Electrolytes etc

[doris 6]

interesting topic. for the layman (average lurcher owner) a minefield to extract useful info me thinks. . . .

[Raymond 618]

What do those black and white african dogs take in the wild. They do some amount of running and hunting.

[sandymere 8,263]

Paddybar I think you have hit the nail on the head in that it’s about with the piece on replenishing glucose being important. I posted a simplified version in every day parlance; terms like glut 4 pathways tend to switch people off. But we need to also consider fluid replacements as well as this will have an effect on performance and recovery.

Rainmaker, sorry but, you seem to have posted a lot of words without really saying a lot! You suggest that a piece is invalid because it is “based on human studies†and state “dogs and humans have very different metabolismsâ€. Actually within metabolic terms they are almost identical and use metabolic pathways that are the same as virtually all living species. There is variance but it is in the scale of percentages rather than real difference therefore using studies from other species within the context of the basis biochemistry is perfectly valid. I’m not saying that I’d totally agree with the article by Reynolds and Cline but the basic biochemistry, from memory, seemed valid.

I think your basic theme is that carbohydrate is pointless but the quotes used seem to point towards a diet tailored to the needs of the dog within the context of it’s activity, from your unreferenced quote other than Hill, greyhounds ran fastest when fed 43% carbohydrate, which is the opposite of what you are saying. Perhaps you need to tailor your quotes to the point rather than reams of only vaguely related information. Your use of Knonfeld, I think, posted as your fait accompli, is pointless as it’s from 1972 it’s rather out of date and seems to advocate a no carb diet for man would be ok?

Dogs needs vary with use and a husky will have different needs in dietary terms than a greyhound, sprinting needs more glucose than steady paced exercise. The conversion of fat to glucose is less efficient and slower than getting it direct from the diet, so if stocks are low then appropriate replacement is the best bet, better than waiting for the dog to use an alternative less efficient method just because it goes along with some idea of what is natural rather than effective.

Ps the stuff about the water doesn’t really stand up either.

[whin 463]

powder d gator aid works just as good, used it and it works ,but serously if your dogs fit and you no your dog shouldnt need to much help ,only time ive usd it was she chaSED HARE THE N ANOTHER ON THE WAY BACK GAVE HER A DRINK OF IT SCOOSHED IT DOWN HER THROAT AS THE SUN WAS OUT WAS A BIT WARM ,THEY USE IT IN THE STATES MORE AS IT IS STILL WARM IN WINTER SOME DAYS DOWN NEAR THE BORDER OF MEXICO , BUT HERE IN BRITAIN ONLY USED IT TO REVIVE ADOG AS SHE RAN HER SELF OUT , WOULDNT RELY ON IT EVERY TIME I GO OUT MORE IF THYE HAVE HARD RUNS AND YOU WANT TO KEEP THEM [bANNED TEXT] FOR THE NEXT DAY,

[Rainmaker 7]

Rainmaker, sorry but, you seem to have posted a lot of words without really saying a lot! You suggest that a piece is invalid because it is "based on human studies" and state "dogs and humans have very different metabolisms". Actually within metabolic terms they are almost identical and use metabolic pathways that are the same as virtually all living species. There is variance but it is in the scale of percentages rather than real difference therefore using studies from other species within the context of the basis biochemistry is perfectly valid. I'm not saying that I'd totally agree with the article by Reynolds and Cline but the basic biochemistry, from memory, seemed valid.

I think your basic theme is that carbohydrate is pointless but the quotes used seem to point towards a diet tailored to the needs of the dog within the context of it's activity, from your unreferenced quote other than Hill, greyhounds ran fastest when fed 43% carbohydrate, which is the opposite of what you are saying. Perhaps you need to tailor your quotes to the point rather than reams of only vaguely related information. Your use of Knonfeld, I think, posted as your fait accompli, is pointless as it's from 1972 it's rather out of date and seems to advocate a no carb diet for man would be ok?

Dogs needs vary with use and a husky will have different needs in dietary terms than a greyhound, sprinting needs more glucose than steady paced exercise. The conversion of fat to glucose is less efficient and slower than getting it direct from the diet, so if stocks are low then appropriate replacement is the best bet, better than waiting for the dog to use an alternative less efficient method just because it goes along with some idea of what is natural rather than effective.

Ps the stuff about the water doesn't really stand up either.

 

The Hill study showed that the lower cab diet led to faster times, yes. The faster times were produced by a diet that still had carbs present; also correct. As far as I can gather though there was no nil carb diet in the study for comparison, but following the trend it would have been interesting to see how much faster, if at all, the dogs became when the carbs were not lowered, but eliminated entirely. 'The faster times were obtained while still eating carbs' isn't really an argument, since the less carbs they ate the better they performed. I definitely agree a more comprehensive methodology would have been nice to see, as well as very enlightening. In absence of such we can't really comment either way, it's true.

 

The study from 1972 might be old but dogs haven't changed since then and no study has since refuted its findings, so I see no reason not to quote it. It's a legitimate piece of literature. Unfortunately, since the majority of such research is funded (directly or indirectly) by pet food manufacturers, there isn't much of it - especially recently. Why fund a study which could basically prove your product is at best ineffective and at worst dangerous? A study like Hill's showing that "lower" carbohydrate improves performance allows for production and sale of a "lower carb, higher protein and fat" commercial food. Had the study concluded that actually, dogs fared best on a raw diet devoid of carbohydrates, processed grains, by-products and chemical additives, it wouldn't have done much good for business, and would have led to a lot of potential legal headaches.

 

There is however an abundance of literature demonstrating that dogs manufacture ample glucose (easily) from fats and protein and they are well recognised to have no lower threshold of carbohydrate requirement in their diet. In other words, they live and work perfectly fine without it. There is no such thing as an essential carbohydrate, only essential glucose - which again, is easily manufactured from protein and fat.

"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.

 

The Waltham Book of Cat & Dog Nutrition (1988)

 

A fat adapted dog runs perfectly well on his energy source without need for supplementary, or indeed any, carbohydrate intake. That goes for all types of dog not just sled dogs. Raw fed working dogs the world around attest to this fact. It's also well established that fat metabolism provides almost twice as much water to the dog than carb metabolism, and that this can help stave off the effects of dehydration during exertion, so I don't know how this doesn't hold up? Please do elaborate on that point.

 

I know we'll never agree on this subject (and of course I hold all this as stimulating and interesting banter, no malice intended!). But for as long as feeding high amounts of carbohydrate, grains and commercial pet food in general is thus far PROVEN to lead to disease and early death in its own right in dogs, cats and ferrets, I won't be relying on it. Especially when dogs are perfectly capable of utilising the food they were designed for - animal protein and fat - and doing a damn good job in the process.

[sandymere 8,263]

From back along.

 

Carbohydrate part II.

The cereal debate.

 

Over the last 20'000 or so years, in all probability, man would have unknowingly bred dogs that do well on a relatively high carbohydrate diet. This idea is based on the premise that carbohydrates being the lowest value food in most societies are the most likely of all to be spared for feeding dogs. Therefore dogs that prospered on a high carb diet would have had better survival and so breeding potential. This was not a matter of evolving new abilities but rather the utilization of one already in place. Wolves, the excepted ancestor of modern dogs, have the ability to digest and utilize carbs and it’s this ability that that has been passed on to our pet dogs. Recently there has been an upsurge in new fashionable diets that seem to discount this useful ability and decry the use of any form of cereal. A dogs ability to convert fats etc into glucose (Gluconeogenesis formation of glucose from fats or proteins) is oft quoted as proof that dogs don’t need to eat carbs, using the theory that what the don’t need they shouldn’t have. If we were to look at the processes of Gluconeogenesis etc we will find that we can interchange the science between dogs and humans and so by this thinking say humans likewise don’t need carbohydrates in their diet. Personally I feel we are better to look beyond what we can be do without and rather we should see what benefits are gained from what we can do with.

 

The biological systems of digestion and energy production are older than either species and allowed man and his familiar, the dog, to dominate the earth. The ability to utilize a great variety of lifestyles and feeding opportunities allowed these two species to prosper in a great variety of habitats from tundra to desert. The remnants of their ‘wild’ ancestors still exist though only in the harshest areas, such as the Bushmen or San in the Kalahari, a few Inuit in the artic or wolves clinging to existence in the few pockets of remaining wilderness, all places that modern man and dogs didn’t really want. In my opinion just as we shouldn’t expect modern man to follow an Inuit diet because it is 'natural' neither should we limit our dogs to a diet based on, an interpretation of, what an isolated population of wolves eats today. Wolves, as with humans, had populations spread over a large part of the earth covering a great variety of habits. To base our diets on a few examples of wild groups would exclude the great variety of food sources and diets that were available to the great majority of ours and their ancestors living across the rest of the world.

 

Balance in dietary terms is not about exclusion but rather inclusion. To this must be added the lifestyle changes from those of their early ancestors as explored in Carbohydrate in the Working Canine diet. In exertional terms our working dogs are often expected to recover far quicker than nature intended. On a low carb diet Gluconeogenesis is he only way glucose for immediate use and for replenishment of stores can be produced. Gluconeogenesis needs a double process, lipid/protein digestion and then conversion, before the energy is near readiness for utilization and this can result in depleted stores unless there is an extended recovery period. The brain, eyes, red blood cells and to a large extent the heart use glucose and the muscles begin/increase glucose usage when contracting at speed i.e. sprinting, though arguably lactate will be used in some circumstances. If the stores are depleted then these areas are likely to be compromised which for a working dog may well reduce performance and increase strain on the body. Bearing this in mind to restrict a working/racing dog to a very low carbohydrate diet, i.e. exclusion of any cereals just a few raw vegetables, seems to hold little merit though it is one often advocated.

 

In conclusion science if often used to validate an individuals point of view but it needs to be born in mind that even if the science is correct if out of context it doesn’t prove anything. The example of Gluconeogenesis being used to prove dogs and so by the same theory humans, shouldn’t have, rather than can live without, eating carbs or another I read recently, carrots are high in sugar, are examples of misinformation. It’s not that they are wrong but incorrectly used that can lead to science misleading rather than helping us. I’m sure that these examples were not meant to mislead rather that those quoting them misunderstood the information themselves. So next time someone starts spouting science, especially me, remember any information scientific or otherwise is only as good as the way it is used.

 

Good Hunting sandymere.

 

Please see origanel discussion on this post for more indepth stuff.

[Rainmaker 7]

 

In conclusion science if often used to validate an individuals point of view but it needs to be born in mind that even if the science is correct if out of context it doesn't prove anything. The example of Gluconeogenesis being used to prove dogs and so by the same theory humans, shouldn't have, rather than can live without, eating carbs or another I read recently, carrots are high in sugar, are examples of misinformation. It's not that they are wrong but incorrectly used that can lead to science misleading rather than helping us. I'm sure that these examples were not meant to mislead rather that those quoting them misunderstood the information themselves. So next time someone starts spouting science, especially me, remember any information scientific or otherwise is only as good as the way it is used.

 

Good Hunting sandymere.

 

Please see origanel discussion on this post for more indepth stuff.

 

A fair point and it's true we can argue until the cows come home - as we have done before now.

 

However, the fact remains that despite your article there is no proof in the assertion it makes that dogs were fed carbohydrate in the past, let alone selected for the ability to utilise them, which brings the rest of the article into question. Carbohydrates would not simply have been the 'lowest value' food for a community, I'd imagine it was all pretty damn precious and even today we can see that less industrialised societies certainly don't waste their produce, let alone start cooking carbs/grains for their dogs! The few bits of evidence we DO have suggest that dogs were left to fend for themselves (i.e. hunt wild animals) and were otherwise given the inedible (for humans) parts of the kill - bones etc.

 

The article continues on about how we shouldn't look at isolated populations of wild wolves and compares this to human Inuit diets - again, straw man building. The domestic dogs' ancestor is irrefutably (thanks to modern genetic sequencing) the Grey Wolf. Not any other species or kind of wolf, but the Grey Wolf. Regardless of where it lives in the world, "desert or tundra" the Grey Wolf kills and eats other animals. He doesn't start a camp fire, boil up some rendered grain and cereal by-products, then spray them with vitamin solutions, BHA, BHT and ethoxyquin for his dinner.

 

No matter which way you look at it, long term carbohydrate (especially grain) intake in a dog's diet is proven to cause harm. Feeding a diet the animals would themselves choose in the wild - that is, animals and parts thereof - doesn't cause this harm. You don't need science to form conclusions from that. Stating that dogs are somehow different to their wolf ancestors biologically / physiologically has no basis in fact, and indeed all the studies available show that they remain the same, with the same dietary requirements. I know I've linked to them before, but do have a read of the RawFed Myths List, especially the "Dogs are omnivores" and "Dogs require carbohydrate" ones.

 

Basically my stance boils down to this: With so much harm proven to be caused by commercial diets, grain intake and the like, why feed them when there's a suitable non-harmful alternative that is cheaper and healthier? Even if we completely ignore the carbohydrate debate, the fact is commercial foods are proven to cause disease, degeneration and early death in dogs, cats and ferrets. Surely that should be enough to stop people wanting to use them?

[sandymere 8,263]

"No matter which way you look at it, long term carbohydrate (especially grain) intake in a dog's diet is proven to cause harm." (Rainmaker)

Can you evidence this statement with anything other than hearsay?

And this

"Even if we completely ignore the carbohydrate debate, the fact is commercial foods are proven to cause disease, degeneration and early death in dogs, cats and ferrets."(Rainmker)

 

Lastly the point of the article was that it's about what is suitable for there needs now. Usain Bolt doesn't eat a caveman diet, although he is a direct decendent, but a diet appropriate to his needs as a sprinter and that diet will be different from that of a long distance athlete. So the diet of a lap dog against a working lurcher should be treated in the same way, appropriate to their needs.

Edited November 30, 2009 by sandymere

[Rainmaker 7]

"No matter which way you look at it, long term carbohydrate (especially grain) intake in a dog's diet is proven to cause harm." (Rainmaker)

Can you evidence this statement with anything other than hearsay?

And this

"Even if we completely ignore the carbohydrate debate, the fact is commercial foods are proven to cause disease, degeneration and early death in dogs, cats and ferrets."(Rainmker)

 

Lastly the point of the article was that it's about what is suitable for there needs now. Usain Bolt doesn't eat a caveman diet, although he is a direct decendent, but a diet appropriate to his needs as a sprinter and that diet will be different from that of a long distance athlete. So the diet of a lap dog against a working lurcher should be treated in the same way, appropriate to their needs.

 

Not many humans alive today eat a 'caveman' diet, whether they're sprinters or couch potatoes. It doesn't mean they shouldn't be! Look at what doctors and scientists tell us about it every day... We (Western society) are suffering from an alarming increase in heart disease (and other organ diseases), cancer, diabetes, arthritis, autoimmune disease, dental disease and so on due to eating a processed and highly unsuitable diet... sounding familiar yet? Humans eating a more 'natural' (read: appropriate) diet tend to live longer healthier lives free from the degenerative diseases afflicted upon those of us (mainly in the West) who eat a 'modern' processed diet.

 

Ask the people of Okinawa! They're still running around, doing karate and dancing well into their 110s, thanks (according to science and doctors) to their lifelong diet of fresh - mainly raw - fruit and veg and fresh raw fish. Not to mention the well recorded fact that only Western people get tooth decay and gum disease in large numbers. Native peoples eating a natural "cave man" diet have healthy white teeth as they're eating an appropriate foodstuff. They don't need to brush their teeth and see a dentist for fillings. Check out Sir Frank Colyer's works on the matter if you're interested.

 

It's exactly the same with dogs (and any other animal on the planet). Feed them what they're designed to eat and they'll thrive. Feed them commercial, processed junk food diets (especially ingredients that are inappropriate for the species) and health and longevity takes a nose-dive. There's so much evidence of this that your request for substantiation made me laugh out loud!

 

Dogs are not people. Dragging human athletes' diet into the argument about dog nutrition is once again straw man building (a 'straw man' is when someone successfully argues an unrelated point to make the other person's original argument look unsound, for the members who don't know what it means). Humans (including athletes) can carb load and benefit from it, dogs can't. That's just one example of how humans are not dogs and vice versa.

 

Dog's needs haven't changed all that much, they're still built for and suited to a diet consisting mainly of other animals. Before commercial pet food manufacture began a mere 100 or so years ago, "dog food" didn't exist (obviously). How then are dogs suddenly requiring that type of diet? They sure as hell didn't evolve in the 100 years since pet foods started being made, to suddenly require a bag of rendered grains and carbohydrates in their diet - whether they're sprinters or not! Running dogs have been around a lot longer than commercial dog foods, and they obviously did just fine back then (else we wouldn't be arguing over their descendents' diet now lol).

 

As for the evidence you requested for my statements about the profound harm done by all commercial foods, to save me typing it all out again I suggest you read "Raw Meaty Bones" by Dr Tom Lonsdale. It's not so much a book as it is actually a peer reviewed, fully scientifically referenced thesis on this very topic of appropriate canine nutrition (grains = bad, commercial food = bad, raw = good). It contains hundreds (thousands probably) of references to back up everything he (and I) have said, and all his claims are fully validated. If you have any questions after that, without meaning to sound sarcastic I strongly suggest you email Dr Lonsdale rather than argue the point further here. I can provide you his personal address if you'd like to PM me. He's a far better man to argue the ins and outs with you than I - he is after all one of the world's foremost authorities on the topic and always happy to defend his published papers.

 

Cheers.