Scientific studies into wet v dry food?

[sharky]

Originally Posted by whuckleberry

Environmental factors are another problem, plus the problem that it would be a very LONG study, because we're concerned about health issues over a lifetime. Kidney disease, for example, might not happen until the cat's senior years. The feeding tests done by pet food companies last only a few months (I think?). They would have to keep cats sequestered for many years

for a long-term diet study.

I could maybe see an epidemiologic study, interviewing owners and collecting data from vet hospitals?

that would be a great job ... where do I apply

feeding trials are 6 months ... UTI certification 18-24 months ... but most repeat feeding trials yrly

 

[yosemite]

In my aged wisdom, I think common sense can give us as much info as some studies. I think about all the human food hysteria and "studies" that tell us dumb things like "butter is not as good as margarine" (oops, they now tell us it is better for us and I understand there is only one molecule of difference between margarine and plastic so I'll take the butter), and the list goes on. Studies IMO can be tailored and twisted to get the results that the organizations doing the studies want - that doesn't necessarily mean it's the truth.

I think humans should try to eat more of a natural diet, less processed foods and additives and I think cats need wet food to supplement their lack of water intake more than they need dried "cereal".

 

[urbantigers]

Originally Posted by Yosemite

In my aged wisdom, I think common sense can give us as much info as some studies.

I agree. I'm a researcher by trade (social research) and for a while I was very much into quantitative research and was wary of anything other than hard facts and results that were statistically significant. Over time, and having read a few articles and papers on the subject, I came to realise that that is not the only valid form of research, and that there are instances where that kind of research is impossible or impractical, and that other sources of information, including anecdotal evidence, should not automatically be discounted.

Much as I'd like to see it, I can't imagine a long term study into dry v wet taking place. To get large enough samples and to follow those individuals throughout their lives to find out what diseases they succumbed to, how long they lived etc would be a huge undertaking and would rely on a high degree of co-operation by owners. Doing such a study in a research environment would be difficult, and ethically dubious. I, myself, am actually partaking of a similar study into human health where the researchers have access to my medical records and will follow my health for at least 20 years, but the cost involved in such a study must be huge. Who would finance such a study involving cats?

 

[whuckleberry]

Originally Posted by urbantigers

I'm currently having email communication with someone from a cat rescue whose website claims that cats should be switched from wet food to dry food (they actually claim that wet food does not contain enough protein! I've explained about dry matter analysis). I included a few links re nutrition, but this person is very sceptical and was rather offended that I dared to criticise (I thought I'd been nice about it!) and said that they wouldn't believe me unless I could come up with scientific proof.

Tying "common sense" in with the original post: Would the person you're arguing with even believe a "scientific" study when they can't (or refuse to) grasp the concept of dry matter analysis?

 

[mschauer]

Originally Posted by urbantigers

Doing such a study in a research environment would be difficult, and ethically dubious. I, myself, am actually partaking of a similar study into human health where the researchers have access to my medical records and will follow my health for at least 20 years, but the cost involved in such a study must be huge. Who would finance such a study involving cats?

Wouldn't that be right up the alley of university professors?? Isn't that part of what they do, research that is? My vague understanding of how universities operate is that professors are *required* to do a certain amount of research. They obtain grants to cover the costs. And no, the grants would not have to come from food manufacturers. I have seen the results of veterinary school professors studies on other topics posted on the web. I know they do even long term studies.

BTW - Has the OP given up on getting a useful answer?