New High Protein Kibbles; Good for Your Dog?

I've pointed this out before and now Mudpuppy has found us a report to "verify" what mushers already knew from their vets. #1, the metabolism of sled dog breeds is different than other breeds. #2 the life of a working or competitive sled dog is vastly different than other dogs. The feeding is different because of the specific needs and life of the sled dog. Generally, in competition, the dogs will be fed a hig protein/fat kibble or cooked or raw or a combination thereof. One of the fastest teams in the Iditarod fed Eagle Power and fish or seal. Nutro has a working dog formula called High Energy. There's another racing food that I could recommend even more or along side these and thats Momentum, developed by a vet, (yes, people a vet, who cares for animals) who races and feeds sleddogs, himself. One of his popular formulas is 35/27 protein/fat.
 
Generally, what I have found, is any protein percentage higher than 25 is pretty high but anything higher than 30 is in the working dog range. Sleddogs, averaging 45 to 65 lbs are pulling approx 4 times their own weight at 20 mph for 40 miles at a whack in harness on a gangline pulling a sled loaded with supplies and sometimes human in -30 to -70 F in some of the most rugged, unforgiving terrain this planet has to offer, and some of the nastiest weather. Both dogs and humans are trained athletes. In a race, the dogs are monitored at each rest stop. The easiest way, if possible, is to analyze stool sample. They don't poop much on the trail, as they are using every ounce of energy that comes their way, which is a trait peculiar to Siberian Huskies. They may lower or increase the protein/fat ratio, depending. It is said, coming off a run, you can sink your fingers into the fur near their skin and it feels like you've put your hands near a hot burner. Mushers, and some other people who handle working dogs, when they go off season and out of competition, also drop the protein/fat ratio in the feed. The dogs do systemically better by having their feed adjusted depending on their workload. Also, protein and fat burn quickly. Carbs are stored energy that helps them to keep going until the next rest stop.
 
This is a little different than the life of a Min-Pin. However, I think small or toy breeds can benefit from a high protein feed because they simply can't eat a lot at any one time and having the higher protein food helps to make sure their getting enough when they do eat.
 

I've pointed this out before and now Mudpuppy has found us a report to "verify" what mushers already knew from their vets. #1, the metabolism of sled dog breeds is different than other breeds. #2 the life of a working or competitive sled dog is vastly different than other dogs.

 The life style of a wolf is also much more physically demanding than a pet dog's; they are exposed to the weather all the time and have to hunt which requires a great deal of energy. The high protein kibbles are supposed to simulate a wolve's diet but our dogs probably don't need the protein and fat that wolves do.

I have to agree that comparing the average dog to a sled dog or a wolf is not a comparison at all - I also think that most pet dogs just don't expend enough energy and most of their owners just feed a set portion regardless of which food they feed.  I think that allowing these people to go in and buy super high protein foods is probably not a great idea.  That said I think most foods should be in the 24-30% range with less filler.  Last observation is that just as my husband needs/desires more protein than I do some dogs need more protein than others.
I am amazed at how well Bugsy is doing since we supplement his diet with meat/fish.  Bugsy is naturally lean & muscular and it is easy to see that on kibble alone he is hungrier, poops more, and is less settled.  Add some meat or fish to his evening meal and there is no doubt he is MUCH more content and there is a significant decrease in poop.  To my educated but not scientific mind his body needs that extra protein and he uses it more efficiently than he does kibble - even premium kibble.

As for Great Dane lady I enjoy her site but it does have a feel of being supported by EP and the makers of the Nzyme/Oxy whatever.   Perhaps she gets free product or whatever - doesn't override the excellent info she has there.  I would be less inclined to believe she was getting kickbacks if she listed any other food in her visible list -  I know she provides a link to others but the HIGH visibility of EP and the logo etc gives one the feel of a relationship.  And that is wonderful for her and a non- issue for me however if I felt the need to rely on someone else's opinion for my decisions I would feel that only EP would do.

Let me preface my post by saying that this is a friendly exchange of ideas.  No comment is meant as a personal attack.
 

I have to agree that comparing the average dog to a sled dog or a wolf is not a comparison at all - I also think that most pet dogs just don't expend enough energy and most of their owners just feed a set portion regardless of which food they feed.

ORIGINAL: kpwlee

It appears that all of this analysis is ignoring quantity of food.  If the high protein kibbles are good for sled dog super athletes and good for toy breeds, with quantity adjusted for size and activity level, what makes them unhealthy for healthy, moderately active dogs in between? 
 
Is it unhealthy for a erson who runs 4 miles a day to eat the same diet, adjusted for activity level, as one who runs 20 miles a day?  I am not a nutritionist but my guess is no.
 

 I think that allowing these people to go in and buy super high protein foods is probably not a great idea.

ORIGINAL: kpwlee

Do you feel the same about "allowing" people to buy super low protein foods?  Should one need a license to buy high protein kibble?
 
From  [linkhttp://www.dogfoodproject.com/index.php?page=protein_myth]www.dogfoodproject.com/index.php?page=protein_myth[/link]
 
"Many people cite old, outdated research that claims high protein percentages in the food are harmful to dogs and do all kinds of damage, especially to the liver. Fact is that these studies were conducted by feeding dogs foods that were made from poor quality, hard to digest protein sources, such as soy, corn, byproducts, blood meal and so on. From my explanation above, you now already know that it is a question of protein quality that affects the kidneys."
 
From [linkhttp://www.dogfoodproject.com/index.php?page=myths]www.dogfoodproject.com/index.php?page=myths[/link]
 
"There is a difference between a carnivorous scavenger and an omnivore though - dogs lack the dental characteristics, longer digestive tract and specific enzymes of true omnivores like humans"
 

Many people cite old, outdated research that claims high protein percentages in the food are harmful to dogs and do all kinds of damage, especially to the liver

 
The question involved is about protein's effect on the kidneys, rather than the liver.
 
And regardless of the studies, mushers adjust the diet according to workload. The dogs perform better and are healthier that way, as well as the weather. Sleddogs in warm weather, not working, hardly eat at all, conserving energy and trying not to build up too much heat.
 
So, I may agree that a study involving sleddogs may not have much in common with regular dogs but it can certainly offer a contrast that can be helpful.
 

The question involved is about protein's effect on the kidneys, rather than the liver.

ORIGINAL: ron2

From the same page previously referenced
 
"Protein is processed in the liver and any waste materials are filtered and excreted by the kidneys. High quality protein does not generate large amounts of waste that needs to be removed from the body, but poor quality protein which is difficult to digest does and thus puts stress on the kidneys."

I would be less inclined to believe she was getting kickbacks if she listed any other food in her visible list -  I know she provides a link to others but the HIGH visibility of EP and the logo etc gives one the feel of a relationship. 

 
There IS a high visibility of EP,,,but she also DOES list the other recommended foods...more than ten now....and the links to them.  What more can she do? She believes in Eagle and talks about it all the time...she said she was involved in the trail tests and much to do with the planning of the forumala for large/giant breeds which is why she suggests them. But does put out a list of other recommended companies and the criterial for which she chooses them.  That list does change also.
Personally for me,,,I have a Great Dane...so I'm an Eagle Pack girl. I find it wonderful to believe that someone that raised generations of my breed, are out there working to make the health  and life extension of this breed better. BUT I also appreciate her website for other breeds as she has studied nutrition.  Is she always right???  Who knows? But are the others? We don't know that either.

While I highly respect Lillian's (Mordanna) knowledge and all the research she has done, not everything on her site is complete OR 100% right.
 
For example:
From her site [linkhttp://www.dogfoodproject.com/index.php?page=badingredients]http://www.dogfoodproject.com/index.php?page=badingredients[/link]

A colorless viscous hygroscopic liquid, CH3CHOHCH2OH, used in antifreeze solutions, in hydraulic fluids, and as a solvent.
 

 
While this ingredient may be used in some antifreeze, it's also used in many human products.
 
[linkhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propylene_glycol]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propylene_glycol[/link]

Safety
The [linkhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_and_Drug_Administration]Food and Drug Administration[/link] (FDA) has determined propylene glycol to be "[linkhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generally_recognized_as_safe]generally recognized as safe[/link]" for use in food, cosmetics, and medicines. Like [linkhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethylene_glycol]ethylene glycol[/link], propylene glycol affects the body's chemistry by increasing the amount of acid. Propylene glycol is metabolized into [linkhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactic_acid]lactic acid[/link], which occurs naturally as muscles are exercised, while ethylene glycol is metabolized into [linkhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxalic_acid]oxalic acid[/link], which is toxic.

 
Heres some more info:
[linkhttp://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts96.html]http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts96.html[/link]

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has classified propylene glycol as an additive that is "generally recognized as safe" for use in food. It is used to absorb extra water and maintain moisture in certain medicines, cosmetics, or food products. It is a solvent for food colors and flavors.

 
As I said, not everything is complete. She could have explained further about this, but instead she chose to instill fear because this is an ingredient SHE doesn't feel comfortable with.
The medical industry even uses it in the formulation of medicines.
 

Solvents are frequently used as vehicles for experimental drugs and/or plant extracts that cannot be dissolved in water or saline. Among solvents, propylene glycol (PPG) is fairly commonly used in experimental pharmacology and toxicology. PPG is also often used as excipient in injectable formulations including anxiolytics

 
Now, personally, I don't care to use this type of ingredient in my dogs food, but I would not be worried about an occasional "treat" if it had PPG in it.
I guess my point is, just because someone has written it, doesn't make it so. You should do your research, put it all together, and do what your comfortable with.
 
Many will probably disagree with me and that's ok, BUT, according to my research (and the NRC and several veterinary nutritionist), a regular, everyday, pet dog does not *NEED* >30% protein.
 
 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propylene_glycol
quote:

Safety
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has determined propylene glycol to be "generally recognized as safe" for use in food, cosmetics, and medicines. Like ethylene glycol, propylene glycol affects the body's chemistry by increasing the amount of acid. Propylene glycol is metabolized into lactic acid, which occurs naturally as muscles are exercised, while ethylene glycol is metabolized into oxalic acid, which is toxic. ORIGINAL: kennel_keeper

The US FDA has a history of approving unsafe food additives for human consumption (such as Aspartame) as well as unsafe prescription drugs (Vioxx).  The past decade has seen many industry lobbyists/advocates hired as regulators in several US agencies.
 
 [linkhttp://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0523-02.htm]www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0523-02.htm[/link]

Reguardless, you (generally speaking) can't completely trust every source (as you have pointed out). She (Mordanna) chose to list it as an ingredient to avoid, but failed to adequately inform her readers based on HER reasoning. She chose to only refer to it as an ingredient in antifreeze, but failed to mention all the other uses AND that it is NOT the toxic ingredient Ethylene Glycol that most people associate with antifreeze poisoning.
 
Now, this has nothing to do with the OP, so I won't elaborate, it was just used as an example as to the "completeness" of the information on a site you selected to use. Can it be trusted? Maybe, but it's NOT based on scientific fact 110%. I'm sure that some of what is listed there IS based (maybe even without knowing it) on her opinion and beliefs. When a person strongly believes in something (with a passion) it can cloud judgement and limit your ability to separate facts and list them without bias.
 
I'm not arguing that a higher protein kibble is not a good choice for some dogs (they're all different), but my main argument is the original statement that foods with less than 30% protein can cause injury or limit a dogs ability to gain or maintain lean muscle. This is simply NOT true for MOST dogs. Think about it, if this were the case, wouldn't the NRC, AAFCO, and all the dog food companies be aware of this fact and use it to their advantage? I'll bet they would.
 
We are a bunch of lay-people with lot's of opinions and we simply should not make those types of statements as fact without basis. Personally, I like Mordanna's site. I do feel she has done an excellent job of bringing awareness and I do use it and refer to it. It's just not a complete resource.

I think her site is wonderful but I htink putting the EP logo and a list of what to feed that ONLY includes EP,  with as you say an embedded LESS visible link to a list of other companies not foods, has an air of being supported by EP.
Like I said I've got no problem with supporting EP and most people that run a website have some support via affiliate programs et al so no big deal
I have a dane mix and because of her site had him on EP but he turned out to have a viscious allergy to eggs and I had to take him off it.  I believe it to be great food
I made no assertion that she was right or wrong about anything just that she has some level of symbiotic relationship with EP

I'm sure that some of what is listed there IS based (maybe even without knowing it) on her opinion and beliefs. When a person strongly believes in something (with a passion) it can cloud judgement and limit your ability to separate facts and list them without bias.

ORIGINAL: kennel_keeper

I agree. 

I do not think nutrition is an exact science since you are dealing with living beings, human, canine or whatever.  Like doctors or veternarians, nutritionists opinions and philosophies vary on any number of topics.

not going to get into a big exchange here -I said that most people feed a set portion regardless of food ( my neighbor says she always feeds 2.5 cps) - you say if adjusted for size & activity - two different comments entirely I hope you see the difference
I then said that allowing the above dog owner to go purchase high protein, high calorie food isn't a great idea - said nothing about making it illegal or needing a license to do so.  Just saying that the owner of said dog that feeds 2.5 cps of Iams then decides to buy super food with 580 cal/cp and 40% protein and feeds 2.5 cps of that to their inactive pet isn't ideal.

as i began I'm not interested in debating these points especially if they are manipulated - I'm no expert and I am not an argumentative person nor am I a canine dietician/nutritionist.  I am capabale of understanding that just as with humans different dogs have different needs and it is good to have a vast variety and also a wide range of prices as not everyone can afford $50 for 30lbs of food.

Well said
 and an excellent point.

A side-effect of consuming animal protein is the release of nitrogen. When the kidneys can't handle the nitrogen load, a diet that is lower in animal protein is often prescribed. Such was the case for my old cat, Misty. When she was 16, she was suffering from diminished kidney function aggravated by the nitrogen load of the animal protein in Purina's DeliCat. So, he had me feed her Purina NF, where the NFE's are greater than the animal proteins. Her liver wasn't the problem, her kidneys were. The exception I was taking to your quoted text was that it did not accurately reflect what I had learned about animal protein and kidneys due to direct experience and what I learned from my vet. And please, don't take this the wrong way but my vet has been in practice for about as long as I have been alive and yet, was able to explain it to me. But the quote text struck me as a bit off the mark. But I do appreciate you sourcing your info.