Elevated Feeders Cause Harm?

Samshine, there was an article somewhere that stated that elevating your dog's food and water may revent bloat. I read it a while back when this topic came up somewhere else, and I'm not sure who wrote it or anything, but there is at least one somewhere.

Either way, my family as always had bloat proned breeds and we've never had a dog bloat. I think the major causes of bloat are having your dog inhale too much air while eating, along with too much exercise afterwards. Both of which my dogs don't do. Of course, there are other things that can cause it, but I don't see how raising a food dish would cause a dog to bloat. Tango will skip meals entirely if her dish isn't raised, simply because she doesn't enjoy bending down to eat. I don't elevate their bowls much. They just sit on step stools, which aren't really far off the ground, but they much prefer that to eating off the floor.

I would not consider feeding my Bubblegum or any other dog in a dish that was NOT elevated.
As far as the Purdue Study.....that study was based on statistics..not research.  They used dogs that were mainly Great Danes or dogs that were sold by Dane breeders,,,and since all books and literature on raising this breed say to use elevated dishes... most of those dogs were fed from elevated dishes.  And yes....some dogs eating from elevated dishes still bloat.  In all of the studies on bloat...no one really ever figured out what causes it and how to really prevent it,, so some dogs might bloat no matter what kind of dishes they eat from. The study showed high numbers that ate from elevated bowls bloated because 99% of the dogs used in that study ate from elevated bowls in the study. As The Great Dane Lady says...
(in my opinion, that is the same logic as if you see a pregnant woman with pierced ears, that means every woman with pierced ears is pregnant ).
For me,,,, I believe (from reading and reading about bloat) that one of the bigest factors of bloating is stress.  I believe it is much more stressful for a dog to eat its meals while having to bend all the way to the floor...with their heads down.  Try doing it yourself.... it can't be easy or good for them.

ORIGINAL: orangedog

Samshine, there was an article somewhere that stated that elevating your dog's food and water may revent bloat. I read it a while back when this topic came up somewhere else, and I'm not sure who wrote it or anything, but there is at least one somewhere.

 
Sure there is. There are lots of articles like this on the web, because lots of people still believe it to be true. There is no factual basis for this belief. No research, no surveys, nothing, nada. The only thing that ever got this belief started was word of mouth.

ORIGINAL: dyan

I would not consider feeding my Bubblegum or any other dog in a dish that was NOT elevated.
As far as the Purdue Study.....that study was based on statistics..not research. 

I think most scientists would agree that statistical comparisons of different groups is a valid research tool.

ORIGINAL: dyan

They used dogs that were mainly Great Danes or dogs that were sold by Dane breeders,,,and since all books and literature on raising this breed say to use elevated dishes... most of those dogs were fed from elevated dishes. ....The study showed high numbers that ate from elevated bowls bloated because 99% of the dogs used in that study ate from elevated bowls in the study.

99%? Really? I don't have a copy of the peer reviewed paper in which the food bowl results were published in front of me, but I'm pretty sure that more than 1 % of the dogs used in that study were fed from the floor.

ORIGINAL: dyan

As The Great Dane Lady says...
(in my opinion, that is the same logic as if you see a pregnant woman with pierced ears, that means every woman with pierced ears is pregnant ).

" A pregnant woman..."? Wow. That's incredibly misleading to compare this study, which included, in its more refined version several hundred dogs, to a single observation. It's also misleading to compare this to a conclusion that every pregnant woman....etc. The authors never came remotely close to claiming that every dog fed from a raise bowl will bloat, nor that every dog that bloats was fed from a raised bowl. In any correlative study, it is certainly valid to question whether the correlation means there is a cause/effect relationship. But, in this particular study, the original data showed something like a 7-fold incidence in bloat in dogs fed from raised food bowls. The authors, who are not stupid, acknowledged that much of this may have been due to the fact that because there was the belief that raised food bowls could reduce the risk of bloat that those dogs that were most at risk of bloat were also most likely to be fed from raised bowls. So, the researchers refined their statistical analysis by matching dogs that had bloated with dogs of similar age, size, breed that hadn't bloated. Sure enough, with this more refined analysis, the correlation between raised bowls and bloat dropped, but it did not disappear. Even when matching dogs by other risk factors, raised bowls were associated with about a 2 fold increase in bloating. Having said all this, I really don't care if people find this study to be terribly convincing or not. No single study will give a complete answer, and it could well turn out that a large controlled experimental study would not support the findings of this study. But, one's skepticism should be based on something more than a highly exaggerated misrepresentation of what was done in this study and what the authors actually claimed.

As samshine said, whether one is convinced by this study or not, there is absolutely no evidence from any study that raised bowls reduce the risk of bloat.

ORIGINAL: dyan

For me,,,, I believe (from reading and reading about bloat) that one of the bigest factors of bloating is stress. 

Well, lots of people believe this, but this is actually an excellent example of what you criticize about the food bowl study... seeing a post hoc correlation and assigning cause/effect based on that correlation. Dogs experience "stress" all the time. Every single person I know who has had a dog bloat, and I know quite a few, point to some sort of "stress" that occurred within a day or so of the bloat incidence. But anybody can pick out any given day, and if they are looking for it, find something that might have been stressful to the dog within the previous day or so. And yet the dog didn't bloat when exposed to all those hundreds and hundreds of other stressful events in its life. And most dogs never bloat, despite being exposed to all sorts of stresses.

ORIGINAL: dyan
I believe it is much more stressful for a dog to eat its meals while having to bend all the way to the floor...with their heads down.  Try doing it yourself.... it can't be easy or good for them.

I don't think comparing feeding posture in bipeds to quadrapeds is particularly meaningful. One might compare bloat incidence in canines that never eat from raised food bowls (wolves, coyotes, jackals) to bloat incidence in dogs. That wouldn't prove that raised food bowls increase the risk of bloat, but I think it would argue that raised food bowls aren't necessary to prevent it.


There are certainly valid reasons to use raised food bowls in some cases, and I would never criticize someone who chose to do so. I've used them myself for a couple of my arthritic elderly dogs, and I've lent my raised feeder to a friend who had a dog suffering from megaesophagus. There's lots that isn't known about what causes bloat, and there are always other risks to weigh and consider. So, if one feels they are beneficial for their dog, by all means use them, but make an informed decision. As samshine said, there really isn't a "controversy" about their benefits/risks. They may be beneficial for other medical conditions, but there isn't a shred of evidence that they reduce the risk of bloat. And, for all of those who have posted that they have used raised food bowls and their dog hasn't experienced any problems, I'll just point out that bloat isn't something that comes on gradually with warning signs. Dogs who bloat typically don't experience any problems. Until one day they do.

ORIGINAL: dyan

I would not consider feeding my Bubblegum or any other dog in a dish that was NOT elevated.
As far as the Purdue Study.....that study was based on statistics..not research. 

 
You know, I think we have had this discussion before. So more for the benefit of other readers, I shall continue.
 
The Purdue study was a carefully run scientific research project. Research like this gives us, guess what, statistics. Some quotes from their website
 
"...Briefly, starting in 1994, the Purdue research staff attended dog shows around the country for seven large breeds, namely the: Akita, Bloodhound, Collie, Irish Setter, Rottweiler, Standard Poodle, and Weimaraner, and for four giant breeds, namely the Great Dane, Irish Wolfhound, Newfoundland, and Saint Bernard. At these shows owners were asked to participate in a prospective study in which they would agree to have us measure the dogs, complete a detailed questionnaire concerning their dog's medical history, environment and management, diet, personality and temperament, and keep us updated on this information as well as on the vital status of their dog. If the owners agreed to participate, measurements were made of the dog and the owner completed a short form indicating whether this dog or any of its first-degree relatives had ever developed GDV. All dogs were then followed closely by the Purdue staff using both repeated telephone contacts with the owners and by mailed questionnaires. The intensive follow-up period for this part of the study ended on October 1, 1998, although information continues to be received from owners of dogs in the study."
 
"There were a total of 1920 dogs without a prior history of GDV that participated in our study. The breakdown of dogs by breed is shown in the table below. These 1920 dogs contributed a total of 3357.6 dog-years of follow-up information (following one dog for one year = one dog year). Among these dogs, 86 or 4.5% developed a first episode of GDV for an incidence of 26 per 1000 dog years. The average age of the dogs at entry into the study was 3.2 years while the average age of the 86 dogs that developed GDV was 5.5 years. Since the dogs in this study were relatively young at the start and because the risk of developing GDV increases markedly with age, we think this estimate of the incidence of GDV is very conservative compared with what we would have observed if we followed these dogs longer. The six breeds with the highest incidence of GDV in decreasing order were the Great Dane, Akita, Bloodhound, Weimaraner, Standard Poodle, and Irish Setter. For the 216 Great Danes that had an average follow-up time of only 2.5 years, nearly 12% developed GDV. Assuming that these Great Danes live to be 10 years of age, we conservatively estimate that more than 50% will eventually suffer an episode of GDV!! This is quite alarming given that nearly 25% of dogs can be expected to die during or shortly after an episode of GDV and it is consistent with previous findings that GDV is one of the leading causes of death in many giant and large breeds of dogs."
 
How is that not research? One of the important aspects of this study is that it was a prospective study. That means that owners and dogs were selected for the study before they had any incident of bloat. They were asked questions about the dog and their management practices at the outset. If you question owners after the dog has bloated, that can color their answers.
 
 
 
 

ORIGINAL: dyan

The study showed high numbers that ate from elevated bowls bloated because 99% of the dogs used in that study ate from elevated bowls in the study. As The Great Dane Lady says...
(in my opinion, that is the same logic as if you see a pregnant woman with pierced ears, that means every woman with pierced ears is pregnant ).

 
Have you ever actually gone to the website and read their information? Because of your misunderstanding I begin to doubt that you have. Surprising since your breed is so at risk. Bloat is not as a serious problem in my breed but I certainly made the time to read the info.
 
Buster already said this, probably better than I will, but I will try to explain it in a different way. When the raw data came in, several management factors seemed to be associated with an increased incidence of bloat. Dogs whose owners limited exercise before and after eating, restricted water before and after feeding, soaked the food, and fed from raised food bowls all seemed to be more likely to bloat. The researchers were not surprised, because those behaviors are all more common in owners of breeds prone to bloat. So they went about the process of factoring that out. Buster explained that part better than I can. After analyzing the data they found that all those behaviors had little or no affect on the risk of bloat, EXCEPT the practice of feeding from raised bowls. They could compare dogs who had bloated, and look at how many were fed from raised bowls and how many from ground level. They could also compare dogs who had not bloated and how many were fed from elevated bowls and how many from ground level. They could compare Great Danes to Great Danes, see how many of the dogs fed from elevated bowls bloated, and how many fed from ground level bloated. They analyzed the date carefully and dogs that ate from elevated bowls were twice as likely to bloat as those fed from ground level. I don't know how to make this any simpler.
 

There are certainly valid reasons to use raised food bowls in some cases, and I would never criticize someone who chose to do so.

If you believe that elevated bowls are helpful (or might be) good in some cases..such as arthritic dogs...dogs with illnesses for instance..how could you possibly not think they are better for dogs without these problems?
 
I can honestly say I did not read that study in its entirety, I know there is much that I would not understand completely about it. I have read many opinions from that study, from GD breeders and others with interest in bloat. There is so much more in that study that is not about elevated bowls.  Linda Arndt summed it up with this general statement:
The article regarding the Purdue Bloat research, that was publised in the AKC Gazette has done a great disservice to the canine community because by its implications it make people think foods containing these fats, citric acid etc. will cause bloat, and it will steer people into the wrong direction. This implies people should use the foods we had in the 1950-60's when we were actually inundated with bloat cases - the number 1 killer in large and giant breeds at that time.! To go back to this type of nutrition for their animals, is irresponsible and suggesting this is unconscionable in my opinion. I know the paragraph kind of gets away from the subject of elevated bowls...but it explains the opinion of a giant dog breeder and nutritionist about the whole study that is being referred to. I should put the link in which I took this statement.[linkhttp://www.greatdanelady.com/articles/on_my_soap_box_purdue_bloat_study.htm]http://www.greatdanelady.com/articles/on_my_soap_box_purdue_bloat_study.htm[/link]
For me,,, I respect the opinion of the breeders of my breed..especially the ones that have been breeding for many years. They have studied their dogs and the way they are fed and they have studied the opinions, articles and studies of others...such as the Purdue study. If I were to go in any direction...for sure it would be the direction of those.
That is my opinion of which I am entitled to, no matter how many sentences of my post that you want to pick apart.

that Purdue study was observational and you cannot draw conclusions about causation from an observational study.
 
They observed a correlation between being fed out of elevated bowls and bloat. Big dogs are more likely to be fed out of elevated bowls. Big dogs are more likely to have bloat. It would be shocking to NOT find a correlation between being fed out of an elevated bowl and bloat.

ORIGINAL: mudpuppy

that Purdue study was observational and you cannot draw conclusions about causation from an observational study.

I'll bet if Glickman had done a study on a few dozen dogs and found a two fold increase in bloat among dogs that were fed Old Roy or food contaminated with melamine or had been vaccinated at some point in their lives people would be drawing conclusions from those observations.

ORIGINAL: mudpuppy
They observed a correlation between being fed out of elevated bowls and bloat. Big dogs are more likely to be fed out of elevated bowls. Big dogs are more likely to have bloat. It would be shocking to NOT find a correlation between being fed out of an elevated bowl and bloat.

Once more with feeling....
The authors were very well aware of the the possibility that the very high correlation that they initially found (a SEVEN fold increase) was likely due to exactly what you just described - the likelihood that dogs most prone to bloat for other reasons were more often fed from elevated bowls. In their preliminary report they explicitly stated that this was likely and that their preliminary data needed further analysis to factor out this possibility. Which is exactly what they did. Even when they accounted for the effects of breed, size, age, gender there was still a residual TWO fold increase in bloat among dog fed from elevated bowls. We don't know why this is, and it is entirely possible that there is still some underlying third factor that both feeder height and bloat are related to. Keedokes statement that the reason for the higher incidence of bloat is that dogs fed from elevated bowls eat faster is a plausible hypothesis, in my opinion, but as far as I know there haven't been any studies done to test that hypothesis.

Honestly, I'm pretty much of an agnostic about feeder height and incidence of bloat. As I said, I've used them for two of my arthritic dogs who came from lines that hadn't had any bloat for many generations because I felt that the added comfort they afforded those particular dogs with that degree of arthritis outweighed the risk of increasing their chances of bloat. As I said, I wouldn't pass judgement on anyone who weighed the risks and benefits for their particular dog and opted to use an elevated feeder. But, I'm not an agnostic about accurate portrayal of research, and to keep repeating that the authors didn't take into account the fact that dogs more likely to bloat were also more likely to have been fed from elevated feeders is inaccurate.

ORIGINAL: dyan

That is my opinion of which I am entitled to, no matter how many sentences of my post that you want to pick apart.

I don't think anyone is denying that you are entitled to an opinion. But, if you post grossly inaccurate claims about the nature of the study, whether they are based on your own reading, or your acceptance of someone else's misinterpretation, others are also entitled to correct that misinformation. Speaking of which, I really fail to see how the breeder that you quoted above can conclude that publishing the results of a study that showed that dogs feed kibble with a high fat content were more likely to bloat implies that we should go back to feeding dogs the foods we had in the 1960's and '50's.

Incidentally, the breeder you were quoting did not base her misstatements about the design and analysis used in this study on anything that was actually written in the report. She surmised that 99 % of the dogs were fed from elevated bowls, she surmised that 90 % of the dogs were Danes etc. All of that is her supposition. In fact, something like 11 different breeds were included in the study. Also, however knowledgeable she may be about Danes she is not a "nutritionist". She is a self proclaimed "nutritional consultant" who is an emeritus professor in an unspecified field from an unspecified "large Midwestern University". I could be wrong about this, but I'm guessing that if she had any actual training in nutrition, she would have mentioned that. I'm not denying that she may be an excellent breeder, or that she may be very knowledgeable about some aspects of nutrition. But if her analysis of the Glickman studies is any example of her scientific reasoning or her grasp of statistics, or her care in separating her speculation from actual fact, well, not so much.

But, if you post grossly inaccurate claims

,,,,,,,,,,,,a little heavy here don't ya think?   I do because didn't show me anything to conclude that she was wrong.
So you have an obvious dislike for Linda Arndt... sorry about that.  However... information about her shows a lot of credentials :
 
She has spent the past 34 years as a professional breeder and devoted her efforts to research, feed trials, writing and lecturing on nutritionally caused bone diseases, and the effects of high calorie diets on the growth of large and giant breeds. Linda has lectured nationally and published numerous articles on growth, systemic yeast and general nutrition, and how it relates to wellness and longevity for all pets. She has published in purebred magazines here and overseas, as well as in the DaneWorld Magazine, The Great Dane Reporter, Whole Dog Journal, Pet Health News, Pet Industry News and numerous animal health and breed magazines.
 
not sure what yours are.  You are making observations also.  Only yours might not be based from the experience that hers are. 
 And again..you stated that you have fed dogs with problems, from elevated bowl..and I ask again..if you felt that they were beneficial to them, why would you not feel them beneficial to all dogs?

I'll bet if Glickman had done a study on a few dozen dogs and found a two fold increase in bloat among dogs that were fed Old Roy or food contaminated with melamine or had been vaccinated at some point in their lives people would be drawing conclusions from those observations.

 
and they would be just as incorrect as those concluding anything about causes of bloat from the big Purdue study.
 
Interesting everyone talks about the raised feed bowls finding and ignores this finding from the same study:
 
J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2000 Jan 1;216(1):40-5.

Links

Incidence of and breed-related risk factors for gastric dilatation-volvulus in dogs.
[linkGlickman>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=Search&Term=%22Glickman%20LT%22%5BAuthor%5D&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus]Glickman LT[/link], [linkGlickman>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=Search&Term=%22Glickman%20NW%22%5BAuthor%5D&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus]Glickman NW[/link], [linkSchellenberg>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=Search&Term=%22Schellenberg%20DB%22%5BAuthor%5D&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus]Schellenberg DB[/link], [linkRaghavan>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=Search&Term=%22Raghavan%20M%22%5BAuthor%5D&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus]Raghavan M[/link], [linkLee>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=Search&Term=%22Lee%20TL%22%5BAuthor%5D&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus]Lee TL[/link].Department of Veterinary Pathobiology, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907-1243, USA.
OBJECTIVE: To compare incidence of and breed-related risk factors for gastric dilatation-volvulus (GDV) among 11 dog breeds (Akita, Bloodhound, Collie, Great Dane, Irish Setter, Irish Wolfhound, Newfoundland, Rottweiler, Saint Bernard, Standard Poodle, and Weimaraner). DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. ANIMALS: 1,914 dogs. PROCEDURE: Owners of dogs that did not have a history of GDV were recruited at dog shows, and the dog's length and height and depth and width of the thorax and abdomen were measured. Information concerning the dogs' medical history, genetic background, personality, and diet was obtained from owners, and owners were contacted by mail and telephone at approximately 1-year intervals to determine whether dogs had developed GDV or died. Incidence of GDV based on the number of dog-years at risk was calculated for each breed, and breed-related risk factors were identified. RESULTS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Incidence of GDV for the 7 large (23 to 45 kg [50 to 99 lb]) and 4 giant (> 45 kg [> 99 lb]) breeds was 23 and 26 cases/1,000 dog-years at risk, respectively. Of the 105 dogs that developed GDV, 30 (28.6%) died. Incidence of GDV increased with increasing age. Cumulative incidence of GDV was 5.7% for all breeds. The only breed-specific characteristic significantly associated with a decreased incidence of GDV was an owner-perceived personality trait of happiness.
 
 
and here's a case-control study, not a very strong design, but certainly superior to an observational study when attempting to establish causation:
 
Vet Rec. 1998 Jul 11;143(2):48-50.

Links

Small size of food particles and age as risk factors for gastric dilatation volvulus in great danes.
[linkTheyse>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=Search&Term=%22Theyse%20LF%22%5BAuthor%5D&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus]Theyse LF[/link], [linkvan>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=Search&Term=%22van%20de%20Brom%20WE%22%5BAuthor%5D&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus]van de Brom WE[/link], [linkvan>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=Search&Term=%22van%20Sluijs%20FJ%22%5BAuthor%5D&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus]van Sluijs FJ[/link].Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Department of Clinical Sciences of Companion Animals, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
A case-control study was conducted to investigate whether age, gender, neuter status, type of food, feeding frequency, food intake time, interval between feeding and exercise, duration of exercise and overall physical activity were risk factors for gastric dilatation volvulus (GDV) in the great dane. The sample population consisted of 38 great danes with acute GDV (cases) and 71 great danes owned by members of the Dutch Great Dane Association (controls). Information on the risk factors was collected by using clinical data in combination with a questionnaire, and the data were analysed by backward stepwise conditional logistic regression analysis. Dogs fed a diet containing particles of food > 30 mm in size (kibble and/or dinner and/or home-prepared food with large pieces of meat) had a lower risk of GDV than dogs fed a diet containing only particles < 30 mm in size (kibble or dinner and/or canned meat and/or home-prepared food cut into small pieces or ground in a food processor). Increasing age was also a risk factor for GDV. Gender, neuter status, feeding frequency, food intake time, the interval between feeding and exercise, the duration of exercise, and overall physical activity were not identified as risk factors. Feeding a diet including large pieces of meat may help to reduce the incidence of GDV in great danes.
 
 
 
There are a whole bunch of observational studies correlating all sorts of things, from weather changes to shape of chest, to risk of bloat. There's even a really bizarre study by Glickman about the first four ingredients listed on the dog food. I don't get that study at all. For example, these two dog foods could be practically identical in composition: lamb, lamb meal, white rice, brown rice, chicken fat;   lamb meal, white rice, chicken fat; but Glickman's study would suggest the latter food might cause bloat while the former food does not.

ORIGINAL: dyan

But, if you post grossly inaccurate claims

,,,,,,,,,,,,a little heavy here don't ya think?   I do because didn't show me anything to conclude that she was wrong.

Well, you said yourself that you never actually read the paper. I have. I don't have a copy of it in front of me at the moment, and I'm not going to interrupt the last of my summer vacation to make an hour trip to my office to retrieve it, so I can't quote it verbatim at the moment. Nonetheless, I'm familiar enough with it to know that it was grossly inaccurate to say that only Danes were included in the study. It was totally baseless and grossly inaccurate to say that 99 % of the dogs included in the study were fed from raised bowls. It was grossly misleading to compare a study that included a few hundred dogs to making observations about the ear lobes of a single pregnant woman. You don't have to take my word for it. You can actually read the study yourself. And it's grossly misleading to keep claiming that they ignored the possibility that their findings were the result of more bloat prone dogs being more likely to be fed from elevated feeders, because they acknowledged that possibility from the very first time that they posted preliminary results, and addressed that possibility in subsequent analyses. If you, or Dane Lady, or anyone else, think that their statistical techniques were inadequate, that might be a valid criticism. But I've yet to see any evidence yet that any of the critics can even describe what sort of analyses they did, much less muster an informed critique of them.

ORIGINAL: dyan
So you have an obvious dislike for Linda Arndt... sorry about that.

Actually, I'd never heard of her until I googled "dane lady" before responding to your initial post in this thread. I do have a dislike for the act of posting gross misrepresentations of research on the world wide web. Other than that I have no opinion one way or the other about her.

ORIGINAL: dyan
  However... information about her shows a lot of credentials :

She has spent the past 34 years as a professional breeder and devoted her efforts to research, feed trials, writing and lecturing on nutritionally caused bone diseases, and the effects of high calorie diets on the growth of large and giant breeds. Linda has lectured nationally and published numerous articles on growth, systemic yeast and general nutrition, and how it relates to wellness and longevity for all pets. She has published in purebred magazines here and overseas, as well as in the DaneWorld Magazine, The Great Dane Reporter, Whole Dog Journal, Pet Health News, Pet Industry News and numerous animal health and breed magazines.
 
not sure what yours are. 

So. She has no actual training in nutrition, or animal science or biology or chemistry or experimental design or statistics as far as we know. Nothing she's published has been reviewed by anyone with any training in nutriton or animal science as far as we know. That's not to say that she couldn't still have acquired a great deal of practical working knowledge. I have no opinion on anything else she says or does and no opinion on her as a breeder of Danes. But her analysis of the Purdue research as posted on her web site is grossly inaccurate.

My qualifications, for what it's worth include a Ph.D (in science!), four years as an associate editor of a multidisciplinary scientific journal, and three yeas as the editor. Neither my formal education, nor the journal I edited were related to animal physiology or husbandry or nutrition. Nonetheless, I have a fair amount of experience with statistical analysis and experimental design, both from my own research, and having over the years been the final arbitrer of whether literally hundreds of scientific papers would be published or not. I wouldn't claim that the Glickman paper was flawless, and I'm pretty sure they wouldn't either. Then again, I've yet to see a flawless scientific study, and believe me, I've read a lot of them. I would just prefer that the discussion be focused on actual flaws, not imaginary ones.

ORIGINAL: dyan
You are making observations also.  Only yours might not be based from the experience that hers are. 
 And again..you stated that you have fed dogs with problems, from elevated bowl..and I ask again..if you felt that they were beneficial to them, why would you not feel them beneficial to all dogs?

I'm making observations on what was published in the Glickman study, compared to what Dane Lady claims was published. I think my experience in reading and evaluating scientific research is adequate to make those observations, but hey, you may think otherwise. As for my having used raised food bowls myself, as I explained twice, the dogs involved were arthritic, and based on their family history, not particularly at risk of bloat. So, my best guess was that the benefits of increasing comfort for elderly, arthritic dogs vs increasing risk of bloat in dogs that probably weren't particularly susceptible was that the clear increase in their comfort outweighed what I thought would be a small increase in risk. If, on the other hand, my dogs had come from lines with a history of bloat, had a nervous temperament, a history of digestive difficulty, or some such added risk factor, and they weren't particularly arthritic, then I would have made a different choice. There is plenty of uncertainty about the risk factors involved in bloat, including the role of food bowl height. So, for the third time, I would never criticize someone who came to a different conclusion than I would about the relative risks and benefits for any given dog. My only argument here is with people who insist on perpetuating grossly inaccurate descriptions of a study that they've never even read themselves.

ORIGINAL: mudpuppy

I'll bet if Glickman had done a study on a few dozen dogs and found a two fold increase in bloat among dogs that were fed Old Roy or food contaminated with melamine or had been vaccinated at some point in their lives people would be drawing conclusions from those observations.

and they would be just as incorrect as those concluding anything about causes of bloat from the big Purdue study.

Well, great. I'm glad that we agree that standards for drawing conclusions based on correlation should be applied equally to all studies. I look forward to seeing your critique of the next post that claims that since some dogs who are vaccinated develop autoimmune problems that vacccinations cause autoimmune problems.

ORIGINAL: mudpuppy
Interesting everyone talks about the raised feed bowls finding and ignores this finding from the same study:

J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2000 Jan 1;216(1):40-5.



Incidence of and breed-related risk factors for gastric dilatation-volvulus in dogs.
........Incidence of GDV increased with increasing age. Cumulative incidence of GDV was 5.7% for all breeds. The only breed-specific characteristic significantly associated with a decreased incidence of GDV was an owner-perceived personality trait of happiness.

Not sure what your point is here or in the other studies you linked to. I addressed the subject of food bowls because the topic of this thread is whether elevated food bowls can cause harm. If someone wants to start a thread on whether having a happy disposition is beneficial for a dog, or whether chunks of meat are good for them, then maybe people will address those controversies as well.

Gee buster,,,its sure easy to ruffle your feathers.... you seem to want to argue.  I don't.  I don't honestly care what you think...as you should not care what I think.  The OP asked a question,, I gave my opinion.  You gave yours. 

it was grossly inaccurate to say that only Danes were included in the study. 

First of all...I never said or read that only Danes were used in the study...check back and then apologize.

It was grossly misleading to compare a study that included a few hundred dogs to making observations about the ear lobes of a single pregnant woman.

This is a stupid thing to say, its not misleading at all...it is an anology.

Actually, I'd never heard of her until I googled "dane lady" before responding to your initial post in this thread.

Since you already said you remember this conversation before,,,I guess this statement is not true!
I started to do as you did,,,, to pick apart everything you wrote and answer it... but you know,
I am not trying to argue with you...again, I don't care what you think.  Its my opionion and most other giant breed dogs, that I am doing my dog GOOD by feeding her from elevated bowls....if you don't want to,,, fine...more power to you.

But your last sentence in your last post addressing me,,,makes me know you are not worth talking to because you just want to argue....when you say

My only argument here is with people who insist on perpetuating grossly inaccurate descriptions of a study that they've never even read themselves

is a crock...because you were arguing way before I said I did not read the study.
I am being honest...you are not!
Incidentally... while your education or field of work might be impressive, it doesn't make me think that you know more about feeding dogs than a breeder that has been doing it for 30 some years, and studies feeding programs and works with other trainers..breeders and vets while doing so.

Well, we're just repeat the same arguments over and over. If you want to continue this discussion privately feel free to PM me, but I'm not going to clutter up the board restating what I've already said except to address two points:

Yes, you are correct that you said the study consisted "mainly" of great danes, not entirely. I apologize.

I did not say that I remembered this conversation from before - Samshine said that. No need to apologize.