# Protein. I'm just not convinced.



## CorgiPaws (Mar 31, 2009)

I was thinking about protein content and the role it plays in commercial dog foods. 
A few things don't quite make much sense to me. 
It is very CLEAR that the high protein foods appear to be of better quality. Ingredients speak for themselves. 
Continually we see people say the more protein the better, and that as long as the food is "meat-based" protein content can not be too high. 
Alright, those are all fair points that make sense to me to an extent, HOWEVER
More often than not a (generally) raw feeder will jump in and say something to the effect of "can't have too much protein, my dog eats JUST meat, bones and organs, which is full of it!" (by no means am I saying pmr isn't best, of course ) This defense of protein packed diets makes NO sense to me. Even in kibble feeding is the goal not to give the most species-appropriate, natural diet possible? 


In the wild, a dog would eat meat, bones, and organs. They may graze on plants in a dire situation, or eat sugary fruits and veggies because who doesn't like cake? This is not an omnivore/ carnivore debate, by the way. My point is, their NATURAL diet would only be like 25% protein. 

YES, foods with more meat MEALS boast a higher protein content. but is it natural? Is it healthy? Is it appropriate? is a 50% protein kibble full of meat MEALS really superior to say a 26% protein with water-inclusive meat? I mean, after all, moisture is simply a component of meat, and it is talked about as if this NATURALLY OCCURRING substance is somehow inferior to protein-packed rendered foods like meals simply because they don't have the protein amounts. 

Now I'm just rambling, and I'm not even sure if my thoughts are put out there correctly. 
Meh. food for thought, I guess.


----------



## whiteleo (Sep 7, 2008)

Doesn't all that protein have to actually work harder to get past all the crap its paired with? So in reality a higher protein diet for kibble eaters in the end really probably works out to the same protein as a PMR diet? I mean their digestive tract is working harder to digest the stuff that isn't really useful in their diet, just my thoughts!


----------



## redspoo (Mar 19, 2010)

I agree with Whiteleo. We (both people and dogs) digest and utilize natural foods in a much more efficient way then any food that is processed.


----------



## DaneMama (Jun 27, 2008)

I have always thought the same things that Linsey has posted. I'm not convinced that really high protein is necessarily better or not. Commercially produced diets are just too complicated for me LOL


----------



## Unosmom (May 3, 2009)

I always looked at it as a more concentrated source of protein(like a protein bar or a meal replacement shake), I personally would not feed a kibble thats less then 30% protein, because in most cases it seems to have more grain/potato then meat. 
I'm still unsure what effect high protein has on kidneys (42% and Up), but I feel a lot more comfortable feeding something in the range of 33-35%, thats grain free and has a good bit of meat in it. Would I prefer that I didnt have potatoes? sure, but some type of binder has to be used in order to produce kibble. 

The best I can do is offer my dog a variety of quality foods and hope for the best. He seems to be doing quite well (gets mistaken for a puppy almost every week), so I'll stick with it.


----------



## CorgiPaws (Mar 31, 2009)

danemama08 said:


> I have always thought the same things that Linsey has posted. I'm not convinced that really high protein is necessarily better or not. Commercially produced diets are just too complicated for me LOL


I mean, the ingredients are obviously better in the high protein, grain free formulas.... and it is the meat MEAL ingredients that give the high count I'm assuming. And I know that people snub named meat ingredients because of their "water content" and how no food will have a high protein content without it. 

But SHOULD the high protein be there?
At what point did we find even further processed ingredients superior to meat?
At what point did meat naturally containing water become a "bad" thing?



I'm not saying super high protein is good or bad. (though I know that NONE of my dogs have NEVER done well on the super highly recommended brands like Evo) I AM saying that named meat ingredients are more desirable to ME than a rendered meat meal that provides crazy amounts of protein. *shrug*

Commercial pet food is SO complicated. It amazes me how many people think that raw is so complicated. :frown: It's simple compared to this stuff!! (NOT looking for a kibble vs. raw debate. We all know where just about every forum member stands.)


----------



## CorgiPaws (Mar 31, 2009)

Unosmom said:


> I always looked at it as a more concentrated source of protein(like a protein bar or a meal replacement shake)


YES! This statement helped me put a thought into words better. 

We all know a nice healthy home cooked meal with a lean protein, and a veggie is ideal for humans, right? But in a bind, we'll take a protein bar... perhaps an energy drink, or meal replacement shake. It isn't quite like grabbing a candy bar... but still not ideal at all. 

This is exactly how I am starting to look at meat meal ingredients. It's not quite like going for corn and soy, but not as ideal as the real thing (meat).


----------



## ubershann (Jul 29, 2010)

I agree with what you're saying about dogs eating more than just meat, organs and bones. Dogs are scavengers. They'll eat what's available to them. While I think PMR is great I don't think it's the only healthy way to feed dogs. In the wild there will not always be meat available. Often a big deer kill will be followed by a period of scavenging until the next meat source is found. And that will definitely bring the overall protein percentage down. 

As far as meal is concerned, I think when it comes down to processed foods it's the best way to ensure the dogs really are getting the protein amount that is written on the package. If the promise of protein is higher in a food using meat than a food using meal, then maybe they'd even out in the end, but if it's the same, then I don't think there would be as much protein in the end. 

I also have had a lot of trouble finding data to back up the whole digestion thing. I don't mean Whiteleo's statement about the stomach working harder, I mean I've heard statements about not mixing meat with kibble because it doesn't digest at the same rate, and other don't-mix-with statements, but I have yet to find anything to back those statements up. If you go to the in-the-wild argument a dog/wolf/coyote will not pass up other food because he is worried it won't digest at the same rate. And what studies have been done on digestion to show this occurs? Or to show that it's a problem? If they are out there I'd love to see them. I just haven't been able to find much on that subject.

I also do think there is such a thing as too much protein. I know that's not a popular opinion around here, but from my own studies about feeding dogs, plus general nutrition, plus general anatomy & physiology, plus cell biology, I just can't ignore the science I have in my head. Not saying dogs should eat like people do, but I do think there is a point that is too much and can start causing problems.


----------



## CorgiPaws (Mar 31, 2009)

ubershann said:


> I agree with what you're saying about dogs eating more than just meat, organs and bones. Dogs are scavengers. They'll eat what's available to them. While I think PMR is great I don't think it's the only healthy way to feed dogs. In the wild there will not always be meat available. Often a big deer kill will be followed by a period of scavenging until the next meat source is found. And that will definitely bring the overall protein percentage down.


Actually, I think my main point was missed. 
There are two sides here. One that firmly believes (dare I say knows?) that dogs are carnivores, and one that thinks dogs are omnivores. Neither sides will agree, but one thing we can all agree on it that dogs should AT LEAST eat MOSTLY meat. 
EVEN a pmr diet is only about 25% protein. 
A real food diet containing plant matter would be even less than that. i might guess once plant matter is factored in it would be more like 18-20%

And yet, BOTH sides seem to agree that the higher protein in kibble the better, when in reality, neither belief in real-food-form comes close to 35-40% protein. 

And yet, to achieve this unnaturally high protein amount, what do we use? meat meal. and this meat meal is supposedly "better" than natural meat because meat contains water. Meat meal. an even more processed ingredient that is essentially like a protein bar or meal replacement shake, and not a nice healthy meal. 

The logic behind it doesn't make sense to me. 
I personally, would RATHER see a food with three named meats listed first, NO meat meals, and 25% protein.


----------



## ubershann (Jul 29, 2010)

CorgiPaws said:


> And yet, to achieve this unnaturally high protein amount, what do we use? meat meal. and this meat meal is supposedly "better" than natural meat because meat contains water. Meat meal. an even more processed ingredient that is essentially like a protein bar or meal replacement shake, and not a nice healthy meal.


I would think it's because the water is taken out of the meat when it's cooked anyway, so by using meal they are getting more protein out of it rather than meat, which would end up much lower in the end. I don't know that I've heard meal is "better" as far as higher in nutrients, but it's higher in protein and that's the main point of putting the meat in there at all (in any form). They're both processed in the end


----------



## baggie (Jun 2, 2010)

Interesting. I didn't realize protein percentages were that low in a pmr diet. I don't think anyone claims meat meals are better, but are necessary to increase the protein percentage in kibble. Maybe the higher end dog foods are like me and assume a natural diet is much higher in protein percentage.

This is an interesting topic as I have been thinking I should go for the highest protein I can get out of a kibble. Maybe the person above had a point as to the availability of the protein in a kibble? Higher percentages are needed in kibble to get adequate absorption? Maybe the Vets are right that higher protein kibble isn't the best?

EDIT: Just thought of something else. Since we always feed less of a high end kibble, maybe that's the point? The pet isn't getting an excess of what he/she needs, it just takes a less amount to do it. Does that make sense?


----------



## CorgiPaws (Mar 31, 2009)

baggie said:


> EDIT: Just thought of something else. Since we always feed less of a high end kibble, maybe that's the point? The pet isn't getting an excess of what he/she needs, it just takes a less amount to do it. Does that make sense?


It makes absolute sense.... much like eating a power bar for every meal......


----------



## rannmiller (Jun 27, 2008)

baggie said:


> This is an interesting topic as I have been thinking I should go for the highest protein I can get out of a kibble. Maybe the person above had a point as to the availability of the protein in a kibble? Higher percentages are needed in kibble to get adequate absorption? Maybe the Vets are right that higher protein kibble isn't the best?


NO! I mean, they're right that you shouldn't _just_ look at the percentages, that would be like us basing every food purchase we make on the nutrition facts rather than the ingredients (I got scared away from almost all of the breakfast cereal on the market after reading ingredients btw). You have to look at what is in the kibble to determine whether or not it's good, then you can look at the guaranteed analysis. Just because a food is high protein doesn't automatically make it good (think any of the commercial brand high protein "performance" dog foods) and just because a food is lower protein doesn't automatically make it bad. It's all a matter of ingredients. 



baggie said:


> EDIT: Just thought of something else. Since we always feed less of a high end kibble, maybe that's the point? The pet isn't getting an excess of what he/she needs, it just takes a less amount to do it. Does that make sense?


Yes, that makes sense. I think that's exactly the point. As long as the ingredients are good. Maybe meat meals aren't ideal, like the power bar, but at the same time, isn't it a lot better than a candy bar? That is, if you can find a power bar that actually is made of something real that isn't actually a candy bar. So like if we had a power bar made of whole oats, dried fruit, honey (to hold it all together), and whey protein, or for you carnivores, a protein bar made of pureed steak and potatoes. Still something like what you'd eat for a meal, just more condensed.


----------



## ubershann (Jul 29, 2010)

I love powerbars! Well, Clif bars. They're delicious and don't make me feel really full :smile:


----------



## kevin bradley (Aug 9, 2009)

ubershann said:


> I love powerbars! Well, Clif bars. They're delicious and don't make me feel really full :smile:


Uber,

those Clif bars are pretty good, heh? I almost bought some the other day. I've been looking for a meal replace/energy bar that is actually decent healthwise. Most seem to be posers loaded with sugar.


----------



## JayJayisme (Aug 2, 2009)

I've always thought that to really compare apples to apples between PMR and high protein kibble, you should factor in the extra water the kibble fed dog will drink since that is a direct product of the food they are eating.

When I switched my dogs to PMR, one thing I noticed right away is how much less water they drank than when they ate kibble. Since there is a dietary requirement for water, and a PMR fed dog gets a certain amount of that from his food (which is one reason why raw meat is only about 25% protein), shouldn't that approximate amount of water that the PMR fed dog ISN'T drinking, be included in the nutritional values of the kibble fed dog since he will be drinking that much extra water? 

If you factor that in so the total water intake between the two diets is about the same, the amount of protein in the kibble diet drops significantly, probably to dangerously low levels in dogs eating low protein crap kibble.

Think of it this way. If you had two dogs, one fed PMR and one fed freeze dried meat and separate bones, in order to really compare the two, wouldn't you include the water missing from the freeze dried diet that the PMR diet offers? Dogs are usually free to drink whatever water they need so we don't often think about the fact that dogs eating kibble are compensating for what the are losing from a more natural diet.

Not sure if this makes sense. Just thinking out loud.


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 16, 2008)

Makes sense to me. Actually I have lost interest in protein percentages in kibble since I haven't fed it in over 8 years but I used to wonder about all that moisture stuff when you compare the two. You also have to wonder about the bioavailibility in the protein in kibble. You also have to wonder about the animal protein vs plant protein. It caused my head to spin so I stopped thinking about trying to compare the two in any manner.


----------



## CorgiPaws (Mar 31, 2009)

RawFedDogs said:


> Makes sense to me. Actually I have lost interest in protein percentages in kibble since I haven't fed it in over 8 years but I used to wonder about all that moisture stuff when you compare the two. You also have to wonder about the bioavailibility in the protein in kibble. You also have to wonder about the animal protein vs plant protein. It caused my head to spin so I stopped thinking about trying to compare the two in any manner.


That's where I'm at. But, I'm not trying to compare them. Well, maybe in a sense. but more like "because THIS is what happens in nature, THAT doesnt make sense." There really is no REAL comparison between PMR and kibble. :wink:

And that's just it: it's all things that you WONDER about, but no one can really be sure. :frown:


----------



## DaneMama (Jun 27, 2008)

I think it's appropriate to compare the two if the kibble is soaked in water to increase the moisture in it. Thats how Ive always looked at it....figure soaked kibble has a similar amount of moisture in it compared to raw.


----------



## CorgiPaws (Mar 31, 2009)

danemama08 said:


> I think it's appropriate to compare the two if the kibble is soaked in water to increase the moisture in it. Thats how Ive always looked at it....figure soaked kibble has a similar amount of moisture in it compared to raw.


Which is a good point, too. 
Did I mention I love your sig? :tongue: I have to chuckle to myself every time i see your posts....


----------



## baggie (Jun 2, 2010)

rannmiller said:


> NO! I mean, they're right that you shouldn't _just_ look at the percentages, that would be like us basing every food purchase we make on the nutrition facts rather than the ingredients (I got scared away from almost all of the breakfast cereal on the market after reading ingredients btw). You have to look at what is in the kibble to determine whether or not it's good, then you can look at the guaranteed analysis. Just because a food is high protein doesn't automatically make it good (think any of the commercial brand high protein "performance" dog foods) and just because a food is lower protein doesn't automatically make it bad. It's all a matter of ingredients.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, that makes sense. I think that's exactly the point. As long as the ingredients are good. Maybe meat meals aren't ideal, like the power bar, but at the same time, isn't it a lot better than a candy bar? That is, if you can find a power bar that actually is made of something real that isn't actually a candy bar. So like if we had a power bar made of whole oats, dried fruit, honey (to hold it all together), and whey protein, or for you carnivores, a protein bar made of pureed steak and potatoes. Still something like what you'd eat for a meal, just more condensed.


Yes, I agree with you. I always look at the ingredients to determine if that protein is coming from animal or plant sources. Anyone have any idea how much moisture a potato has? Will it lose a significant amount of water in processing like meat? 

For example, Acana wild prairie has potato as 2nd, while the grasslands has it 5th. Thinking on my next rotation with Acana I'll go with the grasslands.


----------



## sassymaxmom (Dec 7, 2008)

Visit nutritiondata.com
Nutrition Facts and Analysis for Potato, flesh and skin, raw
293 grams water in a 369 gram raw potato
In a 13 ounce potato there are over 10 ounces of water. 

Max's prey model diet could easily be reduced to some jerky and bone meal. A random recipe I have on ND for him is 348 grams wet with 234 grams water so 114 grams dry. Done. Well, fat won't dehydrate exactly. ZiwiPeak does it just fine, too bad some syrup needs to be added. The human has a problem with that teensy bit of food and I think that is one big reason fillers are needed. It doesn't look like enough food reduced like that. I don't think his wet raw looks like enough food either!

I do calculate Max's calories, protein intake and all that. He generally gets about 42% protein and 50% fat *by calories*. That is the way ND does things. 65 grams protein 41 grams fat .7 grams carb in that dry 114 grams. So for that sample meal he is getting 57% protein and 36% fat by weight. Nice wet protein.

NRC has no level of carbs recommended for dogs. You know the research is always looking for good reasons to use the cheapest waste products in dog food possible and they are unable to find a need for carbs. Dogs can USE them, they just aren't needed for a complete diet. Seeing that level of fat and protein in Max's food is scary. Carbs are safe and neutral feeling. He is a dog, a carnivore and his diet isn't my diet.


----------



## ubershann (Jul 29, 2010)

kevin bradley said:


> Uber,
> 
> those Clif bars are pretty good, heh? I almost bought some the other day. I've been looking for a meal replace/energy bar that is actually decent healthwise. Most seem to be posers loaded with sugar.


They're delicious! And there's a ton of flavors. I've found that even when I'm starving if I eat one then wait about 10 minutes I don't feel hungry at all anymore. Plus they're really handy to take with me so I don't end up buying fast food or junk if I'm out and get hungry


----------



## ubershann (Jul 29, 2010)

baggie said:


> Anyone have any idea how much moisture a potato has?


As far as I know potatoes have a very high amount of moisture. I'm sure they lose quite a bit


----------



## jiml (Jun 29, 2010)

this is like volumetrics for dogs LOL


I would think that the high protein diet which can be taxing for the kidneys is prob still better for the average dog than low quality foods. Now if you are talking lets say a high protein food and compare it to a higher quality food with lower prot levels. that is a very good question and one that only a large multiple year study can truthfully answer.


----------



## 1605 (May 27, 2009)

jiml said:


> this is like volumetrics for dogs LOL
> 
> 
> I would think that the high protein diet which can be taxing for the kidneys is prob still better for the average dog than low quality foods. Now if you are talking lets say a high protein food and compare it to a higher quality food with lower prot levels. that is a very good question and one that only a large multiple year study can truthfully answer.


Actually, high protein is only a problem for dogs with pre-existing kidney problems. (Large breed puppies are another matter.)


----------



## RCTRIPLEFRESH5 (Feb 11, 2010)

my views


RCTRIPLEFRESH5 said:


> idk if this makes sense but ehres myview on why higher quality kibbles have more protein than lower protein kibbles or raw. we aall know that raw is 100 percent meat protein. we all know that 100 percent of that protein is what dogs need. also since its all useful, they need less of it, to thrive.
> 
> ok now lets go to low quality kibbles.
> low quality kibbles dont care about or dogs, and so they are low percentage. also they are low percentage of 100 percent undigestable proteins.
> ...


........


----------



## sassymaxmom (Dec 7, 2008)

Nutrition Facts and Analysis for mackerelchickenfootporkbeef
This is a random recipe I might feed Max who is fed raw fresh food.
358 grams per serving
234 grams of water
65 grams of protein
41 grams of fat
6 grams of ash [minerals]
.7 grams of carbs

358-234=124 grams of dry

65/124=52% protein by weight
41/124=33% fat by weight
6/124=5% ash by weight
.7/124=.5% carb by weight
Where the remaining 10% is I haven't a clue but you can see that taking out the water and calculating dry weight puts raw and those high protein kibbles at about the same protein levels. Kibbles have more carbs, raw has more fat. I think Max does better with fat than with carbs but some find the dogs do better with more carbs and/or less fat.


----------

