How to cut back on fat?

[ldg]

I wonder how she's losing weight without being fed less calories? :dk: The only way I managed it with Billy (on an all raw diet) was dramatically altering the amounts fed at each meal, and averaging the amount he ate over a 3-5 day period.

Interesting. :nod:

 

[otto]

Less fat, Laurie. The Tiki is significantly lower in fat that the By Nature Organic (12 % DMB vs 27 %) The calories are almost identical, 30.3 calories per ounce for the Tiki, 30 calories per ounce for the By Nature. I'm no nutritional expert, but it seems clear to me that, in this case, the difference is in the fat.

Plus, of course the change in scale increments, from lowest .05 to lowest .01 may have made a difference. Queen Eva has not lost with that change, though Mazy did lose a little.

 

[mschauer]

Less fat, Laurie. The Tiki is significantly lower in fat that the By Nature Organic (12 % DMB vs 27 %) The calories are almost identical, 30.3 calories per ounce for the Tiki, 30 calories per ounce for the By Nature. I'm no nutritional expert, but it seems clear to me that, in this case, the difference is in the fat.

Plus, of course the change in scale increments, from lowest .05 to lowest .01 may have made a difference. Queen Eva has not lost with that change, though Mazy did lose a little.

What doesn't make sense is that lower fat should mean lower calorie. Calories are calculated base on the protein, fat and carbohydrate content of a food. Protein and carbohydrates have about the same calories while fat has more than double that of protein and carbs. So when fat is decreased so should the total calories. 

Could be the calorie information for one or both isn't quite right. 

 

[ldg]

The biology ? physics? of it don't make sense though. The same amount of calories is the same amount of calories. Altering the components of it, if a cat (or human or any animal) eats the same amount, the composition of those calories - if calories are held constant - should not affect weight. :dk:

 

[ldg]

I just went to their website ( http://www.petropics.com/Koolina.htm ) to see if they provide the average nutritional analysis (vs just the guaranteed analysis). Sadly, they don't. I don't understand why in the guaranteed analysis they indicate 2% minimum fat, yet on the circle thingies on the left-hand side of the page under the calorie info, they indicate 6% fat. :dk: Based on the guaranteed analysis (which can be inaccurate when converting to DMB), it works out to 10% fat.

I don't know which food of Jennie's the Tiki is replacing so can't compare. But something isn't making sense. ?

The next one ( http://www.petropics.com/PukaPuka.htm ) has the same guaranteed analysis, but indicates 12% fat in those left-hand side circles.

 

[otto]

I got the Tiki info from www.catinfo.org. One of the reasons I don't like Tiki is there is no way to email for information. By Nature Organics (mentioned in other posts in this thread) is the other brand of cat food I am using.

There is no way to know if ANY of these pet food companies are giving reliable information. I don't trust any of them. I can only go by results. Since replacing .9 oz a day of Jennie's By Nature Organic with .9 oz a day of Tiki chicken, she has begun to lose 2 ounces a week.

It's not that I disagree with those of you who know more than I do. Both of you, Laurie and mschauer do way more research and know way more than I will ever be able to retain. But...it's working.

 

[mschauer]

It wouldn't be the first time the calorie information on the by Nature site was wrong.

It think most likely you are feeding fewer calories now.

Of course it is results that matter most! 

 

[ldg]

Dr. Pierson based all of the information on the average analysis (which is far more accurate). If companies didn't provide it, they're not in her list.

But this is a GREAT example of how off the guaranteed analysis can be when converting to DMB. Both of those Tiki Cat chicken formulas have the exact same guaranteed analysis, yet on a DMB basis (which is what is in those circles on the left :lol3: ), one is 6% fat, and one is 12% fat.

 

[ldg]

But...it's working.

And THAT is what matters most! :bigthumb:

 

[mschauer]

Dr. Pierson based all of the information on the average analysis (which is far more accurate). If companies didn't provide it, they're not in her list.

But this is a GREAT example of how off the guaranteed analysis can be when converting to DMB. Both of those Tiki Cat chicken formulas have the exact same guaranteed analysis, yet on a DMB basis (which is what is in those circles on the left

), one is 6% fat, and one is 12% fat.

Yes, the guaranteed analysis *really* shouldn't be used for any calculation. 

 

[ldg]

Yes, but it is often all we've got to work with.

 

[mschauer]

Yes, but it is often all we've got to work with.

IMO the misleading information obtained from using the GA is worst than no information unless it is presented as nothing more than a gross estimate. 

 

[otto]

Dr. Pierson based all of the information on the average analysis (which is far more accurate). If companies didn't provide it, they're not in her list.

But this is a GREAT example of how off the guaranteed analysis can be when converting to DMB. Both of those Tiki Cat chicken formulas have the exact same guaranteed analysis, yet on a DMB basis (which is what is in those circles on the left :lol3: ), one is 6% fat, and one is 12% fat.

Yes. It is the 12 % one Jennie is getting right now.

I just don't know what to think. Maybe it's the zero carbs in the Tiki