- Pet forum for dogs cats and humans 


RAW FOOD Study - Please read & comment

October 2nd, 2007, 03:21 PM
I came across this while looking at Azmira's website. What do you think about the results of the study (not the fact that she's promoting Azmira products).

October 2nd, 2007, 03:30 PM
I just did a cursory glance- will read more later but the sample size is small and there is not much indication of the sampling process. What kind of diet were these pets on previously 0- that would be significant I think.

I think if raw food is helping an ill cat or dog, it may be well worth following it in consultation with your vet but also being aware of its negative factors and willing to enhance those in some way. I don't discount raw diets outright but I have seen so many cases of it not done properly that I worry. I think most on this site do the necessary research and will do fine. I myself make my cats' food and I do fee them chicken hearts some time but mostly cooked. I fear that the meat we get is not always the best and unless we raise our own chickens and organize food, we are dependent on other animals fed with antibiotics and other additives so it is hardly natural or what cats or dogs ate before we gave them junk food like the horrid dry stuff that is on some diets of animals - they do NOT need carbs!

She may have ulterior motives- I need to see who funded the study as well.

October 2nd, 2007, 05:20 PM
Subject group three contained twenty-one dogs and eighteen cats (six of which where champion Siamese cats who belonged to one of the top breeders and staunchest advocates of raw food for pets), following the same 75% raw meat, 25% raw vegetables recommended at the time. To be chosen for participation, each animal was particularly healthy and well adjusted.

a raw diet is raw meaty bones, muscle meat and organ, not muscle meat and veggies. i dont know a single wolf who makes up 25% of their diet with carrots, wheat and cucumbers... raw or otherwise.

from the get go, thats my biggest problem. dogs and cats are NOT omnivores. raw veggies are for people, pigs, cows, horses and goats- not dogs and cats.

i would have to discredit the entire thing because of that.

if it were even 75% meaty bones and 25% organ, id feel sorry for the animals back end but they wouldnt be UNHEALTHY or nutritionally lacking.


October 2nd, 2007, 07:41 PM
My opinion? Load of crap. I find it impossible to get past the fact that Dr. Newman (human doctor, not a vet) is using this so-called "study" to promote her products, since she mentions them in just about every sentence. Her knowledge of feline nutrition is at best an afterthought (don't know about the canine side of things as that's not my area of expertise either). For instance, her Azmira dry cat food is full of grainy carbohydrates, and every single one of her canned food offerings has tuna in it. And as want4rain pointed out, having 25% of their so-called raw diet consist of raw vegetables (which cats have difficulty digesting in the first place) is way off base. Nope, I personally wouldn't take anything she says (or sells) seriously.

October 2nd, 2007, 07:47 PM
pishaw!! wasted!!! :highfive:sugarcatmom!!



October 2nd, 2007, 08:11 PM
and what's wrong with human doctors? :D I know - I do now a lot about feline nutrition and a fair degree about canine nutrition but it has little to do with my profession.I spent months researching the best foods for cats when I opted to feed my cats and make their food - rather than buy the stuff being sold in stores. I did not trust it any more- even Wellness, which they and I liked. Well, they liked it. :laughing:(taste wise). I just thought it had good nutritional value. I also worked with a vet nutritionist when doing it too - now if someone like that did this study, I would take a stronger look!!

I agree- she is not a vet. I do not want to discredit her out of hand until I read the entire study though. If she is part of a for profit group or company that makes money or benefits in any way from the results, then this study is not worth the paper it's written on or the bytes it takes to upload. But I want to read it first. At 1st glance, however, it does seem to have too many vested interests.

There does not appear to be any peer review either, a huge red flag for any serious researcher. I do cancer research and we have to jump through so many hoops as well we should. There are ethics committees and many more committees. I myself sit on a Research Ethics committee and have to excuse myself when work I am even remotely involved with comes up. I don't see any sign of that here. But as I say - more reading to do when I have time.

Initial impression is that it is way for her to sell her products - gives all researchers - all of us, vet, human docs, pharmaceutical researchers a bad name!!

October 2nd, 2007, 09:28 PM
.....There does not appear to be any peer review either, a huge red flag for any serious researcher. I do cancer research and we have to jump through so many hoops as well we should. There are ethics committees and many more committees.....

Yes, but I wonder.....that may be different for research related to dog food. Those research studies probably are not required to go through the same measures as other areas of science, unfortunately. Most people are not going to evaluate a research study on dog food to that degree because it is not viewed as important as cancer research, for example. So, when looking at it from that perspective, it is understandable why her study would not be inclusive of a peer review.

I just thought this would be an interesting article for people to read. I enjoy reading about both sides of the spectrum on hot issues, such as this one. :pawprint:

October 2nd, 2007, 09:58 PM
and what's wrong with human doctors? :D

Hehe, sorry CyberKitten! ;) Just felt the need to point it out in case anyone assumed she actually was a vet and gave her more credibility (as relates to animal nutrition) than she deserves.

The sad truth is, almost ALL pet nutrition research is performed and/or funded by the pet food companies themselves (this "Azmira" one is no different). Until that's not the case, I'll take my cues from the reams of anecdotal evidence showing much improved health in animals fed a diet closer to what nature intended. My own cat included.