New research shows that cats are able to self-regulate their diet.

[stealthkitty]

EDIT: andddd of course I should have read the rest of the thread before replying X__X
neverminddddd

OK, I won't mind.

But I would like to say this, just to clear up what I think:

At first, I thought that the difference between the 12% and 2% might be accounted for by lifestyle differences, but that doesn't make sense. Now I think that it's a matter of the nature of the study and that the 12% would be a skewed result if they were trying to say that it's what a cat in the wild would eat naturally.

 

[StefanZ]

Well.... And I don't agree with the study.... not with my cats

Sorry...... But I tell you that If I Put a bowl of low protein junk food here, say Purina One, and another say Orijen, and Wet food - they will go to Purina One. ...
So no - they don't self regulate.

It is because dry food, esp the low ends ones, are sprayed on with a solution "digest" whose purpose is to give a nice taste.  That is why the wellknown commercial for Whiskas

"  Whiskas - if the cat himself is allowed to choose" is more or less true.

Not necessarily because the cat instinctively recognizes it as the very best food for him, but because the digest in question is the most tasty for him...

You Carolina did yourself mentioned the word digest in your first post, so you are surely aware of this fact.  Im mentioning this just to reminder.

 

[minka]

It is because dry food, esp the low ends ones, are sprayed on with a solution "digest" whose purpose is to give a nice taste.  That is why the wellknown commercial for Whiskas
"  Whiskas - if the cat himself is allowed to choose" is more or less true.
Not necessarily because the cat instinctively recognizes it as the very best food for him, but because the digest in question is the most tasty for him...

You Carolina did yourself mentioned the word digest in your first post, so you are surely aware of this fact.  Im mentioning this just to reminder.

Just thought to myself about when I transitioned Grim; his food didn't have digest in it, and he would eat wet and dry in the same day of his own accord, so maybe he would be a candidate for self regulating.
(NOTE: not that I would do it, I'm speaking hypothetically, if he had an owner that wanted a wet/dry diet)

 

[ldg]

Thank you, LDG! With the help of the people here on TCS, I'm piecing together a picture of feline nutritional needs and this helps.

OK, let me see if I understand:

• The "as fed" basis includes the percentages of everything that composes the food that's being consumed
• The "dry matter" basis is the percentages of just the nutrients without the moisture, since the moisture doesn't contribute nutrients (that is, the nutritional composition of the food consists of, say, 50% protein, 25% fat, 20% carbs and 5% fiber/minerals)
• The "energy basis" is what percentage of calories (energy) each macronutrient is contributing to the calorie total (eg: in 100 grams of a food composed of 33% protein, 33% fat, and 33% carbohydrate, the proteins (4 kcals/gram) contribute 132 kcals, or 23.5% of the total calories, the fat (9 kcals/gram) contributes 297 kcals, or 52.9% of the total, and the carbs (4 kcals/gram) contribute another 132 kcals, or 23.5%, for a total of 561 kcals in 100 grams of food.)

Is that correct?

Yep, that pretty much sums it up!

But this is why when comparing commercial foods, the only thing that makes sense is to compare them on a dry matter basis.

.

And just to explain, the reason I said the study would be "a start" for designing a diet for cats is because they acknowledge that cats need high protein wet food, but they don't go so far as to recommend a 100% wet diet.

...I noticed those portions you highlighted, too. Yes, that study has some interesting points. I'm just not convinced about the conclusion that cats ought to be offered both wet and dry food. :bigwink:

Ah, yes, well, Waltham, being owned by Mars Pet, recommends feeding a diet that is 80% wet food, 20% dry food. No idea what the reasoning is. (I mean, apart from the fact that their corporate owner is one of the largest pet food manufacturer's in the world). I just know I've seen NutroMike mention it frequently.

 

[ldg]

But 12% is a HUGE difference from only 2% in feral cats.
And when raw feeders are giving 0-1% carbs, then what does that mean for them? That veggies now need to be added?
That's what I was saying.
EDIT: andddd of course I should have read the rest of the thread before replying X__X
neverminddddd

Yeah, it's just the 12% is skewed as "two or more" of the foods were 24% carbs, so if the cats even just had a few bites of them, as the report states, "Under either scenario (sampling errors or adaptive sampling), ingesting any of a high-carbohydrate diet will boost intake beyond that possible on a rodent-based natural diet." They're not arguing that cats in the wild eat 12% carbs - just that with the foods offered in their study, the cats got as close as possible to what they would eat in the wild (taking into account "sampling or adaptive sampling" errors).

 

[stealthkitty]

Yep, that pretty much sums it up!

OK, great! I actually use that type of stuff frequently in the kitchen when I'm trying to make healthier versions of my favorite recipes. I just didn't know there were proper terms for it all!

 

[just mike]

:lol3: But they're talking about controlled conditions, controlled food - identical base food composition, the only changes being in protein, fat and carb content. They're not talking about commercial food.
And the bottom line is that when cats - not given a choice of junk food vs healthy food, but given a choice of the same base food, the only difference being macronutrient content, cats will choose the high protein / low carb diet.

Exactly. Besides, this study was posted by ME quite some time ago. IIRC it fairly old, at least a couple, if not more, years. This entire conversation is like deja vu' :lol3:

 

[ldg]

Exactly. Besides, this study was posted by ME quite some time ago. IIRC it fairly old, at least a couple, if not more, years. This entire conversation is like deja vu' :lol3:

You didn't pay attention Mike. I had the same reaction at first - but his was a follow-up study, published Dec 12, this year. :nod:

This is the new one: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00360-012-0727-y/fulltext.html

Consistent proportional macronutrient intake selected by adult domestic cats (Felis catus) despite variations in macronutrient and moisture content of foods offered, published in the Journal of Comparative Physiology. Authors: Adrian K. Hewson-Hughes1 , Victoria L. Hewson-Hughes1, Alison Colyer1, Andrew T. Miller1, Simon R. Hall1, David Raubenheimer2 and Stephen J. Simpson3


The one you're referring to is this one: http://jeb.biologists.org/content/214/6/1039.full#R22

Geometric analysis of macronutrient selection in the adult domestic cat, Felis catus, pubished in the Journal of Experimental Biology (March 2011). Authors: Adrian K. Hewson-Hughes1,*, Victoria L. Hewson-Hughes1, Andrew T. Miller1, Simon R. Hall1, Stephen J. Simpson2 and David Raubenheimer3

The discussion in the thread involves both studies, but the new study explored whether dry food or wet food would affect their macronutrient content choice.

 

[bluebo]

That study was fascinating! All I can say is that any other cats that will make their way through my home will ever be fed kibble again!

 

[mschauer]

I'm not sure I understand what the carb disagreement is about. From the study (my added bold):

The macronutrient with the biggest discrepancy between our studies and the reported natural diet of feral cats is carbohydrate.

...

The prey-based natural diet of a hypercarnivore such as the cat supplies insufficient carbohydrate to meet the metabolic demands for glucose required, for example, by the brain, and this demand for glucose is met by a high capacity for gluconeogenesis from amino acids (Eisert 2011). Since the cat appears to be metabolically adapted to meet its glucose requirements on a very low carbohydrate diet, it seems unlikely that the higher carbohydrate intakes seen in the present experiments is the result of cats actively seeking higher carbohydrate intake, although this cannot be completely discounted.Thus, having a brain that metabolises glucose like any other animal (Eisert 2011) might have encouraged evolution of broader metabolic use of glucose after generations of access to a higher carbohydrate diet through association with humans.

They acknowledge that the cats in the study consumed a high amount of carbs than expected and go on to speculate about about possible reasons why and none of the reasons they suggest have to do with cats needing the higher level. In fact they suggest that given the cats selections they appeared to be avoiding the high carb foods.

In the "real world" palatability of the foods offered is obviously going to be an additional factor in what a cat will choose. 

 

[stealthkitty]

May I ask, what disagreement are you referring to? Would you mind refreshing my memory?

I can only speak for how I saw things, but I don't remember a disagreement about the carbs, in the sense that we had opposing viewpoints. There was some discussion about what the study meant, yes, and about practical, real world application of the study. But we all agreed that 12% is too high and likely occurred because of the simple fact that the cats were "tasting" the dry food (as the researchers themselves pointed out). To me, the only real discord was in the study itself, since the facts and theorizing it presents (as you point out) don't harmonize with the conclusion that cats should be offered both wet and dry food.

 

[mschauer]

May I ask, what disagreement are you referring to? Would you mind refreshing my memory?

I can only speak for how I saw things, but I don't remember a disagreement about the carbs, in the sense that we had opposing viewpoints. There was some discussion about what the study meant, yes, and about practical, real world application of the study. But we all agreed that 12% is too high and likely occurred because of the simple fact that the cats were "tasting" the dry food (as the researchers themselves pointed out). To me, the only real discord was in the study itself, since the facts and theorizing it presents (as you point out) don't harmonize with the conclusion that cats should be offered both wet and dry food.

Well I guess I don't see any point in the back and forth on the 12% carb issue when even the researchers agree it is higher than necessary. I assumed the back and forth signified disagreement on the topic. 

To me, the only real discord was in the study itself, since the facts and theorizing it presents (as you point out) don't harmonize with the conclusion that cats should be offered both wet and dry food.

It doesn't say that cats "should be offered both wet and dry food". What it does say is:

These studies clearly demonstrate that cats regulate their macronutrient intake even when provided with foods that differ not only in macronutrient composition, but also in their physical characteristics, such as texture and water content. Furthermore, our present results highlight that providing nutritionally complementary wet and dry foods offers cats the opportunity to mix a diet that meets their macronutrient target.

The study does conclusively show that given the foods used in the study the cats did self regulate with regards to the amount of protein, fat and carbs they consumed. They don't include any instructions to pet owners on how to use their findings. 

My question is what is it that allows the cats to self regulate? That is, how do they "know" that a given food in high in protein or high in fat or high in carbs? Is it sensory? Do certain foods taste and/or smell more like protein or more like fat? If so, is the PFI sabotaging this self regulation by spraying fat on some kibble and making it taste to a cat like other than the high carb food it is? Again ... 

 

[stealthkitty]

Oh, that.

I thought the back and forth about the 12% was because I was trying to wrap my head around that and needed some help from experts here on the subject.

We did disagree to some extent about whether or not the study applies to real life house cats. . .

And, to my layman's eyes, the conclusion that "our present results highlight that providing nutritionally complementary wet and dry foods offers cats the opportunity to mix a diet that meets their macronutrient target" sure sounds like saying that cats need both. Just my opinion.

I'd love to see a study on how cats self-regulate, too. I mean, imagine if humans were able to know when we'd consumed enough fats, carbs and proteins!

EDIT: One of the links is to an article in CBC News, which summarizes the study this way:

The report says cats have an innate target of getting 52 per cent of their daily calorie intake from protein, 36 per cent from fat and 12 per cent from carbohydrates. The experiments show that domesticated cats have managed to regulate their intake to match that of their feral counterparts.

The study concludes that cats should be provided with a mix of wet and dry foods so they can have the opportunity to sort out their intake.

When I read that, it strongly implies that feral cats consume 12% of their calories as carbohydrates and that domesticated cats need dry food to achieve that amount. If that's not the actual conclusion of the study, then I'm not the only one that was confused by it.

 

[mschauer]

And, to my layman's eyes, the conclusion that "our present results highlight that providing nutritionally complementary wet and dry foods offers cats the opportunity to mix a diet that meets their macronutrient target" sure sounds like saying that cats need both. Just my opinion.

One of my favorite expressions is "Sometimes when you try to read between the lines all you get is eye strain." 

 

[stealthkitty]

I don't call that reading between the lines, though I appreciate that perspective. Reading between the lines implies seeing something that's not there. To the contrary, scientific studies are meant to provide us with data upon which we can act. To a normal person reading that last sentence in a scientific study, and thinking in the context of how to apply the study to their cat, there is every reason to conclude that the researchers conclude that cats need both wet and dry foods.

 

[mschauer]

I don't call that reading between the lines, though I appreciate that perspective. Reading between the lines implies seeing something that's not there. To the contrary, scientific studies are meant to provide us with data upon which we can act. To a normal person reading that last sentence in a scientific study, and thinking in the context of how to apply the study to their cat, there is every reason to conclude that the researchers conclude that cats need both wet and dry foods.

Well, see that is exactly the problem. That study and most scientific studies aren't meant for consumption by ordinary people. The studies are conducted by scientists and the results are meant to be reviewed and possibly used by other scientists who have some expertise in the area covered by the study and so are able to understand the implications of the study results.

 

[stealthkitty]

... I'm not sure what we're discussing any more...

  Whether or not my opinion on the last sentence of the study is correct? I do believe the statement is true, that offering cats kibble gives them an opportunity to meet their nutritional requirements. I am simply not convinced that they need to be offered kibble, and I have to wonder if that statement isn't biased even just a tiny bit, considering that Watham/Mars is behind it. Color me skeptical. That is all.

And I am not the only one who reached the conclusion that the study implicates that cats should be provided with both types of food. Did you read the CBC News article?

 

[mschauer]

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. 

 

[stealthkitty]

Oops, I meant to say in my last post that, yes, I was wrong to say that the study "concludes that cats should be offered both wet and dry food." Yes, I do agree that that is an inaccurate statement since that is not the conclusion of the study (I should have said that it "concludes by saying..."), and--you are right--nowhere does it say what anyone should do.

  So, there's something else we can both agree on--that that statement was wrong.

 

[ldg]

Well, see that is exactly the problem. That study and most scientific studies aren't meant for consumption by ordinary people. The studies are conducted by scientists and the results are meant to be reviewed and possibly used by other scientists who have some expertise in the area covered by the study and so are able to understand the implications of the study results.

...but then there are news articles written about it, pulling information out of context and writing it incorrectly, so that consumer think the study says they should feed wet and dry.