Re: [FH] % Sodium in Canned Food
Just a quick response on Christmas eve!
1. Unfortunately Janet & Binky's chart is out of date (5+ years on some of the foods). I started crunching numbers (hey, I took stats in undergrad and grad school!) and was coming up with numbers that were way off of hers. I then poked around the internet and eventually came across Tanya's CRF page, which has an AMAZING list of updated food information; her numbers lined up with mine too!
2. Weruva is a "strange" food (to me) when you look at the numbers. The fat levels are incredibly low (i.e. Chicken & Gravy has 8% fat based on DMA), too low for cats in fact (from what I've read they should be eating 20 to 40% fat). I agree the high water content is good, but I know that when I was struggling to get my cat to eat, the calories were just as important. Weruva has about half the calories as other cat foods (Wellness, Evo), meaning that you have to feed twice as much to get your cats the same amount of calories. The price isn't an issue; when my cat was sick, getting him to eat was. Evo and Wellness both run ~75% moisture, which is good enough in my book.
3. Yeah, weight is a correlational issue to outcomes, not causational. Big shoes don't cause big feet, I suppose :)
Happy Holidays everyone!
From: "acrocat@..." <acrocat@...>
Sent: Friday, December 23, 2011 11:05 PM
Subject: Re: [FH] % Sodium in Canned Food
--- In email@example.com, Toby Jones <tobythelegend@...> wrote:>
> I looked specifically at levels of protein, carbs, and fat, based on a dry matter analysis.When looking at protein, fat, and carbs, the Janet & Binky list is a great resource. It is compiled by a statistician (Janet) and she always welcomes new info to update her lists.
> I steered clear of Weruva due to their abnormally high levels of moisture in their food.Ryan, do you say this because you think the food is overpriced for the amt of water in it? In general, the more water we can get our cats to eat, the better.
> I looked at the levels of phosphorous and sodium as well, but only on an informal basis. I remember finding that Hill's had the lowest numbers for phosphorous, but that their protein levels were also lower and that their carb levels were higher.That's because there are few sources of protein that aren't rich in phosphorous.
>I suspect that lower protein might actually not be a bad thing, being as it would be easier on the kidneys,Higher protein is not bad for kidneys. Once an animal has renal disease, you may want to decrease protein (actually, due mostly to concerns about phosphorous) but protein does not cause renal disease. Cats evolved to eat protein & fat, that's it. No carbs. So they do great with protein & fat.
>and one article I read found that heavier cats had better prognoses for HCM issues... so maybe more carbs isn't a bad thing?Take care with these studies. When a wide-ranging analysis is done, some 'red herrings' can pop up due to unexpected causes. For example, a study on neutering showed that a type of cancer involving blood vessels occurred more often in neutered male dogs. It doesn't make sense, pathologically, so what could be another factor? How about the fact that (in this culture) neutering is often associated with providing consistent veterinary care, meaning that unneutered dogs who live outside, may be dropping dead of this cancer without anyone ever knowing while neutered dogs get their check ups, get prompt veterinary care and get diagnosed?
In studies of cats with HCM, the most consistent prognostic indicator was left atrial size. Weight hasn't come up as a reliable indicator of heart disease status. Fat cats are #1 in diabetes, though.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]