Study: Starch Digestion Adaptation in Dogs

Joined
Feb 26, 2011
Messages
6,405
Likes
0
Points
36
Location
Minnesota
#61
Dogs can digest grains better than wolves, they should be fed more grains than wolves.

or

Dogs can digest grains better than wolves, but still to a terribly useless degree, therefore don't feed grains.
Really, those are the only two hypotheses you're getting out of this thread or that you can think of?

I think most people have been more along the lines of, "Dogs can digest grains better than wolves, it's ok/not harmful to include them as part of a healthy diet."
 

rudysgal

New Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2013
Messages
15
Likes
0
Points
0
#62
I think the study is important simply because it's a good start. It validates, to me, that calling dogs "obligate carnivores" isn't necessarily correct. I've seen lots of raw feeders who are just... so... "raw is the best diet for every canine!" And I have nothing against feeding a dog raw. I USED to be that way. I was very into the whole "a food must be THIS and that way" and "first five ingredient should be meat" and "NO grains". I've honestly done a 360 over the last year or so. For one, there are sooo many more important factors that go into a food than ingredients. 90% of foods out there are based solely on marketing and boy did it brainwash me.

I've just always thought about how we've changed dogs so much from wolves -- not to mention, wolves in captivity can live as long as 20 years (eating not-so-amazing kibble). Wolves in the wild live 4-5 years on average. I'm not sure feeding our pet dogs like wolves is always in their best interest.

Yes biologically I know they are essentially the same. Like said above, dogs have evolved alongside us from wolves. Selective breeding does a lot of funny things and I see no reason not to believe that some things have changed internally. Certain breeds are predisposed to such things as pancreatitis (Schanuzers, Yorkies, etc), some to other health issues. Sibes and GSDs are often known for somewhat sensitive stomachs. I also know that wolves were not being fed the way that most raw feeders feed their dog... they obviously weren't given meat from the grocery store that is most likely pumped full of grains and antibiotics anyways, but surely not as much time was being put into their meals. They weren't taken to the vet when things go wrong, they weren't sleeping indoors, or given the best possible care, or given antibiotics when infections set in, etc, etc, etc. Medical care for pets is a pretty new invention, too, but I'm certainly not going to reject it in a time of need. If our dogs were out in the wild, nature really could care less about anything living a long and healthy life... it's all about survival of the fittest and if you don't make it, oh well.

Yes, kibble is a pretty new "invention" and I'm sure most dogs lived very well without it, but I highly doubt these dogs were eating PMR or the way we feed raw today. Humans that were probably living on hardly anything themselves were surely not giving up all their good food to the dogs... they got scraps (I've heard corn mush and other grains) to whatever they could hunt themselves. I've even heard people go as far as calling kibble "death nuggets" which I find insane.

I'm not in any way saying feeding raw is bad. I think a lot of dogs do fantastic on it and that's GREAT. I love the idea of feeding raw and I'm happy it works so great for so many dogs. But I don't get the hate on kibble (not on here). Bottom line is that all dogs are individuals, and yes certain breeds are predisposed to things that others may not be, and what one dog may thrive on another may not...

There is just way too many variables out there to say that "my dog lived a longer and healthier life eating x food" or "my dog died because of eating y food". So many other factors come into play. There are going to be raw fed dogs that die young and there are going to be kibble fed dogs that live a long time (and a healthy life at that) and vice versa. Obviously it's up to us as dog owners to decide what is best for our dogs and what works best for THEM.

I went from being all for super high protein food, no grains, etc, and I've gone to a grain inclusive food with moderate protein. There is so much fancy wording going on in a lot of these new holistic foods with not a whole lot to back up their claims.

But honestly, above all, I believe that vaccination schedules, when or if the dog is fixed, amounts of exercise, and breeding/genetics matter a whole lot more than food does anyway.
I know I'm new here, but this topic has always been of great interest to me, and I agree completely with pretty much everything you said. I believe that it really bares repeating ... Though similar, dogs are not wolves. I think the argument that we have to feed dogs exactly like an animal that doesn't generally survive past the age of 7 isn't a good one. But like you said, I have nottttthing against raw and have fed it myself!
 
Joined
Jun 5, 2006
Messages
2,434
Likes
1
Points
0
Location
Oregon
#63
Really, those are the only two hypotheses you're getting out of this thread or that you can think of?

I think most people have been more along the lines of, "Dogs can digest grains better than wolves, it's ok/not harmful to include them as part of a healthy diet."
Well, I don't like that one, so I wasn't asking for fake money to study it ;)

Is it harmful to feed grains to a wolf? Not unless they're allergic, or the bulk is enough that they're not eating enough meat to fuel them. I tend to (still) think its the same way with dogs. As long as its not an allergen, at worst, its a waste of money- going through untouched (there may be benefits to fiber though, either non-digested plants or feathers and fur.

It is possible that digesting starches for sugar is good- when there is no meat, but it raises side effects (either energy swings, or diabetes type things) that are better than starving, but still worse than eating an only meat diet.

Lots of work to be done!

I'll have to look at it, I wonder how many genes bear or human has for breaking down starches.
 
Joined
Apr 10, 2008
Messages
4,381
Likes
0
Points
36
Location
Midwest
#64
I think the argument that we have to feed dogs exactly like an animal that doesn't generally survive past the age of 7 isn't a good one. But like you said, I have nottttthing against raw and have fed it myself!

Really???? Do you think there might be just a bit more to the average life span for a wild wolf than just their diet?
 

Lyzelle

Active Member
Joined
Feb 28, 2012
Messages
2,826
Likes
0
Points
36
Location
Colorado
#65
Really???? Do you think there might be just more to the average life span for a wild wolf than just their diet?
This. That's a pretty ridiculous argument. Disease, starvation, injury, traps/shot, larger predators....and we're just going to say it's obvious we should feed dogs grains because wolves don't eat them and they die within 5 years.

Yeah. Okay. :rolleyes:
 

JacksonsMom

Active Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2009
Messages
8,694
Likes
0
Points
36
Location
Maryland
#66
Is it harmful to feed grains to a wolf? Not unless they're allergic, or the bulk is enough that they're not eating enough meat to fuel them. I tend to (still) think its the same way with dogs. As long as its not an allergen, at worst, its a waste of money- going through untouched (there may be benefits to fiber though, either non-digested plants or feathers and fur.
But are potatoes, tapioca, lentils, and beans any better than barley, rice or oatmeal? I don't really see how they're particularly any more 'useful'. Believe me, I used to be very pro-grain-free (and I'm still not against it, at all) but the whole thing about grains being a waste, or whatever, I feel like they are just as equal as the starches used in grain free dog foods. Some dogs will obviously do better on one vs. the other, or some won't. But I don't think grain free is superior for most canines.
 

JacksonsMom

Active Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2009
Messages
8,694
Likes
0
Points
36
Location
Maryland
#67
Really???? Do you think there might be just a bit more to the average life span for a wild wolf than just their diet?

This. That's a pretty ridiculous argument. Disease, starvation, injury, traps/shot, larger predators....and we're just going to say it's obvious we should feed dogs grains because wolves don't eat them and they die within 5 years.

Yeah. Okay.
Of course there is! I don't think anyone is saying "OMG DOGS NEED GRAINS!!!" But I just don't think potatoes, etc, is in any way superior to them.

But overall, I think the article is more talking about was that since dogs could digest starch better than wolves, it made them better scavengers, and that's why they became domesticated?? Right?? Or am I reading it wrong?

I just think it's very interesting is all, and a step forward towards real science regarding a canines diet.
 

Lyzelle

Active Member
Joined
Feb 28, 2012
Messages
2,826
Likes
0
Points
36
Location
Colorado
#68
But are potatoes, tapioca, lentils, and beans any better than barley, rice or oatmeal? I don't really see how they're particularly any more 'useful'.
Most of it has to do with the glycemic index of those grains as well, not to mention how they are processed and how badly most are chemically altered these days. It is a bit of a waste of money, considering what they are getting out of it.

As far as the glycemic index goes, here's an idea.

Lentils 5GL per 150g serving
White potato 33GL per 150g serving
Sweet Potato 22GL per 150g serving

As opposed to:
Oatmeal 13GL per 250g serving
Barley 12GL per 150g serving
White Rice 43GL per 150g serving
Brown Rice 16GL per 150g per serving

Potatoes have less of a GI than white rice. Lentils have less of a GI than Brown rice. Oatmeal and Barley are the runners up for the lowest GI, but most dogs can't have them anyway because of the many gut issues that are associated with them.

So there is certainly a trend there. If you are going for "I want to feed my dog starch because of the sugar content" sure, go for White Potatoes and White Rice. But if you actually want to be realistic about it, it would be far cheaper, and less of a waste of money and time to just feed them straight white sugar.

Either way, both groups (grains vs starches) are in kibble mostly as binders and to hold everything together. It cheapens the dog food process by giving more calories and/or lbs per dollar.

Is it wrong? Of course not. And obviously, as this study also shows, they can digest it and get some sugar out of it to a degree. But I don't think it's really all that useful to them, other than to stave off starvation in lean times.
 
Joined
Feb 4, 2008
Messages
7,099
Likes
1
Points
38
Location
Illinois
#69
Just for the record I feed vegetables for the added/varied vitamins, fiber and nutrients I believe it adds to my dogs diet.

I could just be reading wrong but it seems like they are getting reduced to just sugar. I took that study to mean to me that because they can easier digest it they can possibly derive greater benefits from it. Or at least opens the door to lead to that.
 

Lyzelle

Active Member
Joined
Feb 28, 2012
Messages
2,826
Likes
0
Points
36
Location
Colorado
#70
Just for the record I feed vegetables for the added/varied vitamins, fiber and nutrients I believe it adds to my dogs diet.

I could just be reading wrong but it seems like they are getting reduced to just sugar. Where as I took that study to mean to me that because they can easier digest it they can possibly derive greater benefits from it. Or at least opens the door to lead to that.
Amylase and Maltase breakdown starch into sugar, yes. And that was all they apparently found during this study.

So the theory that they still aren't getting many vitamins or nutrients out of it stands. Fiber might still, just because of the bulk of the foods, but they don't seem to have found any other proteins or enzymes that suggest dogs are getting any real nutrition out of starches.
 
Joined
Feb 4, 2008
Messages
7,099
Likes
1
Points
38
Location
Illinois
#71
Amylase and Maltase breakdown starch into sugar, yes. And that was all they apparently found during this study.

So the theory that they still aren't getting many vitamins or nutrients out of it stands. Fiber might still, just because of the bulk of the foods, but they don't seem to have found any other proteins or enzymes that suggest dogs are getting any real nutrition out of starches.
Which is why I said opens the door. It's still just my thought process but this study leads me to be more convinced that because they showed an ability to better break down starch that they might be more adapted to utilize the vitamins and nutrients found in them. It also leads me to hope more studies will continue to be done because as things stand right now most "theories" are internet conjecture to my knowledge.

ETA: I guess I complicated it more by adding talking about something other than starch and not keeping it directly related to this study. I just was getting annoyed listening again to the derision targeted at feeding vegetables in a raw diet. So, ignore me.
 
Last edited:

Romy

Taxiderpy
Joined
Dec 2, 2006
Messages
10,233
Likes
1
Points
38
Location
Olympia, WA
#72
But are potatoes, tapioca, lentils, and beans any better than barley, rice or oatmeal? I don't really see how they're particularly any more 'useful'. Believe me, I used to be very pro-grain-free (and I'm still not against it, at all) but the whole thing about grains being a waste, or whatever, I feel like they are just as equal as the starches used in grain free dog foods. Some dogs will obviously do better on one vs. the other, or some won't. But I don't think grain free is superior for most canines.
I have nothing against grains in dog food, but will not feed grain inclusive kibble.

The grains in kibble are, ugh. Okay, the two predominant ones are corn and rice. Rice is pretty okay. I've noticed that it tends to pass through my dogs when used in kibble, but they digest it just fine if I cook it myself and feed them a straight bowl of rice. I think that has to do with the temperature/cooking time of the grains they use or something. Either way, it's not working for them.

Corn. Hooookay now. 90-ish% of the corn grown in North America is GMO. The corn used in pet food comes from GMO varieties not approved for human consumption. Also, many of these corn varieties are engineered to withstand being sprayed with Roundup. So not only are they getting some unknown GMO weirdness, they're getting a good dose of herbicide that is proven to cause birth defects and other issues.

So, my dogs get grain free (potato based) kibble. They do eat grains though, in the same form people eat them. If they start getting too lean I add a bowl of oatmeal to their nightly meal and they do very well with it. Sometimes they eat pasta, or sandwich crusts, etc. Sometimes I even feed them corn, since I soak and grind organic field corn for me and the kids to eat.
 

Romy

Taxiderpy
Joined
Dec 2, 2006
Messages
10,233
Likes
1
Points
38
Location
Olympia, WA
#73
Joined
Jun 5, 2006
Messages
2,434
Likes
1
Points
0
Location
Oregon
#74
Potatoes are grown with big pesticide loads. Not roundup, you don't need herbicides when you're hilling anyway, but pesticides for the various bugs that really like to eat potatoes and fungicides for the blights.
 

Southpaw

orange iguanas.
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
7,788
Likes
1
Points
38
Age
32
Location
Minnesota
#75
But are potatoes, tapioca, lentils, and beans any better than barley, rice or oatmeal? I don't really see how they're particularly any more 'useful'. Believe me, I used to be very pro-grain-free (and I'm still not against it, at all) but the whole thing about grains being a waste, or whatever, I feel like they are just as equal as the starches used in grain free dog foods. Some dogs will obviously do better on one vs. the other, or some won't. But I don't think grain free is superior for most canines.
For the record, I'm not really a fan of ANY of that being in my dogs' food. Yeah, a potato laden food is just as horrifying to me as a grain-heavy food.
 

Romy

Taxiderpy
Joined
Dec 2, 2006
Messages
10,233
Likes
1
Points
38
Location
Olympia, WA
#76
Potatoes are grown with big pesticide loads. Not roundup, you don't need herbicides when you're hilling anyway, but pesticides for the various bugs that really like to eat potatoes and fungicides for the blights.
True. There's also the defoliant, not sure if they still use it or not. Ideally if I was rich I'd feed a home cooked diet of fresh grass feed meats and fish supplemented with some home cooked grains, but that's not in the near future. The big difference I see is that my dogs can digest the potato vs. the undercooked rice or whatever the problem is there.

I think Eagle Pack cooks their meat and grain kibble ingredients separately, IIRC. That way they're able to cook the grains at a high enough temperature to make them more digestible. Not sure if they're even in business still, since I haven't seen their food in years. They also use corn, but they use stuff fit for human consumption.
 

Laurelin

I'm All Ears
Joined
Nov 2, 2006
Messages
30,963
Likes
3
Points
0
Age
37
Location
Oklahoma
#77
Honestly I may be the only one around here that just thinks we 'dog people' sit around and overcomplicate the whole feeding business. Pretty much everything we 'know' is speculation and based upon anecdotes. There is not much hard science behind it in either direction. Hopefully this is a good step in the right direction.

Dogs evolved alongside us, surviving off our scraps. I have no doubt they can handle most of our food and survive off of it. Now what is 'ideal' is up for more debate.
 

JacksonsMom

Active Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2009
Messages
8,694
Likes
0
Points
36
Location
Maryland
#78
Honestly I may be the only one around here that just thinks we 'dog people' sit around and overcomplicate the whole feeding business. Pretty much everything we 'know' is speculation and based upon anecdotes. There is not much hard science behind it in either direction. Hopefully this is a good step in the right direction.

Dogs evolved alongside us, surviving off our scraps. I have no doubt they can handle most of our food and survive off of it. Now what is 'ideal' is up for more debate.
Very true. If I had never discovered dog forums, Jackson would most likely be eating some kind of Purina, or something easily accessible at the grocery store. And honestly? I can't say he'd be doing any worse than he is now. I don't believe it to be ideal, and knowing what I know now, I'm somewhat of a dog food nerd. Ok, I am. I know way too much about it, lol, and the companies behind them, etc, so it's hard to ignore once you know it. And I enjoy discussing it. But like I said, there's just too many factors to really place the blame on food.
 
Joined
Feb 4, 2008
Messages
7,099
Likes
1
Points
38
Location
Illinois
#79
Very true. If I had never discovered dog forums, Jackson would most likely be eating some kind of Purina, or something easily accessible at the grocery store. And honestly? I can't say he'd be doing any worse than he is now. I don't believe it to be ideal, and knowing what I know now, I'm somewhat of a dog food nerd. Ok, I am. I know way too much about it, lol, and the companies behind them, etc, so it's hard to ignore once you know it. And I enjoy discussing it.
Exactly this. Though I do think my dogs are better off on raw than they would be on the Pedigree we used to feed, if only because they aren't gross to the touch and sleep in my bed. Wait, that's better for me :p

Honestly, I just really don't understand the anger, meanness and hate that people show when talking about it. I mean, REALLY?! You care that much about the food I feed MY dogs? REALLY??

And especially when it gets into "Oh, you feed that insert high quality diet? Wow. I guess you don't know about this and this and this and want your dog to die. You should really be feeding this insert high quality diet."

But, I do like discussing it and will probably continue to do so.
 

PWCorgi

Priscilla Winifred Corgi
Joined
Apr 12, 2006
Messages
14,854
Likes
0
Points
36
Age
34
Location
Twin Citay!
#80
Exactly this. Though I do think my dogs are better off on raw than they would be on the Pedigree we used to feed, if only because they aren't gross to the touch and sleep in my bed. Wait, that's better for me :p

Honestly, I just really don't understand the anger, meanness and hate that people show when talking about it. I mean, REALLY?! You care that much about the food I feed MY dogs? REALLY??

And especially when it gets into "Oh, you feed that insert high quality diet? Wow. I guess you don't know about this and this and this and want your dog to die. You should really be feeding this insert high quality diet."

But, I do like discussing it and will probably continue to do so.
While I don't think I am an ingredient label snob, I will TOTALLY admit to being a sourcing/company snob. :eek:
 

Members online

No members online now.
Top