This is a bit of an old article... but I'm just curious to know what people think
of it. http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/SC0111/S00070.htm
of it. http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/SC0111/S00070.htm
-
Too many ads? Join our community of cat lovers now to reduce ads by 90%! Click here to join for free!
Breakthrough set to cut cancer deaths in pets
- Thread starter kisabre
- Start Date
G
ghostuser
Guest
I have to wonder about it.. when they associate it with Pedigree and Whiskas...
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2005
- Messages
- 27,231
- Purraise
- 38
HUMM wonder if there those foods are better quality outside the USA where standards for all creatures HUMANS included are HIGHER
I am not sure I by into fixing DNA that may be damaged via pollution or external stresses
I am not sure I by into fixing DNA that may be damaged via pollution or external stresses
Judging by the date of this article, I think the "antioxidant blend" refers to when waltham, science diet, and a few others added more vitamin A, C, and E to their foods. That's when Science Diet made their "advanced protection". It's not really new information that antioxidants can prevent cellular damage... even in 2001 it wasn't new information... though I don't know how well it has been proven scientifically. The tests run by pet food companies don't have to follow the scientific method, so I am always a bit skeptical. It would be interesting to see an independent study of antioxidants' effect on carnivores.
Waltham seems to have written/sponsored this article.... they are owned by Mars, along with pedigree and whiskas, IIRC.
Waltham seems to have written/sponsored this article.... they are owned by Mars, along with pedigree and whiskas, IIRC.
The article was a press release, which is basically the same as an advertisement. It is not the same thing as the study itself which we can't evaluate not having seen it. Legitimate scientific studies are **published** in respected "peer-review" journals such that other scientists can replicate the study and hopefully get the same results. Sometimes they can't duplicate the results and when that happens, the original study become highly suspect.
Well constructed studies, rigourously performed and published in a reputable journal have genuine value, but that value is still limited until the results can be replicated.
The study (as quoted) makes no claim about improving the lifespan of dogs, it simply claims to reduce DNA damage as a result of poor nutrition, but that by itself is not proof of having an effect on longevity. A long term study might find that dogs don't live longer eating this food, and if true, then all the study has shown is a reduction in DNA damage, a useless result if it doesn't improve lifespan.
As an example, a major new heart medication for humans that *should* have increased the lifespan of diseased humans was pulled when it was shown to have the opposite of the intended effect, people were dying sooner, not later.
Just because a drug or treatment "should logically work" does *NOT* mean that it will work.
The press release also contains claims not supported by the study itself: to wit, a supposedly objective person (New Zealand Kennel Club President Ray Greer) when he said "It will also give more years of valuable companionship to the many pet owners in this country†(his opinion). Again while the study as quoted *implied* that dogs will live longer (by using the technique of saying, "because A is true and B is true that therfore C must be true") the study didn't actually say that dogs would live longer, it just said that DNA damage was less (and therefore dogs *should* live longer) but as I've said above, there can be a big difference between "should" and "does".
Well constructed studies, rigourously performed and published in a reputable journal have genuine value, but that value is still limited until the results can be replicated.
The study (as quoted) makes no claim about improving the lifespan of dogs, it simply claims to reduce DNA damage as a result of poor nutrition, but that by itself is not proof of having an effect on longevity. A long term study might find that dogs don't live longer eating this food, and if true, then all the study has shown is a reduction in DNA damage, a useless result if it doesn't improve lifespan.
As an example, a major new heart medication for humans that *should* have increased the lifespan of diseased humans was pulled when it was shown to have the opposite of the intended effect, people were dying sooner, not later.
Just because a drug or treatment "should logically work" does *NOT* mean that it will work.
The press release also contains claims not supported by the study itself: to wit, a supposedly objective person (New Zealand Kennel Club President Ray Greer) when he said "It will also give more years of valuable companionship to the many pet owners in this country†(his opinion). Again while the study as quoted *implied* that dogs will live longer (by using the technique of saying, "because A is true and B is true that therfore C must be true") the study didn't actually say that dogs would live longer, it just said that DNA damage was less (and therefore dogs *should* live longer) but as I've said above, there can be a big difference between "should" and "does".
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #6
It was nice being able to run this article by some on you. Everyone has come to some interesting conclusions some that I wasn’t able to conclude to. What interest me about the article was the claim about DNA being able to repair but was skeptical for some of the reasons you stated Shaky and perhaps because of the names involve and I was also hoping if anyone has heard anything about DNA repair and “super-foods” for cats since there are foods that are considered “super” foods in regards to humans, I was wondering if there is the same for cats but I’m not sure if many studies are even done on pets.
