GO!

dog study, diet related, different from wolves

This is a dedicated place for all of your questions and answers about Raw Diets. There are also some really cool groups like "Raw Fed" on the topic you can join. This forum is for people who already know they like the raw diet or sincerely want to learn more. Please remember that you are receiving advice from peers and not professionals. If you have specific health-related questions about your dog's diet, please contact your vet!

  
(Page 2 of 5: Viewing entries 11 to 20)  
1  2  3  4  5  
Rexy

I dig in mud- puddles!
 
 
Barked: Thu Jan 24, '13 7:06pm PST 
Frankly, it makes sense....if anything it would make *less* sense to me if dogs had not evolved somewhat to better exploit living off of human scraps. It's already been proven that domestication changes a number of characteristics in dogs (and other animals), so some changes at the cellular level make sense too.

It just shows once again, that dogs are incredibly adaptable and that there isn't one proper way to feed a dog.
[notify]


Member Since
12/24/2012
 
 
Barked: Thu Jan 24, '13 8:13pm PST 
"In other words, I can digest sugar perfectly fine but eating cake and ice cream as part of my diet is probably not the best way to go."

So you're saying that the paleo domestic dog diet is like humans eating cake? I don't understand the leap. You're trying to write off a chapter in evolution by saying that what the dogs were doing was "bad for them" even though it clearly wasn't since they're still here today as a changed animal.
[notify]
Mulder

Spooky Mulder
 
 
Barked: Thu Jan 24, '13 9:02pm PST 
No, what they are saying is, simply, that just because you CAN do something, doesn't mean you should.

This is an ADAPTATION. Dogs evolved this way, under what many would consider less than ideal conditions, being fed scraps and leftovers. Of course they adapted, else they would not be as wildly successful as they are now.

But think of it like this. What is POSSIBLE, is not always ideal. Wolves, in times of extreme hunger, will eat a larger variety of things to stay alive, including various fruits and grasses. Does that mean that fruits and grasses are what should be making up any considerable portion of the animal's diet under ideal conditions? IE, that they cannot survive without them?

Of course not.

And I can't speak for most people, but I strive for optimum. What are the best possible conditions I can set for these dogs, to thrive at their absolute best?

I do as I see fit. Others are free to do what they feel is best, but that does not change my feelings on the matter.
[notify]

Ember FDX

Go Go Devil- Bunnies!
 
 
Barked: Thu Jan 24, '13 9:31pm PST 
Survive vs thrive is the key here. You only need to survive to sexual maturity to pass your genes along. In that regard, this sort of adaptation makes perfect sense - it's helping animals get through rough times so the species survives. The individual animals may not be so lucky.

So to make the cake analogy more accurate: If all I had to eat was cake and ice cream, I could survive alright for quite a while and probably pass my genes along, but I would almost certainly die early from complications of high blood sugar and malnourishment.
[notify]


Member Since
12/24/2012
 
 
Barked: Thu Jan 24, '13 9:35pm PST 
There's nothing to prove that eating starch was detrimental for dogs. Nothing to prove that it's akin to humans eating junk food. It's simply something that they've evolved to do and having made that change, it wouldn't make sense to abandon this variance in their natural diets. IMO.
[notify]
Charlie

The world is my- food bowl!
 
 
Barked: Fri Jan 25, '13 7:26am PST 
The basic logic that people are throwing around here is "Because he can digest it, that means nature intends for it to be part of his diet". People take "adapted" as "meant to be".

The Giant Panda is biologically an omnivore like all other bears, but ran out of food sources somewhere down the line and turned to eating bamboo because it was plentiful. Bamboo offers very little nutrition to the Giant Panda, so it adapted to it by eating TONS of it in order to maintain energy. At the end of the day, the Giant Panda has adapted solely to Bamboo, but in turn is so inefficient that it lies around all day preserving energy for simple tasks like urinating, defecating and moving to more food. This is the reason zoos have such a difficult time breeding Pandas, because they have no energy and no libido.

My point is, people should be a little open-minded about what is best for a dog. If dogs continue to adapt to heavy carb diets, they're going to end up like Pandas.. maybe not in energy, but we already see all the health problems they suffer through today. I don't want that for my dogs. I want to be educated and always look to improve upon them.
[notify]
Charlie

The world is my- food bowl!
 
 
Barked: Fri Jan 25, '13 7:32am PST 
And to Guest:

Anyone from the Raw Food Forum is probably not going to feed grains as a part of the regular diet, but I don't think anyone here is a food-nazi and going to tell you that they're evil. Frankly, I don't really care what other people feed, but I also don't think a small amount of grain in food is bad at all. What worries me are foods that are packed with starches and depend on them. When we forget that dogs thrive on animal-based protein, we see their health decay.
[notify]
Kolbe

Where can I run- today?
 
 
Barked: Fri Jan 25, '13 8:48am PST 
What Charlie said.
[notify]


Member Since
12/24/2012
 
 
Barked: Fri Jan 25, '13 11:27am PST 
I agree that too much starch wouldn't be good, everything is best in moderation, if at all. After all, it's sugar. They do digest protein more efficiently.
[notify]
Tycho

Ladrat
 
 
Barked: Sat Jan 26, '13 12:48am PST 
No, what they are saying is, simply, that just because you CAN do something, doesn't mean you should.

This is an ADAPTATION. Dogs evolved this way, under what many would consider less than ideal conditions, being fed scraps and leftovers. Of course they adapted, else they would not be as wildly successful as they are now.

But all life adapts in less than ideal conditions so you are making a false distinction here. And your argument against is the very same that raw foodies make for, that because it is natural it is therefore better. There is no evidence either way for raw food or for kibble
[notify]
  (Page 2 of 5: Viewing entries 11 to 20)  
1  2  3  4  5