# Thinking of switching to Dr.Tims, thoughts???



## stealle (Nov 12, 2012)

You'll get lot's of different answers to this question. I haven't tried Dr. Tim's. I'm sure it's a high quality food. I just switched to Orijen 6-fish grain-free formula and I'm very happy with it so far. It's more expensive than Dr. Tim's, but I like the ingredient list of Orijen better. Especially the new Orijen "whole prey" formula that is coming out looks incredible.


----------



## artbuc (Apr 12, 2009)

I fed Orijen 6fish for a couple years and now feed DT's Pursuit. Rocky did/is doing great on both. DT's is a much better value, especially the first bag from PetFlow. I do not believe you can tell very much about the quality of a food by just reading the ingredients list. Also, do you really want to feed 42-44% protein? The half-life of an Orijen kibble formula is about 6 months. No, not that bad, but it seems like every time you turn around, Champion is changing the recipe to reduce plant odor, reduce cost or overcome a manufacturing crisis such as a kitchen fire. Price is skyrocketing while availability is worsening. That is why I unhitched Rocky from Champion and I am glad I did.


----------



## WasChampionFan (Mar 31, 2012)

Dr. Tim's food was developed from sled dog racing so he knows what he is doing. The line evolved to 4 foods now for different activity levels. If you go to the FB page you will see the top teams that use the food. Just recently, his Skijoring team took the US Nationals in the one, two and 4 dog events. Guess what? His team uses only one dog in all the events. One dog beat multi-dog teams. 

That is the edge in the food. It is a proven food under stress but there are formulas for the average pooch. Kinesis is probably the best for your dog.

I stumbled upon it when my supplier of another good food retired and now I am hooked on it.

Just an excellent fairly priced food with a real pedigree.

It is also made for export to Europe, so it is subject to the strict rules on ingredient quality.

Also, it is the only company I know that tells you the company that supplies the vitamins. DSM, a Dutch company.


----------



## Penny & Maggie's Mom (Oct 4, 2007)

All of ours have been on Dr Tim's Kinesis since Sept. and I'm thrilled with how they're doing. I alternate ordering between Petflow (like the 44 lb bags) and Chewy. Also, Dr. Tim's has a FB page that has ask the vet on Tues and Thurs. He is also very accessible by email. BTW, this is the first food that all 3 of ours have been able to be on. I give DT's a big thumbs up!


----------



## tim hunt (Feb 15, 2013)

That is great news. I would be happy to try and answer any questions folks might have about our food or anything else food or vet related, if you wish.

We have worked hard to make a food that is geared towards the metabolic needs of the pet, not the demographic of people that food might be sold to as most of the other foods seem to be these days. So far, it has worked out very well.

Our company has been around for over 8 years and we do come from the working dog arena. I have been a vet for 24 years now in a small animal practice and saw the need for a quality food like this, not only for sporting dogs but everyday dogs, too. Working as a race vet for numerous times at the Iditarod and having a kennel of dogs of my own that we raced, the foods were developed by actual seeing firsthand the effects of ingredients on my own dogs, what worked,what did not. Took the formulas that were developed in my garage and then took it to a plant. There the fun began again.

6 plants later we did find the quality control, consistent production and honesty we had thoght we could easily find but it took some efforts. That was a learning curve that taught me a lot.

High levels of animal proteins only from North America;the actual protein make up is highly animal based such as Momentum is 94% animal protein in the protein makeup and our overall average of animal proteins is 87% in all formulas. Vitamins made specifically for us in USA and Ireland, digestability of 95% of the carbs, high level of omega 3 fatty acids from cold water fish, less to feed because of the nutrient density and less to clean up in the yard are some of the reasons why our food allows the dog to thrive so well. 

Thought a brief overview may be helpful.


----------



## artbuc (Apr 12, 2009)

Just ordered a 44 lb bag of Pursuit yesterday from Petflow and it is on the FedEx truck for delivery today. $63 for the food and free shipping.


----------



## Penny & Maggie's Mom (Oct 4, 2007)

Hi Dr Tim. So glad you've joined our community!


----------



## artbuc (Apr 12, 2009)

Hi Dr Tim! 

Can you confirm that citric acid is no longer in any of your recipes? Thanks.


----------



## tim hunt (Feb 15, 2013)

No citric acid is in any of our formulas.


----------



## stealle (Nov 12, 2012)

Tim - Have you considered making a chicken-free and grain-free product? Perhaps fish based?


----------



## WasChampionFan (Mar 31, 2012)

stealle said:


> Tim - Have you considered making a chicken-free and grain-free product? Perhaps fish based?


No LOL, he is supposed to be working on a red meat version of Pursuit with pork fat.

Don't get him side-tracked.


----------



## stealle (Nov 12, 2012)

WasChampionFan said:


> No LOL, he is supposed to be working on a red meat version of Pursuit with pork fat.
> 
> Don't get him side-tracked.


Do you answer for Tim? Is he that easily side tracked?


----------



## murphy1 (Jun 21, 2012)

I switched to Brothers Complete from Orijen when Murphy turned his nose up. He loves the beef and fish. I've mentioned this food on the forum before but never heard anyone comment. You must buy it from them and shipping is free.


----------



## stealle (Nov 12, 2012)

artbuc said:


> The half-life of an Orijen kibble formula is about 6 months.


What do you mean "half-life". Do you mean that literally, as in, that's how long it takes before it loses half it's nutritional value? Or, do you mean that's how often Orijen starts working on a different formula?


----------



## msc (Nov 3, 2008)

Starting our senior golden on Kinesis this week may try Pursuit too.


----------



## WasChampionFan (Mar 31, 2012)

stealle said:


> Do you answer for Tim? Is he that easily side tracked?


Was a joke......

You just don't "make" a new dog food so easily, at least not the way he does. Some companies buy formulas from third parties and don't even test them. In fact, Orijen is not even tested, just "formulated" to meet AAFCO requirements. No feeding trials at all.


----------



## stealle (Nov 12, 2012)

murphy1 said:


> I switched to Brothers Complete from Orijen when Murphy turned his nose up. He loves the beef and fish. I've mentioned this food on the forum before but never heard anyone comment. You must buy it from them and shipping is free.


I just took a look at the Brothers Complete website. I'm bothered that they boast using tapioca instead of potatoes because potatoes have a higher glycemic index than sugar. While that is true, it is also true that tapioca also has a higher glycemic index than sugar and roughly equal to that of potatoes. Don't get me wrong. It is probably a high quality dog food. But, as you mentioned, I don't hear many people talking about it. 

Since one of my dogs has a strong history of skin problems, I look for a dog food that I can find numerous REAL CONSUMER reviews that provide testimonials of their dogs with similar skin problems. While having a dog food that is proven for performance racing/ sled dogs is great, I'm more interested in a dog food that is proven to work for dogs with a history of skin problems and allergies. You might say, "well my dog doesn't have skin problems so I don't need to think about that." That might be true, but I think it says a lot about a dog food that can reverse a skin problem through nutrition alone whether your dog has a skin problem or not. That's how I discovered Orijen. I have read many, many reviews from online dog communities/forums and customers from online retailers (such as chewy.com, amazon.com, and others)... people who have dogs with similar problems such as mine. Not every review is glowing but the vast majority are. My female golden has been on Orijen 6-fish for several weeks now. I think it's too early for me to sing it's praises, but so far she is doing great! 

As for Dr. Tim's, his dog food sounds very high quality, but all of his formulas (to my knowledge) contain chicken. Chicken has exacerbated her skin problems in the past so I stay away from it.


----------



## stealle (Nov 12, 2012)

WasChampionFan said:


> Was a joke......
> 
> You just don't "make" a new dog food so easily, at least not the way he does. Some companies buy formulas from third parties and don't even test them. In fact, Orijen is not even tested, just "formulated" to meet AAFCO requirements. No feeding trials at all.


Actually, they say they test them on their own dogs. I guess you could say the same about Dr. Tim's since he feeds his dogs his own brand.


----------



## WasChampionFan (Mar 31, 2012)

stealle said:


> I just took a look at the Brothers Complete website. I'm bothered that they boast using tapioca instead of potatoes because potatoes have a higher glycemic index than sugar. While that is true, it is also true that tapioca also has a higher glycemic index than sugar and roughly equal to that of potatoes. Don't get me wrong. It is probably a high quality dog food. But, as you mentioned, I don't hear many people talking about it.
> 
> Since one of my dogs has a strong history of skin problems, I look for a dog food that I can find numerous REAL CONSUMER reviews that provide testimonials of their dogs with similar skin problems. While having a dog food that is proven for performance racing/ sled dogs is great, I'm more interested in a dog food that is proven to work for dogs with a history of skin problems and allergies. You might say, "well my dog doesn't have skin problems so I don't need to think about that." That might be true, but I think it says a lot about a dog food that can reverse a skin problem through nutrition alone whether your dog has a skin problem or not. That's how I discovered Orijen. I have read many, many reviews from online dog communities/forums and customers from online retailers (such as chewy.com, amazon.com, and others)... people who have dogs with similar problems such as mine. Not every review is glowing but the vast majority are. My female golden has been on Orijen 6-fish for several weeks now. I think it's too early for me to sing it's praises, but so far she is doing great!
> 
> As for Dr. Tim's, his dog food sounds very high quality, but all of his formulas (to my knowledge) contain chicken. Chicken has exacerbated her skin problems in the past so I stay away from it.


Yes they do all have chicken. Fish-based foods without and chicken or eggs are as limited as red meat foods, so you use what you like best. Infinia makes a good fish food as does Annamaet, two actually.

Tim should do a fish food.

Stay away from Brothers. It is a little pet store in Florida that has a house brand. They know nothing about nutrition and the food is a small fortune. Once I asked where it was made, few months ago, and they told me Pied Piper in Texas, which closed its doors year ago. Go figure.


----------



## A1Malinois (Oct 28, 2011)

stealle said:


> I just took a look at the Brothers Complete website. I'm bothered that they boast using tapioca instead of potatoes because potatoes have a higher glycemic index than sugar. While that is true, it is also true that tapioca also has a higher glycemic index than sugar and roughly equal to that of potatoes. Don't get me wrong. It is probably a high quality dog food. But, as you mentioned, I don't hear many people talking about it.
> 
> Since one of my dogs has a strong history of skin problems, I look for a dog food that I can find numerous REAL CONSUMER reviews that provide testimonials of their dogs with similar skin problems. While having a dog food that is proven for performance racing/ sled dogs is great, I'm more interested in a dog food that is proven to work for dogs with a history of skin problems and allergies. You might say, "well my dog doesn't have skin problems so I don't need to think about that." That might be true, but I think it says a lot about a dog food that can reverse a skin problem through nutrition alone whether your dog has a skin problem or not. That's how I discovered Orijen. I have read many, many reviews from online dog communities/forums and customers from online retailers (such as chewy.com, amazon.com, and others)... people who have dogs with similar problems such as mine. Not every review is glowing but the vast majority are. My female golden has been on Orijen 6-fish for several weeks now. I think it's too early for me to sing it's praises, but so far she is doing great!
> 
> As for Dr. Tim's, his dog food sounds very high quality, but all of his formulas (to my knowledge) contain chicken. Chicken has exacerbated her skin problems in the past so I stay away from it.


Orijen/Acana did nothing for my dogs skin issues. NOTHING. When it comes to reviews, one person and their friends, the company staff, pet stores who like ingredients lists vs quality write reviews. So when I read reviews its taken with a grain of salt. Orijen/Acana also uses herbs in their food with no real point. While I respect those who feed it, I refuse to. 

I just wish Dr Tims was available in Canada because it would be something I try providing the price was right.


----------



## stealle (Nov 12, 2012)

WasChampionFan said:


> Fish-based foods without and chicken or eggs are as limited as red meat foods, ...


Please explain this. Fish-based or red meat based foods can not be nutritionally balanced? There must be chicken and/or chicken eggs?


----------



## artbuc (Apr 12, 2009)

stealle said:


> What do you mean "half-life". Do you mean that literally, as in, that's how long it takes before it loses half it's nutritional value? Or, do you mean that's how often Orijen starts working on a different formula?


The latter - my poor attempt at sarcasm. If your dog is finicky and does not do well with recipe changes then Orijen is a poor choice based on their history.


----------



## WasChampionFan (Mar 31, 2012)

stealle said:


> Please explain this. Fish-based or red meat based foods can not be nutritionally balanced? There must be chicken and/or chicken eggs?


 
No who said that? What I meant is that you don't have too many choices of food. There are not many good fish or red meat on the market. There are some just not many. Ones without eggs are pretty rare.


----------



## stealle (Nov 12, 2012)

WasChampionFan said:


> No who said that?


That's what I thought you might be saying. That's why I said "Please explain". I wasn't sure what you were saying. Now I will say, thank you for the explanation.


----------



## A1Malinois (Oct 28, 2011)

stealle said:


> Please explain this. Fish-based or red meat based foods can not be nutritionally balanced? There must be chicken and/or chicken eggs?


I think WCF means finding a food absent of chicken and chicken eggs is hard to find like a red meat formula.

ETA- Must of posted at the same time as you...


----------



## WasChampionFan (Mar 31, 2012)

stealle said:


> That's what I thought you might be saying. That's why I said "Please explain". I wasn't sure what you were saying. Now I will say, thank you for the explanation.


To be honest I prefer red meats formulas for dogs that can't eat chicken. Annamaet Manitok and Merrill's Classic Beef are good ones.

I will stick with chicken, egg and fish but those are two good ones.


----------



## murphy1 (Jun 21, 2012)

Please explain how Brothers knows nothing about dog nutrition. What do you feed your dog? What are the ingredients as compared to Brothers?


----------



## leonidas7 (Sep 20, 2011)

How's this stuff compared to Fromm?


----------



## WasChampionFan (Mar 31, 2012)

leonidas7 said:


> How's this stuff compared to Fromm?


Dr. Tim's? Fromm is a good food too but its not formulated for the active dog like Dr. Tim's.

Dr. Tim's uses a lot more animal protein, no vegetable concentrates like Pea Protein. Dr. Tim's has 6 -7 concentrated meat sources.

Even Fromm's GF food are very light in the animal protein department.

They differ in Fromm really dresses up the label to appeal to people whereas Dr. Tim's doesn't. Tim also discloses the source of his vitamins.

But, Fromm makes a safe food as well.


----------



## msdogs1976 (Dec 21, 2007)

murphy1 said:


> Please explain how Brothers knows nothing about dog nutrition. What do you feed your dog? What are the ingredients as compared to Brothers?


You should ask what is he 'currently' feeding. I think he has tried everything under the sun.


----------



## WasChampionFan (Mar 31, 2012)

murphy1 said:


> Please explain how Brothers knows nothing about dog nutrition. What do you feed your dog? What are the ingredients as compared to Brothers?


That is self explanatory. It is the house brand of a small pet shop in Florida. Clever guys but they have no experience with dogs other than retailing food.

I use Dr. Tim's. Made by Vet and used by the top performance teams in the world from sled dog racing to bench.

The guy that goes to the North Pole with a team of malamutes for months on end without a phone uses it. So I am pretty comfortable it has been thoroughly tested. 

It also costs half what you pay and Dr. Tim's is made in an EU Cert. plant.


----------



## murphy1 (Jun 21, 2012)

So basically it's YOUR opinion of Brothers. How about posting ingredients of both brands.,.,..


----------



## murphy1 (Jun 21, 2012)

*Brothers Complete Fish*

*Ingredients: *Salmon fish meal, menhaden fish meal, turkey meal, peas, tapioca, chicken fat (preserved with mixed tocopherols), dried egg, dried chicken liver, pumpkin, pea fiber, dried sweet potato, alfalfa meal, dried carrots, potassium chloride, salt, choline chloride, blueberries, cranberries, apples, celery, beets, parsley, lettuce, spinach, DL-methionine, L-lysine, taurine, mixed Tocopherols, rosemary extract, green tea extract, lecithin, Vitamin A supplement, Vitamin D3 supplement, Vitamin E supplement, zinc sulfate, ferrous sulfate, niacin, folic acid, biotin, manganese sulfate, copper sulfate, calcium pantothenate, thiamine mononitrate, pyridoxine hydrochloride, riboflavin, L-ascorbyl 2-polyphosphate (source of Vitamin C activity), zinc proteinate, manganese proteinate, copper proteinate, calcium iodate, sodium selenite, cobalt carbonate, Vitamin B12 supplement, organic branched Inulin/FOS, dried Enterococcus faecium fermentation product, dried Lactobacillus acidophilus fermentation product, dried Lactobacillus casei fermentation product, Amylase (Aspergillus oryzae), Protease (Aspergillus oryzae), Cellulase (Trichoderma reesei), Lactase (Aspergillus oryzae), Hemicellulase (Trichoderma reesei), Lipase (Aspergillus oryzae).


----------



## murphy1 (Jun 21, 2012)

Carbs010036

Ingredients: Chicken meal, dried white potatoes, dried field peas, *dried beet pulp* (*sugar* removed), chicken fat (preserved with mixed tocopherols and citric acid), ocean herring meal, tapioca, dried whole eggs, whole ground flax seed, menhaden fish oil, chicken liver, salmon meal, porcine plasma, carrots, celery, beets, parsley, lettuce, watercress, spinach, potassium chloride, salt, lecithin, calcium carbonate, l-lysine, *canola oil*, dried Enterococcus faecium fermentation product, dried Saccharomyces cerevisiae fermentation product, dried Lactobacillus acidophilus fermentation product, dl-methionine, organic dried kelp, psyllium seed husks, Yucca schidigera extract, choline chloride, dried chicory root, algae fat product (source of DHA), ascorbic acid, glucosamine, l-ascorbyl-2-polyphosphate (stabilized ascorbic acid), taurine, vitamin E supplement, zinc sulfate, zinc proteinate, beta carotene, ferrous sulfate, ascorbic acid (source of vitamin C), manganese sulfate, inositol, niacin supplement, iron proteinate, manganese proteinate, zinc oxide, biotin, thiamine mononitrate (source of vitamin B1), copper sulfate, pyridoxine hydrochloride (source of vitamin B6), copper proteinate, vitamin A supplement, riboflavin supplement (source of vitamin B2), calcium pantothenate, potassium iodide (source of iodine), manganous oxide, selenium, calcium iodate, vitamin B12 supplement, vitamin D3 supplement, folic acid, l-carnitine, rosemary extract
Fiber (estimated dry matter content) = 5%


----------



## murphy1 (Jun 21, 2012)

The second was Dr Tims ingredients


----------



## Penny & Maggie's Mom (Oct 4, 2007)

Before using a new food I would look far beyond the ingredient list. Where is it manufactured, where are ingredients sourced (ingredients from China??? including the vitamin pak), what the recall history is for the manufacturer, were feed tests done. What is the calcium/phosphorous ratio, ash content. Dr Tim's has a proven history and has an accessible owner who is a vet that will answer questions, etc.

Personally, I'm not sold on the super high protein foods for the average dog. My vet happens to agree with that. Bottom line, do your homework to find a food your dog does well on and that you feel confident with.


----------



## Penny & Maggie's Mom (Oct 4, 2007)

Info on beet pulp: The Benefits of Beet Pulp in Pet Foods


----------



## WasChampionFan (Mar 31, 2012)

Last year Dr. Tim's won the Iditarod and had two other teams place in the top ten.

This year's National Skijoring Champ is a Dr. Tim's Team. He won every race he competed in and even won the two dog events with just one dog.

The Number #1 Dock & Flyball dog is the world uses Dr. Tim's

Scott Townsend took 3 out of the top 5 at the Purina Endurance Trials this year. He uses Dr. Tim's

The World Champion Frisbee Team called, Dog Town Factory, imports the food to Japan and uses it.

This year's Iditarod is next month so I imagine Dr. Tim's will have another good showing.

I mentioned Joe Henderson uses Dr. Tim's and camps at the North Pole with his dogs. Alone usually.

Dr. Tim has been the Official Race Vet for the Iditarod a number of times.

Do you know of any competitive dogs that use Brothers? 

I think you have been sucked in by the marketing and the guy's posts all over DogFoodAdvisor. He is not an expert in canine nutrition. He and his sons own a pet store, thats it. Some have even suggested another relationship with a certain website.

I don't care how the label reads. You are just getting ripped off.

This is how the Brother's Label really reads: "Nutritionally complete and balanced, Brothers Complete® Grain Free with White Meat Protein™ is formulated to meet the nutritional levels established by the AAFCO Dog Food Nutrient Profiles for all life stages."

It was never feed trial tested, just "formulated", let alone tested under the most grueling conditions for 9 years like Dr. Tim's.


----------



## murphy1 (Jun 21, 2012)

Lets agree to disagree. You point out dog food advisor, well you sound like a commission salesman for Dr Tim's!
Brothers dog food was formulated by a man with a PHD in dog nutrition. There are many excellent dog foods out there that would keep those racing dogs going just fine.
Go to the Brothers page and read their FAQ page and see what you think. To each his own!!


----------



## WasChampionFan (Mar 31, 2012)

murphy1 said:


> Lets agree to disagree. You point out dog food advisor, well you sound like a commission salesman for Dr Tim's!
> Brothers dog food was formulated by a man with a PHD in dog nutrition. There are many excellent dog foods out there that would keep those racing dogs going just fine.
> Go to the Brothers page and read their FAQ page and see what you think. To each his own!!


They just bought those recipes from an independent nutritionist. Who knows where they are made. I don't because they seemed to not know either. They said Pied Piper and then I said Pied Piper went bankrupt years ago. Then they hung up.

I only use products in my dogs that have been thoroughly tested. The number one way to mislead a consumer is through the label.

If you like paying $3lb then thats fine. I wouldn't use a food that is soley available at a little pet store somewhere. Is the Brother's website objective?

You are right there are lots of good foods, but somehow the top guys use Dr. Tim's and a few other foods including Pro Plan.

I don't sell anything, in fact, I like and talk about lots of products. Just happens I stumbled on Dr. Tim's and couldn't be more happy.


----------



## murphy1 (Jun 21, 2012)

If you chose to read Brothers website the reason,they say, it is only sold thru their store is to save money to put toward the quality of their food. Obviously you didn't read anything Brothers had to say.
Just because a dog food is sold from multiple outlets doesn't mean it's better. You can buy Pedigree (garbage), Orijen and Dr Tim's from many websites. That doesn't insure quality. Regarding Purina Pro Plan,,,,,read the ingregients. I wouldn't trust anything put out by Purina.


----------



## WasChampionFan (Mar 31, 2012)

murphy1 said:


> If you chose to read Brothers website the reason,they say, it is only sold thru their store is to save money to put toward the quality of their food. Obviously you didn't read anything Brothers had to say.
> Just because a dog food is sold from multiple outlets doesn't mean it's better. You can buy Pedigree (garbage), Orijen and Dr Tim's from many websites. That doesn't insure quality. Regarding Purina Pro Plan,,,,,read the ingregients. I wouldn't trust anything put out by Purina.


 
What would you expect Brothers to say? Actually a food being used and sold in many places does reflect on its quality. 

I was able to email over a dozen professional users of Dr. Tim's to get their views on it. Reading Richard Darlington's (a petfood salesman) tens of thousands of posts on DogFoodAdvisor is not an objective professional opinion. He is not qualified to recommend or make foods and neither are his two sons.

Some how some of the best dogs in the world eat Pro Plan and seem to just keep winning. How do you figure that?


----------



## artbuc (Apr 12, 2009)

WasChampionFan said:


> Who knows where they are made. I don't because they seemed to not know either. *They said Pied Piper and then I said Pied Piper went bankrupt years ago. Then they hung up. *


What else do you need to know? With all of the good food choices available, why would you buy from someone who lies about where their food is manufactured?

PS Quote bolded by me.


----------



## leonidas7 (Sep 20, 2011)

Sorry, I didn't mean to start an argument... One thing's for sure, my guy isn't a sled dog and is doing extremely well on Fromm. So for the time being, i'll be keeping him on this diet, it's good to know that there's a more suitable diet for more active dogs though and will definitely keep Dr. Tims in mind.


----------



## stealle (Nov 12, 2012)

murphy1 - You will not be able to win an argument with waschampionfan. It will only lead you to frustration. Arguments about ingredient lists go like this... If there is something most people would considered "bad" in the ingredient list from Dr. Tim's, Annamaet, Pro Plan, and a few others. He will say it doesn't matter because it is eaten by champion dogs. If there is something "bad" in the ingredient list from most others (especially Orijen), he will say it is a just there to cut costs, etc., etc. Just look at his name. Champion Foods could put out the perfect product. It just wouldn't matter.

Personally, the argument--- "Champion dogs eat Dr. Tim's dog food" doesn't mean much to me since I have a house dog, which is what 99% of the people on this forum have. Further, I think the diet that Dr. Tim is feeding his dogs DOES play a role in the performance of his dogs. But, only a small role. As waschampionfan says, there are champion dogs eating ProPlan. I wouldn't feed ProPlan to my dogs. I think Dr. Tim's champion dogs have a lot more to do with hard work and genetics. I'm sure most of his secrets are in the training and dog selection. 

Let's look at what U.S. Olympic Athletes eat - 
They Eat What? Food Secrets of Olympic Athletes - ABC News

"Glassman said Olympians eat a lot of food — quantities that for ordinary people would constitute pigging out. One secret of swimmer Michael Phelps’ astonishing performance in the 2008 Olympics in Beijing was consuming as many as 12,000 calories in one day.
Other athletes fuel up on some of the following foods: A pound of pasta drizzled with olive oil (about 800 calories), a dozen eggs (about 840 calories), a pint of Ben & Jerry’s cheesecake brownie ice cream (about 1,000 calories), pizza (about 2,000 calories).
Athletes can eat like this and not gain any weight because their workouts are intense. According to Glassman, Phelps’ workouts can burn 4,000 to 6,000 calories in a day, and those calories must be replenished in order to train the following day."

If I ate the perfect diet from the day I was born, I still wouldn't be an olympic athlete today. The only way I could have done it is if I would have trained very hard by the right trainer and had good genetics. I think diet is important, but it doesn't seem to matter for human Olympic athletes; I doubt it does for dogs either.


----------



## murphy1 (Jun 21, 2012)

Artbuc..............remember the source of the information


----------



## WasChampionFan (Mar 31, 2012)

The comparison to athletic dogs is perfectly valid. What is learned in that process benefits all dogs. Some companies have that body of knowledge and some don't. 

Think about what you are saying, that a normal house dog somehow requires better nutrition (from ingedients that look like human food) than a hunting or sled dog. That makes no sense. Don't be fooled by labels. Let me give you an example. Why do you think Fromm puts cheese in the food? Sounds yummy right? But there is a reason.

By the way all the formulas Dr. Tim makes are used by regular family pets.


----------



## Penny & Maggie's Mom (Oct 4, 2007)

Our three are seniors, not terribly active and have been doing well on Dr. Tim's Kinesis since Sept. Over the years we've used many foods. The dog food industry is constantly changing......... companies are sold, manufacturers change, formulas change etc. As I've said before do your homework.... well beyond just an ingredient listing. Find our where their ingredients are sourced from (inc the vitamin pak), who the manufacturer is and what their recall history is, if they are EU certified, etc. Find a food and company you feel comfortable with and that your dog does well on... that's the food for you. 

Dr. Marion Nestle has a great book on the dog food industry that I would heartily recommend if you are interested in the industry. Many of the internet sites are opinionated and not necessarily factual. One that is often quoted is run by a dentist!


----------



## stealle (Nov 12, 2012)

WasChampionFan said:


> Think about what you are saying, that a normal house dog somehow requires better nutrition (from ingedients that look like human food) than a hunting or sled dog. That makes no sense.


Who said that?


----------



## T&T (Feb 28, 2008)

There's no such thing as the perfect kibble 

*Kibble is Kibble is STILL Kibble!*
http://www.thewholedog.org/artkibble.html


----------



## sharlin (Feb 26, 2007)

My Pack thrives on Fromm and I love the way you can switch flavors and protein source without prior blending.
But, when it comes down to it, even the highest quality kibble is still kibble.
It is for our conveinance in every aspect. From storage, to cost, to feeding, etc etc.
I'm pretty darn sure if I put a bowl of fresh liver, lungs, & heart with a big rib bone on top next to anyyyyy kind of kibble that The Pack will look at me like I'm crazzzzzy before picking bowl 1.
It's just too bad that we don't have the means, time or money to feed them what they really would love to eat.


----------



## stealle (Nov 12, 2012)

T&T said:


> There's no such thing as the perfect kibble
> 
> *Kibble is Kibble is STILL Kibble!*


*Pizza is Pizza is STILL Pizza!*

My favorite food, BTW : But, some pizza is better than others.



sharlin said:


> It's just too bad that we don't have the means, time or money to feed them what they really would love to eat.


Agreed. I would love to feed raw, but I have too many obstacles in the way. I am about to start feeding raw on the weekends and kibble during the week. I will occasionally top the kibble with some green tripe. I hope that works out well.


----------



## sharlin (Feb 26, 2007)

stealle said:


> *Pizza is Pizza is STILL Pizza!*
> 
> My favorite food, BTW : But, some pizza is better than others.
> 
> ...


I.m sure it will.


----------



## stealle (Nov 12, 2012)

sharlin said:


> I.m sure it will. You might want to drop T&T from above post a note if you're thinking about going semi-raw. She has studied and investigated dog foods more than anyone I know. She's provided me with information about feeding and nutrition which my Pack is VERY thankful I've incorporated.


PM sent. Thanks for the tip!


----------



## WasChampionFan (Mar 31, 2012)

T&T said:


> There's no such thing as the perfect kibble
> 
> *Kibble is Kibble is STILL Kibble!*
> http://www.thewholedog.org/artkibble.html


 
I hate to tell you, but the position of this website and Dr. has recently been proven wrong by genetic analysis done at a top university in Sweden.

Dogs are in fact omnivores and had a very different evolutionary path than wolves. The university's analysis of the genetic make-up is clear that dogs have a very different digestive set-up than wolves and other carnivores. It really isn't clear if even wolves are carnivores.

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/gen...rchy_diet_may_have_transformed_wolves_to_dogs

So kibble actually would represent a more natural diet than raw, a combination of cooked meat, fat and starch.

This study would be consistent with the 2006 position of the NRC that dogs are omnivores.


----------



## sharlin (Feb 26, 2007)

WasChampionFan said:


> I hate to tell you, but the position of this website and Dr. has recently been proven wrong by genetic analysis done at a top university in Sweden.
> 
> Dogs are in fact omnivores and had a very different evolutionary path than wolves. The university's analysis of the genetic make-up is clear that dogs have a very different digestive set-up than wolves and other carnivores. It really isn't clear if even wolves are carnivores.
> 
> ...


Starchy diet *MAY* have transformed wolves to dogs" - Title of article


I don't think that's a resounding rebuttal to any argument.

The difference between todays domesticated dogs and todays gray wolf is at most 0.1 percent of their nuclear gene sequence. To put this in perspective the analogy would be:


Think of your dog as an apple pie with a diameter of 12 inches.
To remove a slice of the pie that is NOT a wolf you'd have to cut a sliver measuring just over 1/32 of an inch along the crust, less than a milimeter.
Disregard what you've cut off.
Everything else in front of you is wolf.


There's a whole break down of carnivore to omnivore to monovore that has transpiried in our dogs today in Chapter 12 of Ted Kerasote's new book Pukka's Promise. He spent time with wolf experts such as Douglas Smith, the head of the Yellowstone Wolf Project, as well as pouring over studies and data on both sides of the equation. This book looks at what he considers to be the top 5 reasons our furkids don't have the longevity today that they should. 


And to say that there is a question of wolves being carnivores when they are the apex predator of their territory doesn't make any sense.


----------



## stealle (Nov 12, 2012)

WasChampionFan said:


> I hate to tell you, but the position of this website and Dr. has recently been proven wrong by genetic analysis done at a top university in Sweden.
> 
> Dogs are in fact omnivores and had a very different evolutionary path than wolves. The university's analysis of the genetic make-up is clear that dogs have a very different digestive set-up than wolves and other carnivores. It really isn't clear if even wolves are carnivores.
> 
> ...


I don't think it is so black vs white. Carnivore vs omnivore. I think there is a grey area. You can label carnivore or omnivore if you wish. If their was a scale with true herbivore being 0 true omnivore being 5 and true carnivore being 10, I would say that dogs are about an 8.5. There is no question that dogs have a strong preference for a carnivore diet in the wild. However, they will on occasion eat fruits and vegetables. They did not eat cooked food or kibble until people started cooking it for them. There seems to be a correlation between the time that dogs started eating 100% kibble diets and the time that more dogs started having "allergies" and other physical issues such as hip dysplasia.


----------



## artbuc (Apr 12, 2009)

murphy1 said:


> Artbuc..............remember the source of the information


I have done my own research on Brothers and the now defunct Pied Piper. I suggest you do the same before discrediting WCF's statements. I doubt if you will want to feed your dog any kibble made at the former Pied Piper facility, now owned and operated by Great Life.


----------



## artbuc (Apr 12, 2009)

sharlin said:


> Think of your dog as an apple pie with a diameter of 12 inches. To remove a slice of the pie that is NOT a wolf you'd have to cut a sliver measuring just over 1/32 of an inch along the crust, less than a milimeter.
> Disregard what you've cut off. Everything else in front of you is wolf.


I am not a geneticist but I think your analogy is not relevant. Just a couple gene pairs switching on or off can mean the difference between life and death. To say dogs and wolves are 99.9% the same means nothing unless you understand the .1% difference. Sort of like humans and chimps.


----------



## Tuco (Jan 3, 2013)

Evo red meat formula is by far one of the best red meat foods, and one of the best kibble a of all IMO


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Tuco (Jan 3, 2013)

WasChampionFan said:


> I hate to tell you, but the position of this website and Dr. has recently been proven wrong by genetic analysis done at a top university in Sweden.
> 
> Dogs are in fact omnivores and had a very different evolutionary path than wolves. The university's analysis of the genetic make-up is clear that dogs have a very different digestive set-up than wolves and other carnivores. It really isn't clear if even wolves are carnivores.
> 
> ...


Dogs are in obligate carnivores meaning they are carnivores with carnivorous features but have adapted digestively to consuming vegetables and fruit (and starch but only by about 30% unless further processed) never the less they do best on a mainly meat diet with Afew veggies. I had 2 dogs with from what I saw in their siblings, crappy genetics, on a prey model raw diet and lived to 16 and 18 without a single health problem, they outlived their oldest siblings by 4 and 6 years, wether or not they have adapted to grain, lets face it, a company has put it there for the reason of saving money and realistically if a company is putting corn in a diet it's not for the benefits a very small ammount gives, it's to save money and chances are its exceeding 20% of the diet, even a human on 20% corn would have issues. There are good kibbles and bad kibbles but they do not stand up the raw food, if I throw out a plate of chicken necks, gizzards, and some beef stew he's gonna choose that over kibble. As for the " I don't have time" I say bull. I am a university student with a 4 hour 2 way commute every day and I still manage, every 2 weeks I go to the butcher, get all the meats and organs and I go home and divide it into 14 serving sized bags, then every day when I go to sleep I pull a bag out if the freezer, let it thaw, and the next mornin I throw it down. I'm sorry but saying ultra processed cooked food with grain and preservatives is better than solid raw unprocessed meat and veggies is pobbycock 


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## stealle (Nov 12, 2012)

artbuc said:


> I am not a geneticist but I think your analogy is not relevant. Just a couple gene pairs switching on or off can mean the difference between life and death. To say dogs and wolves are 99.9% the same means nothing unless you understand the .1% difference. Sort of like humans and chimps.


I was thinking the same thing. That .1% can be huge. However, when it comes to some of the most basic things, like diet. Humans and chimps are without a doubt true omnivores.


----------



## WasChampionFan (Mar 31, 2012)

The study proves that dogs have special genetic abilities to digest starches and sugars. This proves dogs are not direct decendants of wolves.

This study is as clear as crystal and painful to raw feeders.

Dogs evolved eating garbage and hand-outs.....not stalking elk.

Dog's would have eaten all kinds of cooks meats and cooked grains on this evolutionary path, which means kibble is an evolutionary food in many respects.

I am not saying raw meat is bad, but clearly all the hype about it being "an evolutionary diet" is pure rubbish.

Tuco, give it a rest. One of the finest schools in the world has completely discredited the view of raw feeding in terms of how The Cult markets it.

Science wins again......


----------



## stealle (Nov 12, 2012)

Tuco said:


> Dogs are in obligate carnivores meaning they are carnivores with carnivorous features but have adapted digestively to consuming vegetables and fruit (and starch but only by about 30% unless further processed) never the less they do best on a mainly meat diet with Afew veggies. I had 2 dogs with from what I saw in their siblings, crappy genetics, on a prey model raw diet and lived to 16 and 18 without a single health problem, they outlived their oldest siblings by 4 and 6 years, wether or not they have adapted to grain, lets face it, a company has put it there for the reason of saving money and realistically if a company is putting corn in a diet it's not for the benefits a very small ammount gives, it's to save money and chances are its exceeding 20% of the diet, even a human on 20% corn would have issues. There are good kibbles and bad kibbles but they do not stand up the raw food, if I throw out a plate of chicken necks, gizzards, and some beef stew he's gonna choose that over kibble. As for the " I don't have time" I say bull. I am a university student with a 4 hour 2 way commute every day and I still manage, every 2 weeks I go to the butcher, get all the meats and organs and I go home and divide it into 14 serving sized bags, then every day when I go to sleep I pull a bag out if the freezer, let it thaw, and the next mornin I throw it down. I'm sorry but saying ultra processed cooked food with grain and preservatives is better than solid raw unprocessed meat and veggies is pobbycock


For what its worth, Tuco. I agree with everything you just said, except "pobbycock". It's "poppycock", lol :bowrofl:


----------



## Tuco (Jan 3, 2013)

That was actually autocorrect from bullsh*t lol, I thought only old ladies say poppycock lol


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Tuco (Jan 3, 2013)

WasChampionFan said:


> The study proves that dogs have special genetic abilities to digest starches and sugars. This proves dogs are not direct decendants of wolves.
> 
> This study is as clear as crystal and painful to raw feeders.
> 
> ...


I don't see it as an "evolutionary diet" but lets face it there have been many more studies showing that an unprocessed diet with minimal preservatives is connected to both better general health and some studies seem to find the connection in lower rates of cancers. And those studies you talk of you are manipulating the results in your words, they simply state that prey model raw diets that claim that veggies are bad are wrong they have established that veggies fruit and some starches which I would like to note did not include wheat or corn, were good in a diet and can be consumed. I go to university of Guelph which is a very well respected veterinary program at least here in Canada and I've been taking nutrition courses that are just now starting to teach the benefits of raw. Saying that an only meat diet isn't nutritionally sound is also bull. The Inuit people lived for hundreds of years on only meat and they are no different evolutionary than us. Waschampionfan I don't understand why you feel the need to be aggressive but at least I can see and take other people's opinions into account. You just condescendingly discount them. I recommend raw diet and make my points but I also have kibbles that I like and don't try to force people onto it.


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Tuco (Jan 3, 2013)

Also another note that vet school you talk of has its nutrition programs sponsored by hills


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## WasChampionFan (Mar 31, 2012)

I don't force anyone on anything. The raw feeders march like cult members to science that simply does not exist. In 2006, 6 or 7 Phd's from The National Academies of Sciences concluded dogs were Omnivores. The study from Uppsala just confirms that your dog, my dog was in fact a garbage picker not a hunter.

As for cancer, no owner with a cancer prone breed would ever agree with you. You should read the study out of UC Davis this week about neutering.

But....you are correct about feeding an all natural diet. No argument there.

I feed green tripe myself, but I am under no illusion that one day my dogs will start speaking french or playing the piano or live longer.

When it comes to wolves in zoos, the consenus is that they do just fine on dog kibble. In fact, the official guidance from zoo nutritionists is that kibble is preferrred because the animals receive more consistent and better balanced nutrition.

http://skeptivet.blogspot.com/2010/02/another-version-of-naturalistic-fallacy.html

I admire you Tuco for the time you spend caring for your dog, don't misunderstand.


----------



## HiTideGoldens (Dec 29, 2009)

Hi all, I know this is a subject many are passionate about, but let's keep this polite without the use of profanity.


----------



## Tuco (Jan 3, 2013)

Although I agree that many of the raw feeders have obsessive tendencies at times I wound definately say that I've seen tendencies like this among scientists, kibble supporters and pharmasutacle company supporters, in the end I think many of this have the best at heart. As for saying they are omnivores, in obligate carnivore is a much less vague term that the American vet association supports meaning Carnivorous traits and features along with phsychological behaviour of a carnivore but with some adaptations leaning towards omnivore essesentially more carnivorous that omnivorous. There have been numerous studies including a large scale Romanian studies showing that when there are any more than 2 wild domestic dogs they display pack behaviour and hunt and rather are garbage pickets when alone and are unable to have the advantage of a pack, line wolves have displayed this behaviour but more mildly in the wild. As for you criticizing the raw food movement, you are contradicting yourself, you say you agree with my point about wholesome foods but not the raw feeding movement the whole idea of the movement is feeding your dog a preservative free uncooked diet unprocessed to give your dogs a healthier, life. And again the study you presented was on a small scale and considering that it was partially funded by hill I don't trust it. All the raw feeders whom call it an evolutionary diet, which there are few of are just trying to convince people to try it, quite frankly I've seen a lot worse claims out of kibbles


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## artbuc (Apr 12, 2009)

stealle said:


> I was thinking the same thing. That .1% can be huge. However, when it comes to some of the most basic things, like diet. Humans and chimps are without a doubt true omnivores.


I was talking about the DNA overlap between humans and chimps in general, not suggesting anything about respective diets.


----------



## T&T (Feb 28, 2008)

Quoting from Dr Tim’s home page … 
“on average, 87% of Dr Tim’s proteins are animal derived. This means the majority of the protein your pet eats comes from another animal, not a plant. Dogs and cats flourish on food that is heavily animal protein based.” 

But even the “best” of kibble is still processed food = stripped of it’s nutritional values/enzymes/vitamins which is replaced by synthetic / genetically modified (GM) vitamins & supplements. 

Sadly, most kibbles, especially grain based, consist mostly of GM corn and/or GM soy, GM vitamins/supplements, sprayed with GM oils (and that includes canola). Not to mention articifial preservatives & colors. 
How in the world can anyone claim it to be better than real food.... 

Wish the greedy Pet food Giants would take some of that false advertising $ (we’re talking millions) and put it towards better ingredients. 
And yes I do feed kibble which I rotate all the time. And do mix in “real” food & add organic raw meat as often as I can.


----------



## WasChampionFan (Mar 31, 2012)

I use Pursuit & Momentum, which are 90% & 94% animal protein, and I am not disagreeing that animal protein is important, it is vitally important, but I don't follow a false idea of evolution or the common wolf fantasy like so many. I don't dismiss other types of nutrients or ingredients based on that thinking. Nor do I try to draw conclusions from just reading a label because of the games that are played trying mislead consumers.

T & T, there are a lot of bad foods out there, but that is not what we are talking about.


----------



## goldentemperment (May 16, 2012)

WasChampionFan said:


> I hate to tell you, but the position of this website and Dr. has recently been proven wrong by genetic analysis done at a top university in Sweden.
> 
> Dogs are in fact omnivores and had a very different evolutionary path than wolves. The university's analysis of the genetic make-up is clear that dogs have a very different digestive set-up than wolves and other carnivores. It really isn't clear if even wolves are carnivores.
> 
> ...


A dog is a carnivore - plain and simple. They may be in the middle of some evolutionary shift right now, but that does not negate the fact that dogs do not produce salivary amylase, produce very little amylase in their pancreas (this pancreatic adaptation is probably the chief biological difference between dogs and wolves), and have a predatory build and predatory teeth. They are facultative carnivores, where wolves are closer to obligate carnivores. This "study" that you link is not saying that dogs are omnivores. 

The presence of pancreatic amylase is what makes dogs somewhat able to break down cellulose, but not as well as a true omnivore, such as **** sapien sapien, who do produce salivary amylase.

The "omnivore" argument is pet food company propoganda.


----------



## WasChampionFan (Mar 31, 2012)

goldentemperment said:


> A dog is a carnivore - plain and simple. They may be in the middle of some evolutionary shift right now, but that does not negate the fact that dogs do not produce salivary amylase, produce very little amylase in their pancreas (this pancreatic adaptation is probably the chief biological difference between dogs and wolves), and have a predatory build and predatory teeth. They are facultative carnivores, where wolves are closer to obligate carnivores. This "study" that you link is not saying that dogs are omnivores.
> 
> The presence of pancreatic amylase is what makes dogs somewhat able to break down cellulose, but not as well as a true omnivore, such as **** sapien sapien, who do produce salivary amylase.
> 
> The "omnivore" argument is pet food company propoganda.


You should address this to the National Academy of Sciences and Uppsala University in Sweden.

The latest study provides genetic backing for a theory called "the village dog" which has been talked about for decades. Now the genetic evidence is there.

What you wrote I have read on every raw feeding propaganda site in the world. It is the cult mentality.

By the way, no one is talking about cellulose. Check your facts. This is what I mean. A person portrays themselves as some sort of expert and is talking about cellulose and amylase.

And the study does say they are omnivores, that and garbage pickers.


----------



## stealle (Nov 12, 2012)

Orijen is the king of all kibble... just sayin'


----------



## goldentemperment (May 16, 2012)

The ability to break down cellulose is the adaptation that allows dogs to derive some of potato's nutrients. Amylase in the pancreas and bile in the liver support this process. You overstate the importance of this study, and the notion that we can derive dogs are omnivores from its conclusion.

According to the article "Dogs, the team found, have more copies than wolves do of the _AMY2B_ gene, which produces an enzyme that breaks starch into easily digestible sugars." AMY2B is a gene that produces amylase (hence the name AMY2B), the key enzyme the helps animals break down cellulose. Dogs do not produce amylase in their saliva, and therefore lack a definitive component of what defines an omnivore. Show any biologist a dog skull (or any other skull for that matter), and they'll tell you right away, based on head shape and teeth shape, whether they're an omnivore, herbivore, or carnivore. Beyond external physiology, it's the presence of amylase later in digestion (in the pancreas) that allows dogs to get at any of the nutrients in high fiber (cellulose) foods at all; the amylase makes dogs more of an opportunist than their wolf cousin. I haven't been able to find any scientifically classified omnivorous mammals that lack salivary amylase, as of yet.

Look at your favorite food: Dr. Tim's (for whom you do lots and lots of ?free? advertising for). It's the high quality proteins, particularly animal proteins, where the real value is derived.

I'm not reciting cult vernacular. I guarantee you that you think about Dr. Tim's much more than I think about raw feeding, and my guess is you feel stronger about it than I do. I was curious several months ago about whether the notion that dogs are omnivores holds any water, and my conclusion is that I don't think so, despite Purina and other brands trying to convince me that my dog needs lots of vegetables.

I'd be curious about Dr. Tim's thoughts on this.



WasChampionFan said:


> You should address this to the National Academy of Sciences and Uppsala University in Sweden.
> 
> The latest study provides genetic backing for a theory called "the village dog" which has been talked about for decades. Now the genetic evidence is there.
> 
> ...


----------



## WasChampionFan (Mar 31, 2012)

goldentemperment said:


> The ability to break down cellulose is the adaptation that allows dogs to derive some of potato's nutrients. Amylase in the pancreas and bile in the liver support this process. You overstate the importance of this study
> 
> And you accusing anyone of cult talk is hilarious. You drone on and on in almost every single post you make about dr tim's. You'd think dr Tim is l Ron Hubbard


You are confusing cellulose with something else. Cellulose is broken down by bacteria, or more precisely enzymes produced by bacteria. Cellulase is the enzyme produced by bacteria and molds. Cellulase is not produced by any animal including cows. Cows can break down cellulose only because of the enzymes produced by bacteria in their stomach chambers.

Cellulose cannot be broken down or digested by any omnivore.

Dogs and people maximize the use of starchs with amylase and cooking called gelatinization. Even without gelatinization starches are digested well so long as the starch is exposed. Gelatinization pops the cellulose wall so the starches are loose. Have you ever made Polenta? Same thing.

If you swallow a whole kernel of corn it will come out whole. If you chew it only the shell will come out, ie cellulose.

Dogs can digest potato pretty well because 1) the potato is ground and 2) it is cooked. The same for rice, corn, oats, etc.

I am reacting to the study like any learned person, that it proves dogs are not wolves and evolved eating cooked food. The study pinpointed additional genes in all three processes of utilizing starches.

*"That food was obviously the same kind of food that we were eating," most likely a mix of roots, porridge and possibly bread along with bones containing meat and marrow, said study leader Erik Axelsson, an evolutionary geneticist at Uppsala University in Sweden."*

Sounds pretty omnivorous to me. Have you learned anything so far?


----------



## HiTideGoldens (Dec 29, 2009)

Guys, please please please remember to keep your posts polite and to the point, not about other posters.


----------



## Sally's Mom (Sep 20, 2010)

I believe that dogs are omnivores, not pure carnivores...


----------



## goldentemperment (May 16, 2012)

Yes - I misnomerize cellulose. I was referring to starch - the same chemical makeup with a minor difference in the C-H bond.

My point was that you can't have it both ways. If the central thesis of the study was that dogs have more AMY2B genes than their cousin wolves, then it's the adaptation that produced a little amylase in their pancreas that allowed for some wolves to thrive in a human environment.

So walking through the evolutionary story, humans are able to domesticate, breed, and develop temperament of some canids over several hundred or thousand years. The canids that were able to more effectively absorb the nutrients, via the AMY2B adaptation/mutation, of the humans' food needed to wander less for supplemental nutrients; the ones that didn't have the AMY2B wandered more, and perhaps died earlier or were re-integrated into a wolf pack, but on the average, weren't able to reproduce as successfully with other canids inside the human communities.

So, this AMY2B adaptation, among others, caused the species divergence.

The dog becomes an opportunist; however, they're still built like a carnivore. Their teeth, their saliva, their pancreas, their short, highly acidic stomach, their skull, their claws. They're biologically a carnivore.

We know dogs can survive on crap food - it's why Ole Roy is still in business. But that doesn't mean they should be eating carbohydrate-rich foods. And the ability to absorb small amounts of carbohydrate rich foods does not imply they're omnivorous. They're a facultative carnivore - an opportunist. Yes, they can eat some non-meat foods. But that's not what defines an omnivore. 

That's a slippery slope dog food marketers use to convince people the garbage they put into their food is appropriate. The *only* people seriously making the argument that dogs are omnivores are dog food marketers. Dogs are scientifically classified as carnivora, and the reason dog food companies are so heck-bent on trying to win the game of classification is so they can justify putting vegetable protein and other fillers in their food.




WasChampionFan said:


> You are confusing cellulose with something else. Cellulose is broken down by bacteria, or more precisely enzymes produced by bacteria. Cellulase is the enzyme produced by bacteria and molds. Cellulase is not produced by any animal including cows. Cows can break down cellulose only because of the enzymes produced by bacteria in their stomach chambers.
> 
> Cellulose cannot be broken down or digested by any omnivore.
> 
> ...


----------



## Tuco (Jan 3, 2013)

Waschampionfan, please read up the definition of cult and read through these studies properly, again the largest scal study I've seen shows that they only display this "garbage picking" mentality when lone but when in pair of 2 or more display more of a pack hunting mentality. This argument about carnivore and omnivore is ridiculous in vet school we have learned 9 sectors of the three carnivore omnivore herbivore. Dogs are inobligate facultative carnivores, if on a scale from 1 to 10 10 being complete obligate carnivores, a dog would be 8. Their physical features and systems are that of a carnivore but have a short term evolutionary adaptation to mostly digest fruits and vegetables and very little ability to digest starch, beyond that which has already been processed, the average starch nutrient absorption is about 25% I believe corn is on the lower side and potato on the higher. Both of you are being extremely immature particularly you waschampion fan. Please let's keep this discussion civil, it is also clear neither of you have all your facts straight more understand fully the use of amylase in digestion


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Tuco (Jan 3, 2013)

Dogs are not wolves but they are extremely close to wolves probably about 50% the difference between chimps and human, and although that may seem significantly different it's not, there is a reason they are subspecies of the same species C. lupus. Saying dogs have "evolved to eating cooked food" is a load of cr*p. you don't evolve to eating cooked food, even humans haven't, many cultures did not consume cooked meat until the last 200 years, like the Inuit, also note they had no vegetables or starches in their diet. It is fact that has been extensively proven that when you cook food, minerals, vitamins and enzymes disapear, and becomes of a lower nutritional and biological value when cooked, if we were all eating raw meat aside from the fact that our local culture is still not adapted to ecoli and salmonella, we would be getting more out of our meat


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Just wanted to tackle a couple of claims that were here, just for fun:

Being an apex predator doesn't make you a carnivore. Grizzlies are apex predators, and they're even more omnivorous than dogs are.

Being a carnivore in taxonomy doesn't say much about your nutritional needs. The aforementioned grizzlies are in the Carnivora order, as are pandas, which are full herbivores.

Similarity in genome shouldn't be expressed in percentages, as they're misleading. It only takes a teeny bit of genetic divergence to make huge phenological differences. Whether a dog is .01% different from a wolf or 1% different doesn't tell you anything useful about diet. It's _which_ genes and how they're expressed that matter.

Looking at wolves can't tell you what dogs should eat. It's simply been too long and dogs have diverged too far. So any food that sells itself as a wolf's diet is sort of missing the point. Dogs aren't identical to wolves anymore, so they need to be fed a ratio of protein, fat, and carbs that can be proven to make dogs thrive. Lots of kibble companies make kibble whose results can be proven in real dogs. That's the best information we have and the reason there are so many kibbles that dogs thrive on.


----------



## stealle (Nov 12, 2012)

Sally's Mom said:


> I believe that dogs are omnivores, not pure carnivores...


.....m'kay


----------



## goldentemperment (May 16, 2012)

To be honest, these pedantic details are of little concern to me. I'm not a biologist, nor do I care to be. My problem is that someone with a clear agenda tried to redefine something that probably seems inconsequential to most people; however these little details allow marketers to reframe something to fit their agenda. I don't think that's right, and I especially don't think it's right to call someone a cult member for pushing back. My initial response was harsher than I like to be, which is why I edited it. Outside of that, and the mixup between starch and cellulose, my argument was strong and civil



Tuco said:


> Waschampionfan, please read up the definition of cult and read through these studies properly, again the largest scal study I've seen shows that they only display this "garbage picking" mentality when lone but when in pair of 2 or more display more of a pack hunting mentality. This argument about carnivore and omnivore is ridiculous in vet school we have learned 9 sectors of the three carnivore omnivore herbivore. Dogs are inobligate facultative carnivores, if on a scale from 1 to 10 10 being complete obligate carnivores, a dog would be 8. Their physical features and systems are that of a carnivore but have a short term evolutionary adaptation to mostly digest fruits and vegetables and very little ability to digest starch, beyond that which has already been processed, the average starch nutrient absorption is about 25% I believe corn is on the lower side and potato on the higher. Both of you are being extremely immature particularly you waschampion fan. Please let's keep this discussion civil, it is also clear neither of you have all your facts straight more understand fully the use of amylase in digestion
> 
> 
> Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Tuco (Jan 3, 2013)

goldentemperment said:


> To be honest, these pedantic details are of little concern to me. I'm not a biologist, nor do I care to be. My problem is that someone with a clear agenda tried to redefine something that probably seems inconsequential to most people; however these little details allow marketers to reframe something to fit their agenda. I don't think that's right, and I especially don't think it's right to call someone a cult member for pushing back. My initial response was harsher than I like to be, which is why I edited it. Outside of that, and the mixup between starch and cellulose, my argument was strong and civil


Yes I do have to agree that champion was more the issue and does seem to have an agenda, and I have to say most of his points and studies shown were
-unreliable and on small scale
-vague
-not making important points from the same source that are contradicting was he's saying
- or just complete bull

Afew of your points could have used some sanding, but his points were all over the place, the argument between carnivore and omnivore just pissed the heck out of me because neither part is right, they are essentially right in between leaning more towards carnivorous. Nevertheless these are not sure fire guidelines, I had a prey model raw giant tibetan mastiff love to 18 outliving his cancer and heart issue riddled brethren by 6 years. And I also see thousands of people have their dogs on kibbles and I've even seen Afew dogs on a vegan diet and do fine (but taurine deficiency has been an issue) in the end it's just based on what your dogs do best on. I like raw not nessesarily because its more biologically appropriate but because I know that an unprocessed diet is better than a processed and that I can have more control over the ingredients and percentages to keep my dog in the perfect zone of health. As a raw feeder I don't have to worry about the percentage of animal protein vs plant protein, nor preservatives or having to worry how much of each ingredient is there. I have full controll. The clear changes I see in general health is just a bonus.



Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## WasChampionFan (Mar 31, 2012)

I love when someone is wrong on the facts they call them "pedantic details".

Yes, oh I forgot, they are big picture people.


----------



## Tuco (Jan 3, 2013)

WasChampionFan said:


> I love when someone is wrong on the facts they call them "pedantic details".
> 
> Yes, oh I forgot, they are big picture people.


Stop being cocky, quite frankly he may have had Afew bad points but you were in a whole other ballpark of manipulating/misunderstanding facts/studies.


----------



## CarolinaCasey (Jun 1, 2007)

This thread has served it's purpose and is now way off course.


----------

