# URGENT: AVMA to vote 'AGAINST' using Homeopathic Therapy in treating pets, JAN. 5



## TBell (Apr 1, 2004)

Just read about this new resolution by the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) to discourage Homeopathic treatment in pets. The resolution will be put up for a vote on Saturday, Jan. 5, TOMORROW.

The AVMA has already passed a resolution on Aug. 3, 2012, to discourage the use of Raw Diets, or the Ancestral Diet (what dogs and cats ate in the wild).

*AVMA RESOLUTION: Homeopathy Has Been Identified as an Ineffective Practice and Its Use Is Discouraged*

RESOLVED, that the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) affirms that—

1. Safety and efficacy of veterinary therapies should be determined by scientific investigation.
2. When sound and widely accepted scientific evidence demonstrates a given practice as ineffective or that it poses risks greater than its possible benefits, such ineffective or unsafe philosophies and therapies should be discarded.
3. In keeping with AVMA policy on Complementary and Alternative Veterinary Medicine, AVMA discourages the use of therapies identified as unsafe or ineffective, and encourages the use of the therapies based upon sound, accepted principles of science and veterinary medicine.
4. Homeopathy has been conclusively demonstrated to be ineffective.

You can read the full resolution here on the AVMA website. CLICK HERE

*The American Holistic Veterinary Medical Association has prepared a response of their own. The AHVMA response covers 3 points:*

1. The AVMA has models, but actual recommendations about veterinary practice are the responsibility of veterinary state boards. There are a number of states that include homeopathy in their state laws about the practice of veterinary medicine.
2. There are a number of misstatements in the white paper, and we are listing them for delegates. 
3. AHVMA believes that when anyone considers a modality, they should talk to people who are considered experts in the field. Before voting, there a task force should be formed which includes experts in the field of homeopathy, to look at further evidence and make recommendations to the HOD. That way delegates to the House can make an informed decision.

You can read the full reply by CLICKING HERE.

I'm sure many of you have successfully used Raw Diets and Homeopathic treatment in treating many senior pets holistically. Many have used it to treat other diseases by boosting the immune system in pets naturally. 

Contact info for the AVMA is below. *Remember that the vote is tomorrow (Saturday, January 5), so if you want to weigh in, you should do it via email, phone or fax right away:*

*Email address: [email protected]*
*Phone number: 800-248-2862*
*Fax number: 847-925-1329*


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

Why urgent? How does it affect you or anyone else? Not like it is a law saying you can't feed raw, processed, or cat crap for that matter. 
Unwad your panties and go grind some chicken :roll:


----------



## TBell (Apr 1, 2004)

Oh I'm sorry.......never mind.


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

No seriously what's the big deal?


----------



## TBell (Apr 1, 2004)

FYI - vote is tomorrow in case anyone cares.


----------



## frontier (Nov 3, 2003)

TBell said:


> FYI - vote is tomorrow in case anyone cares.


 Thanks for sharing


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

I will ask again. Why should anyone care? That is. Real question


----------



## JusticeDog (Jul 3, 2003)

badbullgator said:


> I will ask again. Why should anyone care? That is. Real question


Ok, I'll bite:
1. Because it would interfer with a vet's practice of medicine and their decision making. 
2. Because it potentially will take a tool out of a vet's arsenal treatments.
3. Because this vote will give pet insurance carriers the grounds to deny even more claims. 
4. Because this vote will create a "slippery slope" that will lead to more oversight. What will be next? Ruling out chiro and acupunture?

I have used holistic medicine successfully, when more traditional treatments were not effective. There is nothing wrong with the suggestions of the AHVMA. 

Thanks for the info Tammy! I just sent the email.


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

JusticeDog said:


> Ok, I'll bite:
> 1. Because it would interfer with a vet's practice of medicine and their decision making.
> 2. Because it potentially will take a tool out of a vet's arsenal treatments.
> 3. Because this vote will give pet insurance carriers the grounds to deny even more claims.
> ...


Practice guidelines are just that guidelines. I vet that believes holistic works can still reccomend whatever they like. Every medical profession has reccomendations from theirrofessional society's. it does not mean they are binding, just guidelines. I follow the guidelines set forth by ours to the extent I agree with the, however, I do things everyday that are outside of those guidelines. No vet is being forced to stop recommending anything. This is simply a veterinary practice committee saying that therapies and treatments should be scientifically validated. 
This is making an issue out of nothing.


----------



## Swack (Nov 23, 2011)

badbullgator,

I can't speak for Tammy but I think the AVMA's decision could potentially have far-reaching consequences. If this vote passes it may carry weight with some state veterinary boards. Those boards may restrict the licensing of homeopathic vets and/or retrict certain pratices. That would limit dog owner's choices as to what treatment options they could choose to use for their animals. Therefore, this vote has the potential to limit our freedoms as dog owning individuals. 

Taken to an extreme (as many things are tending to these days) an activist bureaucrat might decide that if you feed your dog an ancestral diet (for example) you are not providing your dog with appropriate care _according to AVMA guidlines_. This could be interpreted as a form of animal abuse and you could have your dog taken away from you for his own safety. While this may sound extreme, ask yourself how many things have happened in the past few years that you would have thought impossible five years ago? (One example, the Fed's fire the CEO of GM and put their own guy in his place!?!)

Don't fall into the trap of thinking that "the issue" is the issue on the table. Look beyond the stated issue to see what the real issue may be. For example, why would they object to feeding a dog an "Ancestral Diet"? It would be a great diet for a canine wouldn't it? Yeah it would, except for the fact that *animals must die* for you to feed your dog in that manner. Don't doubt that there are a slew of animal rights types in the AVMA.

I have come to the conclusion that organizations like the AVMA aren't just about promoting the best health care for your animal. They are about protecting their turf. If there is competition for a piece of their action they will do their best to squash it before they lose their power and control. That doesn't promote good vet care. It doesn't protect our freedom. It helps line their pockets!

We need to look beyond the short-sighted thinking of "That doesn't affect me" and see the big picture. Any organization that would make the over-reaching statement that "Homeopathy has been conclusively demonstrated to be ineffective" isn't interested in finding the truth. In fact, they may be trying to supress it.

Swack


----------



## BHB (Apr 28, 2008)

The only people who really care is the pet industry because, just like the FDA, it effects their bottom line... profit. 

The FDA is made up of people that are doctors, pharmacists, food industry people and such and is very political. They have a war going on with the natural food/supplement/vitamin industry because those industries affect their profit. They don't want people taking those supplements and becoming healthy because then they don't buy their drugs or go to the doctor as often. Why do you think that the statement on the vitamins and natural food supplements says, "This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease." The FDA requires that statement on all natural supplements and vitamins because it cuts into the profits of drug companies, doctors and food industry companies. According to the FDA, nothing can cure or treat any disease unless it is a drug, i.e.- their drugs. 

I believe that you have to look past the initial subject here and try to see the reasons for this "urgency". Obviously, it is having an impact on the profit margin. If they allowed this to go on it would effect profits in all sorts of pet related industries such as the dog food industry and veterinary industry. JMHO.

Sorry, all you veterinarians out there. I don't mean to step on anyone's toes in particular, but this is just my opinion. Flame away! 

BHB


----------



## TBell (Apr 1, 2004)

Thanks, Susan and Jeff!

It's kind of like gun control.....well who cares if they outlaw AR15's. I don't use them anyway.

It does in fact sway the state veterinary boards when a resolution passes. It must give weight to their decisions. 

Not only will it affect veterinary boards, but our veterinary colleges who research diseases which affect our dogs. Now, with this resolution that declares homeopathy ineffective, our veterinary colleges cannot even consider raw diet or homeopathy as a treatment for diseases. 

For the typical veterinary practice it can determine whether your vet can recommend alcohol and vinegar for swimmer's ear or must they now recommend a prescription drug?

Email sent also with all of your points added!


----------



## Renee P. (Dec 5, 2010)

Do you people actually know what "homeopathy" is? It is NOT holistic medicine, or about natural remedies.


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

TBell said:


> Thanks, Susan and Jeff!
> 
> It's kind of like gun control.....well who cares if they outlaw AR15's. I don't use them anyway.
> 
> ...



Nonsense. Changes nothing. 

Sky falling regards


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

mitty said:


> Do you people actually know what "homeopathy" is? It is NOT holistic medicine, or about natural remedies.


Exactly. Why would a profession founded in science reccomend something that is totally disproven and potentially harmful. 
Susan do you reccomend someone hire a convicted felon in prison for selling drugs act as an attorney for someone facing drug charges?


----------



## TBell (Apr 1, 2004)

mitty said:


> Do you people actually know what "homeopathy" is? It is NOT holistic medicine, or about natural remedies.


AHVMA states,


> Veterinary homeopathy falls under the AVMA's definition of Complimentary and Alternative Veterinary Medicine CAVM.


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

BHB said:


> The only people who really care is the pet industry because, just like the FDA, it effects their bottom line... profit.
> 
> The FDA is made up of people that are doctors, pharmacists, food industry people and such and is very political. They have a war going on with the natural food/supplement/vitamin industry because those industries affect their profit. They don't want people taking those supplements and becoming healthy because then they don't buy their drugs or go to the doctor as often. Why do you think that the statement on the vitamins and natural food supplements says, "This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease." The FDA requires that statement on all natural supplements and vitamins because it cuts into the profits of drug companies, doctors and food industry companies. According to the FDA, nothing can cure or treat any disease unless it is a drug, i.e.- their drugs.
> 
> ...


while I agree the FDA is political you are way wrong that it is about protecting profit. Everyone would make far more money without the FDA. Drug companies and doctors are not concerned about supplements because if they were worth while Merck and others have more than enough money to take over any supplement company out there.
Nobody likes the FDA except the FDA. The intent is good but their practice leaves much to be desired. 

BTW- I have more than a bit of knowledge about that topic.


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

TBell said:


> AHVMA states,


Homeopathy i/ˌhoʊmiˈɒpəθi/ (also spelled homoeopathy or homœopathy; from the Greek hómoios- ὅμοιος- "like-" + páthos πάθος "suffering") is a system of alternative medicine originated in 1796 by Samuel Hahnemann, based on his doctrine of similia similibus curentur ("like cures like"), according to which a substance that causes the symptoms of a disease in healthy people will cure similar symptoms in sick people. Scientific research has found homeopathic remedies ineffective and their postulated mechanisms of action implausible. Within the medical community homeopathy is considered to be quackery.


----------



## Swack (Nov 23, 2011)

badbullgator said:


> Homeopathy i/ˌhoʊmiˈɒpəθi/ (also spelled homoeopathy or homœopathy; from the Greek hómoios- ὅμοιος- "like-" + páthos πάθος "suffering") is a system of alternative medicine originated in 1796 by Samuel Hahnemann, based on his doctrine of similia similibus curentur ("*like cures like*"), according to which a substance that causes the symptoms of a disease in healthy people will cure similar symptoms in sick people. Scientific research has found homeopathic remedies ineffective and their postulated mechanisms of action implausible. Within the medical community homeopathy is considered to be quackery.


bbgator,

I have known many people who swear by the theory "like cures like" after a night of excess. I think they referred to it as "Hair of the Dog"!

However, I will admit that I didn't understand what "Homeopathy" was when I wrote my first post on this thread. Thanks to you and mitty I have done a little research and am now better informed. 

However, the light of this new knowledge doesn't change the message of my post. I do think much of the "conventional wisdom" we are fed by the media on behalf of special interest groups including Big Pharma and Big Agri and others too numerous to name can be mis-leading and/or incorrect. We need to be vigilant and protect our rights to make our own informed decisions. 

Thanks for helping to inform us!

Swack


----------



## TBell (Apr 1, 2004)

*Clinical management of babesiosis in dogs with homeopathic Crotalus horridus 200C.*

Chaudhuri S, Varshney JP.
*Source*

Clinical Diagnosis laboratory, Referral Veterinary Polyclinic, Indian Veterinary Research Institute, Izatnagar 243122 UP, India. [email protected]

*Abstract*

*Homeopathic* *Crotalus horridus* 200C was evaluated in 13 clinical cases of babesiosis in dogs, compared with another 20 clinical cases treated with diminazine. Babesiosis is an important tropical tick-borne haemoprotozoan disease in dogs clinically manifested by anorexia, dehydration, temperature, dullness/depression, diarrhoea/constipation, pale mucosa, hepatomegaly, vomiting/nausea, splenomegaly, distended abdomen/ascites, yellow coloured urine, emaciation/weight loss, and occular discharge. The diagnosis of babesiosis was based on cytological evidence of Babesia gibsoni in freshly prepared blood smears. The dogs were treated with oral C. horridus 200C, 4 pills four times daily for 14 days (n=13) or diminazine aceturate 5 mg/kg single intramuscularly dose (n=20). All the dogs were administered 5% Dextrose normal saline at 60 ml/kg intravenously for 4 days. Initial clinical scores were similar in both groups and showed similar progressive improvement with the two treatments over 14 days. Parasitaemia also improved in both groups, but haematological values showed no change. No untoward reactions were observed.* It appears that C. horridus is as effective in causing clinical recovery in moderate cases of canine babesiosis caused by Babesia gibsoni as the standard drug diminazine.* Large scale randomized trials are indicated for more conclusive results.

As the AHVMA states in its response to the AVMA, "The Case against Homeopathy contains many unsubstantiated allegations..........then as practitioners of conventional medication, we would find ourselves working with a significantly limited selection of therapeutic options."​


----------



## Renee P. (Dec 5, 2010)

Swack said:


> bbgator,
> 
> *I have known many people who swear by the theory "like cures like" after a night of excess. I think they referred to it as "Hair of the Dog"!
> *
> ...


That works for alcohol withdrawal symptoms.


----------



## Pete (Dec 24, 2005)

> a substance that causes the symptoms of a disease in healthy people will cure similar symptoms in sick people. Scientific research has found homeopathic remedies ineffective and their postulated mechanisms of action implausible. Within the medical community homeopathy is considered to be quackery.


They think the same way about chiropractors.
years ago all of the doctors pain killers and recommendations and warnings about having quacks work on my back,,,,, couldn't get me on my feet after 2 weeks in bed. Someone told me about chiropractors I gave them a try. I was hauled in to see one in a wheel barrow,(figurative) A half hour later I was out the door and back to work and doing cart wheels. The medical community doesn't know as much as they should. I don't trust a whole lot of what they or the government have to say about much.

Pete


----------



## Renee P. (Dec 5, 2010)

TBell said:


> *Clinical management of babesiosis in dogs with homeopathic Crotalus horridus 200C.*
> 
> Chaudhuri S, Varshney JP.
> *Source*
> ...


For some reason I decided to read this paper. There is no evidence the Crotalus horridus 200C or the other drug did anything, they did not have a placebo group.

What is Crotalus horridus 200C? Rattle snake? Really?


----------



## sixpacklabs (Jan 21, 2009)

TBell said:


> *Clinical management of babesiosis in dogs with homeopathic Crotalus horridus 200C.*
> 
> This piece of research is typical of those cited as demonstrating the efficacy of homeopathy in that it has serious methodological flaws. In this particular research, there wasn't even a control group! That's not just a serious flaw...it's a fatal flaw.
> 
> ...


----------



## Renee P. (Dec 5, 2010)

My guess is that the dogs in the study improved because their own immune systems were fighting off the pathogen. 

Too bad they didn't include a 3rd group of dogs that received NO treatment, then we could tell.


----------



## Steve Shaver (Jan 9, 2003)

Pete said:


> They think the same way about chiropractors.
> years ago all of the doctors pain killers and recommendations and warnings about having quacks work on my back,,,,, couldn't get me on my feet after 2 weeks in bed. Someone told me about chiropractors I gave them a try. I was hauled in to see one in a wheel barrow,(figurative) A half hour later I was out the door and back to work and doing cart wheels. The medical community doesn't know as much as they should. I don't trust a whole lot of what they or the government have to say about much.
> 
> Pete






I was told to live with my back pain. Dr told me spinal manipulation (chiropractor) might help. After 4 sessions had to quit due to more pain in other places that didnt hurt when I started.


----------



## Swack (Nov 23, 2011)

mitty said:


> That works for alcohol withdrawal symptoms.


mitty,

I don't think they were treating the symptoms of alcohol withdrawal. I think it was a hang-over!

BTW, I don't typically use emoticons, so you had to read the "tongue-in-check" nature of my comment for yourself. Sorry if you couldn't read the grin on my face. ;-)


Swack


----------



## Renee P. (Dec 5, 2010)

Swack said:


> mitty,
> 
> I don't think they were treating the symptoms of alcohol withdrawal. I think it was a hang-over!
> 
> ...


No I got that you were joking but was sort of on point, no? I should have added my own emoticons!

Somewhere I read that the basic hangover is partly caused by alcohol withdrawal and that is why drinking more alcohol relieves it...but I have no idea if this is true.


----------



## BuddyJ (Apr 22, 2011)

I don't mean to change the direction of this thread but how many people actually feed their dogs raw meat as a regular diet?


----------



## frontier (Nov 3, 2003)

BuddyJ said:


> I don't mean to change the direction of this thread but how many people actually feed their dogs raw meat as a regular diet?


Subject has been discussed a few times before..here's one thread using "search feature"
http://www.retrievertraining.net/fo...aw-Feeders-Out-There/page8&highlight=RAW+diet


----------



## BuddyJ (Apr 22, 2011)

frontier said:


> Subject has been discussed a few times before..here's one thread using "search feature"
> http://www.retrievertraining.net/fo...aw-Feeders-Out-There/page8&highlight=RAW+diet


Terri, thank you for the info, it was enlightening but I think I'll stick to my current feed program.


----------



## LucyTudeOn4Feet (Nov 15, 2009)

Swack said:


> Don't fall into the trap of thinking that "the issue" is the issue on the table. Look beyond the stated issue to see what the real issue may be.


This is so true. 
In the instance of the AVMA coming out against raw diet, the real story behind the matter was that a person on the executive board of the organization that requested that the AVMA institute a formal policy regarding raw diet just so happened to be a Marketing Director at Purina. hmmm.
http://www.truthaboutpetfood.com/articles/the-domino-effect.html


----------



## Renee P. (Dec 5, 2010)

Does anyone have the references to the studies allegedly showing that raw is harmful? I'd like to read some of them.

It is hard for me to imagine that there is much risk to raw when our dogs love nothing better than rotten road kill.

I'm sure there is SOME risk to eating raw, but the question to me is whether raw is worse than the alternatives.


----------



## dpate (Mar 16, 2011)

I see it as the AVMA doing their job. Vets are should be practicing what is based in science and if you as the owner want to try something different then that is your right. But veterinary practice is an industry based in science and much of the homeopathic treatments just do not pass the test. I guess what I'm saying is... Should homeopathic/alternative treatments be prohibited - no. But neither should the right to prohibit unproven, unscientific and possibly ineffective or even dangerous treatments in an industry like vet medicine (among its members). My wife is a vet and a phd student and trust me, there is no grand scheme to only do studies and publish what the big pharmaceuticals want. If it works on a consistent and proven basis, it would not be considered homeopathic, it would be considered science.


----------



## Montview (Dec 20, 2007)

For what it's worth, I feel that the reason so many veterinary organizations or individual veterinarians are against things like homeopathy or raw diets is because the majority of what is seen in practice are animals with problems (for the most part, you see these patients far more often than a healthy patient just there for annual exam/bloodwork/vaccines/etc). If those problem cases are on homeopathy or raw diets, it is automatically assumed that they are ineffective or simply not being used correctly. JMH(not scientifically-proven)O.


----------



## TBell (Apr 1, 2004)

dpate said:


> I see it as the AVMA doing their job. Vets are should be practicing what is based in science and if you as the owner want to try something different then that is your right. But veterinary practice is an industry based in science and much of the homeopathic treatments just do not pass the test. I guess what I'm saying is... Should homeopathic/alternative treatments be prohibited - no. But neither should the right to prohibit unproven, unscientific and possibly ineffective or even dangerous treatments in an industry like vet medicine (among its members). *My wife is a vet and a phd student and trust me, there is no grand scheme to only do studies and publish what the big pharmaceuticals want.* If it works on a consistent and proven basis, it would not be considered homeopathic, it would be considered science.


From what I understand, the veterinary colleges don't fund their own research anymore. Big pharmaceuticals, pet food companies, etc. are funding the majority of the research at our veterinary colleges these days.

I didn't completely understand the difference between Homeopathic and Holistic but certainly do now. Even though it is one small area, it is in the same lines as the 'raw pet' food diet decision. One less tool in which to treat our dogs.

I'm sure the 'raw food' issue can be a whole long thread in itself, but anytime you are preparing food there is a chance of contamination. Just look at the chicken jerky treats from China, now why doesn't the AVMA go the next step and declare dog treats harmful to your dog's well being.

Yes, it is very political and the well being of our dogs is not the #1 issue anymore. Awareness of these issues by the pet owner is critical when you have a sick dog, especially when it is a competitive dog.


----------



## Swack (Nov 23, 2011)

dpate said:


> I see it as the AVMA doing their job. Vets are should be practicing what is based in science and if you as the owner want to try something different then that is your right. But veterinary practice is an industry based in science and much of the homeopathic treatments just do not pass the test. I guess what I'm saying is... Should homeopathic/alternative treatments be prohibited - no. But neither should the right to prohibit unproven, unscientific and possibly ineffective or even dangerous treatments in an industry like vet medicine (among its members). My wife is a vet and a phd student and trust me, there is no grand scheme to only do studies and publish what the big pharmaceuticals want. If it works on a consistent and proven basis, it would not be considered homeopathic, it would be considered science.


Hi dpate!

I agree that the AVMA is doing there job. As I see it "there job" is to promote the parctice of _conventional_ veterinary medicine. I don't know that there is a "grand scheme to only do studies and publish what big phamaceuticals want." However, I do think TBell makes a good point about where the funding for most studies originate. 

For example, Hill's Science Diet is "vet recommended" and sold at many vet offices (including mine). When my wife worked at Purdue U's School of Veterinary Medicine they sold Science Diet at a discount to the employees (40 lbs. bags cost $12 in the late 1980's). IMHO Hill's Science Diet is CRAP and in my experience veterinarians don't know crap about canine nutrition. What do they recommend 99% of the time? Hills, Purina, or Iams/Eukanuba. Who funds companion animal nutrition research? Hills, Purina, or Iams/Eukanuba. Coincidence? I don't think so.

Want an example from human medicine? How about high LDL cholesterol? Statin drugs like (Lipitor and Crestor) are amoung the most widely prescribed drugs in our country. They are proven to lower you LDL cholesterol. But, what about the disclaimer at the end of the of the commercial? It goes something like this: "The use of ________ has not been shown to lower the risk of heart attack and stroke." Then why the heck is your doctor prescribing the drug? To get a number down? IT DOESN'T SOLVE THE PROBLEM! It only tweakes a blood lipid value that isn't going to improve your cardiovascular health significantly. What should you do? Eat a Primal Diet (read that as "human appropriate diet") and exercise (like a caveman, move frequently and lift heavy objects on occassion). A Primal Diet is high in protein, moderate in fat (including saturated fats which have been unjustly demonized) with some carbs from fruits, vegetables, and nuts (but none from grains, sorry big Agriculture!). This type of Primal diet along with moderate exercise (especially weight training) will "cure" most cases hyper glycemia (high LDL and triglicerides), type II diabetes, high blood pressure, and obesity! These are the symptoms of Metabolic Syndrome which is caused by a high carb diet. Is the medical community too dumb to figure this out? Or is it that big Pharma and Big Agri don't fund research that might hurt their bottomline?

What if we all did this? You know, eat fresh, whole nutritious meats, fish, vegetables, fruits, nuts, and berries (note the absence of "healthy whole grains"!). People would be MUCH healthier! They wouldn't need so much conventional medical treatment or pharmaceuticals. That's bad for the bottom line for the medical community, Big Pharma, and Big Agriculture. This isn't rocket science. Not even Brain surgery! It's proven common sense! Why don't we know? No Profit in the truth!

Sorry for the diversion from dogs. The same principles apply to canine diets IMHO. Dogs aren't farmers. They didn't evolve living with farmers. They don't need a diet rich in grains. In fact, they probably shouldn't eat a diet rich in grains! What is the first ingredient in Hill's Science Diet? Whole Grain Corn! "The Number One Choice of Veterinarians for their Own Pets!"

Swack


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

I missed the connection between this rant and the AVMA's stance on an unproven and controversial type of medicine whose principals were adopted 200 years ago when the average lifespan was twenty years less than today, when infant mortality rates were high, and before the discovery of the germ theory of disease. Any pet owner is not prohibited from using homeopathic agents, they are not considered drugs and are readily available to anyone who wants to purchase them.

People who object to the funding of research projects should understand that without those sources there would be no research. Find a cure and make a profit, is that not the American way?


----------



## Swack (Nov 23, 2011)

EdA said:


> I missed the connection between this rant and the AVMA's stance on an unproven and controversial type of medicine whose principals were adopted 200 years ago when the average lifespan was twenty years less than today, when infant mortality rates were high, and before the discovery of the germ theory of disease. Any pet owner is not prohibited from using homeopathic agents, they are not considered drugs and are readily available to anyone who wants to purchase them.
> 
> People who object to the funding of research projects should understand that without those sources there would be no research. *Find a cure and make a profit, is that not the American way?*


EdA,

I'll admit I'm out in left-field. Seems like I live out there! The human medical analogy was used as an example of how sometimes there may be no profit to finding the _cure!
_
I am not defending homeopathy, nor am I trying to impugn modern veterinary medicine. I am trying to suggest that there are incentives for companies with a profit motive to protect their interests. That _is also_ the American way! 

Perhaps I'm too cynical. Hard not to be in this day and age.

Swack


----------



## TBell (Apr 1, 2004)

There is certainly a connection due to the first post of the thread regarding the resolution by the AVMA to discredit a RAW diet, or ancestral diet (primal diet).

Swack goes on to say that the foods vets are recommending to their clients are primarily grain, not exactly what was on the ancestral or primal diet list. Is this because the pet food companies are so well connected to vets and vet schools? I'm sure you haven't seen Hill's Science Diet funding a study that compares a raw food diet to their high carbohydrate foods.

Swack is very much correct in saying that a 'real food' diet for humans would cure many diseases, and the same can be said for our dogs. The nutritional analysis of the ancestral diet shows that animals obtained 49% of their calories from protein, 44% from fats, and the other 6% from carbohydrates. Hill's Science diet contains 25% protein 16% fat and 51% carbs! Now where is the science behind that?

http://www.dogfoodadvisor.com/dog-food-reviews/hills-science-diet-dog-food-adult-dry/

Now just go try and find the carbohydrate value on a bag of dog food! They don't have it for a reason. You have to figure it out for yourself. 

Yes, there is much that the dog food companies aren't telling us and this includes the AVMA by the dismissal of a raw diet.

I am also not defending homeopathy, but trying to create awareness to AVMA decisions that affect our dogs.


----------



## J Connolly (Aug 16, 2007)

There is a financial interest here and that belongs to those that are charging for BS treatments that have no proven scientific effect. Show me one double blind study that shows a proven benefit to feeding raw diets, not just hear say. Name one nutrient that been discovered in raw diets that is not present in cooked diets. I would also mention that is not possible feed a complete diet containing all the nutrients dogs need daily without adding a supplement. Can you define "ancestral diet". Americans love to be sold "miracle cures". Here's to Lydia Pinkham!


----------



## Renee P. (Dec 5, 2010)

J Connolly said:


> There is a financial interest here and that belongs to those that are charging for BS treatments that have no proven scientific effect. Show me one double blind study that shows a proven benefit to feeding raw diets, not just hear say. Name one nutrient that been discovered in raw diets that is not present in cooked diets. I would also mention that is not possible feed a complete diet containing all the nutrients dogs need daily without adding a supplement. Can you define "ancestral diet". Americans love to be sold "miracle cures". Here's to Lydia Pinkham!


Why should you have to prove that actual food is better than a commercial diet? Shouldn't it be the other way around? Shouldn't you have to prove that processed food is healthier than, or equivalent to, fresh food?


----------



## Swack (Nov 23, 2011)

J Connolly said:


> There is a financial interest here and that belongs to those that are charging for BS treatments that have no proven scientific effect. *Show me one double blind study *that shows a proven benefit to feeding raw diets, not just hear say. Name one nutrient that been discovered in raw diets that is not present in cooked diets. I would also mention that is not possible feed a complete diet containing all the nutrients dogs need daily without adding a supplement. *Can you define "ancestral diet". *Americans love to be sold "miracle cures". Here's to Lydia Pinkham!


J Connolly,

You state: *Show me one double blind study. * Who will fund the double blind study? Nobody with deep pockets has a finacial interest in proving that a raw ancestral diet is superior to a conventional grain-based dry kibbled diet. However, there are several companies with deep pockets who have a financial interest in marketing conventional grain-based dry kibbled diets. Does the lack of a double blind study mean that feeding a dog in a way that more closely resembles the diet a canine evolved eatting is quackery?

I borrowed the following from Orijen Dog Food's website in an attempt to answer your question: *Can you define "ancestral diet". 
*
_"THE BIOLOGICALLY APPROPRIATE CONCEPT IS SIMPLE: MIRROR THE BALANCE AND VARIETY OF FOODS THAT DOGS AND CATS WOULD CONSUME IN THEIR NATURAL ENVIRONMENT AND FOR WHICH THEY ARE EVOLVED. _
_ Dogs and cats evolved as hunters — the structure of their teeth, jaws and digestive system scientifically classifies them as carnivores, adapted to a meat-based diet that’s rich in animal protein and fat._
_ Yet witness the current trend of ‘holistic’ pet foods that are largely grain-based, contain little meat or protein, exceed 40% carbohydrates, and feature fashionable ingredients — more often for their consumer appeal than for any nutritional benefit to dogs or cats. _
_BIOLOGICALLY APPROPRIATE ORIJEN IS UNIQUELY DIFFERENT FROM TODAY’S CONVENTIONAL DRY DOG AND CAT FOODS_
_ Protein-rich, carbohydrate-limited and grain-free, ORIJEN features the highest fresh meat inclusions of any dry dog or cat food, at the same time excluding many conventional pet food ingredients — such as inappropriate high-glycemic cereal grains and vegetable proteins that simply are not present in the natural diet._
_ To mirror the natural diet, ORIJEN also features a diversity of meats including fresh, free-run chicken and turkey, fresh whole eggs, fresh free-range red meats and fresh saltwater and freshwater fish — all in a Biologically Appropriate ratio of 80 percent meat, 20 percent fruits and vegetables, and zero grain (80.20.0)._
_ By mirroring the foods that dogs and cats evolved to eat, Biologically Appropriate ORIJEN nourishes as Mother Nature intended, resulting in the peak health and happiness of your cherished dog or cat, as well as your peace of mind."

_If you'd like to read more about Orijen's philosophy on a Biologically Appropriate Diet for Canines you can read their 20 page white paper at their website www.orijen.ca/orijen/orijen/. The link is at the bottom of their About Us page. 

I don't feed a raw diet due to the convenience of dry commercial dog food. However, I do feed my brood bitches and puppies Orijen, which I believe more closely mimics a canine appropriate diet than do most other commercial dry dog foods. You may feed your dogs as you wish. 

Swack

Disclaimer: I have no connection to or financial interest in Orijen Dog Food or its parent company Champion Pet Foods.


----------



## dpate (Mar 16, 2011)

Here is the FAQ and resource list used by AVMA to make their recommendation on raw food. The recommendation is not around the health of the raw diet but more surrounding the safety of raw food and how easily it could be to poison your dog (salmonella etc.). Pretty sensible IMO. 

https://www.avma.org/KB/Resources/FAQs/Pages/Raw-Pet-Foods-and-the-AVMA-Policy-FAQ.aspx

https://www.avma.org/KB/Resources/R...ces-for-the-AVMA-policy-on-raw-pet-foods.aspx

Swack,

Off the original subject but there's a reason why dogs are dogs and wolves are wolves. Dogs eat exactly what humans eat, including grains. Dogs began to differentiate themselves by hanging around camps and eating the scraps. I would actually imagine there wouldn't have been much meat besides bones fed to dogs for a long time (including to my grandfather's dogs who ate scraps their whole lives). It was too valuable to humans and didn't go to waste. Sorry Swack, I know you're big on the grain free thing but it just doesn't hold water for me either historically, academically, or through common sense. It seems to be the fad diet of the moment. Just my opinion.


----------



## Swack (Nov 23, 2011)

dpate said:


> Swack,
> 
> Off the original subject but there's a reason why dogs are dogs and wolves are wolves. Dogs eat exactly what humans eat, including grains. Dogs began to differentiate themselves by hanging around camps and eating the scraps. I would actually imagine there wouldn't have been much meat besides bones fed to dogs for a long time (including to my grandfather's dogs who ate scraps their whole lives). It was too valuable to humans and didn't go to waste. Sorry Swack, I know you're big on the grain free thing but it just doesn't hold water for me either historically, academically, or through common sense. It seems to be the fad diet of the moment. Just my opinion.


dpate,

I have no problem with you disagreeing. We're all entitled to our opinions. I understand what you are saying about the differences between dogs and wolves and how domesticated dogs became a different "breed" from wolves. Incidentally, a great book on the subject is _Dogs, A New Understanding of Canine Origin, Behavior, and Evolution_ by Raymond and Lorna Coppinger.

However, I do see some glaring deficiencies in your logic. You state: _"Dogs eat exactly what humans eat, including grains." _So, am I supposed to believe that the ancestors of our dogs sat by the trash-heap at the edge camp and only ate what their human companions threw away? They were 100% reliant on humans for their sustenance? My own dogs while in the woods with me supplement their diets with rodents, insects, deer droppings, grass and other plants, carrion, bones and who knows what else. Yet ancestral dogs ate "exactly what humans eat". I don't buy it. 

Humans have only been agrarian for the past 10,000 years. That's not long enough for our own anatomy and physiology to adapt to the dietary changes agriculture brought, nor has it been enough time for canine anatomy and physiology to change, even if they did eat "exactly what humans eat". 10,000 years is a blink of the eye in evolutionary time. The humans dogs evolved with were hunter gathers for hundreds of thousands of years. Those dogs helped to provide for their own sustenance in a natural canine way. The diet their bodies evolved being nourished by did not include appreciable cereal grains nor did their primal human companions diet. For you to say that: _"the grain free thing . . . just doesn't hold water for me either historically, academically, or through common sense." _defies logic IMHO.

Swack


----------



## TBell (Apr 1, 2004)

I think it really depends what sports your dog participates whether your dog benefits from grains (carbohydrates) or not.

According to several studies I've read on feeding the canine athlete, dogs who participate in 'sprint' to 'intermediate' type of activities lasting from 30 seconds to several minutes can benefit from diets high in carbohydrates because glycogen and glucose are the predominant fuel for that activity. 

For the dog who works hours at a time, for example in hunting, higher fat intake is necessary to properly fuel the muscles. High carb diets fed to endurance dogs can cause watery stools and dehydration.

Burning fat improves the efficiency of energy utilized in performance animals and reduces breathing effort during excercise. When fatty acids are burned as fuel, less carbon dioxide is produced as compared to carbohydrates. The reduced CO2 is believed to reduce breathing effort during strenuous exercise. This makes burning fat metabolically cooler than burning protein, and minimizing the increase in body temps is very beneficial for dogs working in endurance events especially in warmer environments.

Therefore, any dogs participating in the following events should receive a high carb diet:
Flyball
Agility
Lure Coursing

And the dogs participating in these events would benefit from a low carb, high fat diet:
Sled dog racing
Pack Hound hunts
Working livestock
Field Trials
Search and Rescue


----------



## 2tall (Oct 11, 2006)

Tammy, I am curious why field trials would be included with the other low carb/high fat activities. Though they do it several times in a day, our dogs seem to me to be "sprinting" or exerting maximum effort for repeated brief runs. Does the fact of repetition include them with the ones like pack hunters or sled dogs? Not saying I know any better but just truly curious.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Carol most nutritionist with in depth knowkedge of the requirements for various types of canine athletic activities consider retriever field trial events neither purely sprint nor endurance and therefore having nutritional requirements somewhat different from sled dogs. A recommended diet of 30% protein 20% fat was not a dietary balance dreamed up but rather one based on scientific studies of athletic dogs performing as competitive retrievers do.


----------



## 2tall (Oct 11, 2006)

Well that explains why the Euk 30/20 has always done just fine for mine. I was just surprised to see the retrievers in the group with the sledders. I'm not one to choose a food per the latest trends. If it works I stick with it. But I always like to know the latest info, and to learn to discern between fad and fact. That seems to be getting harder to do every day.


----------



## TBell (Apr 1, 2004)

Carol,

It would depend on what type of work out your dogs get daily and on the weekends.

According to Robert Gillett DVM, Sports Medicine Veterinary Services, "Strength/power events are of short duration (< 2 minutes) and are performed at intensities that are maximal or supramaximal. Some events are intermediate, they are performed at varying intensities for a duration of 2-4 minutes. Endurance events usually last longer than four minutes and are performed at intensities < 90% of maximal aerobic power (VO2 max)."

I know big tests at field trials can take 7-8 minutes on land and 15+ minutes on water. So that would explain why it would be considered endurance.

Here is a link to his article http://www.sportsvet.com/Art3.html

I obtained the work out intensities from Purina. They also publish the calorie requirements in the same report.

Do your own research at http://www.purinavets.eu/PDFs/ResearchReport_vol9-issue1.pdf

Calorie requirements written by Nestle Purina in above article are as follows:


ActivityProtein % of Calories*Fat **% of Calories**Carbohydrate % of Calories*Sprint253045Intermediate>=2535-6510-40Endurance35>5510-20
*
FYI Purina Pro Plan 30/20 contains 30% Protein 20% Fat and 35% Carbs
*


----------



## Swack (Nov 23, 2011)

Tammy,

Note that the table you copied states "Fat % of calories", etc. Not the same as fat % listed on the bag, which I believe is % by weight. Fat has 9 calories per gram. Protein and Carbs have 4 calories per gram. You've gotta do some math to get the answer. 

I only know of one commercial dog food that list the % of calories from protein, fat, & carbs: Orijen. Their Adult Dog Formula is 38% from protein, 22% from fruits and vegetables (carbs), and 40% from fat. Note that the numbers added together equals 100%. Your PPP figures don't add to 100%. Where did you get the % Carbs?

Swack


----------



## TBell (Apr 1, 2004)

Ok, Swack, gotcha. You are right % of calories......recalculation.

Here's how I figured carbs. 100-protein-fat-moisture-fiber=carbs

Purina 30/20: 100-30-20-12-3=35

Now to figure % of calories. The University of California at Davis School of Veterinary Medicine recommends estimating 3.5 kcal per gram of protein and carbohydrates, and 8.5 kcal per gram of fat.

The kilocalories from protein are 105 kcal per 100 grams (30 x 3.5). The kilocalories from carbohydrates are 122.5 kcal per 100 grams (35 x 3.5). The kilocalories from fat are 170 kcal per 100 grams (20 x 8.5). The total estimated calories from 100 grams of this food are 425 kcal per 100 grams. 

So the new % of calories calculation for Purina Pro Plan 30/20 is 24% Protein / 40% fat / 29% carbs using the conservative UofCal numbers and 28% protein / 42% fat / 32% carbs using your numbers.


ActivityProtein % of Calories*Fat **% of Calories**Carbohydrate % of Calories*Sprint253045Intermediate>=2535-6510-40Endurance35>5510-20Proplan284232

By adding these numbers to Purina's chart, it appears that Proplan 30/20 is inline with an "Intermediate" activity chart, but again it really depends on how often your dog works out and for how long....very much subjective. 

Purina states, "Intermediate athletes can be subdivided into two categories — those that exercise at a low-moderate frequency and duration and those that exercise at a higher duration and frequency. There may be short bursts of intense activity, like running up a hillor sprinting after a bird in the case of a hunt-ing dog or completing an agility course in the case of agility dogs, but the majority of intermediate canine athletes exercise at an intensity level well below 75% VO2 max. Therefore, the exercise of these intermediate athletes more closely resembles endurance exercise rather than sprint exercise."


----------



## Swack (Nov 23, 2011)

Tammy,

Shouldn't the percentages of calories from the three sources (protein, fat, & carbs) always equal 100? I've got an idea how you may be able to calculate the contribution from carbs. Since you know the percentage by weight of Protein and Fat, as well as the total calories, why not determine the number of calories that protein and fat contribute, subtract that from the total and the remainder would be the percentage from carbs! After all, those are the only three sources of calories.

Not sure where UC Davis get their figures for calories per gram of protein and fat. Perhaps that is how many calories a dog can utilize, but it is a well known fact that Protein and Carbs yield 4 kcal/gram and Fat yields 9 kcal/gram, so those are the figures I'll use.

I get 120 calories from Protein {(30 g. protein/100 g. food) x 4 kcal/g. = 120 kcal}, 180 calories from Fat {(20 g. fat/ 100 g. food) x 9 kcal/g. = 180 kcal.}. That leaves 125 kcal contributed by carbs {425 - (120 + 180) = 125}.

The percent of caloric contribution for PPP performance 30/20 would be: Protein: 28.20%, Fat: 42.35%, and Carbs: 29.45%.

To those who have followed this deviation into the minutia of canine nutrition, this may seem like trivia or a very detailed analysis of dog food, depending on your perspective. Either way, you should be aware that this is a very simplistic way to analyize nutrition. When you lump the nutritional contribution of a dog food's ingredients into Protein, Fat, and Carbs, that can lead you to think that "All Proteins" or "All Fats" are equal. They are not! The second ingredient on PPP performance is "Corn Gluten Meal. Gluten is the protein in corn. It is not a "complete" protein, because it doesn't contain all of the amino acids a dog needs. Likewise, all fats are not equal in nutritional value. PPP performance's primary fat source is "Animal Fat" which could be from any animal source and is often considered a low quality fat source. 

We have discussed the contribution of carbs in a canine (and human) diet. Dogs have no requirement for carbs (nor do humans). There are essential Amino Acids and essential Fatty Acids which dogs (and humans) must get from their diet. There is no such thing as an essential Carbohydrate! Dogs (and humans) can synthesize all of the glycogen they need from fat or protein.

Nutrition is a complex subject. Looking at the Guaranteed Analysis only gives you a vague idea about the usefulness of a dog food for your application. The ingredient list gives you a better idea where the nutrition comes from. To a degree, quality is a subjective thing. As they say, "Beauty is in the eye of the Beholder."

Swack


----------



## Renee P. (Dec 5, 2010)

Swack, Atwater factors are averages. The ones Tammy cites are for dog kibble. However, if you round them you get the 4 kcal per g of protein and carbs and 9 kcal per g of fat that you used. I think you are using the human standard.


----------



## TBell (Apr 1, 2004)

Swack,

After a little more research, I think my Carb calculation is right.

The FDA defines how to calculate carbohydrate: Subtract the weight of crude protein, total fat, moisture, and ash (or fiber which is indigestible carbs) from the total weight ("wet weight") of the sample of food.

Calculate Carbohydrate Percentage On An "As Fed" Basis
Formula 1: 100% - protein% - fat% - moisture% - ash% = Carbohydrate
Using the Guaranteed analysis example above:
Carbohydrate = 100% - 30% protein -20% Fat -12% Water – 3% ash = 35% carbohydrate.

This is how I figured Purina Pro Plan 30/20 as 35% carbohydrate by weight.

Dr. Robert Gillett, DVM, with Sports Medicine Veterinary Services, also uses the energy yields of 3.5 for protein / carbs, and 8.5 for fat.

You are absolutely dead on when you state,


> "All Proteins" or "All Fats" are equal. They are not! The second ingredient on PPP performance is "Corn Gluten Meal. Gluten is the protein in corn. It is not a "complete" protein, because it doesn't contain all of the amino acids a dog needs. Likewise, all fats are not equal in nutritional value. PPP performance's primary fat source is "Animal Fat" which could be from any animal source and is often considered a low quality fat source.


Dr. Gillett goes on to state that proteins from animal sources is much better than plant based sources. "Protein is both an energy source an a source of amino acids. High-quality animal source proteins provide superior digestibility, amino acid balances, and palatability."

Swack mentions PPP contains primarily omega-6 fatty acids from animal fats alone resulting in a highly unbalanced ratio dominated by omega-6 fatty acids. Adding fish oil can provide your pet with a direct source of omega-3 fatty acids. It's as easy as adding a few sardines a day to their diet.

Yes, canine nutrition is complicated, but with just a little effort and education you can supplement a commercial diet with a few extra animal proteins, Omega 3 fats, and vitamins and minerals to enhance performance. Your dogs will be glad you did!


----------



## Swack (Nov 23, 2011)

TBell,

We are getting into the weeds, but I don't mind. That's where the birds are! I won't argue with the % carbs by _weight_, but the _% of calories contributed_ by carbs is different! And the percentages of calories contributed by protein, fat, and carbs _must_ equal 100% of the calories in the food.

I'd also like to state that not all fiber is indigestible. Some fiber is digestible and is a carb.

I believe there is a difference between calorie _content_ and metabolizable calories. As I understand it calorie content is chemistry. 1 cal is the amount of heat needed to raise the temp of 1 cc of water one degree C. By that definition protein and carbs have 4/g and fat has 9/g when completely combusted. When you're talking the amount of energy that a dog can metabolize, that is biology and may acount for inefficencies of the metabolic processes. Can't claim to be well versed in that area. I do see that dog foods list energy content as Metabolizable Energy (ME) in kcals, so your figures likely account for a dog's metabolic ineffeciencies.

As to the subject of suppliments, I'd prefer to feed a high quality food that provides all of the nutrition my dogs need. However, I won't argue that using whole fresh foods as a suppliment to commercial dog food can help to provide higher quality nutrition for your dog.

You mention omega 6's (I don't think I did). PPP perfomance's guaranteed analysis claims it contains .12% of DHA and .12% EPA (both are long chain omega 3 fatty acids). Orijen Adult's GA claims it contains .60% DHA and .30% EPA. That's 5 times more DHA and 2.5 times more EPA. Their 6 fish formula is even higher in omega 3 FA's (1.0% DHA and .6% EPA). Not only is this due to a higher quality fat source, but also due to the inclusion of fresh fish and whole eggs in their formula.

I don't know that RTF is used to in-depth analysis of this nature. Maybe I should say that my dog has a shiney coat and poops firm turds and leave it at that!?! If not, we might become out-casts! (Or is it too late already!)

Swack


----------



## TBell (Apr 1, 2004)

Swack said:


> TBell,
> 
> We are getting into the weeds, but I don't mind. That's where the birds are! I won't argue with the % carbs by _weight_, but the _% of calories contributed_ by carbs is different! And the percentages of calories contributed by protein, fat, and carbs _must_ equal 100% of the calories in the food.
> 
> I'd also like to state that not all fiber is indigestible. Some fiber is digestible and is a carb.


OK, again the % of calorie thing! I understand.



Swack said:


> I believe there is a difference between calorie _content_ and metabolizable calories. As I understand it calorie content is chemistry. 1 cal is the amount of heat needed to raise the temp of 1 cc of water one degree C. By that definition protein and carbs have 4/g and fat has 9/g when completely combusted. When you're talking the amount of energy that a dog can metabolize, that is biology and may acount for inefficencies of the metabolic processes. Can't claim to be well versed in that area. I do see that dog foods list energy content as Metabolizable Energy (ME) in kcals, so your figures likely account for a dog's metabolic ineffeciencies.


I believe that is the reason for the reduced numbers, the dog's metabolic inefficiencies. 



Swack said:


> As to the subject of suppliments, I'd prefer to feed a high quality food that provides all of the nutrition my dogs need. However, I won't argue that using whole fresh foods as a suppliment to commercial dog food can help to provide higher quality nutrition for your dog.
> 
> You mention omega 6's (I don't think I did). PPP perfomance's guaranteed analysis claims it contains .12% of DHA and .12% EPA (both are long chain omega 3 fatty acids). Orijen Adult's GA claims it contains .60% DHA and .30% EPA. That's 5 times more DHA and 2.5 times more EPA. Their 6 fish formula is even higher in omega 3 FA's (1.0% DHA and .6% EPA). Not only is this due to a higher quality fat source, but also due to the inclusion of fresh fish and whole eggs in their formula.


I would also prefer to feed a higher quality food, but they are hard to find, expensive, and I have 7 dogs. Its simply easier for me to add some eggs, sardines, organ meats and maybe an occasional raw squirrel to their diet.

I am not at all opposed to cooking meals for particular dogs that are sick and always use real food for my seniors. It makes a huge difference, I'm sure you know. I was convinced by it when my 15 year old dog with arthritis lived a wonderful long, pain-free life with real food and natural supplements and NO PRESCRIPTION PAIN MEDS. (Sorry I have no scientific studies to back that one up, all real foods, natural spices, vitamins and minerals. It would be hard to get a big name company to finance that study!)

I have a great interest in using nutrition to boost the immune system in dogs due to my commitment in helping dogs with Pythiosis. I've recently read about 5 books on the subject and have written many notes on what I've learned. I'll be adding it all soon the website to help people with sick dogs.

For the average dog, no supplements are needed over what they get from commercial diets. For dogs under the stress of competition, disease, or old age, I don't believe they get nearly enough nutrition from a commercial diet. Could this be the reason competitive dogs are getting so many injuries?

Dr. Robert Gillett states


> Vitamins and minerals are also very important in the canine athlete. Some important vitamins are A, D, E, K, and the B-complex vitamins, especially thiamin, niacin, and cyanocobolamine (B1, B3, and B12). Vitamin A plays a role in ligament and tendon health. Vitamin D is important in maintaining the calcium and phosphorus balance. Vitamin E is a very important anti-oxidant. It acts to maintain cell membrane stability, which is very important in dogs that use their olfactory senses, i.e. pointing breeds, detector dogs, and search and rescue dogs. Vitamin K is important to maintain proper blood conditions in the canine athlete. Thiamin helps to minimize the effects of stress related to competition and performance. Niacin aids in carbohydrate metabolism, and is required for red blood cell production. Cyanocobolamine is essential for synthesis of protein and formation of red blood cells and hemoglobin. Most vitamin needs are met with a normal high quality diet, but in certain situations supplementation can be beneficial to performance.


And for your last comment,



Swack said:


> I don't know that RTF is used to in-depth analysis of this nature. Maybe I should say that my dog has a shiney coat and poops firm turds and leave it at that!?! If not, we might become out-casts! (Or is it too late already!)
> 
> Swack


HAHAHAHAHA probably too late!!

Tammy


----------



## JusticeDog (Jul 3, 2003)

In case you have not heard, the Connecticut resolution did not pass!


----------



## TBell (Apr 1, 2004)

Well I'll be 

Thanks for info


----------

