# Is too much protein bad?



## Jackie (Jan 19, 2014)

Are there any negative side effects to feeding a low activity dog a high protein diet? If so, why? If not, why? Is there any scientific proof besides the dogs evolved from wolves argument?


----------



## bobulldog8 (Nov 14, 2012)

IMO yes, the average house dog only needs 28-32% protein. Once you get past that a waste product is created. this can cause teh kidneys to be overworked.


----------



## Jackie (Jan 19, 2014)

Thank you!


----------



## Dr Dolittle (Aug 2, 2013)

Jackie, This is a debate that will go on forever among nutritionists. As stated, once the animal gets all the amino acids it needs the rest basically gets converted to fat, but has worked the liver and kidneys. With normal healthy kidneys this excess is not a problem. The issue is that renal insufficiency occurs when about 60% of kidney function is gone? At this point MAYBE a urinalysis and Blood work will indicate something is wrong. unfortunately clinical signs we can notice don't show up till about 75% kidney loss. As renal function deteriorates excesses of phosphorus in the protein are the real culprits, and also sodium because as the kidneys fail, systemic blood pressure rises. that's why vet journals speak more about phosphorus and sodium than they do protein. When you look at therapeutic diets for renal failure you find some levels of protein around 16 to 18 %. I would disagree with the last post that liked as high as 32%. That level may be popular these days but there is no nutritional basis for feeding a household dog that high. There are many dog foods at 22% and they do not present amino acid deficiencies. That has been proven. As the last post did say and I agree! it's the unused protein that can do harm! but again! not to healthy kidneys! but why take the chance! especially as your dog ages and the risk of kidney failure increases? sadly, just the other day I was in a treatment room at a vet where a 9year old Yorkie was being put down. She had kidney failure and pancreatitis. The owner was out front, distraught. The vet said he had fed people food, and all kinds of crap to the dog. Now that feeding did not cause kidney failure but the high protein and sodium she received made it worse as her condition worsened. unfortunately, senior foods have no parameters to how restricted their phosphors or sodium is so very few are really designed for senior dogs. And all these high protein grain free foods are not only excessive in protein but the phosphorus levels are sometimes higher than the Old Roy at Walmart! Which is why vets see so many urinary and bladder stones and early renal elevations in dogs on these diets, Nevermind the diarrhea!

Well, that was probably more than you needed! LOL! But as I said, many will disagree with at least some of what I just said. personally I think it's more bias and agenda than sincere science but that's just my opinion. there is a website someone posted awhile ago with lots of references of studies wanting to argue the case, but again, holes can be shot in a lot of their assumptions and statements. If we know your dog doesn't need the protein and we know how common undetected renal disease is, and we sure know the treatment, use common sense. that's all! God Bless!


----------



## Taser (Mar 14, 2013)

The AAFCO profile for protein for an adult is only 18%. How did we ever go from that to the 30-40%? Phosphorous for an adult is a minimum of .5 with a max of 1.6 but it's hard to find anything under 1%. Most of the big name brands are 1.1 right up to 1.5%. It seems the more research I do, the more frustrated I get.


----------



## A&W (Apr 26, 2014)

What people fail to understand is that a food with 22% protein has to be made of something. That something turns out to be starch.

If you do the math using an 80lb Labrador Retriever as an example you will see what I am talking about.

A food with about 37% protein will require only 2.5 cups to achieve the high-end for protein per LB of body weight. A 22% food will require 4.5 cups. The dog will then consume almost 4 times the starch eating the 22% food than the 37% protein food while getting the same amount of protein. Read this section again everyone, ok?

If you look at phosphorus you will see the same. A 22% protein food will have about 1% phosphorous or about 1 gram per cup, while a 37% protein food could have as much as 1.5 grams per cup. The dog eating the 22% protein food will consume 4.5 grams of phosphorous while the dog eating the 37% protein food will consume 3.75 grams, so less on the high protein food. Read this section again folks, ok?

Do the math folks and stop worrying. The big name dog food proponents like Dr. Doolittle are totally wrong on this point.

If you ever wondered why so many dog and cats are so damn fat, this is the reason.


----------



## stbernardlover (Jun 24, 2013)

Personally, I think high protein foods work well with some dogs, but not others. My girl cannot handle anything above about 26%. The protein amount in her food right now would be considered low to most on this forum but it has worked wonderfully with her: firm stools, fluffy, shiny coat and a clean bill of health from the vet. If I put her on say, Orijen or EVO, bring on the unhappy pup with black tarry stools :yuck:


----------



## LProf (Nov 12, 2013)

stbernardlover said:


> Personally, I think high protein foods work well with some dogs, but not others. My girl cannot handle anything above about 26%. The protein amount in her food right now would be considered low to most on this forum but it has worked wonderfully with her: firm stools, fluffy, shiny coat and a clean bill of health from the vet. If I put her on say, Orijen or EVO, bring on the unhappy pup with black tarry stools :yuck:


Same here with my Pug. High Protein simply does not work for him.

And, the lower protein food he is on does not require me to feed him more then I would feed a food like Orijen, etc., and based on the amount I feed him, the nutrient levels are well within the desirable range for a senior dog.


----------



## Dr Dolittle (Aug 2, 2013)

Hey A&W, 

I know I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed and def not good with math, but I have retread those sections as you asked.....and I don't get it? though you actually bring up a point worth mentioning. 
First, how can you determine how much to feed a dog based on the protein percentage? Since the fat and carbs in the diet are providing most of the energy, you would need to know that in order to know how much to feed. You could make a very high calorie food with lower protein while you could make a low calorie food with high protein. 

But what you are really bringing up is key! Two foods could be at 22% protein(remember the number on the bag is just a minimum, but let's assume they are actuals) You might think they are providing the same amount of protein. Maybe! If one food is much higher in dietary fat and has a higher calorie content, you would feed less of that food, so actually delivering less protein. make sense? Again, the calorie content determines how much to feed, not the protein. If you are using protein as energy you need to use more than double what you could achieve with fat and the liver and kidneys have to work to convert it to glycogen. And that too can make dogs fat, and perhaps put them at risk of kidney issues later on.

You also seem to think the phosphorus levels are determined by protein levels. Again, maybe. Actually, the higher the protein the phosphorus will go up with it as well but the real factor here is the quality of the protein. Phosphorus comes from bone, hair, hoof, feathers, chicken lips, etc....in other words, the junk left in the meat source. You can have a food with identical protein levels, yet one could be as much as three times higher in phosphorus because they are buying cheap meat meal or meat sources. And phosphorus is def linked to kidney issues, much more than protein itself. A good example of this would be Taste of the Wild vs Purina Dog Chow. Taste of the Wild has just about double the phosphorus as Dog Chow. We could say part of that is it's high protein level, but we can also determine there's lots of junk in there to drive that phosphorus higher than just about any food out there!

that is why knowing how many grams of protein per calorie, or kcals as vets use, and the mg per calorie of phosphorus is much more accurate than percentages, but good luck trying to get those numbers from some of the companies out there.
So even though I can't agree with your math! I will agree other percentages need to be considered.

As far as big name food companies, I can tell you here are a few I like and trust and a few that are nothing but snake oil salesmen. So I don't just promote big name companies? But I also will not trust small name companies that are simply marketing pet food and have no skin in the game? They have no nutritionist on staff, little quality control, no long term relationships with ingredient suppliers, no research at all, etc. Unfortunately, if you are small, pet food buyers seem to think that means you are more honest and noble, like they are just doing it for the animals! LOL! Right! Blue Buffalo was small. They are pretty big now! They even have their first nutritionist now! LOL! So are their many diets not as good now that they are big? As far as size, a company selling in the grocery store sells a whole lot more food than a company selling vet diets, so is that why vet diets are better? Sorry, but in this case size does not matter! But does the company have the means as far as published reviewed research, top nutritionists, a great safety record, etc and bottom line, even if I don't like a company due to their dishonest marketing(which is just about all of them now) if I look at the nutrient levels and they are good! than it's a good food? I will not let my bias against a food company stop me from using or recommending a good diet.

Anf you are right, Don't worry, If you insist on spending lots of money on fashion foods because it makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside, go of for it. we all make choices like that every day, based on our bias and influences on our lives. feeding our beloved dogs is no different. I would just say after the age of 7 years I would do annual blood work just to be sure the kidneys are healthy. Once those levels begin to elevate, you need to pull your head out of ...the sand, swallow your bias, and get the protein, phosphorus, and sodium levels down. Because I see so much of it every day! and it is so sad. I was petting a 9 yr old Yorkie the other day as it was put down, 9 and dying from kidney disease. Was fed people food it's whole somewhat short life. Did people food cause renal failure? Nope! Dis the extremely high protein and sodium of a typical person diet effect the kidneys as they deteriorated? Absolutely! Had blood work caught the disease earlier, could that little girl have lived for many more years? Maybe! So many do! 

sadly, there will be a new period of time with more renal failure, more urinary and bladder stones, more GI issues, all because we are now in the age of marketing with no nutrition. You will all pay a lot more money, vets will have a lot of new business, and the dogs (and cats) and the people that love them will suffer. 

my prayer is people will wise up and not cater to these companies but I am not holding my breath!


----------



## Dr Dolittle (Aug 2, 2013)

Hey A&W, 

I know I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed and def not good with math, but I have retread those sections as you asked.....and I don't get it? though you actually bring up a point worth mentioning. 
First, how can you determine how much to feed a dog based on the protein percentage? Since the fat and carbs in the diet are providing most of the energy, you would need to know that in order to know how much to feed. You could make a very high calorie food with lower protein while you could make a low calorie food with high protein. 

But what you are really bringing up is key! Two foods could be at 22% protein(remember the number on the bag is just a minimum, but let's assume they are actuals) You might think they are providing the same amount of protein. Maybe! If one food is much higher in dietary fat and has a higher calorie content, you would feed less of that food, so actually delivering less protein. make sense? Again, the calorie content determines how much to feed, not the protein. If you are using protein as energy you need to use more than double what you could achieve with fat and the liver and kidneys have to work to convert it to glycogen. And that too can make dogs fat, and perhaps put them at risk of kidney issues later on.

You also seem to think the phosphorus levels are determined by protein levels. Again, maybe. Actually, the higher the protein the phosphorus will go up with it as well but the real factor here is the quality of the protein. Phosphorus comes from bone, hair, hoof, feathers, chicken lips, etc....in other words, the junk left in the meat source. You can have a food with identical protein levels, yet one could be as much as three times higher in phosphorus because they are buying cheap meat meal or meat sources. And phosphorus is def linked to kidney issues, much more than protein itself. A good example of this would be Taste of the Wild vs Purina Dog Chow. Taste of the Wild has just about double the phosphorus as Dog Chow. We could say part of that is it's high protein level, but we can also determine there's lots of junk in there to drive that phosphorus higher than just about any food out there!

that is why knowing how many grams of protein per calorie, or kcals as vets use, and the mg per calorie of phosphorus is much more accurate than percentages, but good luck trying to get those numbers from some of the companies out there.
So even though I can't agree with your math! I will agree other percentages need to be considered.

As far as big name food companies, I can tell you here are a few I like and trust and a few that are nothing but snake oil salesmen. So I don't just promote big name companies? But I also will not trust small name companies that are simply marketing pet food and have no skin in the game? They have no nutritionist on staff, little quality control, no long term relationships with ingredient suppliers, no research at all, etc. Unfortunately, if you are small, pet food buyers seem to think that means you are more honest and noble, like they are just doing it for the animals! LOL! Right! Blue Buffalo was small. They are pretty big now! They even have their first nutritionist now! LOL! So are their many diets not as good now that they are big? As far as size, a company selling in the grocery store sells a whole lot more food than a company selling vet diets, so is that why vet diets are better? Sorry, but in this case size does not matter! But does the company have the means as far as published reviewed research, top nutritionists, a great safety record, etc and bottom line, even if I don't like a company due to their dishonest marketing(which is just about all of them now) if I look at the nutrient levels and they are good! than it's a good food? I will not let my bias against a food company stop me from using or recommending a good diet.

Anf you are right, Don't worry, If you insist on spending lots of money on fashion foods because it makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside, go of for it. we all make choices like that every day, based on our bias and influences on our lives. feeding our beloved dogs is no different. I would just say after the age of 7 years I would do annual blood work just to be sure the kidneys are healthy. Once those levels begin to elevate, you need to pull your head out of ...the sand, swallow your bias, and get the protein, phosphorus, and sodium levels down. Because I see so much of it every day! and it is so sad. I was petting a 9 yr old Yorkie the other day as it was put down, 9 and dying from kidney disease. Was fed people food it's whole somewhat short life. Did people food cause renal failure? Nope! Dis the extremely high protein and sodium of a typical person diet effect the kidneys as they deteriorated? Absolutely! Had blood work caught the disease earlier, could that little girl have lived for many more years? Maybe! So many do! 

sadly, there will be a new period of time with more renal failure, more urinary and bladder stones, more GI issues, all because we are now in the age of marketing with no nutrition. You will all pay a lot more money, vets will have a lot of new business, and the dogs (and cats) and the people that love them will suffer. 

my prayer is people will wise up and not cater to these companies but I am not holding my breath!


----------



## 1605 (May 27, 2009)

High protein + high fat are not for every dog, especially sedentary house pets.

OTOH, if we didn't give our GSPs a food that was high in protein & fat, they wouldn't get enough calories, or maintain good muscle mass & weight. Been there, done that. 

BTW, starch has nothing to do with protein; it's a carb. So there is really no correlation between high protein & high starch in a dog food.


----------



## Shamrockmommy (Sep 10, 2009)

Purely anecdotal but I had nothing but trouble from the high protein trendy foods. Have each dog on something,different right one,but the ranges are from 19-26% for protein and 10-15% fat and the dogs are doing really well. Their coats and body condition has,improved, actually. 

Works for us. Personally, I'm done trying to make the 5-star foods work.


----------



## riddick4811 (Nov 2, 2011)

Shamrockmommy said:


> Purely anecdotal but I had nothing but trouble from the high protein trendy foods. Have each dog on something,different right one,but the ranges are from 19-26% for protein and 10-15% fat and the dogs are doing really well. Their coats and body condition has,improved, actually.
> 
> Works for us. Personally, I'm done trying to make the 5-star foods work.


I totally agree. I am done with many of the 5 star foods. I am feeding my high energy hard keepers 30/20 traditional performance foods and easy keepers 25/15 or 26/16 foods. My dogs are heavily exercised, run hard in the woods 3-5 times a week and that amount of protein and fat is working for them. My dogs all did horrible on foods high in peas and potatoes. I prefer traditional grain foods and to be honest foods with corn as the carb source works the best. I do supplement with fresh foods and salmon oil but I would do that no matter what kibble I used.


----------



## LProf (Nov 12, 2013)

Shamrockmommy said:


> Purely anecdotal but I had nothing but trouble from the high protein trendy foods. Have each dog on something,different right one,but the ranges are from 19-26% for protein and 10-15% fat and the dogs are doing really well. Their coats and body condition has,improved, actually.
> 
> Works for us. Personally, I'm done trying to make the 5-star foods work.


I could not agree more. I have had the same experience with the so-called 5 star foods. Both of my guys are on a kibble that does have grain, different brands, but lower protein and fat levels, and they are both doing just fine. Poops, coats and energy, all good.

I am trying to be real careful regarding the Calcium, Phosphorous and Sodium levels in the food, and am more conscience of the calorie content.


----------



## doggiedad (Jan 23, 2011)

Jackie, you have a nice looking dog. we considered a Golden before we decided on a German Shepherd Dog.


----------



## doggiedad (Jan 23, 2011)

i can't edit my posts.. it's German Shepherd Dog


----------



## Taser (Mar 14, 2013)

Short of contacting every single company, is there some other way to find out what companies actually have nutritionists on staff? We have 3 dogs here and at this point they are all fed something different as each one has different needs. High protein, moderate protein, lower fat, grain inclusive and grain free. Whatever works best for them is what they get.


----------



## lovemydogsalways (Mar 4, 2012)

What kind of urine test would you run?


----------



## Dr Dolittle (Aug 2, 2013)

lovemydogsalways said:


> What kind of urine test would you run?


A basic urinalysis would show the specific gravity, wether the kidneys are still concentrating the urine. if not, the doc would want to run some blood work to check kidney fuction. BUN, creatinine, phosphorus, etc. usually if clinical signs have been noticed by the pet owner! about 75% of kidney function has been lost? that's why excess protein can play a part in the undetected kidney dog or cat.


----------



## A&W (Apr 26, 2014)

Dr Dolittle said:


> A basic urinalysis would show the specific gravity, wether the kidneys are still concentrating the urine. if not, the doc would want to run some blood work to check kidney fuction. BUN, creatinine, phosphorus, etc. usually if clinical signs have been noticed by the pet owner! about 75% of kidney function has been lost? that's why excess protein can play a part in the undetected kidney dog or cat.


I wish you would stop making these comments about protein. It is complete misinformation. You must be stuck in the 1950's. 

You are correct that kidney disease can be asymptomatic for a long time but the cause or worsening has absolutely nothing to do with protein levels consumed in young or old dogs.

Rather than babble you should read.


----------



## Dr Dolittle (Aug 2, 2013)

A&W said:


> I wish you would stop making these comments about protein. It is complete misinformation. You must be stuck in the 1950's.
> 
> You are correct that kidney disease can be asymptomatic for a long time but the cause or worsening has absolutely nothing to do with protein levels consumed in young or old dogs.
> 
> Rather than babble you should read.


AW, We can agree it is NOT a cause. No one says it is. We'll, I am sure someone out there does. But if you are saying protein levels have absolutely nothing to do with worsening renal failure, you will find yourself alone. even the most fanatic high protein nutritionists who see no problem with high protein for healthy dogs, agree the data is clear that lower protein levels , and especially quality of protein, meaning phosphorus, must be restricted. I see the results of diets like that every day.

Ask yourself where you are getting your information, buddy. I hope you never know the heartache of losing a dog to kidney failure. I never have but have watched way too many.

And I think I would have lived the 50s, but just missed them! Actually the first renal diet came out in 1948!


----------



## A&W (Apr 26, 2014)

Dr Dolittle said:


> AW, We can agree it is NOT a cause. No one says it is. We'll, I am sure someone out there does. But if you are saying protein levels have absolutely nothing to do with worsening renal failure, you will find yourself alone. even the most fanatic high protein nutritionists who see no problem with high protein for healthy dogs, agree the data is clear that lower protein levels , and especially quality of protein, meaning phosphorus, must be restricted. I see the results of diets like that every day.
> 
> Ask yourself where you are getting your information, buddy. I hope you never know the heartache of losing a dog to kidney failure. I never have but have watched way too many.
> 
> And I think I would have lived the 50s, but just missed them! Actually the first renal diet came out in 1948!


Stop confusing protein with mineral content. Do you need me to explain the difference? 

*"David S. Kronfeld, Ph.D., indicated that compared with high- or low-protein diets, moderate-protein diets, those with up to 34 percent protein, had no ill effects in dogs with chronic renal failure and were associated with general improvement."*

Do you know who Kronfeld is? He considered 34% protein moderate believe it or not.

Need more?

*" In studies conducted at the University of Georgia in the early 1990s, both in dogs with chronic kidney failure and in older dogs with only one kidney, protein levels as high as 34 percent caused no ill effects."*

Case closed Dr. Dolittle.


----------



## flashyfawn (Mar 8, 2012)

This isn't a problem I'm dealing with right now, but just wondering if someone can tell me if I'm understanding this correctly. Some higher protein foods will use "junky" meat (not really sure what word I want to use there) which would include extra bones and other stuff, not only meat. So if a food is relatively high in protein, some of that protein could be coming from excess "junky stuff" and that is what drives up phosphorus. And therefore that particular food would not be good for a dog with kidney issues? So if a food is higher in protein but meat heavy, not "junk" heavy, that food would be okay? Which means that protein itself isn't exactly the problem, but rather the problem is what sometimes comes with higher protein?


----------



## A&W (Apr 26, 2014)

flashyfawn said:


> This isn't a problem I'm dealing with right now, but just wondering if someone can tell me if I'm understanding this correctly. Some higher protein foods will use "junky" meat (not really sure what word I want to use there) which would include extra bones and other stuff, not only meat. So if a food is relatively high in protein, some of that protein could be coming from excess "junky stuff" and that is what drives up phosphorus. And therefore that particular food would not be good for a dog with kidney issues? So if a food is higher in protein but meat heavy, not "junk" heavy, that food would be okay? Which means that protein itself isn't exactly the problem, but rather the problem is what sometimes comes with higher protein?


That is exactly correct. Foods like Taste of the Wild, EVO, Earthborn Primitive, Merrick, Nature's Variety and Nature's Logic are the ones to avoid.

Taste of the Wild is not as bad in absolute terms but relative to GA protein is bad.


----------



## Dr Dolittle (Aug 2, 2013)

A&W said:


> That is exactly correct. Foods like Taste of the Wild, EVO, Earthborn Primitive, Merrick, Nature's Variety and Nature's Logic are the ones to avoid.
> 
> Taste of the Wild is not as bad in absolute terms but relative to GA protein is bad.


AW! We agree completely with this last statement of yours! totally!


----------



## Dr Dolittle (Aug 2, 2013)

flashyfawn said:


> This isn't a problem I'm dealing with right now, but just wondering if someone can tell me if I'm understanding this correctly. Some higher protein foods will use "junky" meat (not really sure what word I want to use there) which would include extra bones and other stuff, not only meat. So if a food is relatively high in protein, some of that protein could be coming from excess "junky stuff" and that is what drives up phosphorus. And therefore that particular food would not be good for a dog with kidney issues? So if a food is higher in protein but meat heavy, not "junk" heavy, that food would be okay? Which means that protein itself isn't exactly the problem, but rather the problem is what sometimes comes with higher protein?


Flashyfawn, you got it. It's not that the junk provides additional protein but the meat source, no matter it's name, if it is pure meat it will have lower phosphorus. If it is meat heavy, as you said, but that meat contains bone and other junk, the phosphorus will be high. As AW stated, the mineral content actually is the most important factor. but again, those minerals are found in the protein.


----------



## Dr Dolittle (Aug 2, 2013)

A&W said:


> Stop confusing protein with mineral content. Do you need me to explain the difference?
> 
> *"David S. Kronfeld, Ph.D., indicated that compared with high- or low-protein diets, moderate-protein diets, those with up to 34 percent protein, had no ill effects in dogs with chronic renal failure and were associated with general improvement."*
> 
> ...


Oh, that explains it. Yes, kronfeld, know the name well. If you are a follower of his it makes sense you would be hyper sensitive over protein. AW, we actually agree more than we disagree. Any text in renal disease management will talk more of the quality of the protein than the actual amt, ie minerals. I am with you there. And from your other post we seem to agree these fad diets that are up to almost 40 % protein are bad! not the protein so much as the phosphorus they delivery Would you agree it is virtually impossible to find a high protein diet with low phosphorus? Farmina seems to be the best in that category.

the case is not closed since there's lots of studies out there....LOL! Like global warming! We all choose who to believe. I don't like studies with artificial disease like clapping off or removing a kidney. that is grade 4 research. I prefer studies with natural occurring disease in client owned dogs, Grade 1 studies. What was the source of protein in those studies? If egg or corn gluten meal the effect at 34% would be less on the one kidney than if they were meat based? What was the phosphorus levels used? I am far from smart enough to be in research but I have learned to question studies over the years? just personal opinion, but I saw Kronfeld as one of those guys trying to discover something new to make a name for himself, which in guess is what most of them do, to be fair? I just see how the Rena diets out there, all brands, do work really well. And as I have stated, I don't know of any benefit to feeding such high protein. Do you? so when I weigh all that I come out still believing controlled protein at optimal levels! restricted phosphorus and sodium! is a smart way to feed my older dogs? I have SEEN dogs and cats blood levels normalize just by putting them on renal diets. I have SEEN dogs and cats live years with kidney disease, while managed on these diets. And I am sure you'll agree. So I will agree there is a popular myth that it's just high protein and you are correct! it is not? I tend to agree with MN, Mich state! Kansas,... Not Kronfeld, not U of PA. LOL! Sounds like we are picking teams!


----------



## flashyfawn (Mar 8, 2012)

A&W said:


> Foods like Taste of the Wild, EVO, Earthborn Primitive, Merrick, Nature's Variety and Nature's Logic are the ones to avoid.


That is interesting because I have tried those foods and aside from one dog who ate Nature's Variety for a few months, my dogs did not do well at all on them. TOTW in particular.

This might just be a coincidence, but my 12 year old dog has had odd bloodwork for roughly two years now, maybe longer. Nothing scarily out of range but there's always some things that aren't right. At least one of her kidney numbers has always been off, but it's always in a different combination (she's a bit of a medical mystery.) About a month ago, she was having some issues and we did bloodwork. She eats Hills w/d and has been for almost a year, and this is the first time she's had bloodwork done since eating the w/d. Everything came back normal. I almost wondered if it was a mistake, LOL. Also in that same period of time, we have had to increase her pain medicine so if anything, her system should be more taxed, not less. Obviously the w/d isn't specifically addressing any kidney issues but it does make me wonder if a food that has lower, more appropriate levels of everything is easier for her body to deal with, and that would account for the surprisingly normal blood results. I can't change her food (nor would I want to) so in the end it doesn't really matter a whole lot, but it does make me think.


----------



## NutroGeoff (May 15, 2013)

How much protein would be considered too high? I know there are a ton of foods out there coming put with very high protein, like 36 to 38% even some with 40%.


----------



## Taser (Mar 14, 2013)

Good question. To add to it, how can you tell whether the protein is high from the meat or all the extra peas and beans that are being added. They have to be driving the number up.


----------



## A&W (Apr 26, 2014)

NutroGeoff said:


> How much protein would be considered too high? I know there are a ton of foods out there coming put with very high protein, like 36 to 38% even some with 40%.


This is impossible to answer by just looking at the percentage of protein. I use the Farmina 37% protein formula but the grams of protein fed is about the same as a food with 26% protein. Mineral consumption is a bit less on the higher protein foods.

The difference is that the calories are biased toward fat and protein rather than carbohydrates. I have used enough of this food to confirm that even with a substantial reduction in the amount fed I see no reduction in actual body weight but they do look more slender, which I like, probably due to lower carbohydrate levels.

The impact on coats has been dramatic, I mean spit shine.


----------



## NutroGeoff (May 15, 2013)

Oh wow. Well that's not bad. Because I know that the Ultra Gluten Free food has around 33% and Baxter did well on it when I tried that bag.


----------

