# What is the nutritional difference between a puppy food and the large breed puppy



## KaMu (May 17, 2010)

I ask this question knowing the large breed puppy food is as it says....for large breed pups
but is it a poor choice to just feed a regular puppy food?
I know food selection is a personal preference and what works for one pooch might nit be ideal for another. I just want to be sure of giving our pup the best possible start. 
At this point, I wil be keeping her on what the breeder is feeding. I'm just curious about all this. Years ago there were so few choices in dog foods. Now, you can get LOST with all the selections ;(. 
I've done my share if research for over 10 years in nutrition but this was specific to a toy breed food. 

Kathy


----------



## BorzoiMom (Nov 18, 2009)

I do not care for 'large breed' puppy foods, as the calcium to phosophorus ratios are really wide. 
Since these two are bonding agents with each, if the food is not close in balence to the ratio, that creates other problems ( such as calcium deposits etc)


----------



## KaMu (May 17, 2010)

borzoimom said:


> I do not care for 'large breed' puppy foods, as the calcium to phosophorus ratios are really wide.
> Since these two are bonding agents with each, if the food is not close in balence to the ratio, that creates other problems ( such as calcium deposits etc)





Interesting... Thank you, I'll look further into that...
I have to wonder why the ratio is different in the lbp foods
in other words....is it the right ratio for or specific to the larger breeds.....hmmm
or is it just another small difference in a food that makes it lbp food specific. Or an over sight on the part of a company putting a foods ingredients together
how can a company ; when putting together a dogfood, not know the appropriate ratios with ALL INGREDIENTS
I don't even want to think it's all money motivated


----------



## BorzoiMom (Nov 18, 2009)

"Large breed' puppy foods is long debated as just a marketing hoax type thing. 
You want those ratios to be as close as possible. 
Example- say a food has Calcium 1.6. And phosophorus is 1.4. That is only a difference of .2. 
Now say another food is like Calcium 1.8 but phosorphus is 1.4, that is a spread of .4. 
So food number one would be better. See?


----------



## CarolinaCasey (Jun 1, 2007)

I'm also battling what to feed our puppy. I had originally set-on Innova LBP. I've since changed my mind. I am going to continue feeding the food my breeder feeds, Taste of the Wild, until our puppy has a problem. I might also transition to Fromm 4 Star once the pup is home for a few months and is able to switch without risk of GI upset. I really like an ALS (all life stage) food like these because they're formulated for any age dog, have a close 1:1 Ca ratio, and have a good track record.


----------



## MyCodyBoy (Sep 27, 2008)

Large breed puppy food is suppose to be formulated so they don't grow big too fast. Not all brands are created equal. If you are buying a top brand in the large breed puppy you will be doing fine. I found that most large breed puppy foods have glucosamine(spelling?) and regular puppy doesn't.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

borzoimom said:


> "Large breed' puppy foods is long debated as just a marketing hoax type thing.
> You want those ratios to be as close as possible.
> Example- say a food has Calcium 1.6. And phosophorus is 1.4. That is only a difference of .2.
> Now say another food is like Calcium 1.8 but phosorphus is 1.4, that is a spread of .4.
> So food number one would be better. See?


Could you explain how this really works and/or cite some papers on dog nutrition that support your claims here? I have a fairly good understanding of nutritional science, and I can't figure out what you're talking about.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

The LBP designation is not official nor legally defined. However, when you get an LBP food from a manufacturer that engages in actual nutritional studies of dogs, you're theoretically getting a food that promotes slower, more appropriate growth for a larger dog.

Goldens are barely "large breed" dogs. They're really sort of the large end of medium. However, LBP foods are typically targeted at dogs 50 pounds and up at adulthood, and that's definitely where most Goldens end up. They also have a massive growth period in the first 6-8 months, and during that time it's crucial that they get appropriate ratios of calcium and phosphorus, and not too many calories.

Goldens who are on foods that are too rich or improperly balanced are at a greater risk for panosteitis, bone curvature, and other orthopedic problems. For that reason, I think it's appropriate to feed a good LBP food for at least the first 8 months to a year.

Since there's no legal designation, a manufacturer may use "LBP" without really changing the formula. However, when they come from a reputable manufacturer, LBP foods are, in fact, a better choice for a fast growing puppy, since the formulas have been studied and tested extensively.

Edited to add: my reading today leads me to believe that the link between overnutrition and panosteitis is more of a fact of common wisdom than one proven in canine nutritional literature.


----------



## BorzoiMom (Nov 18, 2009)

tippykayak said:


> Could you explain how this really works and/or cite some papers on dog nutrition that support your claims here? I have a fairly good understanding of nutritional science, and I can't figure out what you're talking about.


 Sure can- here we go... See how close the phosophorus and calcium ration is in nutrition. 
http://www.peteducation.com/article.cfm?c=2+1662&aid=652


----------



## DanielleH (Nov 4, 2006)

What would you recommend as good food choices for a growing GR puppy? I'm currently in the middle of trying to choose a food for a GR puppy.


----------



## BorzoiMom (Nov 18, 2009)

I would recommend Orijen or Acana http://www.orijen.ca/orijen/about/


----------



## Swampcollie (Sep 6, 2007)

I have to agree with TK. 
We used to see Pano quite frenquently in customer puppies. Since the LBP formula diets became available, we haven't seen a single case of Pano in puppies fed a LBP formula. Coincidence? I think not.


----------



## Pointgold (Jun 6, 2007)

Swampcollie said:


> I have to agree with TK.
> We used to see Pano quite frenquently in customer puppies. Since the LBP formula diets became available, we haven't seen a single case of Pano in puppies fed a LBP formula. Coincidence? I think not.


 
Interesting... I have not had a case of pano in many, many years, but I do not feed a large breed formula. (I don't consider Goldens a "large breed"). However, I do, and always have, switched puppies to an adult formula between 4-6 mos.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

borzoimom said:


> Sure can- here we go... See how close the phosophorus and calcium ration is in nutrition.
> http://www.peteducation.com/article.cfm?c=2+1662&aid=652


According to this article, your statement earlier that "You want those ratios to be as close as possible" isn't accurate. Since there's only one ratio involved (calciumhosphorus), I'm still not 100% sure what you mean, but if you're saying that you want as close to a 1:1 ratio as possible, that is not what your article suggests.

According to this article, you want the amount of calcium (by dry matter weight) to exceed phosphorus by a significant amount (1.2:1). You do not want them to be as close as possible. 

Calcium is necessary for phosphorus absorption. Think of it this way: for each unit of phosphorus you want to absorb, you need a unit of calcium. If you have insufficient calcium, you won't be able to absorb enough phosphorus, no matter how much there is in the diet. In fact, if you don't have enough calcium, the body will take it from the bones. Too much phosphorus and not enough calcium can lead to weak bones and/or insufficient phosphorus absorption.

If the ratio goes the other way and you have insufficient phosphorus to take care of the calcium, you can have bone overgrowth, which, particularly in fast growing dogs like Goldens, can lead to skeletal problems. So in that sense, you're right: you don't want an amount of calcium that vastly exceeds the amount of phosphorus. 

The idea behind LBP foods is to keep a slightly closer ratio than regular puppy foods and to not have too much of either. You want the bones to grow strong but not to grow too quickly. 

I think it's interesting that the article you linked points out that LBP foods have not been shown at this time to decrease the incidence of hip dysplasia. Still, I'd use LBP foods since I believe that it's indicated, based on what we know about nutrition. There's plenty of evidence to suggest that a slow-growth approach is most likely to result in the best possible skeletal health, and subsequent studies may confirm what the early evidence indicates.

There are still Golden puppies afflicted by panosteitis and curvature, and I don't personally know of a case in which the puppy suffered from these conditions and was fed LBP food. I do know of at least two or three cases in which puppies have had those issues but were on a non-LBP food. That's not scientific proof by a long shot, but it's intriguing to me.

There's plenty of evidence to suggest that LBP is a highly appropriate choice for fast growing puppies, since it's deliberately formulated to have the healthiest possible ratio of calcium to phosphorus. It's also less calorie-dense than traditional puppy food.


----------



## Stircrazy (Nov 30, 2009)

Swampcollie said:


> I have to agree with TK.
> We used to see Pano quite frenquently in customer puppies. Since the LBP formula diets became available, we haven't seen a single case of Pano in puppies fed a LBP formula. Coincidence? I think not.


no but concidering the causes of Pano are only suspected and not knowen and there is a huge coralation of a lower rate of Pano with nutering/spay how can you say it from LBPF and not more prevalient spay nuter programs. Lack of vitimens and minerals is aso another cause.. so ya a lacking food would probably cause a problem, and since petfoods have been mandated in the last while to meet basic requirments then that stands to reason the Pano would also reduce. there is not enough definat research intot he cause of pano to say large breen puppy food is responcible for its decline.

Steve


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Stircrazy said:


> no but concidering the causes of Pano are only suspected and not knowen and there is a huge coralation of a lower rate of Pano with nutering/spay how can you say it from LBPF and not more prevalient spay nuter programs. Lack of vitimens and minerals is aso another cause.. so ya a lacking food would probably cause a problem, and since petfoods have been mandated in the last while to meet basic requirments then that stands to reason the Pano would also reduce. there is not enough definat research intot he cause of pano to say large breen puppy food is responcible for its decline.
> 
> Steve


Can you link to some info about that correlation between spay/neuter and pano rates?


----------



## Stircrazy (Nov 30, 2009)

tippykayak said:


> There's plenty of evidence to suggest that LBP is a highly appropriate choice for fast growing puppies, since it's deliberately formulated to have the healthiest possible ratio of calcium to phosphorus. It's also less calorie-dense than traditional puppy food.


can you post some of this evidence? I don't agree but am willing to read. I see the best option for slowing down growth and a high quality adult food, which will be even less calorie dence than LB puppy food.

the high quality foods have the proper ratio and limit the maximum amount not the minimum amounts of Phos and Ca.

Steve


----------



## Stircrazy (Nov 30, 2009)

tippykayak said:


> Can you link to some info about that correlation between spay/neuter and pano rates?


search "Pano dog" on goggle and read one of the first few articles. took me all of 2 min of reading to see it is still unknowen causes and that they have seen reductions due to a multitude of reasons.

Steve


----------



## Pointgold (Jun 6, 2007)

I tend to believe actual, for real, "been there done that" information - I've not had any pano or bone-growth issues in several generations feeding my dogs the way I have. And as I said, I do not feed a large breed puppy food. 
I'm happy. And I don't have to read oodles of studies that contradict each other or to find one that supports what I've seen with my own dogs.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Stircrazy said:


> can you post some of this evidence? I don't agree but am willing to read. I see the best option for slowing down growth and a high quality adult food, which will be even less calorie dence than LB puppy food.
> 
> the high quality foods have the proper ratio and limit the maximum amount not the minimum amounts of Phos and Ca.
> 
> Steve


Here's a few. The first is a paper on how they arrived at the protein/fat/calcium/phosphorus ratios in the Eukanuba LBP. The other two are studies on the effects of overnutrition on giant breed dogs. There are dozens more from the last forty years.

The high quality adult foods are probably fine. The LBP foods are even more precisely calibrated. If your breeder has been feeding a particular food for many generations of his or her dogs, then it seems pretty clear that the particular line of dogs grows appropriately on that food. In that kind of situation, I'd probably give what my breeder gave for the life of the dog. I mean, if the breeder is running around with a dozen or two super-healthy dogs, why not feed what he or she feeds? However, if we're discussing the best possible shot for the generic Golden Retriever to grow up without any of these issues, then an LBP food seems to provide it.

http://www.breedsmartpartners.com/bronline/en_US/jsp/BO_Page.jsp?pageID=RLDP&articleID=62

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3776015

http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/content/abstract/121/11_Suppl/S114


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Stircrazy said:


> search "Pano dog" on goggle and read one of the first few articles. took me all of 2 min of reading to see it is still unknowen causes and that they have seen reductions due to a multitude of reasons.
> 
> Steve


The only links I could find that way said that some owners reported improvement in symptoms after neutering, but that the causal relationship was unproven.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

FYI - In doing some reading for this thread, I've learned that something I've said about panosteitis is common wisdom among many giant breed enthusiasts but not proven or disproven in the nutritional literature. Currently, there's no proven link between overnutrition and pano in large and giant breed dogs. It's suspected, but not proven. All the other bone issues we've discussed (hypertrophic osteodystrophy, osteopenia, disturbances in function and viability of the chondrocytes on joint surfaces, etc.) have absolutely been connected to overnutrition, particularly with too much calcium and/or too high a ratio of it.


----------



## Pointgold (Jun 6, 2007)

http://www.joint-health-for-dogs.com/nutrition-dogs.html


----------



## Lilliam (Apr 28, 2010)

tippykayak said:


> http://www.breedsmartpartners.com/bronline/en_US/jsp/BO_Page.jsp?pageID=RLDP&articleID=62
> 
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3776015
> 
> http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/content/abstract/121/11_Suppl/S114


 
All three links reference the same 1986 Great Dane study. That research is nearly 25 years old and references the same finding.

Just saying...

I'll be using what the breeder recommends for the puppy - and sticking to slow growth and careful exercise.


----------



## MyBentley (May 5, 2009)

tippykayak said:


> The LBP designation is not official nor legally defined. However, when you get an LBP food from a manufacturer that engages in actual nutritional studies of dogs, you're theoretically getting a food that promotes slower, more appropriate growth for a larger dog.
> 
> Goldens are barely "large breed" dogs. They're really sort of the large end of medium. However, LBP foods are typically targeted at dogs 50 pounds and up at adulthood, and that's definitely where most Goldens end up. They also have a massive growth period in the first 6-8 months, and during that time it's crucial that they get appropriate ratios of calcium and phosphorus, and not too many calories.
> 
> ...


The term "rich" is used so often in dog food threads and I suspect people attach many different meanings when they use the word. When you use the word "rich", what attributes are you specifically referring to?

What is one person's "reputable" manufacturer may certainly not be another person's idea of a reputable manufacturer. What is your personal value system on deciding if a manufacturer is "reputable"?


----------



## MyBentley (May 5, 2009)

Without getting caught up in statistics and studies that can be highlighted in a variety of ways in attempting to prove any one person's viewpoint, I suspect that "overfeeding" in addition to genetics is the cause of many growth problems in dogs.

The great mega kibble industry of the last 50 years would love to have us believe that feeding only "very carefully formulated" overly-processed bits of food industry remnants (of varying quality) labeled for specific ages, breeds, sizes, weight, etc. can possibly keep our dogs healthy.


----------



## Lilliam (Apr 28, 2010)

As Stephen K Tagg said, there are five kinds of lies; lies, ****** lies, satistics, politicians quoting statistics, and novelists writing about politicians quoting statistics.

I think the same can be said of studies. Dozens can be found to support any position. In the final analysis, it's what makes sense, what professionals say, what you observe, and what your gut tells you.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Lilliam said:


> All three links reference the same 1986 Great Dane study. That research is nearly 25 years old and references the same finding.
> 
> Just saying...
> 
> I'll be using what the breeder recommends for the puppy - and sticking to slow growth and careful exercise.


The first link references ten other sources in addition to the 1986 study.

The second references eleven other sources over a 25 year period.

The third is one of the direct studies referred to by the other two papers.

You make it sound as if all three links are somehow based on the findings about the same single cohort of Great Danes, which is not the case. Do you disagree that too much calcium, too much calcium relative to phosphorus, and too many calories don't cause skeletal problems in fast growing breeds?


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

MyBentley said:


> The term "rich" is used so often in dog food threads and I suspect people attach many different meanings when they use the word. When you use the word "rich", what attributes are you specifically referring to?


I use the word "rich" in this particular instance to refer to calorie density, overall amount of calcium, and amount of calcium relative to phosphorus. Those are the three factors clearly linked to skeletal problems due to overnutrition. In other contexts, I've used it to mean "too much protein," but in this case, high protein levels have not been linked to skeletal problems, so that aspect of "richness" is not relevant here. I have other concerns about bombarding puppies with too much protein, but none related to skeletal development.



MyBentley said:


> What is one person's "reputable" manufacturer may certainly not be another person's idea of a reputable manufacturer. What is your personal value system on deciding if a manufacturer is "reputable"?


In this case, I use the world "reputable" to mean manufacturers with a long track record of foods based on nutritional findings in hard science, and manufacturers with a long history of breed professionals who endorse and feed their product. That's why I linked specifically to the Eukanuba breed partners research on large breed puppy nutritional needs. That would be one example of reputability.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Lilliam said:


> As Stephen K Tagg said, there are five kinds of lies; lies, ****** lies, satistics, politicians quoting statistics, and novelists writing about politicians quoting statistics.
> 
> I think the same can be said of studies. Dozens can be found to support any position. In the final analysis, it's what makes sense, what professionals say, what you observe, and what your gut tells you.


I disagree respectfully but profoundly. I think that it is possible to effectively evaluate studies and secondary research and give greater weight to that which uses careful, proper methodologies. I think when we go with the gut, we run a huge risk of falling prey to good marketing.


----------



## Pointgold (Jun 6, 2007)

I've "gone with my gut" for years and years when it comes to feeding my dogs and the last thing that could be said about that would be that I've fallen prey to good marketing. Were that the case, I'd be feeding one (or more) of the Mega Marketed holistic/natural/ whatever moniker fancy foods that I've watched so many feed their dogs - frequently changing from one to another and spending oodles of dough per bag.

My dogs have THRIVED on a "one star", "junk food", "overprocessed", commercial kibble for many years, and many generations.


----------



## Lilliam (Apr 28, 2010)

tippykayak said:


> Do you disagree that too much calcium, too much calcium relative to phosphorus, and too many calories don't cause skeletal problems in fast growing breeds?


No, I absolutely agree that those are contributors to skeletal problems. I also add to that the enormous contribution that genetics bring into play. 
Cassie was dysplastic. She had siblings who were dysplastic too. I took every precaution with her as I did with everyone else, and ended up doing a hip replacement. Her brother Billy is not dysplastic. I fed him exactly the same way. These are half siblings from the same sire who was himself not dysplastic but who threw puppies who occasionally were. I knew going in that Billy had a chance of being dysplastic, after doing some asking around and searching and realising that Cassie's and Billy's sire did indeed produce several puppies who were dysplastic, even though he presented good hips and was asymptomatic his entire life. Skeletal issues can be a sad lottery - sometimes you lose. The incidence of dysplasia in border collies is low overall, only at around 10%, but for me it is 50% and I know that there are many components at play.
Skeletal issues are not one dimensional. It's genetics, food and mis-handled exercise. You may take every precaution in the world and when you go for that 9 month preliminary exam you hold your breath. What do I look at now aside from all the clearances? Parents who lie down with their back legs behind them even as adults, and who don't resent jumping into the back of a truck and who will stand on their back legs to look into a sheep pen. Although I am no longer looking for border collies, the habit developed after Cassie and it just doesn't stop even now.


----------



## Lilliam (Apr 28, 2010)

tippykayak said:


> I disagree respectfully but profoundly. I think that it is possible to effectively evaluate studies and secondary research and give greater weight to that which uses careful, proper methodologies. I think when we go with the gut, we run a huge risk of falling prey to good marketing.


Almost any position can be argued from almost any point and you can find literature to support it. 
One of my favorite exercises in one class in university was choosing a topic with which I completely disagreed and having to defend it and to find literature that supported it. It was a great exercise.
If a reasonable human being with a reasonable understanding of facts can look around and see what experts in the field are doing and see that it's working and it makes sense, a reasonable human being will follow suit. If I know the least bit of what a carnivore is and I see a little adorable dog playing with its human and the product advertised shows a bunch of healthy looking vegetables on the bag, I will take the time to calibrate that with my own understanding of what a dog is meant to eat and make an informed decision. 
Going with my gut does not mean naively going through life paying attention to ad campaigns. It means trusting my instincts based on previously gathered knowledge and best practices.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Lilliam said:


> No, I absolutely agree that those are contributors to skeletal problems. I also add to that the enormous contribution that genetics bring into play.
> Cassie was dysplastic. She had siblings who were dysplastic too. I took every precaution with her as I did with everyone else, and ended up doing a hip replacement. Her brother Billy is not dysplastic. I fed him exactly the same way. These are half siblings from the same sire who was himself not dysplastic but who threw puppies who occasionally were. I knew going in that Billy had a chance of being dysplastic, after doing some asking around and searching and realising that Cassie's and Billy's sire did indeed produce several puppies who were dysplastic, even though he presented good hips and was asymptomatic his entire life. Skeletal issues can be a sad lottery - sometimes you lose. The incidence of dysplasia in border collies is low overall, only at around 10%, but for me it is 50% and I know that there are many components at play.
> Skeletal issues are not one dimensional. It's genetics, food and mis-handled exercise. You may take every precaution in the world and when you go for that 9 month preliminary exam you hold your breath. What do I look at now aside from all the clearances? Parents who lie down with their back legs behind them even as adults, and who don't resent jumping into the back of a truck and who will stand on their back legs to look into a sheep pen. Although I am no longer looking for border collies, the habit developed after Cassie and it just doesn't stop even now.


You make a good point. In GRs, genetics seem to play a similarly large role in HD relative to nutrition. I think it's probably pretty hard to do more than push a borderline dog one way or the other unless you feed something pretty far outside the realm of sanity. The larger the dog, the more role nutrition is going to play in joint soundness, I think, but even in a giant breed, the dog's skeletal structure is going to be influenced by his genes more than anything else.

When it comes to HD in GRs, I think multigenerational hip clearances are the single greatest weapon we have. Nutrition isn't nearly as powerful.

Still, even when it doesn't lead to an identifiable condition like HD, there are lots of subtle ways that a dog can have an inefficient or otherwise poor structure, and it may lead to things like earlier arthritis and other joint conditions. However you achieve it (LBP food, monitoring calories, etc.), I do think a slow growth plan is a smart idea.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Lilliam said:


> Almost any position can be argued from almost any point and you can find literature to support it.


Sure, but that's intellectually bass-ackward, right? An honest intellectualism pushes us to seek evidence, evaluate it, and change our positions despite our pride. I do believe it's possible to approach this literature in this fashion, and I think it's the best way to make these decisions.



Lilliam said:


> If a reasonable human being with a reasonable understanding of facts can look around and see what experts in the field are doing and see that it's working and it makes sense, a reasonable human being will follow suit. If I know the least bit of what a carnivore is and I see a little adorable dog playing with its human and the product advertised shows a bunch of healthy looking vegetables on the bag, I will take the time to calibrate that with my own understanding of what a dog is meant to eat and make an informed decision.
> Going with my gut does not mean naively going through life paying attention to ad campaigns. It means trusting my instincts based on previously gathered knowledge and best practices.


What you're saying doesn't sound like gut to me. It sounds like an intelligent, rational approach. Still, I think we need to be extra-vigilant about marketing at all times. Most breed enthusiasts I know seem to be able to see right through ads with talking dogs and computer animated vegetables. But there are subtler kinds of product placement and marketing that still affect us. 

I get annoyed about the word "natural" on dog food, but that's partly because it works on me on an emotional level. Who doesn't want something more "natural" for their dogs? But when you step back and evaluate the term, you find out that it's essentially meaningless when you put it on dog food. Even though I know that, I still feel the urge to purchase something more "natural," and the dog foods that bear the word in large letters or have wholesome-looking packaging look very attractive.


----------



## Lilliam (Apr 28, 2010)

tippykayak said:


> Still, even when it doesn't lead to an identifiable condition like HD, there are lots of subtle ways that a dog can have an inefficient or otherwise poor structure, and it may lead to things like earlier arthritis and other joint conditions. However you achieve it (LBP food, monitoring calories, etc.), I do think a slow growth plan is a smart idea.


On the use of the slow growth plan we are in complete agreement - I got this thinking from my grandfather who was years ahead of the pack and often ridiculed because his pointer puppies looked like they were not thriving when compared to the rolly-polly siblings his friends had. Those dogs sometimes turned up "lame" while my grandfather's dogs were what I have read described as "hard working condition" in relation to golden retrievers. He always told me that a thin frame on a puppy put less stress on growing bones (this was his explanation back in the 50s and 60s) and led to more limber adults with less lameness. Fast forward five decades later and what he said is now described as the slow growth diet! 
He also was a great proponent of taking aspirin every day - back in his day. 
Loved that man!


----------



## Lilliam (Apr 28, 2010)

tippykayak said:


> Sure, but that's intellectually bass-ackward, right? An honest intellectualism pushes us to seek evidence, evaluate it, and change our positions despite our pride. I do believe it's possible to approach this literature in this fashion, and I think it's the best way to make these decisions.
> 
> 
> .


 
I would argue that from an intellectual perpective, one must always realise that there are ulterior motives in the very basic premise of research. A researches formulates a hypothesis and conducts research to validate his opinion. When achieving a master's degree you form a thesis and then defend it. When achieving doctoral studies you find similary support to your position. From the practical perspective, one must be aware of the ubiquitous use of rhetoric and manipulation of facts that is prevalent whenever studies or statistics are cited. 
I mentioned a class in which we were asked to find a point that was 180 degree away from our personal position and to support it. That was a very interesting exercise. 

As to pride - I am ready to accept dissenting opinions from my own if they make sense. Stating that almost any position can be supported by the manipulation of evidence and statistical data is one truth that I will not step away from because it is borne out by everyday events. It is intellectually dangerous to assume that all studies are conducted correctly, or to extrapolate results when variables differ or do not take into account external influences. 

To deny the existence of the manipulation of data and studies would be naive.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Lilliam said:


> To deny the existence of the manipulation of data and studies would be naive.


On this we are in 100% agreement. I agree with you that it's very hard to separate out research that's funded and influenced by a company that benefits from a particular outcome, research colored by a researcher with an agenda, and research that really shows us something true we didn't know before. That's why we evaluate studies based on their methodology and consistency with other work. On this issue, I do think there has been extensive work on giant breed growth over more than thirty years, and that's why I don't think anybody in this thread has denied the importance of calcium amounts and calcium/phosphorus ratios in nutrition for fast growing puppies.

By the same token, an earlier poster raised a relevant point (I think it was MyBentley) that micromanagement of nutrition benefits large companies with good marketing and may represent an unnecessary level of worry on our part. 

Intelligent individuals from different backgrounds will arrive at different conclusions from the same evidence. At this point, my assessment is that there's merit in the lower levels of calcium and the different calcium/phosphorus ratio in LBP food, particularly the Eukanuba food. Knowing so many dogs with HD and more than a couple with other structural problems that seem to come from or be made worse by overnutrition, I think these foods might tip the balance for some dogs between soundness and trouble.

My personal experience colors my sense of these things, which I freely admit. Seeing curved bones on pups who were fed very rich food makes me feel like blaming the food, which is not scientific but is emotionally resonant.


----------



## Abbydabbydo (Jan 31, 2007)

Just a quick research note: I work for a company that does primary research for collleges and universities about recruiting and admissions. We absolutely do not skew the findings or questions in any way, shape or form. 

But I can tell you this, some of our clients are none too pleased with findings. It is an interesting analogy though, dog food and higher education. Both looking for differentiation that is not always there, so they turn to marketing that is not always true.


----------



## Lilliam (Apr 28, 2010)

It's an interesting area, that's for sure!
I've known some candidates to graduate degrees who have "massaged" their thesis....not pretty....
However, I would say that it's probably not the norm.


----------



## KaMu (May 17, 2010)

tippykayak said:


> The LBP designation is not official nor legally defined. However, when you get an LBP food from a manufacturer that engages in actual nutritional studies of dogs, you're theoretically getting a food that promotes slower, more appropriate growth for a larger dog.
> 
> Goldens are barely "large breed" dogs. They're really sort of the large end of medium. However, LBP foods are typically targeted at dogs 50 pounds and up at adulthood, and that's definitely where most Goldens end up. They also have a massive growth period in the first 6-8 months, and during that time it's crucial that they get appropriate ratios of calcium and phosphorus, and not too many calories.
> 
> ...


Tippykayak, First I want to thank you for the time you took in writing these post and for the through explanation. You and the others here have given me much food for thought. This is all VERY much appreciated! I'm thinking of doing a very very slow wean to the lbp food. Which one, will take some research yet. 
I'd have never thought of checking the phos/Ca+ ratio.... And till reading these forums I didn't realize the rapid growth period the Goldens go through early on and it's potential for various skeletal problems. Than again, no two dogs are alike. I realize What affects one might not effect another. But, I'd rather make an informed decision that benefits my own pup. This giving us a decreased chance of what I FEAR most with this breed of dog. They are our responsibility, and I take it all seriously. So, again I
thank you


----------



## GoldenJona (Apr 3, 2010)

I'm going to take advantage of all the knowledge on this thread and post a question on here.....What do you guys think about feeding a puppy Fromm 4star food...too rich in calcium or phosphorus? I know nothing about this subject, all I know is that you want them to grow at a moderate/slow pace.....


----------



## sifuyono (May 8, 2008)

Pointgold said:


> I've "gone with my gut" for years and years when it comes to feeding my dogs and the last thing that could be said about that would be that I've fallen prey to good marketing. Were that the case, I'd be feeding one (or more) of the Mega Marketed holistic/natural/ whatever moniker fancy foods that I've watched so many feed their dogs - frequently changing from one to another and spending oodles of dough per bag.
> 
> My dogs have THRIVED on a "one star", "junk food", "overprocessed", commercial kibble for many years, and many generations.


hahaha....


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

GoldenJona said:


> I'm going to take advantage of all the knowledge on this thread and post a question on here.....What do you guys think about feeding a puppy Fromm 4star food...too rich in calcium or phosphorus? I know nothing about this subject, all I know is that you want them to grow at a moderate/slow pace.....


Which food? They make a bunch under the "Four-Star" brand.


----------



## GoldenJona (Apr 3, 2010)

tippykayak said:


> Which food? They make a bunch under the "Four-Star" brand.


 
eithier chicken or duck, they both seem to have the same amount of fat, protein, calcium, and phosphorus....


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

GoldenJona said:


> eithier chicken or duck, they both seem to have the same amount of fat, protein, calcium, and phosphorus....


This is a great opportunity to break down this discussion in actual real-world food. The Fromm Four-Star Chicken À La Veg is 1.2% calcium by weight, 1% phosphorus by weight, and 370 cal/cup.

That's exactly the 1.2:1 ratio cited as ideal for dogs.

As I've said, I personally think it's wiser to go slightly lower, (.80%/.67%) during the fast growth period. That's the same ratio (1.2:1), but lower density by weight. I believe that absolutely minimizes the chance of growth-related bone issues.

The food we give our pups is Eukanuba LBP, which is .8%/.67%, is 360 cal/cup. Pretty similar in calories, but 1/3 less calcium and phosphorus.

So here's the issue. If you feed a GR puppy Fromm Four-Star Chicken, he's going to get almost 50% more calcium and 50% more phosphorus in his food than a pup on Eukanuba LBP. It's a significant difference.

Calcium of 1.2% by weight in the 1.2:1 ratio to phosphorus is well within the bounds of reason, and there's no definitive evidence to show that puppies fed that normal amount of calcium are at higher risk than puppies fed 1/3 less, as I'm recommending. After wading through a bunch of literature on giant breed growth, I personally chose the .8%/.67% food. I think it's perfectly reasonable to feed 1.2%/1%. If GRs were a giant breed, I might push harder on that issue.

Keeping calories down is also very important, so l like the fact that adult foods and LBP foods are lower in calories by weight and volume than traditional puppy foods. Too many calories represent just as much a risk as too much calcium.

I think puppies get in real trouble when they get much higher amounts of calcium from foods that are way, way too rich. For example, if you fed a puppy EVO red meat, he'd be getting 527 cal/cup, 2.0% calcium, and 1.2% phosphorus. That's a much higher amount of calcium, and the ratio of calcium to phosphorus is 1.67:1, which is well outside the recommendation for puppies (1.2-1.4:1). If we assume the owner will feed the same number of calories per day to avoid overfeeding, we need to adjust the comparison. The dog would be fed 30% less EVO by volume than Fromm Four-Star, but the dog would still be getting 17% _more_ calcium per day on the EVO food and 16% _less_ phosphorus.

That's probably why grain free foods like EVO are not recommended for puppies.

Where owners might really get in trouble is in inadvertently supplementing the calcium on top of a food that's already imbalanced (by, say, mixing yoghurt in). You'd have a ratio that was substantially out of whack. I think _that's_ when puppies are actually in danger of overnutrition and bone issues.

The best, simplest advice is to keep puppies trim. A thin covering of fat over the ribs is enough, and you should be able to feel the hip bones jutting out with only a moderate layer of fat over them.


----------



## GoldenJona (Apr 3, 2010)

Wow thanks a lot for that, it was very helpful and informational. I will look into Eukanuba LBP. So if I go with the Fromm I should probably avoid feeding yogurt and cheese, or is it ok in moderation...I probably wouldn't be feeding everyday (cheese and yogurt), probably just like twice a week. Any other foods I should avoid that have high calcium?

Thanks!


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

GoldenJona said:


> Wow thanks a lot for that, it was very helpful and informational. I will look into Eukanuba LBP. So if I go with the Fromm I should probably avoid feeding yogurt and cheese, or is it ok in moderation...I probably wouldn't be feeding everyday (cheese and yogurt), probably just like twice a week. Any other foods I should avoid that have high calcium?
> 
> Thanks!


It's totally OK in moderation, and if you're not already feeding an imbalanced food, it would be hard for you to do any damage. These growth problems seem to be made worse by constant, substantial overnutrition, not by a little extra cheese here and there or a 1/2 cup of yoghurt a day on top of a well-balanced food.

I did not mean to panic anybody by doing all that math.  There is a wide road of nutritional options that don't put puppies at risk. I've had lots of personal success with healthy dogs and Eukanuba LBP, so I mention it when I talk about these issues. Adult Fromm food looks great on paper; I just have no experience with it, so I don't personally recommend it.

I mix yoghurt and wet non-LBP puppy food in with the LBP kibble for the first few weeks, and I've never had a problem. GRs have a fast growth period, but they're not giant breed dogs (and it's arguable whether they're really even "large"), so they're not high risk pups for these problems.

Everything in moderation, and keep the pup lean. It's hard to go wrong that way.


----------



## GoldenJona (Apr 3, 2010)

tippykayak said:


> It's totally OK in moderation, and if you're not already feeding an imbalanced food, it would be hard for you to do any damage. These growth problems seem to be made worse by constant, substantial overnutrition, not by a little extra cheese here and there or a 1/2 cup of yoghurt a day on top of a well-balanced food.
> 
> I did not mean to panic anybody by doing all that math.  There is a wide road of nutritional options that don't put puppies at risk. I've had lots of personal success with healthy dogs and Eukanuba LBP, so I mention it when I talk about these issues. Adult Fromm food looks great on paper; I just have no experience with it, so I don't personally recommend it.
> 
> ...


Sorry for all the questions...but as far as yogurt goes, what kind of yogurt should I buy. I know it's supposed to be plain yogurt but any specific brand that might be healthier and also I get Jona this weekend, should I wait a couple of days before introducing something rich in dairy like yogurt? or can I feed right away?


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

GoldenJona said:


> Sorry for all the questions...but as far as yogurt goes, what kind of yogurt should I buy. I know it's supposed to be plain yogurt but any specific brand that might be healthier and also I get Jona this weekend, should I wait a couple of days before introducing something rich in dairy like yogurt? or can I feed right away?


As long as it doesn't have a sugar substitute or lots of added sugar, it's probably fine. I think we used Stonyfield organic low-fat plain last time. I would definitely feed what the breeder was feeding for at least the first few days. I add yoghurt because I want to be doing something special, not because I think it's particularly necessary.


----------

