# Stop picking your dog food the way you pick your socks!



## Dr Dolittle

just spent the weekend at the American veterinary Medical Association and though there was lots of discussion about new weight loss foods and new urinary research in feline diets, the overwhelming theme I heard from vets across the country is all the GI. Issues, urinary stones, and early blood elevations in dogs and cats eating all these fad foo foo diets. Strictly anecdotal, but the result of excessive nutrients will have an effect on a percentage of animals. As some on this forum have discovered, they can feed a Proplan! Science Diet, even Purina Dog Chow and see no difference than these expensive foods. And in many cases, they will see an improvement. I hope over time we will wise up but I feel bad for those who love their animals like family and have no idea they are being duped? These vets had no agenda talking to me and weren't trying to promote anything except what they are seeing. hopefully this trend will die in the next few years. In the meantime,vets will make a lot of money!

Oh, the sock analogy? We buy socks that look good and feel good. people buy foods that look good and make us fee good! the heck with nutrition and science.


----------



## Shamrockmommy

I've been paying a lot more attention, now, and the dogs are doing well on foods with a good nutrient profile. Ideal Balance didn't work out, though, Echo's coat turned wiry and awful


----------



## Sprocket

I buy socks that fit and keep my feet healthy. They don't need to look good. 

Raw certainly doesn't look good to the average person but it sure does keep them healthy!


----------



## Sapphire-Light

The only fancy kibble I available here is Eartborn, however the formulas have kibble size is large for my toy poodle (we don't get the small breed one) , the primitive has smaller kibble however Pompadour doesn't like the taste too mush  

It seems those type of kibbles doesn't have an attractive flavor for picky dogs? 

So he gets a rotation of eukanuba yorkie, science diet and propac small breed , he gets bored eating the same kibble for too long, he's getting a bit of royal canin yorkie now and he likes it

Even if EB is better in label is not great for him as he refuses (even wit toppings) to eat it and the food is wasted


----------



## NutroGeoff

I would agree that some foods is designed to what the dog owners would think is good for a dog. That's marketing for you. However, I have seen less dogs having sensitive and allergies on the premium brand foods than I have on the lower end foods. Not to say that the grocery food brands or anything like that are less good for all dogs, but I have seen more dogs doing better on the higher end foods.


----------



## doggiedad

i switch brands of kibble and can often. sometimes i have 3 or4 different brands on hand.
he gets brand A in the am and sometimes brand Bin the pm. i stick with the premium brands.

i had a dog many moons ago that couldn't tolerate the premium brands. after several Vet visits
and testing my Vet said "try feeding him cheaper food". i switch to Alpo. after switching to Alpo
his coat became healthy and no more "dire rear" (i don't know how how to spell it). he was fine
on Alpo.


----------



## Celt

Personally, I feel that it's best to feed a variety of foods to your pets. I feed a mix of "fresh" and a variety of kibbles. I don't put much weight on "quality", it does have some value but I'm just as likely to feed Authority as Solid Gold. I do prefer foods with more "meat based proteins". My criteria is influenced more by how my dogs do on a food and how well they eat it. I try to feed more "fresh" foods because I know that for one of my pups, kibble is missing something he needs and another eats it with more enthusiasm. I don't worry too much about nutrient "profiles" because the way I feed they're unlikely (improbable but, not impossible) to get an "overabundance" or be "lacking" in any area.


----------



## DwayneTaylor

Yes, people should be aware while buying dog food. When I buy my socks I pick the best one for me which fits nicely and feels comfortable. But while buying dog food I focus on various things.


----------



## Georgiapeach

I buy what my budget can afford and what keeps my dog healthy. Two out of three of my dogs have issues if not fed certain kibbles (one skin, one tummy), so I always have at least 2 kibbles going at a time, if not 3. My third dog, aka rock gut, eats whatever kibbles don't work out for the other two. He does fabulously on whatever I feed him (a toy poodle, no less!!). I try and avoid excessive pea content, which unfortunately, is rampant in kibble right now. It really does a number on my boxer's digestive system...

Current kibbles: Taste of the Wild Pacific Stream (boxer), Back to Basics Open Range and Back to Basics Hi-Protein Pork (skin allergy dog, maltese/westie mix), Now Grain Free Small Breed (toy poodle). Back to Basics is expensive, so only my allergy dog gets this kibble. Thank goodness, she's small! I've tried and will use other brands as needed.


----------



## jessephoenix

I know that now a days some food is designed to what the dog owners would think is good for a dog, they just run after the brand not the quality, I personally recommend that Merrick Grain Free Real Duck and Sweet Potato Dog Food is favorite for all the beagles.


----------



## Kritter

Can you define what a good nutrient profile means? What foods would be a good example?

Can you give examples of bad nutrient profile foods with excessive nutrients?


----------



## Georgiapeach

I've decided to stick with what works for my boxer: Taste of the Wild Pacific Stream. After reading this thread, I decided to do a food trial of Pro Plan Grain Free, transitioned slowly, etc.. Jackson's poops are fine, but there are a lot of them during the day. Also, he's losing weight, even though I've upped the food 1/2 c. more than he needs on TOTW. He's now eating 4 cups/day of the Pro Plan and not putting back on any weight. His coat isn't as shiny, despite my usual supplements of fish oil and coconut oil. He also has lost his normal energy and is sleeping more (not normal for a boxer!). This, for a kibble that's more expensive than TOTW? No thanks.


----------



## Ninety

I used to feed my guy Pure Balance which I used to buy at Wally World, also known as Walmart to most people. At 16-17$ The bag isn't shiney, but is decently sized, and 1$ per can with ingredients comparative to other more expensive brands I couldn't really go wrong(or say no, for that matter). They don't have a small dog variety to my knowledge, but all small dog means on a bag is the kibbles are small, and my parents Pom has no issue with the size of this food. Gave my guy tremendous gas, however, as he has a sensitive tummy, so Now he eats orijen, as he is also a picky eater.

Also, the science diet you mention isn't exactly a cheap brand. And the manufacturer, Hill's, is one of the companies that's duping the consumer in order to line their pockets. They have veterinarians push their "prescription" diets on their customers that bring sick pets into their offices. Customer buys it as they want to do the right thing for their pet. Pretty much just paid 75$ or more for what they could have bought from pedigree or purina for at the same size bag of larger for 19$, give or take.


----------



## Dr Dolittle

Ninety said:


> I used to feed my guy Pure Balance which I used to buy at Wally World, also known as Walmart to most people. At 16-17$ The bag isn't shiney, but is decently sized, and 1$ per can with ingredients comparative to other more expensive brands I couldn't really go wrong(or say no, for that matter). They don't have a small dog variety to my knowledge, but all small dog means on a bag is the kibbles are small, and my parents Pom has no issue with the size of this food. Gave my guy tremendous gas, however, as he has a sensitive tummy, so Now he eats orijen, as he is also a picky eater.
> 
> Also, the science diet you mention isn't exactly a cheap brand. And the manufacturer, Hill's, is one of the companies that's duping the consumer in order to line their pockets. They have veterinarians push their "prescription" diets on their customers that bring sick pets into their offices. Customer buys it as they want to do the right thing for their pet. Pretty much just paid 75$ or more for what they could have bought from pedigree or purina for at the same size bag of larger for 19$, give or take.


ninety, Unfortunately the ingredient panel on the bag or can does not in any way tell you the comparative quality of the ingredient. Only the nutrient profile can, and I don't mean the min and max on the bag but the actual profile. You are correct that small breed foods are almost always just a smaller kibble. my little guys too like the bigger kibble! That is just marketing and gaining more shelf space at Petsmart.

I would consider the regular Science Diet pretty inexpensive vs most good, so called, good brands. I am curious how you figure Hills is duping the consumer and lining their pockets. I for one believe Origen is doing that. Having read thru their whole website, since they tell people therapeutic diets are all the same thing in different bags, I realize they have absolutely no credibility. there is such a drastic difference in the nutrient levels in those therapeutic diets, all brands included vs what you will buy anywhere else. Simply put, if the diet is not designed for that disease or condition it is not only not helping but probably making things worse. the research and science behind those diets is fascinating and I have the privilege of talking (listening) to many of these nutritionists and its a shame what pet loving people like yourself think of these people who have devoted their lives to nutrition. Though I can understand how the hype and marketing,maven among vet diets has gotten horrible. I suppose I shouldn't lump all vets but most would love to not carry diets. they cost a lot,my hey make less, and they take up lots of space they usually don't have. They "push" them becasue they really help pets and save lots of lives! Ask a vet about particular cases and how they were saved on therapeutic diets, from liver, heart, kidney disease, urinary stones, allergies, arthritis, etc. Those diets do not exist at Petsmart or fad food stores. ninety, I know we all want to do the best for our beloved canine companions and I can tell you every day it pains me to see good folks duped. but you need to really be smart and open minded to realize who is doing the duping. Consider the source of the info you are reading. Do they have the history and credentials. everyone is lining their pockets. The question is who can feed my dogs the best.


----------



## WesS

Pet food ingredients to look out for. Dr Karen Becker. Part 1

http://youtu.be/aTWHxvjI_as





Dogs never evolved for grains. Hills is involved in funding veteneray education and all their marketing is done to vets. It's an inferior product attached hip and shoulder to the vetenary industry. It's a high grain food. This is a filler used in excessive amounts in science diet to reduce costs.

These savings are then charged for as they have the 'vets'. Approval stamp, and try enter as a premium product.

Find it funny how vets consistently recommend science diet? So do I. 

Would a human doctor ever sell you on the idea of eating only one brand of packaged food your whole life to get all the nutrients and favour it internationally?


----------



## Celt

Dogs might have not evolved to eat grain (I'm of the opinion that they're oportunistic carnivores), but cooking can equalize all things when it comes to digestion. I know of several people who prescription brands have "saved" their pups and others who saw no difference in their pup's health. Imo, there is no one "best" food out there and that all brands are lacking/have excess of different minerals, vitamins, etc.This is why I try to feed many different brands/types of food. A "good" food is one that your dog thrives on whether the ingredients panel reads "good" to you or not. Some dogs do better on Dog Chow while others do horribly on Origen. You can't let "personal bias" affect doing what's best for your pup. Your dog is the best indicator for which food is the best


----------



## Dr Dolittle

hey Wes, Just a few points to consider. Younger newer vets that have grown up in this consumer marketing age will recommend almost anything that appeals to them. ghey spend very little time looking at clinical research and evidence based nutrition. the reason older vets for years recommended SD was becasue it was really the only diet designed with nutrient levels to help reduce risk of disease, really a by product of all the research that went into treating diseases with Prescription Diets. In fact, today with Petsmarts all over, it is very hard to find a vet actually carrying SD anymore but most are feeding it to their own pets. So they aren't lining their pockets with such a recommendation. And as vets see more and more issues with the new fad high end foods they are starting to again reconsider the quality of diets like SD which has the research behind it. there are lots of SD diets out there but since you consider them all inferior, why don't you give me an example of a good food and I will try and do a head to head comparison based on the nutrient profile and see if your bias holds up to a little scrutiny and some science.
By the way, Fr Mercola is awesome researching human foods. I am a big fan. but his pet sidekick Dr. Becker, though obviously passionate and compassionate, is a disappointment. She needs to take some nutrition classes to broaden her understanding. the difference is her clients are buying a kibble, unlike Dr Mercola talking about individual ingredients. if she understood the nutrients delivered form certain ingredients she would just play from the Blue Buffalo and Taste of the Wild handbook on good sounding ingredients. It's just another example of how our bias can blind us. of course, she is probably lining her pockets too, catering to a certain group, but I don't fault her for that. I just believe if you are going to call yourself an educator you should be held to a higher standard and know what you're talking about. I guess each of us have to elide for ourselves who to believe, huh?


----------



## meggels

Every dog that I've ever met on Science Diet looks terrible :-/


----------



## Kritter

So I am just going to pipe in here since my question in Feb never was answered. Dr. D, what do you consider a good nutrient profile? And what is a bad one? 

Wes, I have read some of Dr. Becker's articles and viewed her videos. I do agree with her philosophy of biologically appropriate food. I make my own dog food and supplement with commercial raw, or kibble, a few times per week. I think Dr. D gave a description of why a Hill's prescription type food might work on another thread. It makes sense, if it's needed. 

Does your dog have an issue that is not being addressed by your vet?


----------



## WesS

I think in both human and animal science the 'allied health sciences' are struggling with getting the truth out there.

The fact is many don't know the truth. It is all pretty inconclusive to be honest. The science is highly tainted by big pharma, and profitability margins.

In dogs we see this in the marketability of pet foods as 'big pharma'.

I have more faith in evolutionary science with regards to diet to be honest. I honestly believe the theories presented by anthropology hold more substance for humans for example.

A good source of reading is to look up Dr Tim Noaks. He wrote many books on nutrition and has been pivotal in engineering the diets of many top athletes. He followed the allied health professional science. He followed the high carb philosophy...

Well recently he threw out entire chapters of his old books. He says they are wrong. And is now going against what he has preached for years based more on paleo/Atkins eating plans.

Fact is there is no way you can convince me that eating processed brands is healthier than fresh. And there is no real way to convince me on all things equal a healthy dog with no obvious illness can draw more benefit from fillers and cost cutting practises.

I don't agree with everything Becker says. For one her faith in chiropractic is concerning to me.

But she makes great points. Having degrees in health sciences as well as marketing I can see through most of the rubbish.

To deny the marketability, funding and profit maximising of the pet food industry and the fact that many vets have admitted to very little nutritional education and strong marketing focus on their industry by science diet, and myself often having various vets recommend it... Well something is not right.

I'm not a complete conspiracy theorist. I have huge value in medicine etc. but the world is a lot more complicated than we care to admit.

I think Dr Becker is somewhat of a pioneer on many things including the over use of vaccines by vets and big pharmas influence in the education of them. Spaying dogs for health included. 

Although she is obviously well off now. Taking such a stance initially could not have been easy. So I do respect what she does immensely.


----------



## Celt

The only truly healthy diet is the one on which "you" thrive. This may mean a high carb diet for one or a high fat or high protein or..... Diet can be fairly general, every creature needs proteins, fats, vitamins, and minerals. It's the amount and method that may need to be individualized. For me personally, a processed diet is better than an all natural one. There are many things for various reasons that my body can't digest which could leave me with deficiencies. This happens with our pets too, creating the need for speciality diets. Man has been "playing" around with breeding dogs for quite awhile with very little "common sense" being used for the majority of that time, this has caused some of our pets to not be able to thrive on a biologically appropriate diet (even for dogs whose systems are working in top order). I know of dogs whose metabolism run very high, on an "all meat" diet they have to eat a huge amount of food to keep in condition, but on a carb rich (i.e. kibble) they keep condition on less food. Of course, there are dogs in the exact opposite direction for whom carbs are bad news. Yes, the majority of the time a biologically appropriate, natural diet is best for all living things. The 3 problems that occur are lack of variety, eating to extremes, and the lack of knowledge of what is necessary for good health. This is where diets come into effect on what's good and what isn't. Eggs are bad, oh wait, there not. Fats are bad, oh wait, not all fats. People want a "one size fits all" kind of diet, so they follow along with what "science" or "popularity" tells them is best. Sorry for the rambling rant, sometimes I can't help but dust off my soap box.

Huh, I just realized that I, pretty much, am saying to pick your "food" the way you do socks. Most people buy the ones that fit and are comfortable. They work, not too tight, thick, thin, loose, etc. You buy what works best for you, and really you should buy food that way too. Not following along with what others tell you is best. Sort of like toe socks, some people find these socks outstandingly comfortable, others detest them. Translating to kibble; some dogs do great on high protein, while others do poorly.Buy what fits and is comfortable.


----------



## Dr Dolittle

Hey Celt, Feels good to rant sometimes, doesn't it? Well said! Maybe the sock analagy wasn't the most accurate!


----------



## Celt

lol, thanks. Sometimes a good rant is relieving. I didn't think it was a "bad" anaolgy. In fact, it kind of made sense to me. Then just after I posted my rant a commercial came on about socks for diabetics, and my daughter was talking about needing to order new socks for riding. Next thing, "ping" my brain went "ohh". And I realized your analogy worked the other way too.


----------



## WesS

I thought it wasn't a great analogy. 

1) when we are discussing a generic 'optimal' diet we do so without speaking about outliers and individuals who have health discrepancies. There will always be food allergies etc.

2) there are many unlimited combinations. Just falling on what does not 'bother you' is not really thriving. 

3) individual considerations are always important but that's not what is being discussed here. With the model presented here maybe we start testing chocolate and then beer and then flowers on each individual.
To add further insult to injury how do we know what a dog thrives on when essentially most of the choices is one processed food rubbish or the other?

You go for evolutionarily appropriate diet. And work from there. That's my opinion. This is the most common sense and most appropriate science. Good study's in the 'nutritional' sciences for dogs are simply poor and lacking. The evolutionary sciences have no ulterior motives and frankly are not faffing around with the truth.

Then what are we talking about when we say processed? Do we mean grains? Or do we mean packaged non fresh food.

Also the other concern really is why are people constantly breeding dogs that don't thrive on biologically and evolutionary appropriate diets?

What have people done to some breeds that are so sickly and in such an unnatural state.


----------



## Celt

My response which are only personal opinions, seeing as unlike many, I don't have a "scientific" background to go off of.

1. Even without "health issues", many dogs can not thrive (or at least do well on) on "popular" diets. Some dogs with no issues can't deal with high protein levels, others do better on only non-processed foods these are the kinds of invivuality most owners have to deal with. Yes, the vast majority of dogs have no issues with "popular" diets which is how these diets become popular. After all, if most dogs did badly, owners are unlikely to follow the "band wagon".
2. The "unlimited" variety is exactly why you should test out what foods work best for your dog and you. I didn't say only what doesn't bother you. The food(s) must work (i.e. show good health), then you can narrow your choices to those that the owner feels comfortable feeding. Because if the owner isn't comfortable feeding a food, they will, eventually, go back to trying to feed the "popular" diet instead of what's working for their pet.
3. There is one clear cut way of testing a dog's health-blood work. This can help you "see" where your pup's body is at physically. If you add in the other health test, you get an even clearer picture. Otherwise, one is left with what they can observe in their dogs. Does it look "good", have good energy, get "hunger pukes", have good poops (small, firm), etc. These may not be as "solid" of an indicator, but is what the general population uses. 
And yes, try out everything you can to see what works. Try the chocolate (unprocessed foods)' the beer (homecooked), and the flowers (processed foods). This is the way foods have been found through out the ages. Now, I'm not saying to try out foods that have been shown to be bad. The testing of this food has already been done, to the determent of the "tester".
Any diet can be considered "packaged foods", unless one goes out and slaughters/grows their own food. Then goes on to process the food themselves, if they want. 
How one goes about testing diets is up to them. We have no knowledge of how their lives are working or what may be available to them. All though, in this day and age, most have the same foods available. Is an evolutionary appropriate diet best? My response would be maybe because not everyone can provide a proper evolutionary appropriate diet. Again, testing/observation is how to determine the "nutrtional quality" of a food.
Processed foods would be those that have been changed in almost totality from it's original form, such as kibble. Natural would be foods would be things like ground meat, bones, and perhaps vegetables that have been mixed together (changed in form but otherwise essentially the same), while unprocessed would be foods in it's natural form, such as a chicken leg. At least, these are my definitions.
As for breeding of dogs, I said that this has been done with little "common sense" for many, many decades. People have been breeding for "looks" or "ability" without concern on whether or not these indivduals are passing on good or bad genes. So breeds that I know of are: german shepherds, boxers, siberian huskies which are "known" to have "sensitive digestive systems". Dalmatians which as a breed, for the most part, generally suffer from developing bladder stones. Some breeds that need "supplements" added to their diets, usually for joint health, almost all of the giant breeds and "toy" breeds due to bad hips/patellas. When you add in all the various health issues (cancers, epilepsy, eye problems, blood problems, deafness, etc) almost every "purebred" (not every breed/individual, but a large portion) is "stricken" with some kind of issue. Even mutts are affected, although usually to a lesser degree. When anything is bred (every creature with genetic diversity) for a specific purpose, recessive genes will come to the forefront simply due to the "narrowing" of the indivuals used. As to why, people, in general, are more concern with what they want with little thought as to the effect they are causing.


----------



## WesS

Celt said:


> My response which are only personal opinions, seeing as unlike many, I don't have a "scientific" background to go off of.
> 
> 1. Even without "health issues", many dogs can not thrive (or at least do well on) on "popular" diets. Some dogs with no issues can't deal with high protein levels, others do better on only non-processed foods these are the kinds of invivuality most owners have to deal with. Yes, the vast majority of dogs have no issues with "popular" diets which is how these diets become popular. After all, if most dogs did badly, owners are unlikely to follow the "band wagon".
> 2. The "unlimited" variety is exactly why you should test out what foods work best for your dog and you. I didn't say only what doesn't bother you. The food(s) must work (i.e. show good health), then you can narrow your choices to those that the owner feels comfortable feeding. Because if the owner isn't comfortable feeding a food, they will, eventually, go back to trying to feed the "popular" diet instead of what's working for their pet.
> 3. There is one clear cut way of testing a dog's health-blood work. This can help you "see" where your pup's body is at physically. If you add in the other health test, you get an even clearer picture. Otherwise, one is left with what they can observe in their dogs. Does it look "good", have good energy, get "hunger pukes", have good poops (small, firm), etc. These may not be as "solid" of an indicator, but is what the general population uses.
> And yes, try out everything you can to see what works. Try the chocolate (unprocessed foods)' the beer (homecooked), and the flowers (processed foods). This is the way foods have been found through out the ages. Now, I'm not saying to try out foods that have been shown to be bad. The testing of this food has already been done, to the determent of the "tester".
> Any diet can be considered "packaged foods", unless one goes out and slaughters/grows their own food. Then goes on to process the food themselves, if they want.
> How one goes about testing diets is up to them. We have no knowledge of how their lives are working or what may be available to them. All though, in this day and age, most have the same foods available. Is an evolutionary appropriate diet best? My response would be maybe because not everyone can provide a proper evolutionary appropriate diet. Again, testing/observation is how to determine the "nutrtional quality" of a food.
> Processed foods would be those that have been changed in almost totality from it's original form, such as kibble. Natural would be foods would be things like ground meat, bones, and perhaps vegetables that have been mixed together (changed in form but otherwise essentially the same), while unprocessed would be foods in it's natural form, such as a chicken leg. At least, these are my definitions.
> As for breeding of dogs, I said that this has been done with little "common sense" for many, many decades. People have been breeding for "looks" or "ability" without concern on whether or not these indivduals are passing on good or bad genes. So breeds that I know of are: german shepherds, boxers, siberian huskies which are "known" to have "sensitive digestive systems". Dalmatians which as a breed, for the most part, generally suffer from developing bladder stones. Some breeds that need "supplements" added to their diets, usually for joint health, almost all of the giant breeds and "toy" breeds due to bad hips/patellas. When you add in all the various health issues (cancers, epilepsy, eye problems, blood problems, deafness, etc) almost every "purebred" (not every breed/individual, but a large portion) is "stricken" with some kind of issue. Even mutts are affected, although usually to a lesser degree. When anything is bred (every creature with genetic diversity) for a specific purpose, recessive genes will come to the forefront simply due to the "narrowing" of the indivuals used. As to why, people, in general, are more concern with what they want with little thought as to the effect they are causing.


The diets on blood testing and type etc. have never proven superior in human diets. 
There are so many variables.

We need to discuss biologically, and evolutionary appropriate. From there you can chop and change to suite the individual dog. 

Problem is most people start dog out with high carb processed diets. And then argue that dog is thriving. They argue that when they went on higher protein dog does worse.. When what they have essentially done is shock the system with a complete dietary change. (Known to create severe migraines and an adaptability period for humans that they struggle through to adapt before thriving).

Dog may have suddenly gone from burning carbs to what is now a ketonic fat burning state.

I think it's time to move the goal posts. Start with biologically appropriate based on evolutionary principles and move from there if dog is not doing well.

But don't forget that contamination of food... food poisoning in serving large packets of food etc. over several meals all play a role. Don't get afraid and blame the composition. It might be that particular packet/production or brand.

For those that feed raw and or fresh. Even better.


----------

