I think at the end of your quote it should have said;
FOR PEOPLE even at that, only some foods...

I have been eating Mars bars for quite a long time now...so are they now good for me? It's safe for me, so can my dog eat them?

BTW do you sell dog food? You seem to have an issue with the raw diet...

I was thinking the same thing! Especially to the last bit!

or maybe its the supplement that is sold on the site that vet refers to...? (the one he keeps quoting)

The link just demonstrated that ruebens statement "Once food has been cooked the chemical stucture is altered and enzymes are damaged making it harder to digest" is unfounded. (Carmody, RN. Weintraub GS. Wrangham, RW. Energetic consequences of thermal and nonthermal food processing. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2011)
Unless someone has evidence otherwise? All the lengthy posts seem more straw solders then comment lol.



Ps, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1140397/

So you are something of a internet trawler are you with a fetish for web links.
That is your choice to surf read and pick what you want to believe from the many varied views and opinions of so called findings from studies claiming to have the correct findings.
Well that is all that they are and are forever changing depending on what information and tests have been done at the time.
Having a belief or opinion is one thing but forcing your views on others that differ from yours makes you a self opinionated pain in the ????
Best not to put too much faith in what you read on the internet as you can not prove or disprove any of it.

Whether you belief or not that cooking denutures proteins when cooked at temperatures and damages nutrients eg the vit. B. group which is fragile to heat. (The reason for adding brewers yeast and added supplements that have been destroyed in cooked kibbles).
There is a case for cooking or pulping fibrous plant food as the cell walls would be difficult to break down.
It does not apply to proteins as they do not have cell walls but cell membranes.

On the subject of raw or cooked one vital pointer should not be over looked and that is "the individual dog"
A dog with a healthy robust digestive system should be able to handle each preparation and in these cases you take your pick.
For dogs with impaired digestive systems it is not so simple as it has proved to be for several people on this site who's dogs do better on cooked food with added supplements.
If issues with kidneys or pancreas it is probably better to begin the digesting process by cooking food at a gentle low heat as high temperature hardens proteins eg. a hard boiled egg is harder to digest than a poached egg.

HI nicky, any Bad Science fan is a good one as far as I’m concerned.

As this is a why feed raw topic it’s a little strange that when I post any info that draws doubt on the subject it is attacked with such numbers, backed by so little evidence. It’s a shame that some feel they already know everything about the subject to the extent that they don’t bother to read valid info when its offered, I believe an open enquiring mind is so important.
To those who don’t understand my use of evidence to support my post, its because I come from a background where that’s the norm, evidence based practice is central and one is expected to be able to evidence rather than just use opinion to back their assertions. An example would be, RAW diets can lead to increased bacterial load to dogs and may be a risk to children that have access to the dogs and their environment. Then I would link to a piece of evidence in the form of research or to a vet etc ie
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1140397/

What's your background Sanymere, if you don't mind me asking?

I've never read nor joined any discussions about raw feeding before. I have to say, having read all the posts on the one for NOT doing so and starting to read this one - the advocates of raw feeding do come across as being rather aggressive in their promotion/defence/whatever of it.

Now don't shoot me down - I am just saying - as someone who has never discussed it or even read about it before - that's how it appears to me.

I had no idea this was such a contentious issue. I said on the other thread 'why should anyone be so bothered about what anyone ELSE feeds their dog?'

I don't understand why those who want to feed their dogs raw diet feel the need to justify their decision so strongly. And also have to say they do come across as 'looking down on' those who don't.

Just impressions from someone who has never thought about the issue very much at all. My past big dogs would have eaten ANYTHING, raw, cooked or even what I considered inedible - all went down without 'touching the sides'!

My present little dog (very little) doesn't like any raw food. I didn't try her on some because I'd read about raw feeding and the benefits etc. - I tried her on raw steak because I just ASSUMED any dog would love some! Ditto liver - but she doesn't like any of it at all.

This leads me to wonder further whether many owners of very small 'toy' breeds (mine is 9" at the shoulder) feed them a raw diet, or is it just popular with bigger dogs? But perhaps that's for another thread.

Not being funny JC but I would prefer that my posts were judged on there content rather than what letters I have after my name. I will say that I am not a vet and post as a layman because that’s what I am.
Regards sandy. (very proud new dad, working dog fan, surfer, MTBiker, runner, birder, skeptic etc.)

Ps edit to add old git to the list.