Is there any Scientific Data Supporting Raw Diets?

Shai

& the Muttly Crew
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
6,215
Likes
0
Points
36
#41
My personal suspicion is that most dogs can thrive on a wide variety of diets, and that while any particular diet may be superior for an individual dog, that there isn't a blanket "better" diet for dogs as a species. I also suspect that for most dogs, even if one diet was "superior" to another, the degree of benefit is probably be negligible most of the time. I think other factors like the amount of exercise a dog gets and staying at a healthy weight have more of an impact than what the exact diet is for most dogs.
This is pretty much my entire point.

Kim is one of those exception dogs. Mira would thrive on any decent quality food so long as there is a lake involved :p
 

Laurelin

I'm All Ears
Joined
Nov 2, 2006
Messages
30,963
Likes
3
Points
0
Age
37
Location
Oklahoma
#42
The dogs were just detoxing, don't you know?[\quote]

That was exactly what it was brushed off as.

See to me that is a big deal... In a lot of eyes raw can do no wrong and questioning if issues arise from the raw food is a big no no.
 
Last edited:

JacksonsMom

Active Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2009
Messages
8,694
Likes
0
Points
36
Location
Maryland
#43
The dogs were just detoxing, don't you know?[\quote]

That was exactly what it was brushed off as.

See to me that is a big deal... In a lot of eyes raw can so no wrong and questioning if issues arise from the raw food is a big no no.
Totally. The "detox" excuse is scary! :yikes: IMO.

I've seen it with Orijen and higher protein foods too. I see quite a few who come to online forums saying their dog has had diarrhea ever since starting Orijen, and most say "oh, you're just over-feeding"... yes, SOME are likely over-feeding, but even so, over-feeding by just a little bit should not = your dog having loose stool and diarrhea consistently. I've seen some start to feed so little that I often wonder what the dog is lacking nutrition-wise. I just feel like a dog over 40lbs shouldn't be eating a scant 1/2 cup of food per day just to stop loose poop and appease the owners desire to have a perfect ingredient list.
 
Joined
Feb 26, 2011
Messages
6,405
Likes
0
Points
36
Location
Minnesota
#44
There is the odd dog who looks fine on crappy kibbles, but I think the majority don't.
And my experience is completely different. Most dogs out in the world are eating "crappy" kibbles and most of them I encounter (all day, every day) look perfectly fine.
 

~Jessie~

Chihuahua Power!
Joined
Oct 3, 2006
Messages
19,665
Likes
0
Points
36
Location
Central Florida
#45
And my experience is completely different. Most dogs out in the world are eating "crappy" kibbles and most of them I encounter (all day, every day) look perfectly fine.
But what looks fine to you may not look fine to me.

Growing up, I thought our dalmatian looked "fine" too. She was fed Pro Plan and Eukanuba. She had muscle tone, shiny fur, nice teeth... but she looks nothing like my dogs and the dogs I've encountered who are fed foods with better ingredients.

My dogs would look "fine" and probably do okay on a food like Beneful or Gravy Train, but they wouldn't look amazing like they do now, I'm sure.

Looks like we'll have to disagree :)
 
Joined
Feb 26, 2011
Messages
6,405
Likes
0
Points
36
Location
Minnesota
#46
But what looks fine to you may not look fine to me.
I guess dogs at a good weight, with nice teeth, healthy shiny coats, good energy and exercise tolerance, and no major health problems living well into their teens aren't fine? :confused:

Looks like we'll have to disagree :)
I'm not sure how we can disagree about something that I am personally experiencing and you aren't. Essentially you're telling me that dogs I think look fine, aren't actually fine because... I'm not really sure why to be honest, other than it doesn't validate your opinion. My raw fed dogs and my kibble fed dog look pretty much exactly the same to me, which tells me that they are all "fine."

This is some of the cult of raw stuff that drives me nuts. "Sure they look fine, but they're not really fine." Whut? :confused:
 

Taqroy

Active Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2009
Messages
5,566
Likes
0
Points
36
Location
Colorado
#47
I wish there were studies about raw vs kibble but like Sass said....who would believe them? It doesn't matter which way a study leaned, it probably wouldn't affect what people are doing.

I think people should feed what their dogs do best on. I feed raw but have switched back to kibble when I forget to order food. I'm not militant over their food either - they get all kinds of different table scraps (mostly from Matt, he's such a sucker) and they get a wide variety of treats. I think my dogs look amazing but the real benefit and the reason I won't switch back long term is their teeth. Murphy had two dentals in 3 years (at 5 years old and again at 7ish) and his breath was atrocious on kibble. On raw his teeth are pretty and sparkly and I don't almost asphyxiate when he breathes in my face. It's glorious.
 

~Jessie~

Chihuahua Power!
Joined
Oct 3, 2006
Messages
19,665
Likes
0
Points
36
Location
Central Florida
#48
I guess dogs at a good weight, with nice teeth, healthy shiny coats, good energy and exercise tolerance, and no major health problems living well into their teens aren't fine? :confused:



I'm not sure how we can disagree about something that I am personally experiencing and you aren't. Essentially you're telling me that dogs I think look fine, aren't actually fine because... I'm not really sure why to be honest, other than it doesn't validate your opinion. My raw fed dogs and my kibble fed dog look pretty much exactly the same to me, which tells me that they are all "fine."

This is some of the cult of raw stuff that drives me nuts. "Sure they look fine, but they're not really fine." Whut? :confused:
What? I'm now part of the raw feeding cult? Awesome, thanks for the laugh :rofl1: I just said I feed my dogs kibble and give them things like veggies, fruit, and mac and cheese. But okay then.

And yes- some dogs do look "fine" but they aren't really "fine." Just because a dog has a shiny coat, decent teeth, and has energy doesn't mean that they couldn't look better on a different food, or that everything is "fine." The owner of the dog may have to bathe them often to remove the greasy film from their coat. They may just be a dog with better teeth genetically.

Who knows- the dog on Ol' Roy could look WAY better on Fromm and the dog on Beneful could really thrive on raw. There are kids who eat McDonalds and pizza everyday who look "fine" too.

My parents toy poodle was on a great kibble and always had ear infections. His coat still looks the same on raw, but his ear infections totally cleared up. So again, a dog that looks "fine" isn't always fine IMHO. If that puts me in a raw feeding cult, so be it. I'd like to join the high quality kibble cult too, please, as I agree with feeding BOTH of these.

However, we are BOTH giving anecdotes in this situation so like I said, we'll have to agree to disagree.

I'm not sure how we can disagree about something that I am personally experiencing and you aren't. Essentially you're telling me that dogs I think look fine, aren't actually fine because... I'm not really sure why to be honest, other than it doesn't validate your opinion. My raw fed dogs and my kibble fed dog look pretty much exactly the same to me, which tells me that they are all "fine."
You're doing the exact same thing. I see many dogs as well, and the ones fed crappy foods do not look fine to me. Glad to hear that YOU think they look fine, but it doesn't invalidate MY opinion. Obviously we have differing ideas of what we think is fine and what isn't.
 
Last edited:

Picklepaige

Active Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2006
Messages
1,802
Likes
0
Points
36
Location
Mississippi
#49
Ehh, I'll agree with Jessie on the "dogs fed low quality dog food don't look good" front. All of my friends' dogs eat Ol Roy/Pedigree/Dog Chow/ similar brand, and every single one of them feel gross. I hate petting them, because their coats just feel greasy and nasty. Sure their coats may be shiney, but I'm pretty sure it's from all the grease. The ones whose coats don't feel gross feel that way because they're given baths all the time.

Finn looked great when I adopted him. Good weight, decent muscle tone, but his breath was rank and touching him left that greasy residue I was walking about. I switched him to Wellness CORE and now he looks so much better, even though I thought he looked great before. Maggie on the other hand, was eating a good food, but my mom switched her to some cheap grocery store brand, and now she feels disgusting and her coat looks awful. My cousin feeds her dogs good food, and they all look and feel great.

I know this is all just anecdotal evidence, but of all the dogs I know personally, I find it interesting that literally all the ones who eat the traditonally bad food are gross feeling and have bad breath, and all the ones who eat traditionally good food (none of which get bathes regularly) have silkly fur and no odor.
 

~Jessie~

Chihuahua Power!
Joined
Oct 3, 2006
Messages
19,665
Likes
0
Points
36
Location
Central Florida
#50
Ehh, I'll agree with Jessie on the "dogs fed low quality dog food don't look good" front. All of my friends' dogs eat Ol Roy/Pedigree/Dog Chow/ similar brand, and every single one of them feel gross. I hate petting them, because their coats just feel greasy and nasty. Sure their coats may be shiney, but I'm pretty sure it's from all the grease. The ones whose coats don't feel gross feel that way because they're given baths all the time.

Finn looked great when I adopted him. Good weight, decent muscle tone, but his breath was rank and touching him left that greasy residue I was walking about. I switched him to Wellness CORE and now he looks so much better, even though I thought he looked great before. Maggie on the other hand, was eating a good food, but my mom switched her to some cheap grocery store brand, and now she feels disgusting and her coat looks awful. My cousin feeds her dogs good food, and they all look and feel great.

I know this is all just anecdotal evidence, but of all the dogs I know personally, I find it interesting that literally all the ones who eat the traditonally bad food are gross feeling and have bad breath, and all the ones who eat traditionally good food (none of which get bathes regularly) have silkly fur and no odor.
This is exactly what I've seen. I always regret petting dogs on low quality foods because they leave this nasty film on my hands.

I feel like a broken record, but I really do believe the foods that we (and our pets) eat play a big role in how we look and feel.

My dogs get baths probably every 6 months, and I've gotten nothing but compliments on how "clean" they always look. Even when we fed kibble, it was the same way.
 
Joined
Feb 26, 2011
Messages
6,405
Likes
0
Points
36
Location
Minnesota
#51
What? I'm now part of the raw feeding cult? Awesome, thanks for the laugh :rofl1: I just said I feed my dogs kibble and give them things like veggies, fruit, and mac and cheese. But okay then.
I didn't say YOU were part of the raw feeding cult. I said this type of stuff is what bothers me about the cult of raw.

And yes- some dogs do look "fine" but they aren't really "fine." Just because a dog has a shiny coat, decent teeth, and has energy doesn't mean that they couldn't look better on a different food, or that everything is "fine." The owner of the dog may have to bathe them often to remove the greasy film from their coat. They may just be a dog with better teeth genetically.

Who knows- the dog on Ol' Roy could look WAY better on Fromm and the dog on Beneful could really thrive on raw. There are kids who eat McDonalds and pizza everyday who look "fine" too.
But if they look fine and aren't haven't major health problems, then why aren't they... fine? This is what I struggle to understand. Dog A looks fine on raw so he IS fine. Dog B looks fine on kibble but he... isn't fine? Because... ?

My parents toy poodle was on a great kibble and always had ear infections. His coat still looks the same on raw, but his ear infections totally cleared up. So again, a dog that looks "fine" isn't always fine IMHO.
But a dog who always has ear infections ISN'T fine. At all. When I say "fine" I mean free of chronic recurrent health problems which I didn't specify because to me should be inherent in a definition of "fine" but I guess not?

You're doing the exact same thing. I see many dogs as well, and the ones fed crappy foods do not look fine to me. Glad to hear that YOU think they look fine, but it doesn't invalidate MY opinion. Obviously we have differing ideas of what we think is fine and what isn't.
Well if you think a dog with chronic ear infections looks "fine", then yes we do have vastly different opinions of what fine is.
 

Laurelin

I'm All Ears
Joined
Nov 2, 2006
Messages
30,963
Likes
3
Points
0
Age
37
Location
Oklahoma
#52
Summer and Mia- same breed and similar diet. Mia gets more raw and Summer's diet is very kibble based.

Mia has a lot more odor to her. I bathe her at least once a month. Summer never looks greasy or smells but Mia almost always has a faint stink... I tell her she smells sour. ;). I'm not sure why the difference but I'm not convince it is diet related at all.
 

Michiyo-Fir

Active Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2010
Messages
2,494
Likes
0
Points
36
#53
Nope.

Tbh, I don't think raw is all it's cracked up to be. I used to think it was "the best" even though I never fed it. But really, I've come to the conclusion that all dogs are going to be different and do better/worse on different things.

I've seen some very gorgeous athletic on Purina, RC, and Eukanuba. I've also seen some really crappy looking dogs on Orijen and EVO and vice versa. And I am sure and know that some dogs do amazing on raw. But I've browsed enough dog forums through the years and I have seen some very scary advice regarding raw. People who come on and complain of their dogs having loose bloody stool and told it's 'normal at first'. And basically just scary stuff in general.

And the whole 'wolf' argument. I'm not denying the similarities but really, dogs have been domesticated SO much throughout the years, who is to say their digestive systems hasn't changed either? Certain breeds are prone to or known for specific food sensitives, for example.

So yeah, I'm kind of 'meh' about the whole thing. I don't care if people feed raw or don't, I think it will work well for some dogs and not others, just as certain kibbles work better for dogs than others. In the end, I think more important is genetics, lifestyle, exercise, physical condition, when or if you spay/neuter, and vaccinations (less of them).
I agree with you. I have fed raw in the past, and although it's true poop size is smaller, and the dogs drink less water, ultimately it didn't work that well for us because after a few days Nia would stop eating it and refuse a few meals at a time. Other than that she actually had more eye-gunk but that could be because I was using only chicken as a protein to start off. And I really don't trust myself to get the nutrition exactly right.

As for the wolf argument, isn't that the same argument that Cesar Milan uses for his alpha rolls? Dogs are not wolves and I see no problems with them eating some grains and fruits (if your dog's not allergic) and sometimes a bite of a cookie or cake isn't going to kill them either. I know raw works very well for some people but it hasn't worked that great for us, we've tried premade and do it at home. Either way, as long as as your dogs are happy, healthy and doing on a food, by all means feed it!

I don't know any studies for it but I'm not convinced it's really that much if any better than kibble or home cooked or freeze dried or whatever that's out there.
 

Michiyo-Fir

Active Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2010
Messages
2,494
Likes
0
Points
36
#54
Anyway, I don't see there being any studies regarding raw happening anytime soon. Who would fund them? If they're funded by kibble companies they're immediately suspect anyway, and I don't know who else would have the money and the backing to do it.
See this doesn't make sense much to me. Schools, graduate students and especially those in vet-sciences in graduate programs are able to research these things.. there's lots of research going into feed for cows/pigs/chickens so why not dogs and raw?
 

~Jessie~

Chihuahua Power!
Joined
Oct 3, 2006
Messages
19,665
Likes
0
Points
36
Location
Central Florida
#55
I didn't say YOU were part of the raw feeding cult. I said this type of stuff is what bothers me about the cult of raw.
Just because I feel a certain way (and have seen the anecdotal evidence I need to stand behind my beliefs) doesn't mean it's something from the "cult" of raw. I feel this way about high quality kibbles too.

But if they look fine and aren't haven't major health problems, then why aren't they... fine? This is what I struggle to understand. Dog A looks fine on raw so he IS fine. Dog B looks fine on kibble but he... isn't fine? Because... ?
Just because someone looks fine and they don't have major health issues doesn't mean they ARE fine. If I ate McDonalds everyday and didn't have any major changes in my health for the worse, it still doesn't mean I am fine! I may have to wash my hair more, or buy different creams for my skin. I could look okay to you, but I can guarantee I wouldn't consider myself to be "fine."

Have you seen crappy kibble poops? How can such large, frequent, sticky, nasty poops be produced from a dog fed a good diet?


But a dog who always has ear infections ISN'T fine. At all. When I say "fine" I mean free of chronic recurrent health problems which I didn't specify because to me should be inherent in a definition of "fine" but I guess not?

Well if you think a dog with chronic ear infections looks "fine", then yes we do have vastly different opinions of what fine is.
Again, there is more to being healthy than just not having reoccuring health issues. Look at all of the chain smokers who live to be 95 without issue. They'd probably feel better and look better if they didn't smoke.

Obviously you know I don't think a dog with ear infections looks fine- but once you clean out the ears it's something you can't see. Just like a dog with a greasy coat can get a bath and then look "nice and shiny."
 
Joined
Feb 26, 2011
Messages
6,405
Likes
0
Points
36
Location
Minnesota
#56
Just because someone looks fine and they don't have major health issues doesn't mean they ARE fine.
So what on earth does it take to be fine, then? Like, I am completely not understanding your point at all. Having to wash your hair more means you're not fine, even if you look and feel great otherwise? I just don't even... get this definition of fine. And even if I did, if I had to bathe my dog a little more frequently but otherwise they look and feel great... so what?

Have you seen crappy kibble poops? How can such large, frequent, sticky, nasty poops be produced from a dog fed a good diet?
Every dog eating "crappy" kibble isn't having large, frequent, sticky nasty poops, I assure you. Because when dogs are, I hear about it. (I'm basing that on checking yearly fecals on all our patients, the vast majority of which are eating foods I'm sure you would consider crappy.)

Again, there is more to being healthy than just not having reoccuring health issues. Look at all of the chain smokers who live to be 95 without issue. They'd probably feel better and look better if they didn't smoke.
But if they don't feel or look good, then they AREN'T healthy, surely?

Obviously you know I don't think a dog with ear infections looks fine- but once you clean out the ears it's something you can't see. Just like a dog with a greasy coat can get a bath and then look "nice and shiny."
But ears with chronic infections don't stay clean just because you cleaned them once. Or a dog with a crappy coat isn't going to stay nice because you bathed them once. So again, I don't understand why these dogs are even being described as looking "fine" at any point when they aren't if these problems recur despite superficial attempts to address them.
 

~Jessie~

Chihuahua Power!
Joined
Oct 3, 2006
Messages
19,665
Likes
0
Points
36
Location
Central Florida
#57
So what on earth does it take to be fine, then? Like, I am completely not understanding your point at all. Having to wash your hair more means you're not fine, even if you look and feel great otherwise? I just don't even... get this definition of fine. And even if I did, if I had to bathe my dog a little more frequently but otherwise they look and feel great... so what?
Most people have terrible perceptions of what it means to be fine. I think most people EXPECT dogs to have smelly and greasy coats. Apparently you think dogs on crappy foods have nice shiny coats, but that has NOT been my experience. Again, this is why I said we need to agree to disagree on this because it looks like OUR perceptions of FINE are different.

Like I said, our Dalmatian Lilly looked fine. She lived to be 10 with no health issues except for renal failure at the very end. I LOVED her, but I HATED petting her because of the greasy film on her coat. I thought that was just how dogs WERE, because I had only known dogs fed crappy foods.

Most people think their dogs are fine on crappy kibbles because dogs are supposed to smell and need to be bathed frequently. They're supposed to fart and have gross poops. They're supposed to shed constantly (obviously some dogs just DO shed a lot). They're supposed to have bad breath. They're dogs.

I think food is a big deal. If you don't think it's important, that is your prerogative. I don't think it's fine if I have to wash my dogs more frequently due to their diets. I don't think it's fine to have to clean up elephant poop in my yard. These are not acceptable to me.

I've worked with dogs at a vet hospital in the past (cleaning kennels on the weekends and feeding/taking dogs outside) and ALL of the dogs were fed Science Diet at the very best. Their coats felt greasy, they smelled, they felt different than my dogs, they had disgusting frequent poops... and these are hundreds of dogs over the course of a few months. These dogs were considered fine by the vet too ;)

Every dog eating "crappy" kibble isn't having large, frequent, sticky nasty poops, I assure you. Because when dogs are, I hear about it. (I'm basing that on checking yearly fecals on all our patients, the vast majority of which are eating foods I'm sure you would consider crappy.)



But if they don't feel or look good, then they AREN'T healthy, surely?


But ears with chronic infections don't stay clean just because you cleaned them once. Or a dog with a crappy coat isn't going to stay nice because you bathed them once. So again, I don't understand why these dogs are even being described as looking "fine" at any point when they aren't if these problems recur despite superficial attempts to address them.
I'm happy you think that dogs on low quality kibble are just fine, but again, I am in total disagreement with that.
 

krissy

New Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2013
Messages
809
Likes
1
Points
0
Location
Edmonton, Alberta
#58
This is exactly what I've seen. I always regret petting dogs on low quality foods because they leave this nasty film on my hands.

I feel like a broken record, but I really do believe the foods that we (and our pets) eat play a big role in how we look and feel.

My dogs get baths probably every 6 months, and I've gotten nothing but compliments on how "clean" they always look. Even when we fed kibble, it was the same way.
What qualifies as a low quality kibble though? I've already seen someone bash foods that I have fed to dogs (Summit at one point was fed 1/2 IAMS adult maintenance and 1/2 Hill's J/D, puppy has been fed Purina Sport 30/20, puppy came to me on Purina ProPlan). The non-show dog gets a bath every year and a half. The show puppy has had more baths in her 12 months with us than Summit has had in his 3 years with us... Kili has probably had about 7 baths already to get clean for shows. Both have ridiculously soft coats, to the point that I'm actually kind of sick of hearing people say "Oh my god! Did you feel this dog? Come over here and feel. She's like velvet! No, seriously, come over here and pat this dog".

Both dogs are currently on a 1/2 and 1/2 blend of Hill's J/D and Orijen 6 Fish. The only reason it is mixed is because I tried to put Kili on the Orijen since I liked the protein/fat content in it but then she started not wanting to eat it after a week or two of starting (and this dog eats just about anything). Once the Orijen is gone in about a week they'll be 100% J/D. I'm not sure what exactly makes a food "crappy" but since I've seen some none too favourable accounts of ingredients I'm guessing J/D makes the cut for a crappy food. Which I totally disagree with and makes my main point... what exactly is a "crappy" food. It seems it would vary widely since I think Hill's makes good food, but there are lots of people in the camp that grains and by-products are evil and will eat your dog from the inside... therefore Hill's = crappy food... therefore my dogs must have gross coats... which they do not... therefore Hill's = good food?
 

Dizzy

Sit! Good dog.
Joined
Sep 14, 2005
Messages
17,761
Likes
1
Points
38
Location
Wales
#59
Well... We feed raw.

And treat with biscuits.

And hooman foods....

And they eat mud, sheep poo, grass, twigs, foam balls, bits of plastic....

I DONT know if there's scientific data, but I DO know they look great, are fit and well, don't fart as much, Fred no longer has bum squits, and it suits us just fine to feed it :)

And I'm pretty certain they don't need veggies :D or berries and fruit.

So, we've just cut out the middle man.

I was very happy with the kibble I fed too. Wouldn't hesitate to go back if we had to, but I do prefer the raw, I think it has improved certain aspects of their health some ways :)

I think every owner should feed the BEST quality food they can afford to feed, whether that's home made, biscuits or raw. Dog junk food isn't ok.
 

~Jessie~

Chihuahua Power!
Joined
Oct 3, 2006
Messages
19,665
Likes
0
Points
36
Location
Central Florida
#60
Well... We feed raw.

And treat with biscuits.

And hooman foods....

And they eat mud, sheep poo, grass, twigs, foam balls, bits of plastic....

I DONT know if there's scientific data, but I DO know they look great, are fit and well, don't fart as much, Fred no longer has bum squits, and it suits us just fine to feed it :)

And I'm pretty certain they don't need veggies :D or berries and fruit.

So, we've just cut out the middle man.

I was very happy with the kibble I fed too. Wouldn't hesitate to go back if we had to, but I do prefer the raw, I think it has improved certain aspects of their health some ways :)

I think every owner should feed the BEST quality food they can afford to feed, whether that's home made, biscuits or raw. Dog junk food isn't ok.
It looks like our dogs would be in great company. I think half of Emma's diet has to consist of dead lizards, bugs, and grass.
 

Members online

No members online now.
Top