Here's one for the dog food gurus!

[SCT]

Saw this on another social media and even though it's 13 years old I thought it went along well with what others have posted here. Sometimes through the arguments the quality of the whole program is lost, so being able to copy this explanation makes it easier for me. Note: the Dr. in the interview is an employee of Purina, and a sled dog guy. I've read they don't use huskies as sled dogs much anymore so it shows that it is dated. A good read nonetheless!

http://www.woodhavenlabs.com/documents/ ... rmance.pdf

[ezzy333]

Good article about much of the research that was being done back when I was involved. The Malt dextrin was found to work so well after much of the other work. There was a lot of different ingredients tested but none worked as well as this.

[Spy Car]

Reynolds is important for showing the value of of high-protein high-fat diets. And showing the inadequacy and dangers of feeding high carbohydrate rations to canine athletes.

Unfortunately the industry, and many forum participants, continue to ignore (and deny) the science, which has been corroborated by other studies.

Bill

[SCT]

I wonder where diminishing returns start on the level of fat vs protein?? Why doesn't anyone produce a food that is higher fat than protein like a 25/35 or something? Must be a loss of benefits somewhere along the way. Obviously the stools would be a problem;-)

[Neil]

Bill,

I attended the symposium, and my notes reflect Mike's observations. I think we have tried to represent a layman's understanding of the science, not ignore it.

[AlPastor]

I wonder where diminishing returns start on the level of fat vs protein?? Why doesn't anyone produce a food that is higher fat than protein like a 25/35 or something? Must be a loss of benefits somewhere along the way. Obviously the stools would be a problem;-)

Because once a long term diet gets over 65% of calories from fat, you start worrying about nutrient deficiencies. You want 30% of calories from protein to stave off performance injury. You want a tiny percentage of carbs for gut function.

Remember the guaranteed analysis (30/20, 25/16, 35/25, 38/20, etc) is percentage of weight and 1 gram of protein (or carb) is 4 calories while 1 gram of fat is 9 calories. What Arleigh is talking about is percentage of calories. In other words, it takes 2.25 grams of protein (or carbs) to match the calories in 1 gram of fat.

Imho, Inukshuk 32/32 pushes it right to the edge for a kibble only feed at 64% from fat, 28% from protein, and 8% from carbs.

One last thing, the problem with 13 year old research is that you need to see if they've learned something since then...

http://www.mushing.com/articles/content.php?vw=2,,8,620

[AlPastor]

Bill,

I attended the symposium, and my notes reflect Mike's observations. I think we have tried to represent a layman's understanding of the science, not ignore it.

You have to understand why someone would question if you do understand the science.

Iirc from reading old threads, you're feeding Purina pro plan shredded Lamb and rice?

It is a 26/16 food which is 4064 kcals/kg with 35% from fat, 25% from protein, and 40% from carbs.

Science says 30% or more calories from protein to eliminate performance injuries.... nope.

Science says high fat low carb to maximize vo2max and endurance... nope.

Are you loading it up with a fat and protein source?

[SCT]

I wonder where diminishing returns start on the level of fat vs protein?? Why doesn't anyone produce a food that is higher fat than protein like a 25/35 or something? Must be a loss of benefits somewhere along the way. Obviously the stools would be a problem;-)

Because once a long term diet gets over 65% of calories from fat, you start worrying about nutrient deficiencies. You want 30% of calories from protein to stave off performance injury. You want a tiny percentage of carbs for gut function.

Remember the guaranteed analysis (30/20, 25/16, 35/25, 38/20, etc) is percentage of weight and 1 gram of protein (or carb) is 4 calories while 1 gram of fat is 9 calories. What Arleigh is talking about is percentage of calories. In other words, it takes 2.25 grams of protein (or carbs) to match the calories in 1 gram of fat.

Imho, Inukshuk 32/32 pushes it right to the edge for a kibble only feed at 64% from fat, 28% from protein, and 8% from carbs.

One last thing, the problem with 13 year old research is that you need to see if they've learned something since then...

http://www.mushing.com/articles/content.php?vw=2,,8,620

Thanks, this is a great article. But, it really is talking about the extreme side of running performance. "Sprinting" sled dogs covering 100 miles a day for 4-5 days is extreme. For pointing dogs on a week long trip averaging 35 miles a day would be considered pushing it. And, the statement about sled dogs being able to tolerate amounts of fat that would kill other breeds needs to be explained. Nevertheless, it is some excellent information and worth saving it to my nutrition article list. I didn't know it takes 6 weeks for a dog to get used to a high fat diet and may have been a little more patient with the Inukshuk that I fed a while back;-) Wish a pallet of it had a longer shelf life!!!

[Neil]

Bill,

I attended the symposium, and my notes reflect Mike's observations. I think we have tried to represent a layman's understanding of the science, not ignore it.

You have to understand why someone would question if you do understand the science.

Iirc from reading old threads, you're feeding Purina pro plan shredded Lamb and rice?

It is a 26/16 food which is 4064 kcals/kg with 35% from fat, 25% from protein, and 40% from carbs.

Science says 30% or more calories from protein to eliminate performance injuries.... nope.

Science says high fat low carb to maximize vo2max and endurance... nope.

Are you loading it up with a fat and protein source?

If you read more carefully you would have seen I add 2 tablespoons of used canola oil.

And I have said repeatedly I do not compete against the top dogs.

What are your success levels? Are we going to see you winning at Ames?

[Spy Car]

Thanks, this is a great article. But, it really is talking about the extreme side of running performance. "Sprinting" sled dogs covering 100 miles a day for 4-5 days is extreme. For pointing dogs on a week long trip averaging 35 miles a day would be considered pushing it. And, the statement about sled dogs being able to tolerate amounts of fat that would kill other breeds needs to be explained. Nevertheless, it is some excellent information and worth saving it to my nutrition article list. I didn't know it takes 6 weeks for a dog to get used to a high fat diet and may have been a little more patient with the Inukshuk that I fed a while back;-) Wish a pallet of it had a longer shelf life!!!

It can be a little hard to see on first read (but will be evident if you read the article again) it is only the extreme nature of sled dogs support that offeres any "plausible" (but still speculative) role for any carbohydrates in the diet, and even then the speculation is for a very small role for carbs (like 10% of what is commonly feed i most kibble as a percentage of calories).

It is only when sled dogs are pushed to the point where there is no more oxygen to glean (extraordinary conditions given their aerobic capacities and condition) that there is speculation that small amounts of carbs, which can be metabolized anaerobically "might" help. This is not conclusive, and each instance is qualified with words like "might" or "may."

Feeding carbs just because, when dogs are not running beyond their maximum aerobic capacities, has serious downsides, since insulin (which is produced in response to carbohydrate consumption) disrupts the mechanism of metabolizing fats (which is the best and most optimal fuel source for dogs).

Proteins and fats are only part of the equation for optimal condition, minerals (in the right balance) and vitamins (in a form they are well absorbed) are important too. All these things are easy delivered in a Prey Model Raw diet. We've discussed it before. You would see the results with your own eyes if you gave it a trial.

It is not a subtle difference when one leaves a cereal-based diet behind. Every aspect of canine health improves, from vigor and muscle mass, to the condition of teeth, to coat, and stamina.

Bill

[Neil]

Bill,

Your last sentence suggests you are making a giant leap, I don't know anyone winning with any type of performance dogs that "have left cereal based diet behind", do you? I think you would have to have a refrigerator truck follow you around. You are misleading others by suggesting the only option is to feed raw, it is just not practical if you are going to seriously compete, or hunt away from home.

Hunting or trialing dogs must involve common sense, some compromises.

[AlPastor]

Thanks, this is a great article. But, it really is talking about the extreme side of running performance. "Sprinting" sled dogs covering 100 miles a day for 4-5 days is extreme. For pointing dogs on a week long trip averaging 35 miles a day would be considered pushing it. And, the statement about sled dogs being able to tolerate amounts of fat that would kill other breeds needs to be explained. Nevertheless, it is some excellent information and worth saving it to my nutrition article list. I didn't know it takes 6 weeks for a dog to get used to a high fat diet and may have been a little more patient with the Inukshuk that I fed a while back;-) Wish a pallet of it had a longer shelf life!!!

I think that you might have misread the article slightly. The long distance dogs are pulling 100 miles per day @ 8mph.

The sprinters, while pulling much faster, are going much shorter distances and are either a 1 day, 2 day or 3 day event.

Your typical hunting dog's performance doesn't surpass a mid distance sled dog and they can still function on nothing but high fat high protein.

[Spy Car]

If you read more carefully you would have seen I add 2 tablespoons of used canola oil.

And I have said repeatedly I do not compete against the top dogs.

Neil, I fully respect your experience and wins in Feild trials. Sincerely.

On the matter of optimal nutrition for canine performance athletes the article about Reynolds, and studies and experience since raises some issues with just adding some fat to a high carb ration.

As explained pretty well in the synopsis, when dogs eat carbs they produce an insulin spike, which in turn turns off the fat burning mechanism in favor of a carb burning mechanism. The carb burning mechanizim makes dogs run (literally) hotter (temperature-wise) and the delivery of energy is inefficient compared with fat burning and leads to energy crashes. The post exertion muscle cramps and soreness are evidence of glycogen exhaustion is the muscles. Some will treat the symptom with more of the same (sugar/carbs) rather than looking at the cause, which is burning carbs instead of fat.

Adding 1 or 2 tablespoons of fat does not shift the metabolism of a dog that's fed a cereal-based high-carb diet into a fat burning mode. So said dog can not run at their full potential.

As a more minor point, mushers are very aware of how much waste their dogs carry in their digestive tracts. The ideal is for their to be none at all. When dogs consume a natural diet prmprised largely of meat, fat, bones, oily-fish, connective tissues, and organs, the amount of waste they produce is very small. This sort of nutritional input is very well absorbed. PMR raw fed dogs are not carrying around waste. Kibble-fed dogs produce dramatic amounts of waste. People have gotten somewhat used to it, but the contrast is evident. People have also gotten used to the observable swelling of the abdomens that occurs when kibble-fed dogs eat a meal. One can "see" that they've eaten. With my Vizsla, who has no undercoat to hide anything, one couldn't tell if he's consumed a meal (or not). The density of the nutrients means there is dramatically less output than when meals are loaded with fillers and ingredients that are not bio-available.

Simply adding fat, to a cereal-based diet is not what Reynolds (et al) are advocating.

Bill

[SCT]

Hi Bill, since we talked about it I joined a raw feeders group on FB and watched every post on there. I was surprised at how many weird ailments popped up. Some seemed to be unexplainable. That was strike number one. Strike two came with amount of work, time, expense, and freezer space it took for long term commitment. Sorry, but all considered it is just not something I want to commit to. My dogs are very healthy and I've never experienced the odd health problems some dogs on that forum went through. I feed raw occasionally recently giving my dog deer neck meat and chicken necks. They absolutely love it, but honestly I just don't have the time and freezer space to invest in that commitment. My pointers have beautiful coats, bright eyes, and fantastic endurance when well conditioned. I like to learn about it nonetheless!

Steve

[Spy Car]

If you read more carefully you would have seen I add 2 tablespoons of used canola oil.

And I have said repeatedly I do not compete against the top dogs.

Neil, I fully respect your experience and wins in Feild trials. Sincerely.

On the matter of optimal nutrition for canine performance athletes the article about Reynolds, and studies and experience since raises some issues with just adding some fat to a high carb ration.

As explained pretty well in the synopsis, when dogs eat carbs they produce an insulin spike, which in turn turns off the fat burning mechanism in favor of a carb burning mechanism. The carb burning mechanizim makes dogs run (literally) hotter (temperature-wise) and the delivery of energy is inefficient compared with fat burning and leads to energy crashes. The post exertion muscle cramps and soreness are evidence of glycogen exhaustion is the muscles. Some will treat the symptom with more of the same (sugar/carbs) rather than looking at the cause, which is burning carbs instead of fat.

Adding 1 or 2 tablespoons of fat does not shift the metabolism of a dog that's fed a cereal-based high-carb diet into a fat burning mode. So said dog can not run at their full potential.

As a more minor point, mushers are very aware of how much waste their dogs carry in their digestive tracts. The ideal is for their to be none at all. When dogs consume a natural diet prmprised largely of meat, fat, bones, oily-fish, connective tissues, and organs, the amount of waste they produce is very small. This sort of nutritional input is very well absorbed. PMR raw fed dogs are not carrying around waste. Kibble-fed dogs produce dramatic amounts of waste. People have gotten somewhat used to it, but the contrast is evident. People have also gotten used to the observable swelling of the abdomens that occurs when kibble-fed dogs eat a meal. One can "see" that they've eaten. With my Vizsla, who has no undercoat to hide anything, one couldn't tell if he's consumed a meal (or not). The density of the nutrients means there is dramatically less output than when meals are loaded with fillers and ingredients that are not bio-available.

Simply adding fat, to a cereal-based diet is not what Reynolds (et al) are advocating.

Bill

[SCT]

Thanks, this is a great article. But, it really is talking about the extreme side of running performance. "Sprinting" sled dogs covering 100 miles a day for 4-5 days is extreme. For pointing dogs on a week long trip averaging 35 miles a day would be considered pushing it. And, the statement about sled dogs being able to tolerate amounts of fat that would kill other breeds needs to be explained. Nevertheless, it is some excellent information and worth saving it to my nutrition article list. I didn't know it takes 6 weeks for a dog to get used to a high fat diet and may have been a little more patient with the Inukshuk that I fed a while back;-) Wish a pallet of it had a longer shelf life!!!

I think that you might have misread the article slightly. The long distance dogs are pulling 100 miles per day @ 8mph.

The sprinters, while pulling much faster, are going much shorter distances and are either a 1 day, 2 day or 3 day event.

Your typical hunting dog's performance doesn't surpass a mid distance sled dog and they can still function on nothing but high fat high protein.

Makes more sense. I'll read it again when time allows. The arrival helps explain your calorie breakdown on your other thread. I'll go back and read that as well.

Steve

[Spy Car]

Hi Bill, since we talked about it I joined a raw feeders group on FB and watched every post on there. I was surprised at how many weird ailments popped up. Some seemed to be unexplainable. That was strike number one. Strike two came with amount of work, time, expense, and freezer space it took for long term commitment. Sorry, but all considered it is just not something I want to commit to. My dogs are very healthy and I've never experienced the odd health problems some dogs on that forum went through. I feed raw occasionally recently giving my dog deer neck meat and chicken necks. They absolutely love it, but honestly I just don't have the time and freezer space to invest in that commitment. My pointers have beautiful coats, bright eyes, and fantastic endurance when well conditioned. I like to learn about it nonetheless!

Steve

Hey Steve,

What sort of weird ailments? The raw fed dogs I know are extremely healthy. Realize that people who have problems tend to show up on forums looking for advice, and many have "resorted" to a raw diet because their dogs had some sort of health problem that drove them to seek alternatives. A balanced raw diet doesn't cause ailments.

As to the time and freezer space require to do raw economically, I can't deny that it takes a little work. Not that bad once you get into a routine, but not as easy as pouring kibble out of a bag. That is true. It is not for everyone.

Best wishes moving forward,

Bill

[Neil]

Bill,

What I am doing isn't perfect, not even optimal, but it works after a fashion. The weak link in my program is not nutrition, in fact it is pretty far down the list of limiting factors. Following general incompetence, laziness, time, money, health, dedication, facilities, access to wild birds, etc.

I respect your knowledge, but how do you propose I feed raw when on a ten day hunting trip or a 2 week swing of trials?

[Spy Car]

Bill,

Your last sentence suggests you are making a giant leap, I don't know anyone winning with any type of performance dogs that "have left cereal based diet behind", do you? I think you would have to have a refrigerator truck follow you around. You are misleading others by suggesting the only option is to feed raw, it is just not practical if you are going to seriously compete, or hunt away from home.

Hunting or trialing dogs must involve common sense, some compromises.

Neil, because the nutrients in a PMR diet are so dense it really does not require that much food. At normal levels of activity a PRM fed dog usually eats between 1-2% of body weight (with most people feeding by condition and need rather than a set formula). For a 50 lb dog 2% of body weight is 1 lb. one pound doesn't require a meat truck. If the exertion rates climb dramatically, as with sled dogs, then supplying fresh/frozen ingredients is more tricky (as in feeding multiple dogs).

Raw is not "the only way," but here are no kibble formulas I'm aware of that a free of carbohydrates. It is also a necessity to provide calcium along with meat to keep the critical calcium/phosphorus ratios in balance. Dogs assimilate raw bone (as in chicken) very well. If one eliminates raw, then calcium needs to come from a less optimal source. The vitamins in raw organs (and other raw animal sources) are not damaged by heat, so again, the alternative to raw is less optimal.

Bill

[Spy Car]

Bill,

What I am doing isn't perfect, not even optimal, but it works after a fashion. The weak link in my program is not nutrition, in fact it is pretty far down the list of limiting factors. Following general incompetence, laziness, time, money, health, dedication, facilities, access to wild birds, etc.

I respect your knowledge, but how do you propose I feed raw when on a ten day hunting trip or a 2 week swing of trials?

We all work within limits. Me too. And please don't mention access to wild birds (as we here in California are suffering beyond imagination due to the drought and the crash of native quail populations).

I've said it before, but I believe good training and good genetics is more critical to hunting success than feeding a dog optimally. The best food in the world doesn't turn a badly-bred and badly trained dog into a champion. No question.

But I'm a sincere person, with a modicum of intelligence, and long experience with gundogs. I can see the difference feeding a diverse and balance raw diet makes in condition and stamina. I've have more than a few brick-bats thrown my way for saying so, but the evidence from canine performance studies and the experience of mushers, etc. reinforce the reasoning and physiological science of the thing I'm seeing with my own eyes.

Feeding raw can be a hassle. Steve is right. Not everyone will make that choice (obviously). I'm not aware of another raw feeder on the forum, which surprised me greatly. I do believe there will (eventually) be a shift as people competing look for "the edge." I'm surprised it hasn't happened yet, and wonder if people aren't just keeping it under their hats? Who knows.

As to trips, I take stuff frozen in an ice chest. If I have a fridge/freezer on the other end I unpack. If I'm in "civilization" I can get ingredients at any grocery store. If the situation is going into the wilderness, then best option is to either use foods that are dehydrated at home or to use a commercial freeze dried food like Ziwipeak. Ziwipeak is too expensive for my blood as a regular feed, but in extreme conditions away from refrigeration it works.

Thanks for the conversation Neil.

Bill

[AlPastor]

Bill,

What I am doing isn't perfect, not even optimal, but it works after a fashion. The weak link in my program is not nutrition, in fact it is pretty far down the list of limiting factors. Following general incompetence, laziness, time, money, health, dedication, facilities, access to wild birds, etc.

I respect your knowledge, but how do you propose I feed raw when on a ten day hunting trip or a 2 week swing of trials?

Where are you living during your trials or hunting trips?

Since I use my horse trailer for big game hunting as well and it had living quarters, I already had a chest freezer installed before I started feeding my fat blend and raw sardine balls (I run frozen raw sardines through my meat grinder then make 1 ounce balls and freeze.) so it was an easy task to add to their usual kibble.

[Neil]

it was an easy task to add to their usual kibble.

My point. No one is leaving kibble behind and seriously hunting or trialing.

I travel with 8 - 12 dogs, often off the grid.

[Spy Car]

it was an easy task to add to their usual kibble.

My point. No one is leaving kibble behind and seriously hunting or trialing.

I travel with 8 - 12 dogs, often off the grid.

Feeding 8 to 12 dogs certainly complicates matters from a practicality stand point.

Bill

[AlPastor]

Bill,

I attended the symposium, and my notes reflect Mike's observations. I think we have tried to represent a layman's understanding of the science, not ignore it.

You have to understand why someone would question if you do understand the science.

Iirc from reading old threads, you're feeding Purina pro plan shredded Lamb and rice?

It is a 26/16 food which is 4064 kcals/kg with 35% from fat, 25% from protein, and 40% from carbs.

Science says 30% or more calories from protein to eliminate performance injuries.... nope.

Science says high fat low carb to maximize vo2max and endurance... nope.

Are you loading it up with a fat and protein source?

If you read more carefully you would have seen I add 2 tablespoons of used canola oil.

And I have said repeatedly I do not compete against the top dogs.

What are your success levels? Are we going to see you winning at Ames?

I'm not arguing with you. I'm just trying to figure out why you're ignoring the science from the symposium you attended.

Just an fyi on the caloric breakdown of your kibble plus oil:

1 cup kibble + 2 T canola oil = 61% fat, 16% protein, 23% carb

2 cup kibble + 2 T canola oil = 51%f, 19%p, 30%c

3 cup kibble + 2 T canola oil = 47%f, 21%p, 32%c

4 cup kibble + 2 T canola oil = 44%f, 22%p, 34%c

5 cup kibble + 2 T canola oil = 43%f, 23%p, 34%c

As a reminder, according to Arleigh, during a twelve week training program:

18% calories from protein ---》100% of dogs had soft tissue injury

24% calories from protein ---》 20% of dogs had soft tissue injury

32% calories from protein ---》 0% of dogs had soft tissue injury

[AlPastor]

it was an easy task to add to their usual kibble.

My point. No one is leaving kibble behind and seriously hunting or trialing.

I travel with 8 - 12 dogs, often off the grid.

What are you considering off the grid? No electricity? I run my trailer off a diesel genny.

I take 6 dogs and, if chose too, i could feed raw to that many dogs without problem.

You're looking at roughly 1lb per dog per days so for you a maximum of 12lbs per day or 84lbs a week. My chest freezer fits a few hundred pounds of let's say chicken leg quarters (which fwiu are almost perfectly balanced).

Btw, I get chicken legs quarters for $0.29/lb around here so $2.10 per week per dog or $9 per month per dog.

Ps. I pay $0.79/lb for raw sardines.

[Spy Car]

The incidence of muscle injury when dogs are fed under 30% of calories is pretty compelling.

Since the talk was given by a person on retainer to Purina, to an audience of industry representatives (including ones from Purina) over twenty years ago and has been largely confirmed since, they can't claim unawareness of Renolds" findings.

I don't know how any kibble could include 32% calories from (animal) protein and not contain enough carbs to tun off fat metabolism (which is basically none).

Pro Plan does not come remotely close. But they have nice pictures on the bags, and lavish marketing money on events :roll:

Bill

[SCT]

Hi Bill, since we talked about it I joined a raw feeders group on FB and watched every post on there. I was surprised at how many weird ailments popped up. Some seemed to be unexplainable. That was strike number one. Strike two came with amount of work, time, expense, and freezer space it took for long term commitment. Sorry, but all considered it is just not something I want to commit to. My dogs are very healthy and I've never experienced the odd health problems some dogs on that forum went through. I feed raw occasionally recently giving my dog deer neck meat and chicken necks. They absolutely love it, but honestly I just don't have the time and freezer space to invest in that commitment. My pointers have beautiful coats, bright eyes, and fantastic endurance when well conditioned. I like to learn about it nonetheless!

Steve

Hey Steve,

What sort of weird ailments? The raw fed dogs I know are extremely healthy. Realize that people who have problems tend to show up on forums looking for advice, and many have "resorted" to a raw diet because their dogs had some sort of health problem that drove them to seek alternatives. A balanced raw diet doesn't cause ailments.

As to the time and freezer space require to do raw economically, I can't deny that it takes a little work. Not that bad once you get into a routine, but not as easy as pouring kibble out of a bag. That is true. It is not for everyone.

Best wishes moving forward,

Bill

Bill, I think you are right in that some (if not all) of those folks were having health problems with their dogs and was why they were on that board. I believe that a balanced raw diet may be ideal, but it just isn't something I can commit my time and energy to. If I saw a lack of endurance or reasons to do it, I'd further consider it. But, my pointers are very healthy and happy as could be so for now I'm good.

Best,

Steve

[Brazosvalleyvizslas]

I don't know of 1 Pro, Judge or serious Trialer that feeds a raw diet. I would bet they would if there was an advantage. PPP has fueled more FC's and although I use something else, you cant argue with success.

[Spy Car]

Bill, I think you are right in that some (if not all) of those folks were having health problems with their dogs and was why they were on that board. I believe that a balanced raw diet may be ideal, but it just isn't something I can commit my time and energy to. If I saw a lack of endurance or reasons to do it, I'd further consider it. But, my pointers are very healthy and happy as could be so for now I'm good.

Best,

Steve

One of many fine things about Pointers it they don't often lack endurance.

Best back at you,

Bill

[AlPastor]

I don't know of 1 Pro, Judge or serious Trialer that feeds a raw diet. I would bet they would if there was an advantage. PPP has fueled more FC's and although I use something else, you cant argue with success.

Well if you look at the recent GSP nationals, we can go down the list of placements and I'll tell you who publicly feeds what food.

You'd be shocked how many aren't feeding Purina Pro Plan. In fact, the most winning feed there was Pro Pac Performance 30/20 (aka Triple P). Iirc, it is 36% fat calories, 24% protein calories, and 40% carb calories.

Which kind of makes sense in a weird way because if you aren't going to go high fat high protein, you might as well Carbo load and hope that the increased glycogen stores survives the increased glycogen burn rate.

[Brazosvalleyvizslas]

I don't know of 1 Pro, Judge or serious Trialer that feeds a raw diet. I would bet they would if there was an advantage. PPP has fueled more FC's and although I use something else, you cant argue with success.

Well if you look at the recent GSP nationals, we can go down the list of placements and I'll tell you who publicly feeds what food.

You'd be shocked how many aren't feeding Purina Pro Plan. In fact, the most winning feed there was Pro Pac Performance 30/20 (aka Triple P). Iirc, it is 36% fat calories, 24% protein calories, and 40% carb calories.

Which kind of makes sense in a weird way because if you aren't going to go high fat high protein, you might as well Carbo load and hope that the increased glycogen stores survives the increased glycogen burn rate.

I said RAW, not which kibble is best. I also don't care about 1 breeds Nationals. Read much?

[shags]

Sorry but the shorthairs aren't the be all end all. I'm more interested in what the pointer setter guys feed. Most I know feed PPP.

[SCT]

Sorry but the shorthairs aren't the be all end all. I'm more interested in what the pointer setter guys feed. Most I know feed PPP.

True!

[Neil]

Please do not forget most of the money spent on canine nutrition reseach comes from Purina, and they are by far the leading sponsor of field trials. Iams was doing some, but they capitulated the performance, pointing dog market.

I know most of the pros that run at Ames reward the Purina contribution, I have watched them open the bags.

[AlPastor]

I don't know of 1 Pro, Judge or serious Trialer that feeds a raw diet. I would bet they would if there was an advantage. PPP has fueled more FC's and although I use something else, you cant argue with success.

I said RAW, not which kibble is best. I also don't care about 1 breeds Nationals. Read much?

You're the one that mentioned pro plan, not me. You're the one that mentioned it's success (nevermind that any dog that's ever won a bag is considered a pro plan dog by purina), not me.

So unfortunately, I did read your post. Maybe you should learn to write with focus.

[AlPastor]

Please do not forget most of the money spent on canine nutrition reseach comes from Purina, and they are by far the leading sponsor of field trials. Iams was doing some, but they capitulated the performance, pointing dog market.

I know most of the pros that run at Ames reward the Purina contribution, I have watched them open the bags.

Yikes, are you really claiming that a pro, running at the national level, would consider which manufacturer sponsors field trials when selecting a feed?

If you could please share their names, even privately, I'd love to know who to avoid ever campaigning one of my dogs.

Ps. Your assertion is completely contridicts your previous position that pros at Ames will feed whatever it takes to gain an advantage.

[ezzy333]

There was no contradiction unless you have already proven dogs eating some other feed do better in trials and I don't think that has or will happen except possibly in your mind..

Ezzy

[AlPastor]

There was no contradiction unless you have already proven dogs eating some other feed do better in trials and I don't think that has or will happen except possibly in your mind..

Ezzy

Words have meanings so there is a contradiction.

He said that he knows pros that "reward purina" for their sponsorship of field trials.

So either he misspoke and that isn't the case or they take sponsorship into consideration and it effects their decision making process when selecting a feed.

There is no both ways on this one. Either it is a factor or it isnt.

[ezzy333]

I am going to suggest that you decide if you want to be the judge, the jury, the prosecutor, or maybe just sit in the gallery but You can't be all of them. It isn't up to you to decide what someone else says or means, as you are only responsible for your opinion, same as the rest of us and it may seem strange to you but everyone else's counts just as much as yours.

Ezzy

[slistoe]

So either he misspoke and that isn't the case or they take sponsorship into consideration and it effects their decision making process when selecting a feed.

There is no both ways on this one. Either it is a factor or it isnt.

Given that there are only so many different ways to mix up a bag of feed, and once you have a dog that is capable of getting the job done it really matters little what color of bag that mix comes from. So why not buy the color of bag that will give back?

Unless you have some real life proof that there is a significant performance advantage to some other kibble or feed program? Right now all I am seeing is a thought exercise.

[AlPastor]

I am going to suggest that you decide if you want to be the judge, the jury, the prosecutor, or maybe just sit in the gallery but You can't be all of them. It isn't up to you to decide what someone else says or means, as you are only responsible for your opinion, same as the rest of us and it may seem strange to you but everyone else's counts just as much as yours.

Ezzy

I'm none of the above but I'll just end it with this... words have definitions so people can derive meaning from what people write. The guy is a writer.

You're correct in one thing. Everyone is entitled to their opinion but it doesn't mean that their opinion is free from discussion or criticism. All opinions aren't correct, important, or of value.

[AlPastor]

So either he misspoke and that isn't the case or they take sponsorship into consideration and it effects their decision making process when selecting a feed.

There is no both ways on this one. Either it is a factor or it isnt.

Given that there are only so many different ways to mix up a bag of feed, and once you have a dog that is capable of getting the job done it really matters little what color of bag that mix comes from. So why not buy the color of bag that will give back?

Unless you have some real life proof that there is a significant performance advantage to some other kibble or feed program? Right now all I am seeing is a thought exercise.

While I agree that most of the feeds are the same basic stuff in different bags, scientific studies are hardly a thought exercises. They are the product of testing against a control group. There is nothing that is more real proof.

[slistoe]

While I agree that most of the feeds are the same basic stuff in different bags, scientific studies are hardly a thought exercises. They are the product of testing against a control group. There is nothing that is more real proof.

So, you have a scientific study showing that if you feed your hunting dog like a sled dog it will work harder, faster and longer than it did before while finding more birds? Do you have some evidence where top level competition dogs are being fed like sled dogs are and as a result are consistently outperforming the competition by working harder, faster and finishing stronger than the competition while finding more birds? If you don't, then you are engaging in a thought exercise.

[Spy Car]

While I agree that most of the feeds are the same basic stuff in different bags, scientific studies are hardly a thought exercises. They are the product of testing against a control group. There is nothing that is more real proof.

So, you have a scientific study showing that if you feed your hunting dog like a sled dog it will work harder, faster and longer than it did before while finding more birds? Do you have some evidence where top level competition dogs are being fed like sled dogs are and as a result are consistently outperforming the competition by working harder, faster and finishing stronger than the competition while finding more birds? If you don't, then you are engaging in a thought exercise.

Sure, easily done. To save my time I'm cutting and pasting from an earlier thread:


Here is a link to an article on a scientific study on the effects of diet on performance in Field Trial dogs by the study's authors Martin Coffman D.V.M. & Eric Altom Ph.D.

In the study they compared high-carbohydrate kibble diets with low-carbohydrate higher fat and protein kibble diets in Field Trial performance. This study did not involve raw foods, but directly focused on the issue of carbohydrates in a sporing dog diet:

http://www.theretrievernews.com/uploads ... rmance.pdf

Key points:

The differences in hunting performance were remarkable. Dogs fed the performance diet did maintain their body weight and overall condition better than the dogs on the standard diet.

Dogs fed the performance food also demonstrated superior hunting ability, compared with the dogs fed the maintenance food.

In addition, this study documented that dogs fed the higher fat levels performed better even on hot and humid days!

As shown in this study, improved nutrition can actually result in better hunting performance. This could be due to higher-quality ingredients, the higher fat level, improved digestibility, or other nutritional factors.

Stamina and energy become the key factors. In this study, higher-quality nutrition resulted in finding more birds, an accomplishment we all appreciate regardless of breed or sport.

So, how does this research pertain to the field trial retriever? Optimal nutrition has common consequences in all canine athletes. From sled dogs to racing Greyhounds to field trial retrievers, dogs can benefit from nutritional research. One example is research on the value of protein2. Dogs in intense training were fed foods with protein levels varying from 16% to 40%. Dogs fed the lower-protein foods (16% and 24%) had injuries during training and all of the dogs on the 16%-protein food were removed from training due to injuries. Dogs fed 32% and 40% protein had no injuries during the training process. An important goal of canine nutritionists is to provide the performance dog with a food that supplies sufficient calories from other sources to allow minimal protein usage for caloric needs. This spares the protein for tissue repair, hormone production, and the other crucial functions of protein.

The best source of these calories is fat. Either carbohydrates or fat usually provides most of the energy in dog food. It has been known for many years that high-carbohydrate foods can cause stiff gait in endurance dogs. 3 Further research documented the value of fat as an energy source.2 The VO2 Max* of highly conditioned dogs was recorded. Subsequently, the VO2 Max of ordinary dogs on low-fat diets was compared to their VO2 Max on high-fat diets. The levels of VO2 Max for the ordinary dogs placed on a high-fat diet equalled that of the highly conditioned dogs. These findings suggest that diet may play a critical role in endurance, and specifically that feeding high levels of dietary fat may increase VO2 Max and the maximal rate of fat use for energy. For the field trial retriever and other field dogs, this could result in better endurance and greater performance in competitive events.

Not only does the level of fat effect performance, but the source of the fat is also important. Fat is composed of different types of fatty acids which are characterized by their chemical structure. Terms like omega-6 and omega-3 are used by chemists and nutritionists to identify two important types of fatty acids. During inflammatory processes, these fatty acids produce “eicosanoids” [eye-ko-san-oid]. The eicosanoids from omega-6 and omega-3 fatty acids result in markedly different levels of inflammatory response in body tissues. For example, the eicosanoids produced from omega-6 fatty acids can be more inflammatory and immunosuppressive than those produced by omega-3 fatty acids. Research conducted by Iams Company scientists has documented the value of a specific range of ratios of these fatty acids in the diet.4 For optimal conditions, a ratio of between 5:1 and 10:1 (omega-6 to omega-3 fatty acids) is recommended.

Field trial retrievers represent one of the most competitive and highly conditioned groups of dogs known. Modern training methods have allowed dogs to continue impressive feats during field trials and to persist in pushing the performance envelope. The dogs running today are not the same as those who ran in the fifties and sixties. Modern all-age field trials allow dogs to perform retrieves only dreamed of twenty years ago. The nutritional needs of these dogs have likewise escalated and owners, breeders, and trainers can utilize modern, researched diets to enhance their charges' performance in field trials.

When discussing science, fact-based studies that rely on data, the scientific method, and blind studies are the gold standard.

Bill

[AlPastor]

While I agree that most of the feeds are the same basic stuff in different bags, scientific studies are hardly a thought exercises. They are the product of testing against a control group. There is nothing that is more real proof.

So, you have a scientific study showing that if you feed your hunting dog like a sled dog it will work harder, faster and longer than it did before while finding more birds? Do you have some evidence where top level competition dogs are being fed like sled dogs are and as a result are consistently outperforming the competition by working harder, faster and finishing stronger than the competition while finding more birds? If you don't, then you are engaging in a thought exercise.

Sure, easily done. To save my time I'm cutting and pasting from an earlier thread:


Here is a link to an article on a scientific study on the effects of diet on performance in Field Trial dogs by the study's authors Martin Coffman D.V.M. & Eric Altom Ph.D.

In the study they compared high-carbohydrate kibble diets with low-carbohydrate higher fat and protein kibble diets in Field Trial performance. This study did not involve raw foods, but directly focused on the issue of carbohydrates in a sporing dog diet:

http://www.theretrievernews.com/Library ... rialPerfor

Key points:

The differences in hunting performance were remarkable. Dogs fed the performance diet did maintain their body weight and overall condition better than the dogs on the standard diet.

Dogs fed the performance food also demonstrated superior hunting ability, compared with the dogs fed the maintenance food.

In addition, this study documented that dogs fed the higher fat levels performed better even on hot and humid days!

As shown in this study, improved nutrition can actually result in better hunting performance. This could be due to higher-quality ingredients, the higher fat level, improved digestibility, or other nutritional factors.

Stamina and energy become the key factors. In this study, higher-quality nutrition resulted in finding more birds, an accomplishment we all appreciate regardless of breed or sport.

So, how does this research pertain to the field trial retriever? Optimal nutrition has common consequences in all canine athletes. From sled dogs to racing Greyhounds to field trial retrievers, dogs can benefit from nutritional research. One example is research on the value of protein2. Dogs in intense training were fed foods with protein levels varying from 16% to 40%. Dogs fed the lower-protein foods (16% and 24%) had injuries during training and all of the dogs on the 16%-protein food were removed from training due to injuries. Dogs fed 32% and 40% protein had no injuries during the training process. An important goal of canine nutritionists is to provide the performance dog with a food that supplies sufficient calories from other sources to allow minimal protein usage for caloric needs. This spares the protein for tissue repair, hormone production, and the other crucial functions of protein.

The best source of these calories is fat. Either carbohydrates or fat usually provides most of the energy in dog food. It has been known for many years that high-carbohydrate foods can cause stiff gait in endurance dogs. 3 Further research documented the value of fat as an energy source.2 The VO2 Max* of highly conditioned dogs was recorded. Subsequently, the VO2 Max of ordinary dogs on low-fat diets was compared to their VO2 Max on high-fat diets. The levels of VO2 Max for the ordinary dogs placed on a high-fat diet equalled that of the highly conditioned dogs. These findings suggest that diet may play a critical role in endurance, and specifically that feeding high levels of dietary fat may increase VO2 Max and the maximal rate of fat use for energy. For the field trial retriever and other field dogs, this could result in better endurance and greater performance in competitive events.

Not only does the level of fat effect performance, but the source of the fat is also important. Fat is composed of different types of fatty acids which are characterized by their chemical structure. Terms like omega-6 and omega-3 are used by chemists and nutritionists to identify two important types of fatty acids. During inflammatory processes, these fatty acids produce “eicosanoids” [eye-ko-san-oid]. The eicosanoids from omega-6 and omega-3 fatty acids result in markedly different levels of inflammatory response in body tissues. For example, the eicosanoids produced from omega-6 fatty acids can be more inflammatory and immunosuppressive than those produced by omega-3 fatty acids. Research conducted by Iams Company scientists has documented the value of a specific range of ratios of these fatty acids in the diet.4 For optimal conditions, a ratio of between 5:1 and 10:1 (omega-6 to omega-3 fatty acids) is recommended.

Field trial retrievers represent one of the most competitive and highly conditioned groups of dogs known. Modern training methods have allowed dogs to continue impressive feats during field trials and to persist in pushing the performance envelope. The dogs running today are not the same as those who ran in the fifties and sixties. Modern all-age field trials allow dogs to perform retrieves only dreamed of twenty years ago. The nutritional needs of these dogs have likewise escalated and owners, breeders, and trainers can utilize modern, researched diets to enhance their charges' performance in field trials.

When discussing science, fact-based studies that rely on data, the scientific method, and blind studies are the gold standard.

Bill

Thanks bill BTW the link is broken

[shags]

Field trial retrievers represent one of the most competitive and highly conditioned groups of dogs known. Modern training methods have allowed dogs to continue impressive feats during field trials and to persist in pushing the performance envelope. The dogs running today are not the same as those who ran in the fifties and sixties. Modern all-age field trials allow dogs to perform retrieves only dreamed of twenty years ago. The nutritional needs of these dogs have likewise escalated and owners, breeders, and trainers can utilize modern, researched diets to enhance their charges' performance in field trials.

Do you have numbers to back up the first sentence? Can any FT retriever guys jump in and give examples of how much work these dogs do in a stake? I don't know anything about them except for a few trials I've seen on TV - and if those are anything like the Pointy dog TV show examples the retrievers were sorely misrepresented. The ones I saw, the dogs are directed to run out maybe 100 yards, pick up the bird or dummy, return with it, go to another one etc for three total. Is that the extent of it, or is there more to it? I'm curious about their work compared to that of a top AA pointer or setter running in an hour stake. Not taking away from those retriever dogs, their training and intelligence has to be top notch, but would like to compare similar performance requirements pertaining to feeds. Thanks.

[SCT]

Field trial retrievers represent one of the most competitive and highly conditioned groups of dogs known. Modern training methods have allowed dogs to continue impressive feats during field trials and to persist in pushing the performance envelope. The dogs running today are not the same as those who ran in the fifties and sixties. Modern all-age field trials allow dogs to perform retrieves only dreamed of twenty years ago. The nutritional needs of these dogs have likewise escalated and owners, breeders, and trainers can utilize modern, researched diets to enhance their charges' performance in field trials.

Do you have numbers to back up the first sentence? Can any FT retriever guys jump in and give examples of how much work these dogs do in a stake? I don't know anything about them except for a few trials I've seen on TV - and if those are anything like the Pointy dog TV show examples the retrievers were sorely misrepresented. The ones I saw, the dogs are directed to run out maybe 100 yards, pick up the bird or dummy, return with it, go to another one etc for three total. Is that the extent of it, or is there more to it? I'm curious about their work compared to that of a top AA pointer or setter running in an hour stake. Not taking away from those retriever dogs, their training and intelligence has to be top notch, but would like to compare similar performance requirements pertaining to feeds. Thanks.

Also remember, these pointy dog trials Shags is talking about are run by horseback handlers. The pace is quite impressive, as is the dogs athleticism. I would bet they fit in somewhere between a sprinting greyhound and a long distant sled dog as far as their athleticism goes.

Bill, thanks for explaining the jest of the study. I would like to save it if you can get the link to work!

Steve

[slistoe]

Great study - it showed that the use of modern "performance" kibble diets greatly enhances performance in field trial retrievers. So... anything new?? Iams also did that study with pointing dogs and found an increase in Stamina and bird finding performance. You have been trying to make an argument that modern kibble diets are bad for the dogs, then use a study proving their performance advantages as proof of your concept? Sled dogs don't eat what was used in that study when on the trail. Where is the evidence that if we feed our competitive pointing dogs like they do the working sled dogs that we will see increased performance from them.

[slistoe]

Field trial retrievers represent one of the most competitive and highly conditioned groups of dogs known. Modern training methods have allowed dogs to continue impressive feats during field trials and to persist in pushing the performance envelope. The dogs running today are not the same as those who ran in the fifties and sixties. Modern all-age field trials allow dogs to perform retrieves only dreamed of twenty years ago. The nutritional needs of these dogs have likewise escalated and owners, breeders, and trainers can utilize modern, researched diets to enhance their charges' performance in field trials.

Do you have numbers to back up the first sentence? Can any FT retriever guys jump in and give examples of how much work these dogs do in a stake? I don't know anything about them except for a few trials I've seen on TV - and if those are anything like the Pointy dog TV show examples the retrievers were sorely misrepresented. The ones I saw, the dogs are directed to run out maybe 100 yards, pick up the bird or dummy, return with it, go to another one etc for three total. Is that the extent of it, or is there more to it? I'm curious about their work compared to that of a top AA pointer or setter running in an hour stake. Not taking away from those retriever dogs, their training and intelligence has to be top notch, but would like to compare similar performance requirements pertaining to feeds. Thanks.

The top field trial retrievers are great athletes in their own right. If you want to win at a National level your dog will need to run/swim all out for 2000+ yards, half of it with a 4 lb. bird in its mouth. Took the dogs nearly 1/2 hour to complete. This was on the seventh consecutive day of testing.
Impressive work, but nowhere near the requirement of an hour Championship, let alone any of the extended format trials IMO.

[Spy Car]

Steve and Al Pastor,

Here is a link to a PDF of Coffman's article:

http://www.theretrievernews.com/uploads ... rmance.pdf

Sorry about the earlier broken link, I'll replace it in my previous post with this link.

Bill