does a lurcher real need carbohydrates in its diet

[Damien030389 1]

I was told by many of my mates who have got lurcher's that a working lurcher doesn't real need carbohydrates in there diet

[watchman 256]

[Mickey Finn 2,983]

I was told by many of my mates who have got lurcher's that a working lurcher doesn't real need carbohydrates in there diet

 

Protein and Fat. The rest is just waste.

 

ATB

[cooper101 86]

there was a thread on this not long ago!! it was moved to the health and diet section i think!! flick through the pages its headed "is pasta any good for dogs??"

[Damien030389 1]

there was a thread on this not long ago!! it was moved to the health and diet section i think!! flick through the pages its headed "is pasta any good for dogs??"

ok thanks i will have a look

[sandymere 8,263]

Dogs don't need carbs, as humans, they can manage without them but all the reasearch suggest they run faster and recover faster if they are included in the diet so need is one thing but ability to use is another.

[skellyb 8]

all the reasearch suggest they run faster and recover faster if they are included in the diet

Research which ONLY includes diets with carbs in it.

[sandymere 8,263]

all the reasearch suggest they run faster and recover faster if they are included in the diet

Research which ONLY includes diets with carbs in it.

 

lol the wriggler, still await your alternative research.

[skellyb 8]

all the reasearch suggest they run faster and recover faster if they are included in the diet

Research which ONLY includes diets with carbs in it.

 

lol the wriggler, still await your alternative research.

Still awaiting your "research" which actually shows a true comparison, not just based on diets including carbs.

Strange isn't it that the wolf can roam upto 50 miles in a day and reach speeds of 36-38 miles an hour when chasing prey and manages that without a so called balanced diet or carbs.

[sandymere 8,263]

all the reasearch suggest they run faster and recover faster if they are included in the diet

Research which ONLY includes diets with carbs in it.

 

lol the wriggler, still await your alternative research.

Still awaiting your "research" which actually shows a true comparison, not just based on diets including carbs.

Strange isn't it that the wolf can roam upto 50 miles in a day and reach speeds of 36-38 miles an hour when chasing prey and manages that without a so called balanced diet or carbs.

Wher you getting your info from next your be telling us dogs can live to be 29 years lol. Wolves eat carbs if you were to read before typing it might help lol.

 

Now to answer wriggling skellys yapping. Now skelly I often wonder if your replies are posted under the influence of several rather complicated organochemicals, mainly fructose and ethyl alcohol but alas suspect it’s rather willful ignorance and it’s a known fact that you can’t fix willful ignorance but as I’m ever the optimist I’ll give it a go.

The reason you are unable to provide any evidence to gainsay the information I publicize is because there isn’t any. To answer why is a little complicated but in simple terms scientists, professionals etc carry out trials, experiments etc to test hypothesis in preparation for publication in journals and the like to further our knowledge in an accountable and repeatable way. Against this there is pseudo science, this often hides behind a veneer of true science but doesn’t stand up to close scrutiny. There are plenty of web sites around that deal with this in greater depth and I would recommend everyone to Google bad science or pseudo science and have a read. Pseudo science avoids testing its hypothesis as it will fail and so depends on hearsay, uncontrolled observation etc to back their claims in an unaccountable and uncheckable way. A good sign it is pseudo will be if it’s published as a book as with BARF info and so not peer reviewed as it would be if presented to a professional journal for publication. If we look at their evidence we may see why they might avoid peer review. The BARF diet was based on supposed observation of two colonies of feral cats, one had a high meat diet the other a high carb diet, the ones on the high carb had more birth defects etc than the other colony. So the problems with this as a basis for a feeding regime, are the birth defects diet related? Probably not, more likely genetic. Did they then test the theory? No. And even if the faults were in part or all diet related are these observations on cats, an obligate carnivore, transferable to, a more omnivorous dog? Again no not really the dog and cat have variance in their metabolic reactions when dealing with protein, carb synthesis which is why a cat is an obligate carnivore and a dog not.

 

So young wriggling skelly stop wriggling and start considering if the reason there is no comparison is because the only professionals or scientists who might carry out the experiments would not bother because the hypothesis is too flawed to be worth testing, and the ones promoting BARF type diets won’t because it would kill the golden goose.

[skellyb 8]

all the reasearch suggest they run faster and recover faster if they are included in the diet

Research which ONLY includes diets with carbs in it.

 

lol the wriggler, still await your alternative research.

Still awaiting your "research" which actually shows a true comparison, not just based on diets including carbs.

Strange isn't it that the wolf can roam upto 50 miles in a day and reach speeds of 36-38 miles an hour when chasing prey and manages that without a so called balanced diet or carbs.

Wher you getting your info from next your be telling us dogs can live to be 29 years lol. Wolves eat carbs if you were to read before typing it might help lol.

 

Now to answer wriggling skellys yapping. Now skelly I often wonder if your replies are posted under the influence of several rather complicated organochemicals, mainly fructose and ethyl alcohol but alas suspect it’s rather willful ignorance and it’s a known fact that you can’t fix willful ignorance but as I’m ever the optimist I’ll give it a go.

The reason you are unable to provide any evidence to gainsay the information I publicize is because there isn’t any. To answer why is a little complicated but in simple terms scientists, professionals etc carry out trials, experiments etc to test hypothesis in preparation for publication in journals and the like to further our knowledge in an accountable and repeatable way. Against this there is pseudo science, this often hides behind a veneer of true science but doesn’t stand up to close scrutiny. There are plenty of web sites around that deal with this in greater depth and I would recommend everyone to Google bad science or pseudo science and have a read. Pseudo science avoids testing its hypothesis as it will fail and so depends on hearsay, uncontrolled observation etc to back their claims in an unaccountable and uncheckable way. A good sign it is pseudo will be if it’s published as a book as with BARF info and so not peer reviewed as it would be if presented to a professional journal for publication. If we look at their evidence we may see why they might avoid peer review. The BARF diet was based on supposed observation of two colonies of feral cats, one had a high meat diet the other a high carb diet, the ones on the high carb had more birth defects etc than the other colony. So the problems with this as a basis for a feeding regime, are the birth defects diet related? Probably not, more likely genetic. Did they then test the theory? No. And even if the faults were in part or all diet related are these observations on cats, an obligate carnivore, transferable to, a more omnivorous dog? Again no not really the dog and cat have variance in their metabolic reactions when dealing with protein, carb synthesis which is why a cat is an obligate carnivore and a dog not.

 

So young wriggling skelly stop wriggling and start considering if the reason there is no comparison is because the only professionals or scientists who might carry out the experiments would not bother because the hypothesis is too flawed to be worth testing, and the ones promoting BARF type diets won’t because it would kill the golden goose.

The scientists won't bother quite simply because there is no money in promoting raw foods, how you can say that a diet similar to the natural wolf diet can be flawed is bloody stupid and shows how narrow minded you are.

Why you keep barfing, I have no idea, as I certainly have no interest in so called barf diets.

Edited March 3, 2010 by skellyb

[sandymere 8,263]

Scraping the bottom of the barrel now wriggler skelly, it's a conspiracy with the scientists all out to get us lol. Look at the research I posted and you will note the majority had nothing to do with making money, pet food production etc. Now scientist do make money following research but what’s the problem with that, if someone proves that a maltidextrin bar improves glucose replacement I don't have a problem with that its called progress.

As to wolves diet I asked you before to quote me when claiming I've stated something but alas again you try to put words in my mouth in a childish attempt to discredit. I've never claimed a wolves diet is not suited to a wolf, what I say is that I own sight hound types and that these have different needs due to their particular lifestyle and their diet needs to answer that, and that I would suggest is an open minded view.

So I will ask again please quote me rather than make up rubbish in future.

 

 

 

Ps there are a number of errors if you read my posts which you could use if it would make you feel better lol.

[skellyb 8]

Scraping the bottom of the barrel now wriggler skelly, it's a conspiracy with the scientists all out to get us lol. Look at the research I posted and you will note the majority had nothing to do with making money, pet food production etc. Now scientist do make money following research but what’s the problem with that, if someone proves that a maltidextrin bar improves glucose replacement I don't have a problem with that its called progress.

As to wolves diet I asked you before to quote me when claiming I've stated something but alas again you try to put words in my mouth in a childish attempt to discredit. I've never claimed a wolves diet is not suited to a wolf, what I say is that I own sight hound types and that these have different needs due to their particular lifestyle and their diet needs to answer that, and that I would suggest is an open minded view.

So I will ask again please quote me rather than make up rubbish in future.

 

 

 

Ps there are a number of errors if you read my posts which you could use if it would make you feel better lol.

For someone who tries to put someone down all the by using such quotes as young etc you really need to grow up, wake up and smell the coffee.

For ANYONE to claim that something is better without also testing alternatives is living in cloud cuckoo land.

You say that sight hound types have different needs but do not show the PROPER research which proves this.

Pehaps you also ought to look at some of the "scientists" you quote other research re dogs diets in hot climates and cancer and diet.

Can you also show any research which shows the long term effects of a commercial diet, no because once again there isn't any.

For someone who claims a long interest in dogs including training greyhounds, I find it quite surprising that you do not use your own experience but rely on cut and paste of what is basically flawed information, although as a greyhound trainer I doubt very much that you saw any dogs over 3 or 4 years old so would not be able to give your own experience of long term effects.

[driller killer 33]

Soooo. Did that answer your question?