# Diet Shaped Dog Domestication (study on starch digestion adaptation)



## Jacksons Mom (Jun 13, 2010)

Very interesting. 

Diet Shaped Dog Domestication - ScienceNOW


> Diet Shaped Dog Domestication
> by Elizabeth Pennisi on 23 January 2013
> 
> Fido may prefer steak, but his digestive system is also geared up for rice and potatoes. That's the conclusion of a new study, which finds that dogs have evolved to eat a more varied diet than their wolf ancestors. The shift parallels genetic changes seen in people and bolsters the idea that dogs and humans share similar evolutionary stories.
> ...


----------



## monster'sdad (Jul 29, 2012)

I read that today.......makes sense to me.

Isn't science grand?

Wolves have no problem digesting starches either, as they eat kibble in most zoos. It may take longer for them to get used to them though.


----------



## Sheltielover25 (Jan 18, 2011)

Jacksons Mom said:


> Very interesting.
> 
> Diet Shaped Dog Domestication - ScienceNOW


How does this prove they NEED starches? It just shows that perhaps, I don't know how valid it is as I haven't looked into whose backing it, that over time they've evolved to be able to break down some starch. How does that mean they NEED them? It sounds to me like their body has had to learn to adapt to their ideal food, meat, not being around...not sure how that proves anything, though, other than when meat is scarce and given enough time the body can adapt slowly and work with what it's given (again, doesn't mean that given is ideal)

Dogs clearly don't NEED starch as mine, and a lot of other people on here, would have sick dogs if that were the case. So while it's interesting, it certainly proves nothing other than starches, not sure in what amounts, might not be as taxing on dogs as they were at one time due to evolution.


----------



## monster'sdad (Jul 29, 2012)

Sheltielover25 said:


> How does this prove they NEED starches? It just shows that perhaps, I don't know how valid it is as I haven't looked into whose backing it, that over time they've evolved to be able to break down some starch. How does that mean they NEED them? It sounds to me like their body has had to learn to adapt to their ideal food, meat, not being around...not sure how that proves anything, though, other than when meat is scarce and given enough time the body can adapt slowly and work with what it's given (again, doesn't mean that given is ideal)




Phenomena: Only Human

It is from National Geographic and the genetic work was done in Sweden. You are being intellectually dishonest now. What this means is that the "wolf" theory is wrong. Totally wrong. The theory above has been around for a while, it is callled "the village dog" theory. This is the first time it has been proven by science.

What it shows is how marketing can make people believe something totally false, that is what it shows. It also shows how valid and powerful "cognitive dissonance" really is.

This validates the NRC's official position that dogs are omnivores.


----------



## rannmiller (Jun 27, 2008)

I'm still not sure it proves that dogs NEED starch, just that they are capable of digesting it, as was previously stated. Maybe I'm reading it wrong. I'd love to read the actual study and see some actual studies of the longevity and healthiness of PRM-fed dogs vs. kibble-fed and see who ends up better. It still doesn't explain why many dogs do SO much better on raw, why their stools are smaller and better, coats are usually shinier, teeth cleaner, etc. if they are supposed to NEED starches. You'd think their general health be suffering a bit more if that was the case. I'll gladly accept that I was wrong and start adding starch to my dogs' diet if I really think they need it, but this article hasn't convinced me of that yet. 

Off the subject a little bit: makes you wonder about the legitimacy of the theories behind the Atkins and Paleo diets too.


----------



## monster'sdad (Jul 29, 2012)

rannmiller said:


> I'm still not sure it proves that dogs NEED starch, just that they are capable of digesting it, as was previously stated. Maybe I'm reading it wrong. I'd love to read the actual study and see some actual studies of the longevity and healthiness of PRM-fed dogs vs. kibble-fed and see who ends up better. It still doesn't explain why many dogs do SO much better on raw, why their stools are smaller and better, coats are usually shinier, teeth cleaner, etc. if they are supposed to NEED starches. You'd think their general health be suffering a bit more if that was the case. I'll gladly accept that I was wrong and start adding starch to my dogs' diet if I really think they need it, but this article hasn't convinced me of that yet.
> 
> Off the subject a little bit: makes you wonder about the legitimacy of the theories behind the Atkins and Paleo diets too.


Show me the evidence dogs fed raw do so much better? No stories, I want evidence. 

By the way, wolves in captivity can live as long as 20 years and they eat cheap kibble, nothing like anyone on here feeds. Wolves in the wild live 4-5 years on average, granted they die of many causes but one is malnutrition.


----------



## Liz (Sep 27, 2010)

Mine must be missing these genes as they are incredible on meat, bones and organ only.


----------



## rannmiller (Jun 27, 2008)

monster'sdad said:


> Show me the evidence dogs fed raw do so much better? No stories, I want evidence.


... I just said I _wish_ there was a study! Sheesh, all I have is what I've seen with my own eyes and heard from everyone else on here (and other places).


----------



## monster'sdad (Jul 29, 2012)

rannmiller said:


> ... I just said I _wish_ there was a study! Sheesh, all I have is what I've seen with my own eyes and heard from everyone else on here (and other places).


Noooo, you were quite clear they do better on raw. "So much better" is what you said. There have been studies, and the studies show most raw diets are incomplete and unbalanced. 

I believe people have so much emotionally invested in raw feeding that facts don't matter, just like all the marketing that dogs are wolves. I have heard and read things by raw feeders that dogs and wolves have the exact same digestive systems. Clearly, we know this is not true.


----------



## Sprocket (Oct 4, 2011)

monster'sdad said:


> By the way, wolves in captivity can live as long as 20 years and they eat cheap kibble, nothing like anyone on here feeds. Wolves in the wild live 4-5 years on average, granted they die of many causes but one is malnutrition.


That is pretty much a "no brainer". I can't even believe you posted that.ound:

It is pretty obvious that in a cage, fed regularly, and with a soft bed, a wolf will live longer than one that is outside in the elements, contending for food with other wolves and pretty much fighting for its life. Malnutrition? Duh....that is Darwins law working! That wolf was not strong enough to compete, therefore it did not survive.


----------



## Sprocket (Oct 4, 2011)

monster'sdad said:


> Noooo, you were quite clear they do better on raw. "So much better" is what you said. There have been studies, and the studies show most raw diets are incomplete and unbalanced.
> 
> I believe people have so much emotionally invested in raw feeding that facts don't matter, just like all the marketing that dogs are wolves. I have heard and read things by raw feeders that dogs and wolves have the exact same digestive systems. Clearly, we know this is not true.


This is the dry and canned section, please do not bring raw into it. If you wish to speak about raw, please do so in the correct section of the forum.


----------



## Sheltielover25 (Jan 18, 2011)

Liz said:


> Mine must be missing these genes as they are incredible on meat, bones and organ only.


Yeah, all three of mine, too.


----------



## Sheltielover25 (Jan 18, 2011)

monster'sdad said:


> Show me the evidence dogs fed raw do so much better? No stories, I want evidence.
> 
> By the way, wolves in captivity can live as long as 20 years and they eat cheap kibble, nothing like anyone on here feeds. Wolves in the wild live 4-5 years on average, granted they die of many causes but one is malnutrition.


I don't think anyone is saying RAW is better. But we all have our doubts on starches being "needed." I don't care if you cook the meat/bones/organ or give them raw, but that's all they need to thrive...I can prove it with my lack of dental cleanings, great coat, great muscle, and blood work over the last two and a half years  

Also, by your theory, the health of canines and the increase in diabetes/dental problems, processed foods aren't working out too well


----------



## monster'sdad (Jul 29, 2012)

Sprocket said:


> That is pretty much a "no brainer". I can't even believe you posted that.ound:
> 
> It is pretty obvious that in a cage, fed regularly, and with a soft bed, a wolf will live longer than one that is outside in the elements, contending for food with other wolves and pretty much fighting for its life. Malnutrition? Duh....that is Darwins law working! That wolf was not strong enough to compete, therefore it did not survive.


Sorry Charlie, it shows that wolves won't collapse and die eating regular maintenance grade kibble load with artificial preservatives. I am glad you got a chuckle but again another foolish statement. All your raw feeders operate under the wolf fantasy, so if you were right wolves couldn't live on kibble, especially not for that long.

Keep laughing. That study made my day, seriously, you whole premise thrown out with science.


----------



## rannmiller (Jun 27, 2008)

Sprocket said:


> This is the dry and canned section, please do not bring raw into it. If you wish to speak about raw, please do so in the correct section of the forum.


Good point, I moved it to more neutral territory. Let's try to keep this civil or it will just get closed like every other thread like this.


----------



## monster'sdad (Jul 29, 2012)

Sheltielover25 said:


> I don't think anyone is saying RAW is better. But we all have our doubts on starches being "needed." I don't care if you cook the meat/bones/organ or give them raw, but that's all they need to thrive...I can prove it with my lack of dental cleanings, great coat, great muscle, and blood work over the last two and a half years
> 
> Also, by your theory, the health of canines and the increase in diabetes/dental problems, processed foods aren't working out too well


Diabetes has very little to do with the type of diet. Diabetes is largely a weight, gender and breed/genetic issue.


----------



## monster'sdad (Jul 29, 2012)

rannmiller said:


> Good point, I moved it to more neutral territory. Let's try to keep this civil or it will just get closed like every other thread like this.


You brought it up, I just responded.


----------



## Sprocket (Oct 4, 2011)

monster'sdad said:


> Sorry Charlie, it shows that wolves won't collapse and die eating regular maintenance grade kibble load with artificial preservatives.


As do many dogs...doesn't make them healthy.



monster'sdad said:


> All your raw feeders operate under the wolf fantasy, so if you were right wolves couldn't live on kibble, especially not for that long.


First off...you do not have the capability to understand why we believe and do what we do. Just because you don't understand, doesn't mean its a "fantasy". How condescending can you be? 

Of course a wolf can survive on kibble, a dog can too. AGAIN, it does not make them any healthier. 

Stick to what you know and keep your nose out of raw if all you are going to do is bash it constantly. It gets really old and tiresome.


----------



## Sprocket (Oct 4, 2011)

monster'sdad said:


> Diabetes has very little to do with the type of diet. Diabetes is largely a weight, gender and breed/genetic issue.


Diabetes is both diet related AND genetic.

Just for your clarity...

My fiances father has diabetes because all he eats is fried, fatty, salty and sugary foods. 

My step brother has diabetes because it is in his genes.


----------



## Boxers&Pom's Mom (Jan 17, 2011)

Sheltielover25 said:


> Yeah, all three of mine, too.


I am agree. I had see with my own eyes with my dogs. Allergies are gone, ear infections are gone, shiny hair, muscle body, no more overweight and perfect blood work done every year.


----------



## tem_sat (Jun 20, 2010)

monster'sdad said:


> Show me the evidence dogs fed raw do so much better? No stories, I want evidence.


Simple. You find the find the funding, and I will be more than happy to volunteer my Doxie to participate in the study.


----------



## woganvonderweidenstrasse (Nov 22, 2012)

Even if dogs did need carbs (and I still don't believe that they do) cooking something for them at home, that is fresh and free of preservatives and not overly processed, would still be way better than feeding them kibble.

And you can not say that dogs are omnivores - omnivores need carbohydrates for energy, we can't use protein and fat as efficiently as carnivores can. Dogs do fine without carbohydrates, and in many of our experiences do better without adding it to the diet at all.


----------



## doggoblin (Jun 6, 2011)

*Links for discussion.. Dog evolution.*

BBC News - Dog evolved 'on the waste dump'
Carbs were key in wolves' evolution into dogs - latimes.com
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature11837.html


----------



## woganvonderweidenstrasse (Nov 22, 2012)

I have a very uneasy feeling a big pet food manufacturer may have something to do with this study...I sounds like a desperate attempt to justify the use of large amounts of grain. Yes dog's can digest starch (when it's heavily cooked and processed) - this does not mean it is required in their diet or necessary for optimal health. Wolves in captivity fed kibble can obviously also digest grain....does this mean it is the optimal diet for them? 
I agree with Dr Robert Wayne and think it is more likely wolves scavenged on the carcasses of dead animals hunted by humans, and maybe started scavenging on starches only when there was no more meat available.


----------



## Savage Destiny (Mar 16, 2011)

I think this study is really interesting. One thing I would like to point out is that the study found absolutely nothing about dogs producing cellulase, which is needed to break down cellulose walls of plant matter, so I wouldn't go so far as to call dogs omnivores. Being able to digest starch better than a wolf doesn't mean much- they did not do a comparison study finding out exactly how much nutritional content wolves vs. dogs derive from starches. Just because dogs have been shown to be able to digest starch better than wolves doesn't mean they do it WELL, just better. If wolves having only two genes for amylase digest starch very very poorly, it doesn't mean that dogs are great at digesting starch just because they have more genes for it. Better than wolves, but not necessarily great overall. Not to mention that the article mentioned some dogs in the study only had four copies of the gene for amylase... That's hardly any better than wolves. Shall we test every dog for how many copies of that gene it has in order to decide whether or not to include lots of starch in the diet? 

I am not one that thinks fruits/veggies/etc. are the devil in dog food. Both of my dogs get raw pureed veggies in their food for different reasons. But I've never seen the point in adding starches. Dogs can derive all the energy they need from protein and fat, and starches help pack on the pounds just like they do in us. Riddle has enough trouble keeping slim, thank you!


----------



## BearMurphy (Feb 29, 2012)

woganvonderweidenstrasse said:


> Even if dogs did need carbs (and I still don't believe that they do) cooking something for them at home, that is fresh and free of preservatives and not overly processed, would still be way better than feeding them kibble.


thank you that is what I believe too. i would rather feed the fresh human grade whole foods that are found in kibble, instead of the processed form if I didn't agree with the PMR diet


----------



## naturalfeddogs (Jan 6, 2011)

monster'sdad said:


> Show me the evidence dogs fed raw do so much better? No stories, I want evidence.
> 
> By the way, wolves in captivity can live as long as 20 years and they eat cheap kibble, nothing like anyone on here feeds. Wolves in the wild live 4-5 years on average, granted they die of many causes but one is malnutrition.


Evidence is in the raw fed dogs themselves.

In the wild, injuries are probably the biggest cause of death. If the malnutrition part comes in at all it's simply because of lack prey in their area. Sometimes they do go days without eating. If they are injured bad enough and can't hunt down prey they will starve. If their prey is plentiful, they won't have a malnutrition problem. If they don't get injured and are physically able to hunt,they also won't have malnutrition problems and starve to death.


----------



## Sheltielover25 (Jan 18, 2011)

woganvonderweidenstrasse said:


> Even if dogs did need carbs (and I still don't believe that they do) cooking something for them at home, that is fresh and free of preservatives and not overly processed, would still be way better than feeding them kibble.


Exactly! That's what I'm saying. This study doesn't say dogs have adapted to thrive of processed foods full of preservatives, chemicals, and dye! LOL


----------



## Herzo (Feb 5, 2011)

monster'sdad said:


> Show me the evidence dogs fed raw do so much better? No stories, I want evidence.
> 
> By the way, wolves in captivity can live as long as 20 years and they eat cheap kibble, nothing like anyone on here feeds. Wolves in the wild live 4-5 years on average, granted they die of many causes but one is malnutrition.


Just for the record she said "why many dogs do SO much better on raw"

Turtle was doing good till she ate a loaf of bread and I am still trying to get her back on track. That was Sept 13.

When I started feeding Marlo PMR her belly that had a rash most of the time is gone. Now different kibbles made it worse and it would come and go as to what I fed but it was never just gone and now it seems to be.

Richter and Maddie seem to do fine with some carbs.


----------



## Payton Leeroy (Jan 8, 2012)

So, because their bodies CAN digest starches it automatically means that it's good for them? Hell, my body CAN digest the sugars in candy. Guess that's what I'm having for dinner tonight.

We all feed RAW because we know it's what's best for our dogs. The food companies will use anything as an excuse to try and scare people into continuing to use their products.


----------



## rannmiller (Jun 27, 2008)

I'm going to go ahead and merge this with the other thread going on this exact same topic right now. No need for duplicates :smile:


----------



## doggoblin (Jun 6, 2011)

Your argument of kibble for wolves is laughable. In Europe wolves in zoos etc are still fed raw. They haven't been convinced. Can you show evidence (used for justification to feed kibble for example) which demonstrate health benefits of commercial food over feeding wolves raw or is it a financial decision? I find it funny you don't accept anecdotal evidence from raw feeders but push your own to support your views. I have never once seen a scientific study which shows commercial food is better than homemade food. I've seen several trying to discredit raw feeding but never showing positive advantages over raw feeding. Although not dog based I find Epidemiologic study of relationships between consumption of commercial canned food and risk of hyperthyroidism in cats an interesting but not well publicized study.



monster'sdad said:


> Noooo, you were quite clear they do better on raw. "So much better" is what you said. There have been studies, and the studies show most raw diets are incomplete and unbalanced.


Believe at least one of the studies you are talking about was based on the AAFCO standard. In fact I believe it was carried out by at least one member from the team who created the standard (sponsored by Hills). Does Raw Pet Food Warrant a Unique Set of Nutrient Requirements?  argues why this may not be valid.



monster'sdad said:


> Diabetes has very little to do with the type of diet. Diabetes is largely a weight, gender and breed/genetic issue.


So why is it that when it comes to controlling Diabetes diet plays such a major role? The effect of insulin spikes after eating in dogs has been shown in at least one study studying high glycemic foods compared to low gylcemic foods. Thirty years ago, 19 in 10,000 dogs in vet hospitals were diagnosed with diabetes (Marmor et al., 1982; Guptill et al., 2003). By 1999, the prevalence in the same vet hospitals had increased to 58 per 10,000 dogs (Guptill et al., 2003) Three times as many. Are you saying only genetics plays a part or could diet also play a role, considering things like weight are also controlled by diet? 

I also find A low carbohydrate, high protein diet slows tumor... [Cancer Res. 2011] - PubMed - NCBI of interest. Has to be treated with caution as it's based on rats. Now if the same process occurs in dogs and cancer... I wonder what the statistics over time are of cancer in dogs and if numbers have risen with the rise in commercial food? Personally I haven't found statistics only hearsay which says cancer rates have risen dramatically.

Of course you can go even further back to the person probably responsible for the term probiotics, a Dr Kollath. When placed on a diet of processed, cooked foods animals seemed to be healthy but aged prematurely when compared with animals fed raw food. The cooked/processed food groups also developed chronic degenerative diseases far earlier than the raw fed group. It's thought the difference is mainly to do with enzymes. Could this be one of the reasons statistical analysis of commercial food vs homemade food shows homemade food fed dogs living on average 3 years longer?


----------



## Foodie (Apr 25, 2010)

doggoblin said:


> Of course you can go even further back to the person probably responsible for the term probiotics, a Dr Kollath. When placed on a diet of processed, cooked foods animals seemed to be healthy but aged prematurely when compared with animals fed raw food. The cooked/processed food groups also developed chronic degenerative diseases far earlier than the raw fed group. It's thought the difference is mainly to do with enzymes. Could this be one of the reasons statistical analysis of commercial food vs homemade food shows homemade food fed dogs living on average 3 years longer?


Do you have a link for this?


----------



## doggoblin (Jun 6, 2011)

No direct link to Kollath study despite looking. Probably well before the internet which may be one of the reasons (Dr Werner Kollath died in 1970). If you find a copy/link though I would love to look at it in more detail. It's discussed in some human nutrition books which is where I found it. 3 years average lifespan statistic from LippertSapy study 2003.


----------

