>> I know some great recipes that involve long cooking periods, this is
>> irrelevant.
>
> A great recipe doesn't equate to a healthy recipe.
>
Point conceded. That said, I'm not sure how to evaluate a recipe as being
'healthy' in this context. Perhaps you can tell me what constitutes a
healthy recipe (without resorting to using your thesis as an argument, and
saying that a healthy recipe is 'one that is biologically appropriate').
What I want to know, is *specifically* what makes it healthy, and how you
plan on evaluating it. Otherwise one could very easily throw the same
argument back at you 'A biologically appropriate diet doesn't necessarily
equate to a healthy diet'
>>> , and then baked into small chunks
>>
>> Irrelevant, unless you're contending that the size of a consumed food has
>> a significant impact on digestability.
>
> Nope, but it did have an impact on the size of the kibble when they
> started using their cereal machines on it. Original kibble was hard chunks
> while the new was full of air, giving the appearance that you were getting
> more for the money.
>
Interesting, and I'm willing to believe it. (although I'm not prepared to
concede that this is the only reason kibble has air in it).
>>
>>> , with
>>> supplements added in after this process to stand up to nutritional
>>> requirements.
>>
>> Is this supposed to be a bad thing? That they add supplements?
>
> Of course! Wouldn't it be better to eat food that still had it's original
> nutrients in it?
I don't see why. I'm not necessarily going to make do with what mother
nature gave me. I intend to do the best I can with what I have available. I
agree with adding vitamin D to milk too. Why? Because its good for me.
> I mean, you might as well put the supplements on sawdust, it'd be the
> same.
No. No it wouldn't. You're essentially saying here that the post processing,
pre addition of nutrients has no nutritional value. I'm not about to concede
that.
>>> Carnivores depend on proteins and fats for energy and
>>> life-sustaining nutrients.
>>
>> So does pretty much every non-plant on the face of the planet.
>>
>>> The more energy a dog expends, the more fat
>>> and protein are required in their system.
>>
>> Your point? This is the same for any non plant living creature.
>
> No it's not. We depend on carbs for energy. Dogs do not.
>
I challenge you to live on a protein free diet. You'll die. Plain and
simple.
If your body doesn't depend on fat when you need energy, why do you store
it? For fun? Obviously not. When your body needs energy, it will start
breaking down muscle protein, and then fat stores (yes carbs are a primary
source of energy, but the same biochemical pathways to metabolize fats and
proteins are present in us as are present in dogs).
>>> Carbohydrates are not energy
>>> producers for canines.
>>
>> Proof? This seems counter intuitive. If they produce energy for me, why
>> wouldn't they for a dog?
>
> We don't have the same digestive system. We have teeth for grinding, dogs
> have teeth for tearing meat. Dogs have a much stronger stomach acid to
> deal with raw meat. We have a much longer digestive track than dogs do,
> another sign we were meant to eat things other than meat alone.
You haven't answered the question. We have the same biochemical pathways to
breakdown (and extract energy from) carbs as dogs do. Carbs are therefore
energy producers for dogs just as well as they are energy producers for
people. There *may* potentially be differential absorption of carbohydrates,
but I'd be very surprised if dogs had a hard time absorbing simple
carbohydrates.
> Even cattle don't naturally eat as much grain as humans sometimes feed
> them.
I'm under the impression that this is true, although I'm not sure why its
relevant to the conversation.
>> Which ones? All of them? Some of them?
>
> That cooking destroys any nutrients in food is bad news. I eat my steak
> medium rare and my veggies lightly steamed or raw.
Haven't we had this conversation already? Didn't I already come up with
several papers which seemed to point out that cooking provides a net
increase in nutrients?
>
>>
>>> digestive enzymes, and most of the vitamins and minerals.
>>
>> I'll buy the digestive enzyme argument. Its logical. I *might* believe
>> that some vitamins would be destroyed by heat. Minerals though? That I
>> find difficult to believe.
>
> I've give you half a point here. Some minerals will change and some will
> not.
> http://www.beyondveg.com/tu-j-l/raw-cooked/raw-cooked-2h.shtml
Did you uh... read that page. Its actually quite good. I'd suggest very
strongly that you make a *careful* read of that page.
> Think of just about any living being, what do they do right after eating?
> They take a nap if they can.
>
> Isn't digestion the
>> process by which we obtain energy? Digestion should be a net energy gain,
>> not a loss.
>
> It's not a loss. Cows lay down to chew their cud, lions nap after eating a
> big kill, think about it. What will you be doing right after eating
> turkey on Thursday (assuming you are in the US)?
Not in the states. I'm north of the border. (but happy thanksgiving
anyways).
I've just spent a short amount of time researching 'post-prandial torpor'
and I've yet to come to a satisfactory explanation of the topic. Most of
what I've read in lay-sources seems to imply that its to do with increased
blood flow to the stomach. I've not seen any evidence for it though, I've
also seen a number of credible looking sites that say "Not a fully
understood problem". I'll keep this as an open question.
>
> What *exactly* are we including in digestion? How is
>> digestion of animal proteins different than the digestion of plant
>> proteins? (other than apparently time involved)
>
> I do know that a dog's saliva and digestive juices are geared to meat and
> that they can't utilize plant material nearly as well. That is why some
> who feed raw do add veggies but they cook them for a long time to break
> down the cell walls.
>
Plant cell walls are generally very hard to digest. This process (to my
knowledge) is generally carried out by symbiotic bacteria in animals where
this is even possible (we're not one of them).
> Conclusion on the nutritiousness
> of raw vs. cooked food
> This is a great link. There is a lot more interesting info there.
> http://www.beyondveg.com/tu-j-l/raw-cooked/raw-cooked-2h.shtml
>
You're right. It is a good link. What its saying (as far as I can see) is
that (a) many claims by raw food 'experts' are repeated ad nauseum without
proof, and that they don't stand up to proof when you look at it. It goes
on to say though that the world is not black and white, and just because
'raw food experts' are wrong does not mean that *some* foods may not be
better for you raw. (meat they left as an 'iffy')
>> I'm really having a hard time with this argument from a timing
>> standpoint. It really doesn't seem to compute to me. Digestion wouldn't
>> seem to be (evolutionarily) a high priority for places to expend energy.
>> You need immediate energy to run away from a bear, and make your brain
>> work. The energy you spend digesting something should be fairly low on
>> the totem pole.
>
> It's not. Digestion can be a major body function.
>
I'm not saying its not a 'major body function', what I'm saying is that its
not high on the totem pole for priority.
> But do most dogs really need carbohydrates? In the Waltham Book of Dog and
> Cat Nutrition (2nd edition, 1988), we read that
> "There is no known minimum dietary carbohydrate requirement for either the
> dog or the cat. Based on investigations in the dog and with other species
> it is likely that dogs and cats can be maintained without carbohydrates if
> the diet supplies enough fat or protein from which the metabolic
> requirement for glucose is derived."
You do know that Waltham's makes kibble don't you? By your earlier arguments
they are therefore lying stinking pig-dog capitalists and we shouldn't trust
anything they say ;).
>
> How can this be? Let us discuss just how the dog and cat are able to
> fulfill their requirement for glucose through a diet of raw meat, bones,
> and organs.
>
> Carbohydrates do provide quick and easy energy. However, it is not 'carbs'
> that maintain the health of the organs listed in the quotes above, but
> glucose. Glucose can be obtained from protein through a process known as
> gluconeogenesis, where amino acids (not fatty acids; those use a different
> cycle) are "converted" to glucose.
I've taken several biochemistry courses. This is not news to me. Its also
one of the reasons for complications in diabetes mellitus.
> Fat can also be used for energy; fats are broken down into Acetyl CoA and
> are fed directly into the Citric Acid Cycle, bypassing the process of
> glycolysis (the first stage of carbohydrate metabolism). Thus, glucose and
> energy can be obtained from other sources. However, if carbs are present
> they will be converted to energy first before protein and fats because
> they are easier to use. This is the reason that carbs regulate how much
> starch and fat will be broken down and utilized. If there is a plethora of
> carbohydrates, fat will be stored instead of used. If there are not enough
> carbs to fulfill energy needs, then fat will be converted to Acetyl CoA
> and used. If no carbs are present, then fat and protein are used to fill
> energy needs.
I'm unsure why you're telling me all of this. I suggest you read this:
http://academic.sun.ac.za/medphys/footnote.htm
Your original post states that there is no evidence of ketosis after 9
weeks. Nothing about after years. If I were feeding a low carb diet to my
dog, I'd want to be very carefully monitoring levels of ketone bodies in his
system (there are monitors you can get from the drug store to do this, but
you still have to get the blood, so I'm not sure how this would work for a
lay person, or how much the dog would appreciate it..)
>
> I hope I was able to give good answers to your concerns.
Some good, some bad. Some of them seem to support more my opinions than
yours though...
>I enjoy the communications I have with you. Lots of nutjobs on this group,
>and I'm not talking about Jerry Howe.
>
I have to admit, I don't think I'm about to see eye to eye with you, but I
like exploring your opinions, and seeing how your mind works.
On a side note, I've got a course in nutrition next term, which I'm quite
looking forward to. There are definitely a lot of people on this group who
are more informed about nutrition than I am. I look forward to revisting
this topic at a later date when I have a better background.
Dale
FAQ
Search
Profile
Private Messages
Log in
