A real study on raw vs cooked diets!

[oakshimmer]

Okay so it's an old study but a study nonetheless. The study was done between 1932-1942 so a nice long 10 year study was involved. Unfortunately the study was started after some other experimentation was conducted that later resulted in this actual study.

The link I am providing is a book review, but you can read a little about the study, you can buy the book about the real study though. So here you are!

( It is a pdf file, just to let you all know.)

http://www.ectownusa.net/mineralcountynevada/docs/Potenger's Cats book review.pdf

What do you think?

Aside of the animal experimentation that was not covered in the article, I found this study to be quite interesting!

 

[mschauer]

The Pottenger study is frequently cited as "proof" of the superiority of a raw diet for cats. It's been a long time since I read it but when I did first read it I remember thinking it provided a lot more questions than answers. I'll have to read it again to refresh my memory.

Edit - I just read the book review. I think mostly what the study proved is that cooking can destroy some nutrients. That wasn't known before the study  and is relevant to both human and feline nutrition. 

 

[ldg]

Edit - I just read the book review. I think mostly what the study proved is that cooking can destroy some nutrients. That wasn't known before the study  and is relevant to both human and feline nutrition. 

From that perspective, it's an important study. :nod:

But from a "raw is better than cooked," its meaningless, IMO, because the importance of taurine as an essential amino acid for cats was not known, and the cooked food cats did not receive a taurine supplement.

 

[auntie crazy]

I have the full study and while diseases that we know - today - are associated with taurine deficiency were, indeed, identified in the cats fed the cooked diet, they were far from the only ones. The cats on the cooked foods suffered from a wide range of health issues from simple failure to thrive to genetic mutations and were, after the third generation, incapable of reproducing at all.

The problem with using this study to prove anything vis a vis the raw/cooked diet is that it doesn't meet current scientific study protocols. The fact that many of the diseases identified in the study afflict our cats today is deemed irrelevant.

Of course, evolution is deemed irrelevant by many, as well, when it should be the very first bit of evidence we look to.

AC

 

[ldg]

I don't have a full copy of the study, but infertility is a symptom of taurine deficiency; kittens born to taurine deficient moms will likely be infertile, so it's not at all surprising that the cats in the third generation were infertile.

 

[oakshimmer]

I see, well I suppose that our knowledge about cat's nutritional requirements have come along way since that time. It is interesting though to read that the ones that were eating raw seemed to have positive results and less health issues.

I guess it can't be argued if raw is better than cooked based on the fact that the cats fed the cooked in this study were taurine deficient, but at least we can see that someone did note in a study that raw feeding did in fact have good results.

I wish someone would do another study to see if that guy was onto something. Of course making sure that the nutritional needs in both diets were being provided. You never know though right??
 

 

[ldg]

I see, well I suppose that our knowledge about cat's nutritional requirements have come along way since that time. It is interesting though to read that the ones that were eating raw seemed to have positive results and less health issues.

I guess it can't be argued if raw is better than cooked based on the fact that the cats fed the cooked in this study were taurine deficient, but at least we can see that someone did note in a study that raw feeding did in fact have good results.

I wish someone would do another study to see if that guy was onto something. Of course making sure that the nutritional needs in both diets were being provided. You never know though right??

 

There is, though the final study hasn't been published yet. It was a very short trial though - 10 weeks (the same as an AAFCO feeding trial), only meant to determine nutritional adequacy for growth, and it was established that raw meets a kitty's growth needs. http://www.thecatsite.com/t/247098/raw-food-diets-for-kittens-winn-feline-foundation

 

[auntie crazy]

I don't have a full copy of the study, but infertility is a symptom of taurine deficiency; kittens born to taurine deficient moms will likely be infertile, so it's not at all surprising that the cats in the third generation were infertile.

Cooking meats depletes those foods of nutrients both known and unknown, not just taurine. That's a fact. Heck, simply grinding or rinsing meats depletes them of multiple nutrients - and not just taurine. In fact, I've a list around here of a dozen or so nutrients that are degraded by exposure to air, light and water, in addition to grinding and cooking.

That one particular amino acid is so well studied - and so "high-profile" - it's often perceived and addressed as if it's the only nutrient that's important. How many folks know, for instance, that there are actually another ten amino acids that are considered by science to be just as essential to the cat as taurine? Ten!

And even the National Research Council admits we have barely begun to identify what nutrients, in what combinations, are utilized by the cat for basic physiological functions. Who know how many unknown nutrients and nutrient combos with important and essential functions remain to be discovered?

It's the big picture that's important, not just the few little pieces we happen to recognize, and nutrients aren't packaged or digested in a vacuum; they occur in natural combinations that effect the body in correlation to those combinations. (Of course, we've had this "wholistic view" versus "individual measurements" discussion on multiple occasions.

)

The Pottenger study results can't be dismissed out of hand simply because some of the results can be explained by the since-discovered results of a single nutrient's deficiency. Especially when the lack of that one nutrient doesn't even come close to explaining away all of the diseases suffered by the cats eating the cooked diet.

AC

 

[ldg]

Cooking meats depletes those foods of nutrients both known and unknown, not just taurine. That's a fact. Heck, simply grinding or rinsing meats depletes them of multiple nutrients - and not just taurine. In fact, I've a list around here of a dozen or so nutrients that are degraded by exposure to air, light and water, in addition to grinding and cooking.

.

And the Pottinger study discovered this, no one is disputing that. :dk:
.

That one particular amino acid is so well studied - and so "high-profile" - it's often perceived and addressed as if it's the only nutrient that's important. How many folks know, for instance, that there are actually another ten amino acids that are considered by science to be just as essential to the cat as taurine? Ten!

.

According to Dr. Becker, it's 22, only 11 of which cats can synthesize: http://healthypets.mercola.com/site...you-could-destroy-their-kidney-and-liver.aspx
.

And even the National Research Council admits we have barely begun to identify what nutrients, in what combinations, are utilized by the cat for basic physiological functions. Who know how many unknown nutrients and nutrient combos with important and essential functions remain to be discovered?

It's the big picture that's important, not just the few little pieces we happen to recognize, and nutrients aren't packaged or digested in a vacuum; they occur in natural combinations that effect the body in correlation to those combinations. (Of course, we've had this "wholistic view" versus "individual measurements" discussion on multiple occasions. :lol3: )

.

I certainly don't disagree. But what this has to do with the Pottinger study being "a real study" on raw being better than cooked, I'm not sure. :dk: It's the quality of the study, the lack of knowledge about minimum needed nutrients, etc. that, IMO, is the problem as re: the raw vs cooked argument - as it relates to this specific study.
.

The Pottenger study results can't be dismissed out of hand simply because some of the results can be explained by the since-discovered results of a single nutrient's deficiency.

,

But no one's dismissing it. ???

The Pottenger study is frequently cited as "proof" of the superiority of a raw diet for cats. It's been a long time since I read it but when I did first read it I remember thinking it provided a lot more questions than answers. I'll have to read it again to refresh my memory.

Edit - I just read the book review. I think mostly what the study proved is that cooking can destroy some nutrients. That wasn't known before the study and is relevant to both human and feline nutrition.

From that perspective, it's an important study. :nod:

But from a "raw is better than cooked," its meaningless, IMO, because the importance of taurine as an essential amino acid for cats was not known, and the cooked food cats did not receive a taurine supplement.

Perhaps I should have included a list of other amino acids and vitamins that should have been added.... even the NRC and AAFCO would not recommend feeding an unsupplemented cooked diet. :lol3:
.

Especially when the lack of that one nutrient doesn't even come close to explaining away all of the diseases suffered by the cats eating the cooked diet.

AC

.

Like I said, I don't have a copy of the whole study, and I'm sure you're correct. But in the end, it isn't just a lack of one nutrient that's at issue, it's just the easy one to point to.

Ultimately, I agree - the bigger picture is the issue, and Pottinger established that cooking affects nutritional content. But the topic of the thread was specifically the study as re: raw vs cooked, and IMO, the study doesn't "prove" that raw is better than cooked. It proves that cooking degrades the nutritional value of the food, so unsupplemented cooked will not sustain healthy cats.

 

[auntie crazy]

That one particular amino acid is so well studied - and so "high-profile" - it's often perceived and addressed as if it's the only nutrient that's important. How many folks know, for instance, that there are actually another ten amino acids that are considered by science to be just as essential to the cat as taurine? Ten!

According to Dr. Becker, it's 22, only 11 of which cats can synthesize: http://healthypets.mercola.com/site...you-could-destroy-their-kidney-and-liver.aspx

There are 22 amino acids in all, 11 that cats can make in their own bodies, and 11 "essential" amino acids that they cannot, including taurine.

"Dogs can synthesize (make) 12 of those 22; cats can synthesize 11 of them. The remaining amino acids must come from the food they eat, which is why they’re called ‘essential’ amino acids."

Especially when the lack of that one nutrient doesn't even come close to explaining away all of the diseases suffered by the cats eating the cooked diet.

AC

....

Ultimately, I agree - the bigger picture is the issue, and Pottinger established that cooking affects nutritional content. But the topic of the thread was specifically the study as re: raw vs cooked, and IMO, the study doesn't "prove" that raw is better than cooked. It proves that cooking degrades the nutritional value of the food, so unsupplemented cooked will not sustain healthy cats.

The Pottenger study started out thinking a cooked diet was a perfectly healthy diet. It wasn't until their cooked food supplies ran low and they started feeding raw foods - and had their noses rubbed into the amazing improvements in strength, personality, vitality and overall health of those cats in comparison to what they considered healthy - that they began to realize how unhealthy the cooked diet they'd been feeding for so long really was.

Kinda like the difference so many of us have seen when we switch our own kitties from cooked commercial to raw.

AC