On This Page:
* Section description- This area was just established on January 2, 2003 following the distribution of numerous Emails to breeders concerning my success
with controlling epilepsy through diet. Suddenly the Emails started
pouring in concerning the health benefits of the raw diet, many stating their concern that I was pushing commercial diets
when raw was clearly a better alternative. I explain this apparent conflict in numerous places on my site, reminding
these readers that the vast majority of veterinary clients won't even go to the pet shop for better foods, much less "go the
trouble" of feeding a raw diet. But for those who will take this beneficial step, this section is under construction
for you. :):):)
* The Truth About the Ingredients in Pet Food- This article is something I just put together after a week of discussing this subject matter with
clients. Their reactions compelled me to put it all in writing. I hope this helps and motivates change. Please feel free to
forward this to anyone who has pets. It can be the difference between a pet living to be 5 or 25.
* Dogs are Carnivores, by Jeannie Thomason. This is a well-written article by one of the cohosts of Animal Talk Naturally, a terrific Internet radio show on which I have had the privilege of being a guest. In this paper, Jeannie
explains the rationale behind as well as the health benefits of feeding raw. Thanks for the great contribution!
* Links to Raw Diet Websites- Here is a growing list of sites dealing with the feeding of raw and home-cooked diets to our pets.
Feel free to send any of your favorite links to me for posting in this section.
* Your Emails- Here are a few of your Emails concerning raw feeding. Keep
This section was just
established on January 2, 2003 following the distribution of numerous Emails to breeders concerning my success with controlling
epilepsy through diet.
The Emails started pouring in concerning the health benefits of the
raw diet. Many of the responders had mixed reactions to what they found on this site. However, the only real
problem was that I wrote about the problems with commercial pet foods and then turned around and recommended more commercial
diets rather than suggesting the raw diet.
First of all, let me say that I agree with those who feel that a
raw, natural diet for dogs and cats is a healthier alternative to commercial kibble and canned foods in general. As I say
in the following Email, there are no BBQ grills out there in the wild. And aqs most can easily tell from my writing, I am
very much into the "back to nature" approach. However, getting my clients to feed a raw, homemade diet to a horribly allergic
150 pound Rottweiler is a real trick, I can guarantee that. I have my hands full just getting them to stop stuffing them with
pizza and donuts or prodding them into going to the pet shop for food rather than the grocery store.
Also, I am a bit concerned about the potential health hazzards of
feeding a raw diet the way some advocate. We must remember that the cat, for example, eats birds, squirrels, rabbits,
and rodents that were alive just before they succumbed to the cat. This is a good bit different than feeding them chicken,
beef, and fish that has been processed and handled by man. I hate to remind us that the conditions under which these foods
are handled can be less than ideal, as evidenced by the cases of E.coli and Salmonellosis that occasionally strike us and
our pets. I simply ask that those who choose to feed this way remain aware of these potential dangers and use good judgment.
I feel that some of the main benefits of the "raw diets" are that
they are elimination diets that often match my own. In other words, many of the proponents of this manner of feeding
also speak out against grains, dairy, and soy. Therefore, I could believe that the principle health benefits of these diets
come from getting rid of these gut-damaging allergens more than simply the raw nature of the food.
A good compromise would be to cook the meats but feed the fruits
and vegetables raw. This would deal with the safety issues that have been raised but keep the more delicate vitamins
and minerals of the vegetables intact. But whatever you do, keep all of these foods out of the microwave. As you may
have read on this site or on others, microwave cooking absolutely destroys the nutritional value of most food. The high
heat generated by this method of cooking both decimates vitamins and creates carcinogens by denaturing proteins.
We would all be better off by tossing out our beloved microwaves. Trust me...I know how hard this is. It is probably the most
difficult aspect of the new diet guidelines I try to keep for myself. But, if you need proof or motivation, just do a
little Internet research. Once again, Dr. Mercola (www.mercola.com) has much to say about this (unsettling) topic.
But, I am very interested in this idea of raw and natural
diets for the pet and want to provide the information to interested parties. Therefore, I have decided to dedicate a page
of this site just for that concept.
However, here's the deal.(smile). YOU get to write it. I am going
to be swamped with just getting my main message out to the public so I plan to take what YOU write and publish it on my site.
This will be YOUR area, complete with links to your sites and your recipes.
For example, one of my first Emails was from a breeder who was well-informed
about nutrition and stated that what I was saying was nothing new. I totally agreed, except perhaps for some of the
fine details of the medical aspects of food intolerance as it applies to animal health. She mentioned one of the pioneers
of the idea of raw food feeding, Dr. Billinghurst. He created the BARF diet...biologically appropriate raw food. Great name.
Dr. Billinghurst has established a fabulous site and provides
a dry food that incorporates the principles of feeding raw foods while eliminating the problem foods. His formulations are
in line with everything that I have written on this site. His site can be accessed here (http://www.barfworld.com) He has clearly been into this concept for much longer than I have
and I am the first to admit that.
I want to make this very clear at this point. There are numerous
people out there who know what I know, what Dr. Billinghurst knows. The problem I have run into is that nobody
I know seems to know this. The word has not gotten out to the public very well. That is why I tapped into breeders
as a resource. There are not many groups of people more dedicated to excellence (nor more passionate...smile) than breeders.
They have the motivation, dedication, and most times the knowledge to take concepts like these and run with them. Again, the
testimonies have been very impressive thus far.
That is why I have created this page for your input. I think this
will be an exciting addition to DogtorJ.com. I hope that you are as passionate about this concept of food-related health problems
as I am and will be willing to help out. If I haven't gotten you turned on to the importance of this idea, then I haven't
done my job...yet.
To start, here is my response to the first Email I received. Please
pardon any air of cynicism. I am really working hard on that. I know how hard it is for people to change their routine. When
I first graduated, I asked my clients "What do you mean you can't give your cat two pills three times a day?" Hmmm... Rank
inexperience on my part, eh? Now that I have done this for 23 years and actually have a life of my own, I know how hard and
slow change comes. I have become a realist.
But, sometimes I do get a bit frustrated when I know deep down inside
that a particular pet or person could be helped phenomenally if they would just understand and do what needs to be done. But,
like I said, I am a realist. A very optimistic realist, but I know that the path is narrow in some areas.
Please visit Dr. Billinghurst's site at http://www.barfworld.com and see what someone else, a leader in this industry, has done.
It is very impressive. Best of all, he is right.
NOW, get to work and send me more information and feedback on
the raw diet.(Smile)
www.dogtorj.com (Read: The Answer- to "Why is the plane of our nation's health in a death spiral?"
Dogs are Carnivores
by Jeannie Thomason
Copyright © 2006 This article is the sole property of Jeanette (Jeannie) Thomason and The Whole Dog Store.
It cannot be reproduced in any form whatsoever without the expressed written consent of the author.
I feel this bares repeating these days as so many
people are thinking and treating their dogs like they are humans. I too love my dogs like they are my children
but we need to remember they are not humans. Nor do they think like humans nor eat like humans.
God created dogs to be carnivores to help keep nature in balance.
The assumption that dogs are omnivores remains to be proven,
whereas the truth about dogs being natural carnivores is very well-supported by the evidence available to us.
Like humans, dogs have two sets of teeth in their lives. The 28
baby teeth erupt through the gums between the third and sixth weeks of age. Puppies molars. Puppy teeth begin to shed and
be replaced by permanent adult teeth at about four months of age. Although there is some variation in breeds, most adult dogs
have 42 teeth, with the premolars coming last, at about six or seven months.
Look into your dog mouth. Those huge impressive teeth
(or tiny needle sharp teeth) are designed for grabbing, ripping, tearing, shredding, and shearing meat (Feldhamer, G.A. 1999.
Mammology: Adaptation, Diversity, and Ecology. McGraw-Hill. pg 258.). They
are not equipped with large flat molars for grinding up plant matter. Their molars are pointed and situated in a scissors
bite (along with the rest of their teeth) that powerfully disposes of meat, bone, and hide. Carnivores are equipped with a
peculiar set of teeth that includes the presence of carnassial teeth: the fourth upper premolar and first lower molar.
Hence, dogs do not chew, they are designed to bite, rip, shred,
crunch and swallow.
Canine teeth or as some people call them, Fangs for grabbing and
puncturing, incisors for nibbling, premolars for tearing, and molars for crushing (not chewing or masticating) bone -- although
the family dog may appear to be far more civilized than his wild relatives, he still has the same equipment
for eating, grooming, greeting, and defense.
Four premolars line each side of the upper and lower jaws in back of the canines.
These are the shearing teeth, used to rip great hunks of flesh from prey animals. Although they no longer hunt for survival,
dogs can still eat in the manner of wolves - by grabbing meat with the premolars and ripping it off the bone.
The top jaw has two molars on each side, and the bottom jaw has three. These
are the crushing teeth, use by wolves to crack caribou bones
Their jaws hinge
open widely, allowing them to gulp large chunks of meat and bone. The skull and jaw design of a carnivore: a deep and
C-shaped mandibular fossa prevents lateral movement of the jaw (lateral movement is necessary for eating plant matter). Yes,
I emphasize the "gulp". Dogs do not "chew" their food. In
the wild resources are scarce, they are designed to be able to gorge and fast for this purpose; as they are hard wired
for this no amount of thinking "he knows he gets fed twice a day" etc will change the dog's perspective. He
may crunch down once or twice but is just not designed to "chew" his/her food. Many people new to raw feeding freak
out that their dog might swallow the meat and/or bones whole. YES, they will pretty much do that. They will
tear large chunks of meat off the bone and then if the bone is smaller such as a chicken or turkey bone, they will crush
the bone by chomping down once or twice and swallow. God designed the dog's
acids to be much stronger than ours and they are designed for digesting large lumps of meat and even good size pieces
of RAW bone.
However much we humans have done to tinker with and change theirs body
design (resulting in varying sizes and conformations), we have done nothing to change the internal anatomy and physiology
of our carnivorous canines.
Dogs have the internal anatomy and physiology of
a carnivore (Feldhamer, G.A. 1999. Mammology: Adaptation, Diversity, and Ecology.
McGraw-Hill. pg 260.). They have a highly elastic stomach designed to hold large quantities of meat, bone, organs, and hide.
Their stomachs are simple, with an undeveloped caecum (Feldhamer, G.A. 1999. Mammology:
Adaptation, Diversity, and Ecology. McGraw-Hill. pg 260.). They have a relatively short foregut and a short, smooth,
unsacculated colon. This means food passes through quickly. Vegetable and plant matter, however, needs time to sit and ferment.
This equates to longer, sacculated colons, larger and longer small intestines, and occasionally the presence of a caecum.
Dogs have none of these, but have the shorter foregut and hindgut consistent with carnivorous animals. This
explains why plant matter comes out the same way it came in; there was no time for it to be broken down and digested (among
other things). People know this; this is why they tell you that vegetables and grains have to be preprocessed for your dog
to get anything out of them. But even then, feeding vegetables and grains to a carnivorous animal is a highly questionable
You see, dogs do not normally produce the necessary
enzymes in their saliva (amylase, for example) to start the break-down of carbohydrates and starches; amylase in saliva is
something omnivorous and herbivorous animals possess, but not carnivorous animals. This places the burden entirely on the
pancreas, forcing it to produce large amounts of amylase to deal with the starch, cellulose, and carbohydrates in plant matter.
Neither does the carnivore's pancreas secrete cellulase to split the cellulose into glucose molecules, nor have dogs become
efficient at digesting and assimilating and utilizing plant material as a source of high quality protein. Herbivores
do those sorts of things Canine and Feline Nutrition Case, Carey and Hirakawa Published by Mosby,
Thus, feeding dogs as though they were humans (omnivores)
taxes the pancreas and places extra strain on it, as it must work harder for the dog to digest the starchy, carbohydrate-filled
food instead of just producing normal amounts of the enzymes needed to digest proteins and fats (which, when fed raw, begin
to "self-digest" when the cells are crushed through crushing and tearing and their enzymes are released).
Nor do dogs have the kinds of friendly bacteria that break
down cellulose and starch for them. As a result, most of the nutrients contained in plant matter—even preprocessed plant
matter—are unavailable to dogs. This is why dog food manufacturers have to add such high amounts of synthetic vitamins
and minerals (the fact that cooking destroys all the vitamins and minerals and thus creates the need for supplementation aside)
to their dog foods. If a dog can only digest 40-60% of its grain-based food, then it will only be receiving 40-60% (ideally!)
of the vitamins and minerals it needs. To compensate for this, the manufacturer must add a higher concentration of vitamins
and minerals than the dog actually needs.
result of feeding dogs a highly processed, grain-based food is a suppressed immune system and the underproduction of the enzymes
necessary to thoroughly digest raw meaty bones (Lonsdale, T. 2001. Raw Meaty Bones).
Dogs are so much like wolves physiologically that they
are frequently used in wolf studies as a physiological model for wolf body processes (Mech, L.D. 2003. Wolves: Behavior,
Ecology, and Conservation). Additionally, dogs and wolves share 99.8% of their mitochondrial DNA (Wayne, R.K. Molecular
Evolution of the Dog Family). This next quote is from Robert K. Wayne, Ph.D., and his discussion on canine genetics (taken
"The domestic dog is an extremely close relative of the gray wolf, differing
from it by at most 0.2% of mDNA sequence..."
Dogs have recently been reclassified as Canis lupus familiaris by the Smithsonian
Institute (Wayne, R.K. "What is a Wolfdog?" www.fiu.edu/~milesk/Genetics.html), placing it in the same species as the gray wolf, Canis lupus. The
dog is, by all scientific standards and by evolutionary history, a domesticated wolf (Feldhamer, G.A. 1999. Mammology:
Adaptation, Diversity, and Ecology. McGraw-Hill. pg 472.). Those who insist dogs did not descend from wolves must disprove
the litany of scientific evidence that concludes wolves are the ancestors of dogs. And, as we have already established, the
wolf is a carnivore. Since a dog's internal physiology does not differ from a wolf, dogs have the same physiological and nutritional
needs as those carnivorous predators, which, remember, "need to ingest all the major parts of their herbivorous prey, except
the plants in the digestive system" to "grow and maintain their own bodies" (Mech, L.D. 2003. Wolves: Behavior, Ecology,
Some people are under the impression that the bacteria in raw meat may hurt
the dog. IF your dog has an innunocompromised system or some underlying health problem then the bacteria may cause a
Sadly, Raw diets have also been blamed for causing things like pancreatitis
and kidney disease, when in reality the underlying disease was already there and is was simply brought to light by the
change in diet. Dogs are surprisingly well-equipped to deal with bacteria. Their saliva has antibacterial properties; it contains
lysozyme, an enzyme that lyses and destroys harmful bacteria. Their short digestive tract is designed to push through food
and bacteria quickly without giving bacteria time to colonize. The extremely acidic environment in the gut is also a good
bacteria colonization deterrent. People often point to the fact that dogs shed salmonella in their feces, (but, then again,
even kibble-fed dogs do this) without showing any ill effects as proof that the dog is infected with salmonella. In reality,
all this proves is that the dog has effectively passed the salmonella through its system with no problems. Yes, the dog can
act as a salmonella carrier, but the solution is simple—do not eat dog poop and wash your hands after picking up
after your dog.
As mentioned above, even kibble-fed dogs can and do regularly shed salmonella
and other bacteria. Most of the documented cases of severe bacterial septicemia though are from kibble-fed animals or
animals suffering from reactions to vaccines. Commercial pet foods have been pulled off shelves more than once because of
bacteria AND molds that produce a deadly toxin. The solution? Use common sense. Clean up well and wash your hands. And think
about your dog—this is an animal that can lick itself, lick other dogs, eat a variety of disgusting rotting things,
and ingest its own feces or those of other animals with no ill effects. The dog, plain and simple, can handle greater bacterial
loads than we can.
Let's face it, a healthy dog will not suffer from bacterial infections
or bacterial septicemia. it is just common sense. A dog suffering from "salmonella poisoning" is obviously
not healthy, especially when compared to a dog that ate the same food with the same salmonella load but is perfectly
healthy and unaffected. The first dog has suffered a 'breakdown' in its health that allowed the bacteria to become a problem;
if one is talking in homeopathic medicine terminology, this is simply one more symptom that shows the dog is suffering from
I believe that it is the kibble, not the raw meat,
that causes bacterial problems. Kibble in the pet's intestine not only irritates the lining of the bowels but also provides
the perfect warm, wet environment with plenty of undigested sugars and starches as food for bacteria. This is why thousands
of processed food-fed animals suffer from a condition called Small Intestinal Bacterial Overgrowth, or SIBO (Lonsdale, T.
2001. Raw Meaty Bones. pg 85). Raw meaty bones, however, create a very inhospitable environment for bacteria, as RMBs
are easily digestible and have no carbohydrates, starches, or sugars to feed the bacteria.
What about Cooked diets?
"There are several aspects of cooked diets that
pose problems. Tom Lonsdale deals with this in depth in Chapter 4 of his book Raw Meaty Bones.
Okay, now to the effects of heat. If you burn your finger, what happens?
The skin tissue dies. Overly apply heat to food and the nutrients are progressively killed/destroyed.
First of all, the act of cooking alters the proteins,
vitamins, fats, and minerals in a food. This alteration can make some nutrients more readily available and others less available.
Cooking can alter fats to the point of being toxic and carcinogenic (The American Society for Nutritional Sciences. April
2004. Meat Consumption Patterns and Preparation, Genetic Variants of Metabolic Enzymes, and Their Association with Rectal
Cancer in Men and Women. Journal of Nutrition. 134:776-784.), and cooked proteins can be altered to the point where
they cause allergic reactions whereas raw proteins do not (Clark, W.R. 1995. Hypersensitivity and Allergy, in At
War Within: The double edged sword of immunity, Oxford University Press, New York. pg 88.). If an animal has an "allergy"
to chicken or beef, it may very often be cooked chicken or beef and not the raw form.
It should be well understood and recognized in scientific literature
that heat breaks down vitamins, amino acids and produces undesirable cross-linkages in proteins, particularly in meat.
At 110 degrees Fahrenheit (approximately 43 degrees Centigrade)
two of the 8 essential amino acids, tryptophan and lysine, are destroyed.
When food is cooked above 117 degrees F for three minutes
or longer, the following deleterious changes begin, and progressively cause increased nutritional damage as higher temperatures
are applied over prolonged periods of time:
*high temperatures denature protein molecular structure, leading
to deficiency of some essential amino acids
*overly heated fats generate numerous carcinogens including acrolein,
nitrosamines, hydrocarbons, and benzopyrene (one of the most potent cancer-causing agents known)
*natural fibers break down, cellulose is completely changed from
its natural condition: it loses its ability to sweep the alimentary canal clean
* 30% to 50% of vitamins and minerals are destroyed
*100% of enzymes are damaged, the body’s enzyme potential
is depleted which drains energy needed to maintain and repair tissue and organ systems, thereby shortening the life span.
Dr. Kouchakoff of Switzerland conducted over 300 detailed experiments,
which pinpointed the pathogenic nature of cooked and processed foods. Food heated to temperatures of just 120 to 190 degrees
F (a range usually relegated to warming rather than cooking which, nevertheless destroys all enzymes), causes leukocytosis
in the body. Leukocytosis is a term applied to an abnormally high white corpuscle count.
Second, cooked food lacks all the benefits of raw food.
Cooked food is deficient in vitamins, minerals, and enzymes, because the very act of cooking destroys or alters much of them
(exceptions to this are things like lightly steamed broccoli or tomatoes, but these are not appropriate foods for carnivores!).
This decreases the bioavailability of these valuable chemicals and makes them less available to the animal. This is why these
things have to be added back into pet foods and why a variety of supplements need to be added to home-cooked pet food—and
why a variety of species inappropriate items are utilized as ingredients in these meals!
Vitamins and minerals can be added back into cooked food,
but finding the appropriate balance is incredibly difficult. Synthetic vitamins and minerals do not always exhibit the same
chirality (three dimensional structure) that the natural forms had, which means their efficiency and use to the body are substantially
decreased. This is compensated by oversupplementation, which then results in the inhibited uptake of other necessary vitamins
and minerals. For example, excess inorganic calcium reduces the availability of iron, copper, iodine, and zinc (Lonsdale,
T. 2001. Raw Meaty Bones. pg 88). If you are feeding a cooked, home-made diet, how can you be sure that
your pet's needs are being sufficiently met if the very act of cooking destroys much of what is beneficial to your pet? Essentially,
once you cook your pet's food you are now guessing which vitamins or minerals have been destroyed, how much of these might
have been destroyed (which means you would have to know how much was present in the food in the first place), and how much
supplementation your pet needs. Then you run into another problem: no one really knows what our pets REALLY need and use in
terms of vitamins and minerals. We only know what amounts are too much and what amounts are too little OVER A SIX-MONTH PERIOD,
not over a period of years. Additionally, how can we be sure that researchers have discovered all the nutrients necessary
for our pets? This still is an on-going process (such as Eukanuba adding DHA to their foods; DHA is found in raw prey, so
any dog or canid eating raw prey has been receiving appropriate levels of DHA), and since cooking food destroys minerals and
vitamins and enzymes, researchers may be missing some very important nutrients. Feeding cooked food also causes pets to miss
out on these 'unknown' nutrients, whereas raw food contains them in appropriate amounts.
People try to compensate for vitamin and mineral
deficiencies without resorting to supplements. Instead, they simply add vegetables, grains, and dairy products
to their carnivores' diets. Complex recipes are developed that create a wide range of foods for the dog (or cat) that
must be cooked, steamed, blended, etc. in order for the dog to receive proper nutrition. Our carnivores once again have an
omnivorous diet forced upon them in order to help them obtain all the appropriate nutrition that could simply be had by feeding
a variety of raw meaty bones and organ meats. Simplicity and perfection are traded for complexity and imperfection.
Raw food, however, has the perfect balance of vitamins and minerals if fed as a part of a prey-model diet (i.e. a whole rabbit)
(Lonsdale, T. 2001. Raw Meaty Bones. Chapter 4.)
Raw food also has unaltered proteins and nutrients,
and the bioavailability of these nutrients is very high. And raw food—particularly whole carcasses and raw meaty bones—provide
the NECESSARY teeth-cleaning effects that are lacking in any cooked diet. Periodontal disease-causing bacteria are scraped
away at each feeding, whereas a cooked food-fed dog has that bacteria remaining, which are then coated over by a sticky plaque
resulting from the cooked grains, vegetables, and meat proteins.
Cooking denatures protein. According to Encyclopedia
Britannica, denaturation is a modification of the molecular structure of protein by heat or by an acid, an alkali, or ultraviolet
radiation that destroys or diminishes its original properties and biological activity.
Denaturation alters protein and makes it unusable or less usable.
According to Britannica, protein molecules are readily altered by heat:. Unlike simple organic molecules, the physical and
chemical properties of protein are markedly altered when the substance is just boiled in water. Further: All of the agents
able to cause denaturat-ion are able to break the secondary bonds that hold the chains in place. Once these weak bonds are
broken, the molecule falls into a disorganized tangle devoid of biological function.
Again, according to Britannica the most significant
effect of protein denaturation is the loss of the its biological function. For example, enzymes lose their catalytic
powers and hemoglobin loses its capacity to carry oxygen. The changes that accompany denaturation have been shown to result
from destruction of the specific pattern in which the amino acid chains are folded in the native protein. In Britannica is
the acknowledgement that "cooking destroys protein to make it practically useless"
There are two ways to denature the proteins: chemically using digestive
enzymes, or through the use of heat. Via heat, the body does not have the recombinant ability to utilize
damaged denatured protein components (amino acids) and rebuild them once again into viable protein molecules.
Some Physiologists claim that cooking and digestion are virtually
the same: that cooking is a form of predigestion where heat is used to hydrolyze nutrients that would otherwise be hydrolyzed
at body temperature through digestion. This due to the enormous heat exposure during cooking, that denatures the protein molecule
past a point of being bioactive, however, body heat is too low to effect the protein molecule so
When proteins are subjected to high heat during cooking, enzyme resistant
linkages are formed between the amino acid chains. The body cannot separate these amino acids. What the body cannot use, it
must eliminate. Cooked proteins become a source of toxicity: dead organic waste material acted upon and elaborated by bacterial
When wholesome protein foods are eaten raw, the body makes maximum
use of all amino acids without the accompanying toxins of cooked food.
According to the textbook Nutritional Value of Food Processing, 3rd
Edition, (by Karmas, Harris, published by Van Nostrand Reinhold) which is written for food chemists in the industrial processed
food industry: changes that occur during processing either result in nutrient loss or destruction. Heat processing has a detrimental
effect on nutrients since thermal degradation of nutrients can and does occur. Reduction in nutrient content depends on the
severity of the thermal processing.
Protein molecules under ideal eating and digestive conditions are
broken down into amino acids by gastric enzymes. Every protein molecule in the body is synthesized from these amino acids.
Protein you consume IS NOT used as protein: it is first recycled or broken down into its constituent amino acids AND THEN
used to build protein molecules the body needs.
There are 23 different amino acids. These link together in different
combinations in extremely long chains to create protein molecules, like individual rail cars form a train. The amino group
gives each amino acid its specific identifying characteristic that differentiates it from the others. Excessive heat
sloughs off or decapitates the amino group. Without this amino group, the amino acid is rendered useless and is toxic.
I am often berated for recommending a raw diet as being best for our
carnivorous pets but after all my research and feeding my own pets this way for years now, I can not help but believe that
our pet dogs and cats would be much healthier in the long run if fed live whole foods.
For more information on cooked food versus raw food, please
check out the famous Pottenger cat study:
Prof. Dr. Sir John Whitman Ray B.A., ND., D.Sc., NMD., CT. MT.. CI,
Cert. Pers., PhD., B.C Dip N, MD. (M.A.), Dr. Ac, FFIM., Dp. IM., F.WA I .M., RM., B.E.I.N.Z., S.N.T.R., N Z. Char. NMP, N
Dr. Francis M. Pottenger Jr. MD
Dr. Kouchakoff of Switzerland
Dr. Weston A. Price
Dr Tom Lonsdale
Copyright © 2006 This article is the sole property
of Jeanette (Jeannie) Thomason and The Whole Dog Store. It cannot be reproduced in any form whatsoever without the expressed
written consent of the author.
Dear Dogtor J.
I have just finished browsing thru' your web site as I saw your
paper on food intolerance posted to a popular e-list that I a member of.
I was terribly disapppointed to see that your theorys are so "on
target" with the animal population in terms of foods that they should never be fed yet the only dietary recommendations that
I could find were for commercial foods, many of which I think have some of the very foods that you advise against, i.e. corn,
What is your reasoning in not suggesting a raw diet also? I am very
curious about this?
Dear Jeanie ,
Of course, you have an excellent point. The reason for
the contradiction is disappointingly simple, though. It all boils down to what the owner will do. If nothing else, I have
become a realist over the past two years. The vast majority of people will only go so far for their "beloved" pets. I
have been doing this for 23 years and I still chuckle when I hear that the owner wants the absolute best for their pet but
when it comes down to the time, effort, or cost, everything changes. That is just today's human nature I'm afraid. But, I
am an optimist as evidenced by this current project. A realistic optimist. Hmmm..... But it takes more than optimism for
the average person.
As I learned what I learned, I began assimilating
it into my own diet. I was sick and tired of being sick and tired. I was 45 and feeling 75 and was just sick of having headaches,
diarrhea, no energy, and hurting all over all of the time. The diagnosis of gluten intolerance was a "mixed blessing" if you
like to eat, but I was willing to sacrifice anything to get my health back.
Fortunately, I then had a couple of the crucial ingredients
to success. I understood the material that I had read and written and I was motivated to get well. But, I have
found in the exam room that this is not enough for most people. There is a missing ingredient in many people OR there are
so many blockades to accomplishing this task. However it is viewed, those last two are related. Let's call it your "philosophy"
about things, to keep it generic for a moment.
The bottom line is that the majority of people want a
quick fix. Agreed? I have had enough trouble getting the average owner to switch from the food that Fido likes with the shapes
and colors to one that is healthier. To get them to stop feeding the dog treats and consider something like vegetables and
fruits as treats has been like pulling teeth. But, I'm plugging away at it.
I am in complete agreement with you about raw diets and
my "mentor", Dr. Mercola of www.mercola.com is all over that idea, at least in the vegetable department.
I'm not sure either of us have enough faith in the meat industry to get into whether we should eat or feed our pets raw meats.
However, the idea is sound. How many barbeque grills are there in the wild? Haha
Although I have not studied the concept of raw diets
extensively, I plan to get more into it. As you might suspect, I have my hands full just getting this message out. I have
sent out over 300 Emails in the past few days and the responses are starting to flow in. I purchased 5 more pages for my cheesy
little, homemade website last night and plan to add Emails like your to it, if you would like. I will always ask permission
How would you like to prepare something for the raw diet
concept and have it posted on my site?? Feel like getting involved. I am very open-minded, especially when it follows the
simple guidelines now set before us....does it agree with nature? Does it make sense from a "this body is perfect until we
mess it up" standpoint?
People are now calling me a "holistic" doctor. I guess
that's true, but I better have that defined a little better for me. I have simply returned to the idea that doctors
had in the not so distant past, actually. I have 75 year old clients who were told as youngsters that if they had asthma,
they should go off all dairy products and their asthma would abate...and it did. Where are those guys today? If pollution
causes asthma, why isn't it skyrocketing in pets like it is in children? The incidence in the dog has dropped considerably
over the past 10 years, since we eliminated dairy products from commercial foods. So has rheumatoid arthritis. I haven't seen
a case in a dog in years and years. Hmmm....
Holistic? Well, if curing long-term problems by removing
the cause is holistic, so be it. If getting dogs off of drugs for their skin and gut by removing the offending foods is holistic,
then I would say that holistic medicine IS medicine at its core, at its finest. Whodathunk all of that heartburn was caused
by the food. That falls into the "duh" category don't you think?
Now I'm rambling. How did you get me started like that?
Please consider my proposal of joining me to get the
word out about raw diets. Are you doing the raw diet in your pets? Just remember (and I don't mean to sound like a fatalist.
It is clear that I am not or I wouldn't be taking on this project of potentially epic proportion.) The average person
will only buy a pet food at the grocery store. The next group is willing to go to the pet shop for a food, but they complain
about it. There is a group, like yourself, who will do what it takes to do the right thing for their pet. (I find it interesting,
though, that I have had such a hard time getting those people to do the same for themselves. Hmmmm.... There's that
missing ingredient again.)
Thanks for the letter. Please write back.
Dear (Dogtor J.),
Your article was just recently referred
to me. It is superb and certainly in line with what I have discovered with my "pack" of Irish Setters. I am attaching
a brief (3 pages) article I wrote for our state Irish Setter Club. I believe that your theories, nay actual results,
are well supported in what has occurred in specifically two of my dogs. The one was near death after fighting IBD, Colonities
and PeriAnal Fistulas for over 3 years. He is now a picture of health at 9 1/2. The epilseptic dog has been seizure
free since switching to raw diet last March, immediately after his first seizure cluster. Thank you for your efforts.
Enter subhead content here