specifically having PD on both sides. I admit I have been reading too much 8( , mostly nutrition and neurology journals. I am also in a doctoral program which means more research into the business of medicine. It is ugly out there, and I can only caution those under 40 to be careful about the foods they consume, the HFCS they and their children consume, and to be wary of those in science who align themselves with Big Business, profiting greatly as a result.

IMHO, along with all the industry cleaning we've experienced in the stock market, mortgage industry, and banking, we will also be facing waves of nutritional cleaning, where the links between marketing products and scientific prostitution will come to light.

The next 20 years are going to be bumpy, let me tell you! (I'm moving my money into gold, oil, and real estate... roflmao Hyper-inflation anyone? Gotta pay off that Debt somehow, right?)

LMW
User avatar
El_EmDubya
Bully Lover 4 Life
 
Posts: 1367
Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 6:21 pm
Location: Today? Overlooking Alcatraz or the French Alps

Re: "Dogs need by products"-Vet

Postby Sarah » Fri Aug 12, 2011 5:00 pm

El_EmDubya wrote:
Every time we take him in for a chiro adjustment, she wants to change his age from 12ish to 7ish. I've laughed with/at her about this as she is firmly against Raw feeding and still doesn't believe in ketogenic diets. She attended vet school in the 80s and still under the belief that carbs are a good source of nutrition. (We like each other and the sparring over nutrition (and holistic medicine) and I sincerely appreciate all that she has taught me and thus contributed to Monte's health.)


My friend has a crossbred (APBT/GSD would be my guess, maybe with a bit of this & that thrown in) bitch that she has owned for many years. She was adopted as an adult dog, who had probably had more than one litter of puppies. She is probably at least 15 now, but it's hard to say. She's another one where it kept seeming that she must be younger than originally assumed, until the point of ridiculousness. She has sometimes been fed raw, and sometimes kibble. More often kibble, of the higher quality varieties. (last I knew of, she was feeding TOTW, same as me) Even now, it would be hard to believe that a dog this size in that condition could be at least 15 years old.

I think for dogs that are blessed with the right genes for longevity, if they are removed from a neglectful home and given optimal care, they can actually seem to get younger.

For that matter, if we're looking at anecdotal evidence; at the veterinary hospital I used to work, we had a Golden Retriever that was the hospital dog. She'd been run over by a UPS truck, had no control of her bowels, and couldn't urinate. She lived at the vet hospital, was catheterized twice a day to void her bladder, and was fed Science Diet RD (which is pretty much sawdust) for her chronic weight problem, and because it rendered the stool dry and odorless which made it easy to clean up. Vaccinated annually, and received a slew of daily medication; primarily antibiotics to prevent infection from the constant catheterization. She lived to be 16. And that is a breed that is riddled with cancer. Obviously, the genetic components trumped all environmental components.

Which is why I'm uncomfortable with anecdotal evidence. Too easily skewed, and doesn't necessarily take into account all factors that are involved. If we look at the anecdotal evidence I was originally questioning; do we assume that a Pug is having a long healthy life because it's fed raw? Or do we assume that a Golden Retriever had a long cancer free life because she's fed peanut shells and vaccinated a lot?

Or do we go the more reasonable route of assuming there are probably factors at work besides the ones we are currently looking at?
User avatar
Sarah
Dabbling Dog Coddler
 
Posts: 10396
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2003 1:21 am

Re: "Dogs need by products"-Vet

Postby El_EmDubya » Fri Aug 12, 2011 5:11 pm

Sarah wrote:
Or do we go the more reasonable route of assuming there are probably factors at work besides the ones we are currently looking at?


So we agree that epigenetics are at play. :bowdown:

Given Monte has many markers for being a AB/Boxer/PB type mix, you can be certain that my choice of feeding him a raw ketogenic diet is also due to the cancerous possibilities in his future. I'm hoping to stack the deck in OUR favor as I want him around as long as possible.

(Oh, and you can be sure that I've increased my MCTs and decreased my carbs. I'm not technically Low Carb/High Fat, yet, but the more I read and the more that I look at our dogs, the more I'm heading that way.)

Like I said, we're in for some interesting times...and time will provide the answer.

LMW
User avatar
El_EmDubya
Bully Lover 4 Life
 
Posts: 1367
Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 6:21 pm
Location: Today? Overlooking Alcatraz or the French Alps

Re: "Dogs need by products"-Vet

Postby Apbt4life » Fri Aug 12, 2011 5:16 pm

Misskiwi67 wrote:Euthanized pets found in dog foods is a myth... there was a study over 10 years ago that DNA tested 20 of the most popular dog foods and found NO dog, cat or horse DNA in the foods. They did find other meats that weren't supposed to be there, like chicken in the beef food, but that was it.


by any chance do you have a link or article that may state that? cause this is a video of what i have found and read
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLaxXD8v ... re=related
after you see this video watch part two.
User avatar
Apbt4life
Matured Bully
 
Posts: 424
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 10:47 pm

Re: "Dogs need by products"-Vet

Postby kagnew » Sat Aug 13, 2011 8:51 am

BrokenAquarian wrote:
kagnew wrote:My oldest Pug will be 15 in February. He has been raw fed for 4 years. He is virtually odorless. Thick, velvety, glossy coat. He has fewer teeth than he started with, but the ones he has look good and work fine. I don't bathe my dogs. At all. The last time I bathed one of my dogs was 2 years ago when our Lab, Bear (RIP) was skunked. People stop us out in public and ask why our dogs don't smell and how we get their coats so soft and touchable.


That is so incredibly awesome and encouraging to me. :)
These two dogs are the first I've ever had on raw(over 3 years now) and I wonder about how they're going to hold over into old age. I don't have to bathe my dogs, nor do I have to use flea & tick products on them - I just pulled a flea off of Keela yesterday - So, I know they're around. They don't get infested at all.

I also wonder about dog joints and if lack of specific nutrients is directly aiding in all the problems you hear about.
I'd love to hear about long term raw(balanced) fed dogs and what health problems occured in their lifetimes.


I'll keep you posted! When I started Rudy was 11, Bear was 8 and our wee Ivy was 3 months old. (The whole thing started in response to Ivy coming down with Demodex.) Ivy will be the one to watch!

I did/do add joint supplements for the older guys. But Haggis (2) gets frozen chicken feet snacks regularly - great source of glucosamine. We'll see how things go for him.

And thanks for letting me stay on my soapbox. I enjoy the view from up here... ;-)
User avatar
kagnew
Newborn Bully
 
Posts: 161
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2011 3:53 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: "Dogs need by products"-Vet

Postby Misskiwi67 » Sat Aug 13, 2011 11:24 pm

Apbt4life wrote:
Misskiwi67 wrote:Euthanized pets found in dog foods is a myth... there was a study over 10 years ago that DNA tested 20 of the most popular dog foods and found NO dog, cat or horse DNA in the foods. They did find other meats that weren't supposed to be there, like chicken in the beef food, but that was it.


by any chance do you have a link or article that may state that? cause this is a video of what i have found and read
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLaxXD8v ... re=related
after you see this video watch part two.


I'm struggling to find the study, but here is the FDA report...
http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/CentersOffi ... 129131.htm
CVM scientists, as part of their investigation, developed a test to detect dog and cat DNA in the protein of the dog food. All samples from the most recent dog food survey (2000) that tested positive for pentobarbital, as well as a subset of samples that tested negative, were examined for the presence of remains derived from dogs or cats. The results demonstrated a complete absence of material that would have been derived from euthanized dogs or cats. The sensitivity of this method is 0.005% on a weight/weight basis; that is, the method can detect a minimum of 5 pounds of rendered remains in 50 tons of finished feed. Presently, it is assumed that the pentobarbital residues are entering pet foods from euthanized, rendered cattle or even horses.
User avatar
Misskiwi67
Addicted to PBF
 
Posts: 10505
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 9:37 pm
Location: Iowa City, IA

Re: "Dogs need by products"-Vet

Postby BrokenAquarian » Sun Aug 14, 2011 12:01 am

I'm not as bothered about if there were dogs and cats in pet food as I am about there actually being pentobarbital in the food.

How dangerous is that chemical to ingest on a daily, lifelong basis?
User avatar
BrokenAquarian
Addicted to PBF
 
Posts: 11184
Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2006 8:43 pm
Location: 39° 24′ 35″ N, 123° 21′ 20″ W

Re: "Dogs need by products"-Vet

Postby Odnarb » Sun Aug 14, 2011 12:02 am

Nutrition is like religion. Everybody is convinced that THEIR way is the right way, and everybody else is wrong. But, nobody REALLY knows for sure. Look how often nutritional information changes for humans!

Everybody needs to do what is best for their own dogs. Do the research, and do what is best for your family and your pets. Don't let anybody try to get you down because your way is the wrong way. Their way is going to be wrong for somebody, and it may be you.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk
User avatar
Odnarb
Regulator
 
Posts: 5603
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2003 3:01 am
Location: Northwest Iowa

Re: "Dogs need by products"-Vet

Postby Misskiwi67 » Sun Aug 14, 2011 2:56 am

BrokenAquarian wrote:I'm not as bothered about if there were dogs and cats in pet food as I am about there actually being pentobarbital in the food.

How dangerous is that chemical to ingest on a daily, lifelong basis?


The levels in pet foods were found to be at levels that were not considered to be an issue.

This was also a concern in 2001, and is no longer a concern. I don't believe they are even monitoring anymore? There are also articles from 2004 stating rendering plants in canada no longer accepted domestic pets or roadkill for processing due to concerns of the food companies... things really have changed a lot, and for the better, in the past 10 years.
User avatar
Misskiwi67
Addicted to PBF
 
Posts: 10505
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 9:37 pm
Location: Iowa City, IA

Re:

Postby AllisonPitbullLvr » Sun Aug 14, 2011 3:33 pm

Odnarb wrote:Nutrition is like religion. Everybody is convinced that THEIR way is the right way, and everybody else is wrong. But, nobody REALLY knows for sure. Look how often nutritional information changes for humans!

Everybody needs to do what is best for their own dogs. Do the research, and do what is best for your family and your pets. Don't let anybody try to get you down because your way is the wrong way. Their way is going to be wrong for somebody, and it may be you.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


:bowdown: :peace: :thumbsup: :clap

Exactly.
User avatar
AllisonPitbullLvr
Regulator
 
Posts: 6954
Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 10:21 am
Location: Onscario, Canada

PreviousNext

Return to Health Issues

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], Google [Bot], Yahoo [Bot] and 3 guests