Author Topic: Raw -what does science really say?  (Read 322 times)

Offline Middle Child

  • Charter Member
  • Motor Mouth
  • Join Date: Jun 2011
  • Posts: 7992
  • Country: us
  • Just say No to declawing
Raw -what does science really say?
« on: February 02, 2018, 08:19:44 AM »

If we search up ‘raw pet food’ in a medical research database like Pubmed, we find the usual tedious reporting of the presence of bacteria in raw meat. Discussions of health benefits are absent, as veterinarians continue to gleefully report. If, however, we stop focusing on the word ‘raw’, and instead search for evidence of the negative effects of food processing on health, we not surprisingly find thousands of articles. Included among them are articles on the deleterious effects of food processing on canine physiology.

The weight of the evidence supports what most consumers would consider obvious – the more unadulterated whole foods you eat, the healthier you are. It’s not the ‘raw’ that’s important. It’s whether a food is processed. Homemade diets that aren’t loaded with carbs would be expected to create the same benefits in a dog or cat as a raw diet, and those benefits turn out to be just ‘avoidance of problems’ that processed diets create.

Offline Lola

  • Administrator
  • Motor Mouth
  • Join Date: Jun 2011
  • Posts: 11302
  • Country: us
  • Spay or Neuter
    • Parenting Furkids
Re: Raw -what does science really say?
« Reply #1 on: February 02, 2018, 06:04:48 PM »
I always find it strange when people that eat healthy and avoid processed foods and such for themselves... find that feeding their pets raw is "ew."  I always thought those would be the easiest to convince.  Nope.
Everything you NEED to know about caring for your feline.