High quality canned = High fat?

I feed a homemade raw diet to my own kitties but I give Fancy Feast (FF) to my foster kitties. My fosters are usually sick or underweight kittens so it is important that they eat and FF, in my experience appeals to most cats. But I've noticed the price of FF has been steadily rising as has the price of most things. I started to wonder if there might be a cheaper but equivalent quality wise alternative. The by-products in FF don't bother me as long as they aren't the only animal source and aren't the first ingredient. And I use only the low carb selections.

So, I started looking around. My current foster, Mickey, is obese so to make life easier for myself I wanted to look at foods that had about the same number of calories per ounce as FF which is around 30. Since most foods don't have the calorie information on the cans or even on the company web site I created a spreadsheet to calculate the calories from the guaranteed analysis or from more accurate information if available on the company web site.

And as long as I was working with a spreadsheet and calories I thought I might as well calculate how many calories are from protein, fat and carbs. I included the price of each product as the price per 100 kcal (calorie) as a way of "leveling the field". If a food is cheaper than FF but provides fewer calories it may not actually be cheaper because of having to feed more of it.

I started adding products to my spreadsheet and got a surprise. A high percentage of the calories in some foods that are generally considered "high quality" comes from fat! That isn't necessarily a problem. Cats do quite well on high fat diets. But, I think it says something about the real quality of a food. Lean meat is much higher nutrients than fat. I always prefer as many of the nutrients as possible come from animal products. If a food is high in fat it is likely that more nutrients are coming from added supplements than would be the case in a lower fat food.

I do think it is possible for a food to be too high in fat though and I think the EVO 95% products are too high. They come in at 73% of calories from fat, 25% from protein and 2% from carbs. Compare that with what has been determined to be a feral cats typical diet composition: 46% calories from fat, 52% from protein and 2% from carbs. Now we know why the EVO 95% products are relatively cheap!

One thing I have to mention is that for some of the foods I had to use the guaranteed analysis values for the protein/fat percentages. Those values are the minimums for the food rather than the actual amounts. In some cases the average or "as fed" values are available on the manufacturers web site. If the as fed values are available I used those because they should be more accurate. If the as fed values aren't available the carb % may be lower than what is shown in the table but the protein and fat %s can't be lower. 

Bottom line, some people looking for a high quality canned food look for a food that is low in carbs. I was surprised to find that some of these low carb foods are quite high in fat and so may not be deserving of a label of "high quality" especially if the high food food comes with a high price tag.

As always, everyone has to decide for themselves what criteria to use when choosing a food. In the end I decided to try the by Nature products. They seem like a good value to me.

The spreadsheet

According to Weruva its food is higher in protein and water and lower in calories than most other cat and dog foods, so it is good for overweight pets. I have not tried it yet, but the company says if you want your pet to gain weight, you need to feed a lot of it. Looks to me like it was made for obese cats.

A low calorie but high in animal protein food is certainly a good choice for an overweight cat. That is part of the reason I supplemented Mickey's diet with raw from the start. Eventually he will be on a totally raw diet. IMO Weruva is a bit too low in fat but then I don't know that is a problem. If I were going to keep Mickey on processed foods I might include it in a rotation with other foods.

This thread isn't meant to be about feeding overweight cats. It is meant to be able the high fat content of foods some people might consider to be "quality" foods.

But of course all comments are welcome!

:shocker:

Evo 95% chicken - 73% of the calories are from fat?

Ziwipeak (which isn't cheap) - 67% calories from fat?
Wellness Core - no carbs, but 65% calories from fat?
Wellness chicken - 66%?
BEFORE GRAIN chicken - 66%


...and all because of the AAFCO definitions of the various meats. Obviously very little of the 95% / 96% stuff is actually muscle meat. Lot of fat left over once those breasts are removed for people consumption. :dk: Must be.

Geez - Fancy Feast may be made with by-products, but the ratio of FOOD to fat makes me not upset I feed it to the feral kitties. :lol3:

This also makes me glad I'm making my own food. If I were still using these in rotation, I'd be wondering what the heck to feed my cats. It's a tough trade-off. Not-such-great ingredients and/or veggies ... or a heap of fat.

Thanks for sharing this, mschauer. It's a real eye-opener. Well - another one.

This just makes it even more confusing to decide what to feed the cats! I suddenly feel much better about my switch to FF Classic, and am now unsure if I should continue with my plan to wean them off the FF and onto Wellness Core.

RIccaDawn said:

This just makes it even more confusing to decide what to feed the cats! I suddenly feel much better about my switch to FF Classic, and am now unsure if I should continue with my plan to wean them off the FF and onto Wellness Core.

Click to expand...

It isn't clear that a high fat food is necessarily bad. What surprised me most was that these 95% meat formulas can contain so much fat. I would just beware of paying too much for such a product. And also be aware that high fat foods are also higher in calories so if you feed the same amount as you feed of a lower calories food you might end up with a tubby kitty!

I would say Wellness Core isn't too bad in the fat dept and on a cost/100 kcal it isn't ridiculously expensive so if you like the ingredients better than FF I don't think it would be a terrible decision to switch. Just be aware that Core is higher in calories.  

Thanks for crunching the numbers.

We (friend and I) fed Fancy Feast Classic to the five cats we re-trapped (to re-socialize) because it was relatively low in carbs and relatively inexpensive.  Their weight was a little high, but not abnormally so.  They were adopted out to Forever Homes at various times; several have become indoor/outdoor cats. 

The remaining cat (loves dogs, not so sure about humans) has never cared for wet food so just gets a high quality dry food.  Given how little exercise she gets, she is maintaining her weight.

We are currently co-fostering an abandoned, pregnant cat.  Very skinny, so we are feeding her Fancy Feast kitten version; she needs the calories.

Finally, I too feed a feral/stray/dumped cat colony of around 10 cats, so price is a huge consideration.  I feed them Friskies wet and dry because it is cheap, and any raw meat that I can't use (skin, bones) or that Ritz won't eat. They are not terribly picky and most are of normal weight (a few could stand to gain a pound or two).  They still 'dumpster dive' for food.  One or two cats really like raw food, most of the cats like the wet food, and only one has a strong preference for dry.

But you're right--the price of FF and all pet food has increased, especially in the past six months.  I use to be able to buy Friskies for 45 cents, now 50 cents is a 'sale'.

I always thought that the EVO 95% seemed especially high in fat, but didn't think much about the other companies.  The last time I looked at the percentages for EVO 95% that are on the can (a few years ago) the fat amount was higher than the protein for a few of the varieties.

Just curious, did you get these numbers from the companies websites, or contact them directly?  The carb numbers seem way different than what I was given by the companies last summer - especially the CORE - which is 11-17% carb on DMB depending on what formula.

http://parenting-furkids.com/index.php?topic=747.0 is a chart of some of the brands I asked for the carb percentages (not all allowed me to share the amounts).
 

furryfriends50 said:

I always thought that the EVO 95% seemed especially high in fat, but didn't think much about the other companies.  The last time I looked at the percentages for EVO 95% that are on the can (a few years ago) the fat amount was higher than the protein for a few of the varieties.

Just curious, did you get these numbers from the companies websites, or contact them directly?  The carb numbers seem way different than what I was given by the companies last summer - especially the CORE - which is 11-17% carb on DMB depending on what formula.

http://parenting-furkids.com/index.php?topic=747.0 is a chart of some of the brands I asked for the carb percentages (not all allowed me to share the amounts).
 

Click to expand...

The values in my spreadsheet are all as fed not DMB.

And, from the first post:

One thing I have to mention is that for some of the foods I had to use the guaranteed analysis values for the protein/fat percentages. Those values are the minimums for the food rather than the actual amounts. In some cases the average or "as fed" values are available on the manufacturers web site. If the as fed values are available I used those because they should be more accurate. If the as fed values aren't available the carb % may be lower than what is shown in the table but the protein and fat %s can't be lower. 

Click to expand...

I have not seen the spreadsheet..... But remember, gram per gram,
a gram of protein = 4 calories
a gram of tat = 9 calories.....
I would take that into consideration.... It is easy for a lot of calories to come from fat, provided that they supply gram per gram twice as much calories.
It does not mean the food has twice as much fat.

Carolina said:

I have not seen the spreadsheet..... But remember, gram per gram,
a gram of protein = 4 calories
a gram of tat = 9 calories.....
I would take that into consideration.... It is easy for a lot of calories to come from fat, provided that they supply gram per gram twice as much calories.
It does not mean the food has twice as much fat.

Click to expand...

That's a good point. It is a calorie comparison, not a quantity comparison. But if the spreadsheet shows one food has twice the kcals from fat as another food then first food does indeed have twice as much fat as the second one.

FYI, the Atwater factors used by the pet food industry are 3.5, 8.5 and 3.5.

The point of the exercise though is to show that people may not be getting what they think they are getting when they buy some of the high priced cat foods. I think most people think when they see that a food is "95%" meat they assume "meat" means lean meat. My analysis shows that most likely the meat used is not lean at all but is quite fatty. 

I've seen many posts where people have advised that less of a "high quality", usually the 95%, foods should be fed because they are "nutrient dense". In reality they are not nutrient dense, they are calorie dense. In fact fat has fewer nutrients than lean meat as can be seen comparing the nutrient profiles of lean chicken breast and chicken fat:

Chicken Fat

Chicken Breast

Actually high fat in this case is not bad.

If you have a low carb food you need higher fat content. When a body does not have carbs to use as an energy source the body turns to burning fat for energy. If you do not provide enough fat in the diet then the body turns to body fat for energy. This is why Wenuva is good for weight loss it does not have that high of a fat content compared to it's protien content. Therefore it is causing the body to use it's stored fat for energy thus causing weight loss.

This basic princible is the same for people who do low carb diets. They restrict carbs and the body turns to burning fat for energy and that is how you lose weight.

So the higher quality foods with higher fat content isn't really as bad as they seem when you look at it from an energy source rather than a weight gain source.

Now if they are high in carbs and fat then it is bad. You either want high carbs for energy source and low fat  (which is bad for cats) or high fat content with low carbs.

Meowmmy_Aprile said:

Actually high fat in this case is not bad.

If you have a low carb food you need higher fat content. When a body does not have carbs to use as an energy source the body turns to burning fat for energy. If you do not provide enough fat in the diet then the body turns to body fat for energy. This is why Wenuva is good for weight loss it does not have that high of a fat content compared to it's protien content. Therefore it is causing the body to use it's stored fat for energy thus causing weight loss.

This basic princible is the same for people who do low carb diets. They restrict carbs and the body turns to burning fat for energy and that is how you lose weight.

So the higher quality foods with higher fat content isn't really as bad as they seem when you look at it from an energy source rather than a weight gain source.

Now if they are high in carbs and fat then it is bad. You either want high carbs for energy source and low fat  (which is bad for cats) or high fat content with low carbs.

Click to expand...

I guess I haven't made myself clear. I'm not suggesting that the foods that are higher in fat are "bad". I'm pointing out that the foods that we commonly think of as "high quality", particularly those that claim a high percentage of "meat", may not what we think they are. Specifically, I think the natural assumption is that "meat" is lean meat. But taking a close look at the nutritional analysis of some of those "high meat" foods reveals that rather than being high in lean meat, as we might assume, they are actually high in fat.

The supposed quality of those "high meat" foods is further in doubt because fat is lower in nutrients than lean meat leaving open the possibility that more of the nutrients in such a food are from added supplements rather than being provided in their natural form from the animal based ingredients. Not the hallmark of a quality food in my opinion.

I don't understand your suggestion that cats "need" high fat in their diet in the absence of carbs. All mammals require some fat in their diets. I know of no evidence that cats require the amount of fat found in some of the presumed "high quality" diets. In fact, as a carnivore, cats have an increased need for protein in their diet. They are physiologically evolved to derive energy from protein and fat but have a limited ability to derive energy from carbohydrates so I don't understand your suggestion that if a food is low in carbohydrates that it must be higher in fat. 

This sums it up nicely:

Cats are meat eaters. They require two to three times the protein that omnivores, such as dogs or humans, do.

As strict carnivores, cats rely mainly on nutrients found in animals -- high protein, moderate fat, and minimal carbohydrates -- to meet their nutritional needs. Cats’ bodies are adapted for metabolizing animal protein and fats. And animal-based proteins also contain complete amino acids -- such as taurine, arginine, cysteine, and methionine. These are essential for cats, whose bodies don't make them in adequate amounts.  

Although carbohydrates provide energy, cats use them less efficiently as an energy source. Their bodies need a steady release of glucose from protein.

Click to expand...

Quote source

You seem to be trying to draw parallels between human nutritional needs and those of cats. While there are similarities there are also differences.

I included in the spreadsheet the protein/fat/carb protein consumed by feral cats as established by examining the diets of feral cats around the world. Expressed as % of kcals from each those values are 56/42/2. I think this arguably shows what a cat "needs" at least in terms of those dietary components.

Let me make clear again though that I am not suggesting that the high fat foods are "bad" or are in any way unhealthy for a cat to consume except possibly with regards to their high calorie content that a pet owner may not be aware of. In fact, as I said in an earlier post, cats have been shown to tolerate very high fat diets well.

mschauer said:

I guess I haven't made myself clear. I'm not suggesting that the foods that are higher in fat are "bad". I'm pointing out that the foods that we commonly think of as "high quality", particularly those that claim a high percentage of "meat", may not what we think they are. Specifically, I think the natural assumption is that "meat" is lean meat. But taking a close look at the nutritional analysis of some of those "high meat" foods reveals that rather than being high in lean meat, as we might assume, they are actually high in fat.
 
The supposed quality of those "high meat" foods is further in doubt because fat is lower in nutrients than lean meat leaving open the possibility that more of the nutrients in such a food are from added supplements rather than being provided in their natural form from the animal based ingredients. Not the hallmark of a quality food in my opinion.

Click to expand...

I was certainly surprised at the calories from protein vs. fat analysis. As Carolina points out, fat basically has double the calories - but that doesn't change the fact that of the "high quality" meat-based cat foods, the percentages of calories from fat can be REALLY high. EVO has 73% of the calories coming from fat. For people switching to canned food to help their kitties lose weight, that's important information, because, as mschauer points out, the food isn't "nutrition" dense so much as it is calorie dense. No wonder so many cats love it! It's almost all fat!

And Meommy-Aprile, I don't understand what you're saying about carbs vs. fat? When making pet food, instead of adding carb-based sources of energy, manufacturers can add protein - it doesn't HAVE to be fat. :dk: :scratch:

I know cats can do just fine on a diet with relatively high amounts of fat. In the WILD, they eat lean meat, and derive about 46% of their energy (as mschauer has already pointed out) from fat. FYI, this is the study referred to: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22005434

But there were exactly TWO low-carb canned foods on that list with less than 50% of the calories coming from fat. Most were 60% or more. I'm sorry. When people by Before Grain 96% meat, EVO 95% meat, Nature's Variety Instinct (canned), or Ziwipeak, they are most likely not suspecting that just 1/4 to 1/3 of the calories are coming from protein, and that 2/3 - 3/4 of the calories are coming from fat. I certainly wasn't expecting that.

:dk:

LDG said:

mschauer said:

I guess I haven't made myself clear. I'm not suggesting that the foods that are higher in fat are "bad". I'm pointing out that the foods that we commonly think of as "high quality", particularly those that claim a high percentage of "meat", may not what we think they are. Specifically, I think the natural assumption is that "meat" is lean meat. But taking a close look at the nutritional analysis of some of those "high meat" foods reveals that rather than being high in lean meat, as we might assume, they are actually high in fat.
 
The supposed quality of those "high meat" foods is further in doubt because fat is lower in nutrients than lean meat leaving open the possibility that more of the nutrients in such a food are from added supplements rather than being provided in their natural form from the animal based ingredients. Not the hallmark of a quality food in my opinion.

Click to expand...

I was certainly surprised at the calories from protein vs. fat analysis. As Carolina points out, fat basically has double the calories - but that doesn't change the fact that of the "high quality" meat-based cat foods, the percentages of calories from fat can be REALLY high. EVO has 73% of the calories coming from fat. For people switching to canned food to help their kitties lose weight, that's important information, because, as mschauer points out, the food isn't "nutrition" dense so much as it is calorie dense. No wonder so many cats love it! It's almost all fat!
 

Click to expand...

And as I pointed out I think it isn't just a weight control issue. It is a quality or value issue.

:nod: That's why I included that part of your quote. :nod:

Ultimately, it boils down to this: when I was feeding EVO, Before Grain, Ziwipeak, and Nature's Variety, I was not paying for the quality I thought I was getting. I still think those are some of the best choices to include in rotation - though I'd definitely want to include several Weruva flavors and the By Nature 95%. But when I was rotating primarily those foods, they apparently weren't getting the variety of protein - and nutrients from MEAT that I thought they were.

I picked up some Weruva chicken in Gravy and By Nature Organic Turkey and Chicken.  On the website for Weruva it has a guaranteed analysis and an average analysis; it's like 20 calories off from one another. What's the difference?  Also, In regards to your chart, Kcals are the same as calories, correct?

I think I spoke too soon the other day when I said my boys would eat anything. Gus TORE up the Weruva Chicken in Gravy. I hadn't seen him so excited to eat in a long time.  Ulysses wouldn't touch it. I just couldn't believe it. He did, however, like the By Nature. I think because it's more of a texture he's used to. 

i don't know what the difference is except maybe some of the gravy, maybe?  guar gum (i think i have this right, it's all starting to run together) adds calories that may be removed when fat is removed, and it's a thickener.  so far i have only used paw lickin' chicken and middle east feast (which is mostly tilapia) and my cats really like it.  of course if the younger two think they can get fish, that's what they want, but my older kitty loves the chicken.

i'm strongly considering going raw because it's so hard to find quality grain-free food that isn't owned by a huge conglomerate, and i eat very little processed food myself so i kind of hate buying it.  i completely removed all dry food from their diet after i read so much horrible stuff, and they don't care a bit.

[edit] yes, kcals are the same.  across the board i've really only found a few grain-free canned foods that seem very helpful and readily answer any questions.  one is weruva (david forman) and that company also makes b.f.f. which i get sometimes (it's fish-based though) and soulistic, which i haven't tried, and hound & gatos, will post (<---that's his name lol).  it's 98% meat, no additives, it has some brewer's yeast in it but that's it, and it comes in rabbit, pheasant, beef, lamb/chicken/something else, plain chicken and salmon.  it's pretty new, the company just started in 2010 but so far it looks great.

That would make sense. I guess the calories can't be 'exact' and the gravy may make a difference.  I'm trying these because they're lower fat than the Evo I had been feeding them and I have a tubby cat, so we're working on it.  I also got some commercial raw coming my way and will try them on tha, toot. After reading all of the information, especially from this site, I would feel better making their food as well; however, it has to be a transition for both the cats and myself.  At this moment, though, I'm trying to lower the fat, lower the calories a little and see if I can get my tubby to lose a little weight.  It's all so confusing, though :-(

wolcar said:

I picked up some Weruva chicken in Gravy and By Nature Organic Turkey and Chicken.  On the website for Weruva it has a guaranteed analysis and an average analysis; it's like 20 calories off from one another. What's the difference?  Also, In regards to your chart, Kcals are the same as calories, correct?

Click to expand...

Are you asking what the difference is between guaranteed analysis and an average analysis?  If so, the guaranteed analysis is what is on the label and specifies minimum or maximum values as opposed to actual values. It allows the manufacturer to vary the composition of batches slightly without having to change the label. The average analysis is an average calculated across some number of batches and usually gives a more accurate indication of the food composition. 

In my spreadsheet the foods I was able to find an average analysis for have a '*' in front of the name. I've emailed several manufacturers asking for the average analysis for their foods but have only heard back from Merrick. 

Yes, kcal = calories.