New High Protein Kibbles; Good for Your Dog?

While dogs eat to meet their energy requirements, not all dogs are good at self-regulation of food intake. Dogs DO get fat from "overeating" or eating to much of the wrong types of foods, so to infer that "it is impossible for dogs to get fat from over ingesting calories." is just ludicrous IMHO.
Apparently, you have never had any experience with "glutton" dogs. My beagles, for instance, if given the chance would blow up like balloons if they were free-fed. They just don't know when they've had enough. My Chi's, on the other hand, are usually very good at consuming their "needs" and then quitting, although they are not free-fed either.
 
Your food maker (Abady, I believe you said earlier) has either made a grave mistatement or his statements has been misunderstood.

"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 have to disagree completely. I think the average pet dog should never ever be fed a high carbohydrate diet. Athletic dogs may have some need for carbohydrates, for energy; but your couch potato pet just turns it into body fat. Your average couch potato dog doesn't get enough exercise to build muscle, and thus badly needs a high protein diet to help maintain body muscle. Once body muscle starts to deteriorate, that is when injuries and joint problems start cropping up. I look around at the dog park dogs and at a glance you can tell which ones eat mostly grains. Even if they aren't fat they have this saggy wasted look compared to dogs fed higher protein diets.
Most nutrition studies are done at the extremes-- racing greyhounds, hard working sled dogs, growing giant breeds. It doesn't mean the results are not valid for your pet. We know that we can cripple a giant breed puppy by feeding excess calcium; we know that if you feed a small breed puppy excess calcium you probably won't see overt symptoms, but still, it seems unlikely that feeding excess calcium during the growth of any puppy is good for that puppy. You may think your pet dog is doing ok on a 22% protein diet, but when he blows out his ACL, maybe, just maybe, it's due in large part to his low protein diet. What about when your dog develops hip dysplasia at age 5? Could you have prevented it by feeding a low-calcium puppy food, and then fed a low-carb/high protein diet as an adult?  many folks think so.
 

ORIGINAL: kennel_keeper

While dogs eat to meet their energy requirements, not all dogs are good at self-regulation of food intake. Dogs DO get fat from "overeating" or eating to much of the wrong types of foods, so to infer that "it is impossible for dogs to get fat from over ingesting calories." is just ludicrous IMHO.
Apparently, you have never had any experience with "glutton" dogs. My beagles, for instance, if given the chance would blow up like balloons if they were free-fed. They just don't know when they've had enough. My Chi's, on the other hand, are usually very good at consuming their "needs" and then quitting, although they are not free-fed either.

Your food maker (Abady, I believe you said earlier) has either made a grave mistatement or his statements has been misunderstood.

 
Yes, eating the wrong types of food...
 
It is a scientific fact that dogs consume only the amount of food needed to deliver the number of calories they require. Calories are the body's fuel, they needed to fuel growth and reproduction. Animals must receive the number of calories they require to run all of their bodily functions and to fuel the production of all of its tissues and processes. When energy is undersupplied in a ration, the body will use the energy reserved for tissue-building to make up for the shortfall, potentially damaging the body.
A self-regulating mechanism prevents dogs from ingesting more calories than they require over the long-haul. Based on these incontestable scientific facts, how can dogs become obese as a result of the over ingestion of calories. Obviously, they cannot.
 
Quote above taken from Abady article "Obesity in Dogs"...found here:  [link>http://www.geocities.com/abadysingapore/weight_reduction.htm]http://www.geocities.com/abadysingapore/weight_reduction.htm[/link][/size]
 
 
 
 

ORIGINAL: cc431
It is a scientific fact that dogs consume only the amount of food needed to deliver the number of calories they require.

the dogs in this study must be a lot different than most of the dogs people i know have as pets. the dogs i know (mine included) will gorge themselves on food if given the opportunity. there have been several people posting on this forum who have commented that their dog got into their bag of kibble and gorged themselves.

Some of the canned foods that Merrick makes are certified as being "Low Glycemic" by the Glycemic Researsch Institute;http://www.merrickpetcare.com/store/detail.php?c=15&s=20311; why is that apparently a good thing for dogs?

ORIGINAL: jessies_mom

Dogs can become diabetic and (obviously) can get fat.  
 
There are genetic factors that predispose some people and dogs to developing diabetes but a diet that causes glucose and insulin spikes (i.e. one with a high glycemic index) can contribute to that as well.  In addition high glucose and insulin levels signal the body to convert sugars to stored fat.
 
The glycemic index is a rating of how rapidly a particular carbohydrate turns into glucose.

the dogs i know (mine included) will gorge themselves on food if given the opportunity.

ORIGINAL: cyclefiend2000

I find Robert Abady's article interesting but I also somewhat disagree with this.  I think opportunistic, carnivorous scavengers ( [linkhttp://www.dogfoodproject.com/index.php?page=myths]www.dogfoodproject.com/index.php?page=myths[/link] ) is the most accurate description.  Scavengers are programmed to "get while the getting is good" and therefore have a tendency to gorge themselves when the opportunity presents itself.
 
Just guessing but he may be implying (shooting in the dark here) that dogs who are regularly fed sufficient quantities of quality animal protein (e.g. raw fed) are not likely to gorge (significantly) if given the opportunity.

ORIGINAL: cc431

ORIGINAL: kennel_keeper

While dogs eat to meet their energy requirements, not all dogs are good at self-regulation of food intake. Dogs DO get fat from "overeating" or eating to much of the wrong types of foods, so to infer that "it is impossible for dogs to get fat from over ingesting calories." is just ludicrous IMHO.
Apparently, you have never had any experience with "glutton" dogs. My beagles, for instance, if given the chance would blow up like balloons if they were free-fed. They just don't know when they've had enough. My Chi's, on the other hand, are usually very good at consuming their "needs" and then quitting, although they are not free-fed either.

Your food maker (Abady, I believe you said earlier) has either made a grave mistatement or his statements has been misunderstood.

Yes, eating the wrong types of food...

It is a scientific fact that dogs consume only the amount of food needed to deliver the number of calories they require. Calories are the body's fuel, they needed to fuel growth and reproduction. Animals must receive the number of calories they require to run all of their bodily functions and to fuel the production of all of its tissues and processes. When energy is undersupplied in a ration, the body will use the energy reserved for tissue-building to make up for the shortfall, potentially damaging the body.
A self-regulating mechanism prevents dogs from ingesting more calories than they require over the long-haul. Based on these incontestable scientific facts, how can dogs become obese as a result of the over ingestion of calories. Obviously, they cannot.
 
Quote above taken from Abady article "Obesity in Dogs"...found here:  [link>http://www.geocities.com/abadysingapore/weight_reduction.htm]http://www.geocities.com/abadysingapore/weight_reduction.htm[/link][/size]
 
 
 
 

Bologna.  Have you every met a lab?

I've mentioned this before, but I'll mention it again.  I believe that some low quality foods are "maintenance" foods.  They contain the bare minimum of nutritients for the average dog.  Some dogs are not average and need more than the bare minimum.  Case in point: I've met quite a few desparate pit, rot, and mastif owners.  They were having problems putting weight on their dogs.  Most of them were rescues.  All of them were feeding low quality foods (Pedigree, Dog Chow).  After alot of trial and error with dog foods (first Diamond with no success) I thought well maybe these dogs need a food with all the bells and whistles, so I recommend Eagle Pack Holistic Chicken.  It worked for all of these dogs.  And some become overwieght after a month or so.

Maybe a dog in the wild would not overconsume calories, but a dog in captivity will. Maybe what your particular study is trying to say is:  all dogs consume calories as though they burned calories as they would in the wild.

As for the topic of this post.

I've always questioned high protien/no grain foods.  I would not feed my dog a high protien/no grain diet, until someone with a degree in veterinary nutrition can prove to me that such an extreme diet is good for my dog for long periods of time.

Yes I know that dog's do not eat grain in the wild, but the rabbit and rats he would eat do and it is proven that the first thing a dog rips into once it's made a kill is the guts, where all the grains that that critter ate are undigested.

And, to a reasonable point, I do believe that dogs have been living along side humans long enough that their bodies have evolved to better digest grains, not better than meat, but better than a wolf can digest grains.

Don't misunderstand me.  I do believe that dogs should eat more meat than grains.  But I'm one of those people that do not believe that dogs are true carnivors.  They are omnivors that need more meat than grains in their diet.

ORIGINAL: DakotasDoode

I find Robert Abady's article interesting but I also somewhat disagree with this.  I think opportunistic, carnivorous scavengers ( [linkhttp://www.dogfoodproject.com/index.php?page=myths]www.dogfoodproject.com/index.php?page=myths[/link] ) is the most accurate description.  Scavengers are programmed to "get while the getting is good" and therefore have a tendency to gorge themselves when the opportunity presents itself.

Just guessing but he may be implying (shooting in the dark here) that dogs who are regularly fed sufficient quantities of quality animal protein (e.g. raw fed) are not likely to gorge (significantly) if given the opportunity.

i think that is too far a leap to make scientifically speaking. at least without some scientific evidence to back it up. otherwise wouldnt dog owners be more inclined to free feed if this were the case? i know some dogs may do ok being free fed, but most will not. many dogs, even though they are fed on a pretty strict schedule, will still try to grab a bite from the counter or food that is dropped on the floor.

i think there is too much antecdotal evidence (to the contrary) to refute what mr. abady  is claiming as scientific fact.

The glycemic index is a rating of how rapidly a particular carbohydrate turns into glucose

 
  Thanks; I didn't know that. []

Yes I know that dog's do not eat grain in the wild, but the rabbit and rats he would eat do and it is proven that the first thing a dog rips into once it's made a kill is the guts, where all the grains that that critter ate are undigested.

ORIGINAL: jojo the pogo

They are not "undigested" as in there original form (chemically).  Digestion starts in the mouth with chewing and saliva.  Prey animals (and people) are grinding chewers and saliva starts breaking down the starches there and even more so once they pass into the esophogus.  How long does your dog chew before swallowing?

And, to a reasonable point, I do believe that dogs have been living along side humans long enough that their bodies have evolved to better digest grains, not better than meat, but better than a wolf can digest grains.

In what way?  Evolution does not happen that quickly unless there is widespread selective breeding for a specific trait.

Don't misunderstand me. I do believe that dogs should eat more meat than grains. But I'm one of those people that do not believe that dogs are true carnivors. They are omnivors that need more meat than grains in their diet.

Omnivores have different mouths, teeth and lips as well as longer digestive tracts than all canines.  Even if a wild dog ate grains (which would be uncooked and undigestible) it would not eat nearly the quantity in a short period of time, on a regular basis that is presented in common dog feed kibble.  Some people can eat small quantities of cooked beans (for example) at a sitting and have no significant digestive problems.  Up the quantity and its a different story.  Same thing with dairy.

I've always questioned high protien/no grain foods.  I would not feed my dog a high protien/no grain diet, until someone with a degree in veterinary nutrition can prove to me that such an extreme diet is good for my dog for long periods of time.

I found this interesting [linkhttp://therobertabadydogfoodcoltd.com/dog%20food%20&%20Saponins.htm]http://therobertabadydogfoodcoltd.com/dog%20food%20&%20Saponins.htm[/link]  Anyone who deals with deer in the yard knows that they do not eat all green leafy plants.  There are specific ones they avoid.

Basically the question is which type of diet is extreme for canines.  Most high protein kibbles are 35-42% protein but are also higher in fat than the higher volume sellers, which is what dogs more naturally use for energy than the simple carbs in most kibble.  How much of the 20-30% crude protein (which includes gluten or vegatable protein) is bioavailable for the average dog versus a diet where the protein sources are exclusively (cooked or raw) meat?  Those labels include the word crude for a reason. 

It is a scientific fact that dogs consume only the amount of food needed to deliver the number of calories they require. Calories are the body's fuel, they needed to fuel growth and reproduction. Animals must receive the number of calories they require to run all of their bodily functions and to fuel the production of all of its tissues and processes. When energy is undersupplied in a ration, the body will use the energy reserved for tissue-building to make up for the shortfall, potentially damaging the body.
A self-regulating mechanism prevents dogs from ingesting more calories than they require over the long-haul. Based on these incontestable scientific facts, how can dogs become obese as a result of the over ingestion of calories. Obviously, they cannot.

 
Chemostatic regulation (which I believe Abady is reffering to in the quote) happens at the molecular level. There are neuropeptides that control the appetite center of the brain. Opioid peptides (B-endorphin) stimulate feed intake, while cholecystokinin (CCK for short) tells the brain that the energy needs have been met and to stop eating. CCK is actually a gastrointestinal hormone AND is also released in the brain. Some dogs (specific breeds mostly) have a propensity to lack sufficent production of CCK, thus the gluttonous breeds (labs, beagles, etc). The result of inadequate CCK production is dogs that can't "turn-off" their appetite.
Some also believe that some "picky" dogs lack the necessary B-endorphins to stimulate their appetite.
 

  How much of the 20-30% crude protein (which includes gluten or vegatable protein) is bioavailable for the average dog versus a diet where the protein sources are exclusively (cooked or raw) meat?  Those labels include the word crude for a reason. 

 
Crude protein can be defined as the total nitrogen in the food multiplied by a factor of 6.25.
 

  Anyone who deals with deer in the yard knows that they do not eat all green leafy plants. 

 
Deer are concentrate selectors. They consume the more nutritious parts of plants matter. They don't eat alot of roughage (hay or grass), like cows or sheep, although they are both ruminants.
 

Omnivores have different mouths, teeth and lips as well as longer digestive tracts than all canines.  Even if a wild dog ate grains (which would be uncooked and undigestible) it would not eat nearly the quantity in a short period of time, on a regular basis that is presented in common dog feed kibble. 

 
Ominvores are animals that can consume a wide variety of animal AND plant matter and are not fastidious in their feeding behaviors. It is alot more than taxonomical classification or dental structure that determines is an animal is PHYSIOLOGICALLY considered a carnivore or omnivore. The Urisidae (bear) family is taxonomically in the order of carnivora, but physiologically considered an omnivore.

Ominvores are animals that can consume a wide variety of animal AND plant matter and are not fastidious in their feeding behaviors.

ORIGINAL: kennel_keeper

Not speaking of taxonomic classification, basically that describes a scavenger.  "Can consume" does not mean utilize.  Sharks can consume license plates and other ocean garbage.  Canines who eat squirrels can consume the fur but it goes straight thru and they have furry poop.
 
With meat (small animals) in reasonably abundent supply what balance would a wild dog (not specifically wolf but coyote or fox for example) have in their diet?  Would they seek out corn and wheat fields and eat significant quantities of grains or concentrate on the mice in those fields?  In other words, in lay terms (stop making my brain hurt []) would you not say canines can accurately be described as carnivorous scanvengers?
 

 Crude protein can be defined as the total nitrogen in the food multiplied by a factor of 6.25.

You lost me on the relevance.

Even if a wild dog ate grains (which would be uncooked and undigestible) it would not eat nearly the quantity in a short period of time, on a regular basis that is presented in common dog feed kibble. 

Accept or refute?

The Urisidae (bear) family is taxonomically in the order of carnivora, but physiologically considered an omnivore.

I do not know how similar bears and canines are physiologically so I'm not sure how relevant that distinction is.
 
I sometimes feel like I'm playing a friendly game of tennis in this forum  []

In other words, in lay terms (stop making my brain hurt ) would you not say canines can accurately be described as carnivorous scanvengers?

Sure, you could say that, but it's not a scientific term, [] According to my animal nutrition text book(s), the term omnivore is as previously stated. Omnivores can consume a wide variety of matter. This (in scientic terms) means that they can consume it AND utilize it. I believe that this term is used by those who lean to the carnivore side of the debate.
Now, we all know that some forms of fiber, can't be digested simply by their nature, but other forms ARE digestable. The grains in kibble have been processed, so the raw grain theory is irrelevant in this case. No dog foods (to my knowledge) include raw, unprocessed grains in their composition. It's the undigestable fiber that dogs can digest, not the other nutrients in it.

  Those labels include the word crude for a reason

The word crude is used because it's a cumulative total of all of the NITROGEN multiplied by a factor of 6.25. Not because that's how much protein is actually used in the food.

  Even if a wild dog ate grains (which would be uncooked and undigestible) it would not eat nearly the quantity in a short period of time, on a regular basis that is presented in common dog feed kibble.

While this wasn't actually a part of my response, I would agree that they would only seek out plant matter when their diet required it, but they would get grains and other plant matter that had been consumed by their prey. Which would be partially digested (processed), but again, not all fibers are digestable.

 Bears, dogs, cats, and humans are all monogastics and while our GIT's may vary in some respects, they are all very similar. Using the bear as an example of an OMNIVORE that is listed (taxonomically) in the order of carnivora, like dogs.

I sometimes feel like I'm playing a friendly game of tennis in this forum  []

Ain't that the truth. Sometimes not so friendly as well []

The grains in kibble have been processed, so the raw grain theory is irrelevant in this case.

ORIGINAL:
kennel_keeper

Omnivores can consume a wide variety of matter. This (in scientic terms) means that they can consume it AND utilize it.

 
True but the point I was trying to make (admittedly not too clearly) is that the roportion of grain in most kibbles far exceeds  what wild canines would consume from the digestive tracts of their prey or from other sources.  Even cooking it does not necessarily make it as digestible as that which would be partially digested in a prey animal.  My own dog (a German Shepherd) does not digest barley (and other grains) well if at all.
 
Diabetes is one example of a disease that can come about from consuming a diet that out of balance to the physiological makeup (digestive system) of the animal.  High fructose corn syrup (for example) is digestible by humans but if more than a small amount of it is consumed on a regular basis the pancreas is overworked.  The same may not be the case for a hummingbird.
 

It's the undigestable fiber that dogs can digest, not the other nutrients in it.

?

 The word crude is used because it's a cumulative total of all of the NITROGEN multiplied by a factor of 6.25. Not because that's how much protein is actually used in the food.

 

My point in that post is that dog food labels do not say bioavailable or reasonably digestible protein but crude.  That figure can be significantly lower if a dog cannot digest gluten (a protein).

 Bears, dogs, cats, and humans are all monogastics and while our GIT's may vary in some respects, they are all very similar.  Using the bear as an example of an OMNIVORE that is listed (taxonomically) in the order of carnivora, like dogs.

Similar in broad scientific terms but whose diets are not interchangeable.