Dog Forum banner

21 - 40 of 48 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
161 Posts
Actually, kibble digests faster because it's been cooked and processed. The risk of salmonella infection is the same regardless of whether you feed raw and kibble in the same meal.

Screenshots or it didn't happen: DIGEST THIS: Kibble May Actually Digest Faster Than Raw | The Raw Feeding Community

I must have missed your link earlier, but I think it's awesome that someone took the time to collect actual data on this! That website is pretty cool - it's nice to find a group of raw feeders who actually reason through the evidence behind the claims that they make.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
107 Posts
Actually, kibble digests faster because it's been cooked and processed. The risk of salmonella infection is the same regardless of whether you feed raw and kibble in the same meal.

Screenshots or it didn't happen: DIGEST THIS: Kibble May Actually Digest Faster Than Raw | The Raw Feeding Community
Kibble digests SLOWER because it's been cooked and processed. All that cooking and processing causes artificial ingredients and supplements to have to be added which is unnatural to the dogs system. It has to work harder to try to digest all that processed junk. Therefore, it sits longer in the stomach. That in turn allows more time for any bacteria to congregate and cause problems.

Raw is natural to the dogs system, and it has an easy time digesting it. Therefore, raw zips right on through like it should. Nothing processed and synthetic for the body have to deal with. It doesn't just sit there for any time, giving bacteria a chance to build up. It keeps on moving.

Processeing and cooking is the problem with kibble to begin with.
Yep this is right... Well said.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25 Posts
I must have missed your link earlier, but I think it's awesome that someone took the time to collect actual data on this! That website is pretty cool - it's nice to find a group of raw feeders who actually reason through the evidence behind the claims that they make.
Yeah, I really liked their willingness to put it to the test. Some of the companies that make commercial raw diets have some information out there as well.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
107 Posts
Yep this is right... Well said.
I'm assuming you two have counter-sources to the X-rays posted?

Can you share?
Plethora of human evidence. People always stuck on dog studies that are being funded by big food brands.

You can 'call it science', I call it industrial rubbish most of the time.

Either way.. If it lasts longer it means their is more absorption of nutrients. The X-rays are again being misquoted in this thread as per usual.

Digests slower? What is digestion? Is it the absorption of essential minerals? Or is it how fast it passes from the top hole to the bottom?

Definition: 'Digestion is the breakdown of large insoluble food molecules into small water-soluble food molecules so that they can be absorbed into the watery blood plasma. In certain organisms, these smaller substances are absorbed through the small intestine into the blood stream.'

How long it takes is less relevant when considering that some foods need to go through two digestive cycles to get the same amount of nutrients!
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
107 Posts
So while most of the dog food brands end up as feaces... And more of the raw ingredients ends up absorbed... There is a big flaw in how some are 'digesting' the information given. I stand that previous posters information is well said and people are just nitpicking at her. Furthermore it's one of the reason many dogs eat their own faeces after digestion on many kibbles!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
161 Posts
Plethora of human evidence. People always stuck on dog studies that are being funded by big food brands.

You can 'call it science', I call it industrial rubbish most of the time.

Either way.. If it lasts longer it means their is more absorption of nutrients. The X-rays are again being misquoted in this thread as per usual.

Digests slower? What is digestion? Is it the absorption of essential minerals? Or is it how fast it passes from the top hole to the bottom?

Definition: 'Digestion is the breakdown of large insoluble food molecules into small water-soluble food molecules so that they can be absorbed into the watery blood plasma. In certain organisms, these smaller substances are absorbed through the small intestine into the blood stream.'

How long it takes is less relevant when considering that some foods need to go through two digestive cycles to get the same amount of nutrients!

1. For the specific study linked, the person doing the study had zero funding. Literally, they used their own dog and their access to barium and an x-ray machine at a vet hospital to do this study. This is pretty much the polar opposite of industry-funded science.

2. The hypothesis tested was: does raw food digest faster than kibble, like many raw proponents claim? No more, no less. It was not a study on which is better digested or which is better period. In fact, at the end of their article, they discuss the idea that slower digestion may mean more complete digestion and use of available nutrients from the food. They make the exact same point you did!

3. The person who did the study is a raw feeder. They, like you, think that raw food is better for dogs. They are not trying to convince people to feed kibble. They are just trying to investigate a well-defined question in a evidence-based way. They just found that one common claim of raw proponents may not always be true.

4. Studies that are funded by big food brands still have to be reviewed and criticized by other scientists to make it into reputable research journals, and taken seriously. (This particular study would not make that cut because it only looked at one dog - I'd consider it a pilot study rather than an full experiment.) If a study makes it through the review process in into publication, then it has at least been through several rounds of criticism by people who are (a) have the appropriate training to assess the experimental design; and (b) unlikely to fall into "appeal to nature" fallacies.

This is the last I'm going to say anything in this thread, since in my experience as a scientist (who is not funded by big companies... if I were then I would actually have the money and the time to feed my dog 100% raw), people who strongly believe something are rarely convinced by data and I don't have the time or mental energy to deal with it.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
107 Posts
1. For the specific study linked, the person doing the study had zero funding. Literally, they used their own dog and their access to barium and an x-ray machine at a vet hospital to do this study. This is pretty much the polar opposite of industry-funded science.

2. The hypothesis tested was: does raw food digest faster than kibble, like many raw proponents claim? No more, no less. It was not a study on which is better digested or which is better period. In fact, at the end of their article, they discuss the idea that slower digestion may mean more complete digestion and use of available nutrients from the food. They make the exact same point you did!

3. The person who did the study is a raw feeder. They, like you, think that raw food is better for dogs. They are not trying to convince people to feed kibble. They are just trying to investigate a well-defined question in a evidence-based way. They just found that one common claim of raw proponents may not always be true.

4. Studies that are funded by big food brands still have to be reviewed and criticized by other scientists to make it into reputable research journals, and taken seriously. (This particular study would not make that cut because it only looked at one dog - I'd consider it a pilot study rather than an full experiment.) If a study makes it through the review process in into publication, then it has at least been through several rounds of criticism by people who are (a) have the appropriate training to assess the experimental design; and (b) unlikely to fall into "appeal to nature" fallacies.

This is the last I'm going to say anything in this thread, since in my experience as a scientist (who is not funded by big companies... if I were then I would actually have the money and the time to feed my dog 100% raw), people who strongly believe something are rarely convinced by data and I don't have the time or mental energy to deal with it.
The thing is this is neither reliable or conclusive of anything in any way. Now I understand they are adding some sort of 'value' in a wierd way, but I neither agree with his conclusion, or relevant as good material in asserting what you 'believe'.

1) Exactly why this study is not really a 'study', just a little observation on one dog... One dog... Not peer reviewed.... Based on two separate meals.. Not much of a reference list.... None of the process really explained other than basic dog biology (I suspect a vet did this). Not even written properly... This couldnt get into the gardeners weekly digest... Comparing raw vs Science diet... One sample... And he comes to the conclusion that Raw + Kibble has a similar absorbtion rate to either raw or just kibble. He didnt consider that the absorbtion rate may be completely different when mixing, or that the fact that they have 'different' breakdown could prove exactly the opposite of what he is saying in his conclusion.

2) They did not compare similar nutrient quantities of fresh vs kibble... Thats the crux of the arguement here... You need to feed more kibble to get the SAME nutrients. So they conviniently forgot to mention that or provide ANY FORM of critical analysis and flaws of their methods. Something any reputable study will ALWAYS do.

3) I know that... But the study is severely flawed. Its not actually a study... Its just a guy with access to x-ray machine and then made a whole bunch of unscientific assumptions.

4) Not many reputable journals or literature that shows dog food is superior. Nutritional information has always been intertwined with lies planted from big pharma with ulterior motives. They can change variables and make null conclusions that then get misquoted by most. Esp. on this board.

So faster digestion? Well if we feed only fiber it will be even quicker... The dog will absorb nothing, and just poop it out... Is that really what digestion means?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25 Posts
The thing is this is neither reliable or conclusive of anything in any way. Now I understand they are adding some sort of 'value' in a wierd way, but I neither agree with his conclusion, or relevant as good material in asserting what you 'believe'.

1) Exactly why this study is not really a 'study', just a little observation on one dog... One dog... Not peer reviewed.... Based on two separate meals.. Not much of a reference list.... None of the process really explained other than basic dog biology (I suspect a vet did this). Not even written properly... This couldnt get into the gardeners weekly digest... Comparing raw vs Science diet... One sample... And he comes to the conclusion that Raw + Kibble has a similar absorbtion rate to either raw or just kibble. He didnt consider that the absorbtion rate may be completely different when mixing, or that the fact that they have 'different' breakdown could prove exactly the opposite of what he is saying in his conclusion.

2) They did not compare similar nutrient quantities of fresh vs kibble... Thats the crux of the arguement here... You need to feed more kibble to get the SAME nutrients. So they conviniently forgot to mention that or provide ANY FORM of critical analysis and flaws of their methods. Something any reputable study will ALWAYS do.

3) I know that... But the study is severely flawed. Its not actually a study... Its just a guy with access to x-ray machine and then made a whole bunch of unscientific assumptions.

4) Not many reputable journals or literature that shows dog food is superior. Nutritional information has always been intertwined with lies planted from big pharma with ulterior motives. They can change variables and make null conclusions that then get misquoted by most. Esp. on this board.

So faster digestion? Well if we feed only fiber it will be even quicker... The dog will absorb nothing, and just poop it out... Is that really what digestion means?
The original question was about feeding raw and kibble in the same meal and this study, while limited, does demonstrate that it is POSSIBLE for kibble to be digested faster than raw. This means that the whole rationale for not feeding both kibble and raw is flawed.

There is no evidence that feeding both at the same time causes problems. Common sense dictates mixing foods if you are switching and this insistence that raw digests faster undoubtedly causes unnecessary distress for dogs being switched to a new diet. Everything you've said about nutrients is irrelevant because it is off-topic. Whether raw provides more nutrients is a debate for another time. The question is whether feeding raw and kibble at the same time is harmful. It is not.

I find it fascinating that people are so quick to dismiss expensive, rigorous studies because they don't trust the source. And what source of information is more reliable? Their feeling that this is "natural" so it must be good. Ebola is natural. So is influenza. And ricin. Our decisions should be data-driven, not motivated by magical thinking about the untested value of anything that is not "artificial." Vaccines and antibiotics are extremely artificial, but they have saved millions of lives. We ignore that reality at our peril.

I am open to the idea that raw diets provide good nutrition, but the plural of anecdotes is NOT data and I am so far underwhelmed by the raw community's approach to evidence. I see small-scale studies like the one I linked above as encouraging signs. I hope that more research will be conducted in the future.

What is needed more than anything else, in my opinion, is a recognition that we don't know everything yet. There are probably tons of things that are true but for which there is no evidence. But if we proceed to believe these things without any evidence, we are going to lead lives governed purely by emotion rather than intellect. There is nothing wrong with acting on emotion, but we should recognize it for what it is.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
107 Posts
The original question was about feeding raw and kibble in the same meal and this study, while limited, does demonstrate that it is POSSIBLE for kibble to be digested faster than raw. This means that the whole rationale for not feeding both kibble and raw is flawed.

There is no evidence that feeding both at the same time causes problems. Common sense dictates mixing foods if you are switching and this insistence that raw digests faster undoubtedly causes unnecessary distress for dogs being switched to a new diet. Everything you've said about nutrients is irrelevant because it is off-topic. Whether raw provides more nutrients is a debate for another time. The question is whether feeding raw and kibble at the same time is harmful. It is not.

I find it fascinating that people are so quick to dismiss expensive, rigorous studies because they don't trust the source. And what source of information is more reliable? Their feeling that this is "natural" so it must be good. Ebola is natural. So is influenza. And ricin. Our decisions should be data-driven, not motivated by magical thinking about the untested value of anything that is not "artificial." Vaccines and antibiotics are extremely artificial, but they have saved millions of lives. We ignore that reality at our peril.

I am open to the idea that raw diets provide good nutrition, but the plural of anecdotes is NOT data and I am so far underwhelmed by the raw community's approach to evidence. I see small-scale studies like the one I linked above as encouraging signs. I hope that more research will be conducted in the future.

What is needed more than anything else, in my opinion, is a recognition that we don't know everything yet. There are probably tons of things that are true but for which there is no evidence. But if we proceed to believe these things without any evidence, we are going to lead lives governed purely by emotion rather than intellect. There is nothing wrong with acting on emotion, but we should recognize it for what it is.
IT IS NOT A STUDY! It is one dog... With completely flawed parameters. Not to mention they are comparing processed food with a meat content of less than 20%....

OBVIOUSLY DIFFERENT FOODSTUFFS DIGEST AT DIFFERENT RATES...

It is LAUGHABLE that you consider this 'Science'. There is nothing to recognise here. This is like a twisted joke. Nothing Scientific at all.

People are at awe at seeing a few X-rays here, on a sample of one dog. With ridiculous parameters. I am sorry but too many people hide behind the term 'science'. This is not science. If you had written or observed anything to do with studies on analysis (I should add outside the dog world, cause anything seems to be ok there)...

This is really a joke... A twisted joke.... This is not science. Not even close.

Here is an example of science (Predimed study): http://predimed.onmedic.net/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=PPjQkaJqs20=&tabid=574
Over 7000 participants followed for over 5 years with multiple work ups. And no... Its not for dogs.. And YES Proper STUDIES REQUIRE FUNDING! Blood work-ups, rigorous testing.

And yes... A section on limitations of study... Even on such rigorous work is paramount. That little article is really a mockery of science.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
107 Posts
The original question was about feeding raw and kibble in the same meal and this study, while limited, does demonstrate that it is POSSIBLE for kibble to be digested faster than raw. This means that the whole rationale for not feeding both kibble and raw is flawed.

There is no evidence that feeding both at the same time causes problems. Common sense dictates mixing foods if you are switching and this insistence that raw digests faster undoubtedly causes unnecessary distress for dogs being switched to a new diet. Everything you've said about nutrients is irrelevant because it is off-topic. Whether raw provides more nutrients is a debate for another time. The question is whether feeding raw and kibble at the same time is harmful. It is not.

I find it fascinating that people are so quick to dismiss expensive, rigorous studies because they don't trust the source. And what source of information is more reliable? Their feeling that this is "natural" so it must be good. Ebola is natural. So is influenza. And ricin. Our decisions should be data-driven, not motivated by magical thinking about the untested value of anything that is not "artificial." Vaccines and antibiotics are extremely artificial, but they have saved millions of lives. We ignore that reality at our peril.

I am open to the idea that raw diets provide good nutrition, but the plural of anecdotes is NOT data and I am so far underwhelmed by the raw community's approach to evidence. I see small-scale studies like the one I linked above as encouraging signs. I hope that more research will be conducted in the future.

What is needed more than anything else, in my opinion, is a recognition that we don't know everything yet. There are probably tons of things that are true but for which there is no evidence. But if we proceed to believe these things without any evidence, we are going to lead lives governed purely by emotion rather than intellect. There is nothing wrong with acting on emotion, but we should recognize it for what it is.
Oh and just for the record.... Please calculate the significance value of this study with a sample of one....

"The significance level for a given hypothesis test is a value for which a P-value less than or equal to is considered statistically significant. Typical values for are 0.1, 0.05, and 0.01. These values correspond to the probability of observing such an extreme value by chance."

Formula:


Thats right... It is COMPLETELY BY CHANCE ACCORDING TO SCIENCE!

More on sig. Values....
http://www.stat.yale.edu/Courses/1997-98/101/sigtest.htm

The study has no reproducibility... No generalisability... It is ABSOLUTELY... NON-SIGNIFICANT.

Dont see anybody liking my post. Completely relevant. Yet I dont have a fan club. You want to hide behind science? Learn to critically analyse it. Otherwise dont bother. You are waisting your time.

The fact is there are too many flaws to list in critically analyse this 'article'. But the sample of one really takes the cake.
The fact that you are calling this 'science' is very concerning.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
107 Posts
Just read the comments of same article and the users there, including the author is admitting to using the word 'digestion' wrong for a more catchy title...

The posters there seem to echo many of the things I said here, and seem to add more value than actual article.

And the sample of one, and the authors claim of proving certain things is really entertaining in actual article.

This is what I deal with all the time with regards to people in the dog world 'claiming science' backs their views. It is so incredibly disheartening how easily people are convinced that this is science.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25 Posts
Oh and just for the record.... Please calculate the significance value of this study with a sample of one....

"The significance level for a given hypothesis test is a value for which a P-value less than or equal to is considered statistically significant. Typical values for are 0.1, 0.05, and 0.01. These values correspond to the probability of observing such an extreme value by chance."

Formula:


Thats right... It is COMPLETELY BY CHANCE ACCORDING TO SCIENCE!

More on sig. Values....
Tests of Significance

The study has no reproducibility... No generalisability... It is ABSOLUTELY... NON-SIGNIFICANT.

Dont see anybody liking my post. Completely relevant. Yet I dont have a fan club. You want to hide behind science? Learn to critically analyse it. Otherwise dont bother. You are waisting your time.

The fact is there are too many flaws to list in critically analyse this 'article'. But the sample of one really takes the cake.
The fact that you are calling this 'science' is very concerning.
I liked your post!

There are different types of evidence in science. I say mean things about anecdotal evidence, but the truth is that it IS evidence. It's not terribly reliable and you have to take it with a grain of salt, but it's not meaningless.

You seem to be under the impression that evidence is either 100% accurate or 100% false. The truth is more complicated. Sure, the best evidence comes with huge sample sizes and tons of controls. However, that's expensive and time-consuming (although there are a few of these underway which I'm very excited about!). Sometimes we can learn something from case studies or uncontrolled studies or descriptive studies. These results are always tentative, but they can point the way for new research or inform clinical practice.

Now, if you cited me a paper that actually addressed the issue in question and showed me a study that fixed all the problems with the little x-ray experiment that I linked above, and showed that the experiment, when properly done, yields the opposite result...I would be surprised and delighted. And I'd be more than happy to admit I was wrong.

In fact, I was a little overzealous at the beginning of this thread. I thought I remembered reading that kibble, in general, digests faster than raw. However, when I reread my sources (mainly Canine and Feline Nutrition I realized my memory was incorrect. Speed of digestion depends on a number of factors that are mostly independent of whether the food is raw or kibble. Since raw has a high water content, it probably does scoot along faster on average. But what the x-rays show is that this is not necessarily the case. It calls the traditional wisdom of not mixing raw and kibble into question. And so far, I haven't seen any evidence to support that wisdom.

It's not enough to say their study is flawed and they haven't proven their hypothesis (which can only be disproven, anyway). You have to provide some sort of evidence for your position if you want to convince anyone of anything. I just think it's a little extreme for all these people to be running around the internet telling people ZOMG DON'T MIX THEM IT'S BADBADBAD when they have no evidence that this is the case. The internet is full of anecdotes about how great raw feeding is, but I haven't even seen anecdotal evidence of how harmful it is to feed raw/kibble mixes.

When you put all these things together, it forms a certain picture, yeah?

P.S. I am absolutely 100% serious when I say I'm interested in studies on gastric emptying. Please let me know if you find any. It doesn't have to be online. I'm collecting a list of articles to look up the next time I go to the university library. The only ones I have currently are on cats. :( I guess their digestive systems are similar enough, though?

P.P.S. No one has explained what the rate of digestion even has to do with microbial proliferation. People say this all the time like it's just true, but I can find NO evidence of it. Again, if I'm missing something, I'd love to get those citations.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
906 Posts
@Luxorien ... I agree, there is no real evidence that kibble digests at a significantly different rate than any other food. I was once very enthusiastic about feeding raw -- until I actually did a bit of research and found out just how myth-driven it is. Like you, I was happy to find that there are raw-feeders who are more realistic, because I'd realized just how inaccurate much of the raw-feeding community information was. :) I still prefer to feed my dogs 'real' food, rather than kibble, but I admit that's mostly an emotional thing rather than a proven scientific thing.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
10,820 Posts
I liked your post!

There are different types of evidence in science. I say mean things about anecdotal evidence, but the truth is that it IS evidence. It's not terribly reliable and you have to take it with a grain of salt, but it's not meaningless.

You seem to be under the impression that evidence is either 100% accurate or 100% false. The truth is more complicated. Sure, the best evidence comes with huge sample sizes and tons of controls. However, that's expensive and time-consuming (although there are a few of these underway which I'm very excited about!). Sometimes we can learn something from case studies or uncontrolled studies or descriptive studies. These results are always tentative, but they can point the way for new research or inform clinical practice.

Now, if you cited me a paper that actually addressed the issue in question and showed me a study that fixed all the problems with the little x-ray experiment that I linked above, and showed that the experiment, when properly done, yields the opposite result...I would be surprised and delighted. And I'd be more than happy to admit I was wrong.

In fact, I was a little overzealous at the beginning of this thread. I thought I remembered reading that kibble, in general, digests faster than raw. However, when I reread my sources (mainly Canine and Feline Nutrition I realized my memory was incorrect. Speed of digestion depends on a number of factors that are mostly independent of whether the food is raw or kibble. Since raw has a high water content, it probably does scoot along faster on average. But what the x-rays show is that this is not necessarily the case. It calls the traditional wisdom of not mixing raw and kibble into question. And so far, I haven't seen any evidence to support that wisdom.

It's not enough to say their study is flawed and they haven't proven their hypothesis (which can only be disproven, anyway). You have to provide some sort of evidence for your position if you want to convince anyone of anything. I just think it's a little extreme for all these people to be running around the internet telling people ZOMG DON'T MIX THEM IT'S BADBADBAD when they have no evidence that this is the case. The internet is full of anecdotes about how great raw feeding is, but I haven't even seen anecdotal evidence of how harmful it is to feed raw/kibble mixes.

When you put all these things together, it forms a certain picture, yeah?

P.S. I am absolutely 100% serious when I say I'm interested in studies on gastric emptying. Please let me know if you find any. It doesn't have to be online. I'm collecting a list of articles to look up the next time I go to the university library. The only ones I have currently are on cats. :( I guess their digestive systems are similar enough, though?

P.P.S. No one has explained what the rate of digestion even has to do with microbial proliferation. People say this all the time like it's just true, but I can find NO evidence of it. Again, if I'm missing something, I'd love to get those citations.
I agree that speed of digestion depends on a variety of things, among them the individual dogs digestive system, what's in the food, and type of food.

Two of my dogs were fed mainly Pedigree and both would occasionally regurgitate their food 12 hours later and the food would be barely digested, I had concrete proof that my two dogs didn't chew their kibble but swallowed it whole. My current dog has been fed Fromm Kibble, Science Diet Kibble and The Honest Kitchen, with either of the foods yet he gets hunger pukes if I do not feed him every 8 hours minimum. There's nothing in his stomach when he throws up. I'd love to know if it was the Pedigree that wasn't digesting right, or if my current dog just digest food faster then my other two used to.

I also would like to know what causes the stomach upset when some dogs are fed kibble and raw at the same time. I doubt it's because the two digest at different speeds. I do suspect that it might be a person too quickly transitioning the dog onto or off of raw.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
9,240 Posts
Well this thread escalated quickly....

I think the question was something along the lines of how to give raw bones properly...

And it turned into a bashing about studies.

Aspen I hope your question eventually got answered...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aspen726

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
4,614 Posts
I agree. I've completely lost what this thread was even about.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
36 Posts
It feels so wrong and gross for me to take raw meat/bones out of the package and FEED it! Haha

I don't think I would feed completely raw but it's okay to do as a treat in addition to her dry food, right?
The acidity in dog's stomachs is much higher than in human's, they can even deal with meat they dig up again from soil and can cope, so it is safe to feed raw chicken.
I feed mine completely raw. We changed due to health issues. She had diarrhea and an itchy skin from every dry/wet processed food we tried. I wouldn't go back to processed, but I know a lot of people who feed one meal raw and the other kibble. The one thing to be aware of is never ever to mix raw meat and kibble in the same meal. Both are digested at different speed (raw approx 6 hours, kibble 12 hours) and the slowing down of the digestion process due to the kibble makes the meat stay in the stomach too long and develop gases. That is at least painful for the dog if not dangerous.
The one meat to be careful with when feeding raw is pork. It has to be frozen for at least 2 weeks before given to the dog.
 
21 - 40 of 48 Posts
Top