# Nutritional value of raw meat



## Paul Fox (May 25, 2009)

Did cooking make us human

An interesting program I watched here http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006mgxf on the BBC horizon program.

It suggests that cooked food has a higher nutritional value than raw. More energy and minerals are released when the food is slightly cooked.

In one test on the program they give snakes huge chunks of steak and analyse the results.

They claim we are today what we are because we learned to cook which in turn gave us the energy we need to be top predators.

It got me thinking about how I feed my dogs now, if it is true of humans, It must be the same for dogs.

If you are interested in what you feed your dogs, I would recommend you watch this program.

BTW this is not a debate between raw v Kibble, its about slightly cooked fresh meat v raw meat.


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Paul Fox said:


> They claim we are today what we are because we learned to cook which in turn gave us the energy we need to be top predators.
> 
> It got me thinking about how I feed my dogs now,* if it is true of humans, It must be the same for dogs.*




Why? There are some pretty big basic differences in the ways dogs and humans process food.


----------



## Paul Fox (May 25, 2009)

Connie Sutherland said:


> Why? There are some pretty big basic differences in the ways dogs and humans process food.


Yeah and snakes to,but they claim on the whole, the consumer will benifit if it is shown some heat.

Humans must be very close to dogs in our make up, that is what nearly all drugs are tested on dogs first no??


----------



## Anne Vaini (Mar 15, 2007)

Paul,

Follow this link and you can compare detailed nutrition information for cooked and raw meat (and everything else you can imagine!)

http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/search/


----------



## Paul Fox (May 25, 2009)

Anne Vaini said:


> Paul,
> 
> Follow this link and you can compare detailed nutrition information for cooked and raw meat (and everything else you can imagine!)
> 
> http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/search/


 Thanks, I cant open that link at the moment as my connection is slow.

Just to be clear, when I said “Must be the same for dogs “ I forgot to add the ??? At the end.

I am not saying this is gospel, Im opening the debate.

I agree there are differences in the way we process the food compared to dogs but the study/program is about when meat is cooked, less is required for the same energy/nutrition etc, compared to raw, who ever’s gob it is going down as far as I can make out.


----------



## Anne Vaini (Mar 15, 2007)

Paul - there's nothing to debate.  Read some of the threads about raw diets - we've discussed this before.


----------



## James Downey (Oct 27, 2008)

Paul Fox said:


> Did cooking make us human
> 
> An interesting program I watched here http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006mgxf on the BBC horizon program.
> 
> ...


 
Theres actually pretty substanial evidence that says cooking vegetables reduces the nutritional value of them. Also, Carbon build up on anything, (burnt food) causes cancer. 

I do not think were "top" predators physically. It's our brain that seperates us (if we are seperated)We are on the top of the food chain...But I think that has to do with a lot of things. Advances in farming and agriculture have made it possible for us humans to produce massive amounts food, with minimal effort. And that's both plant and animal sources. That's when civilations exploded....Every great early civilizationwas possible because they learned to farm. The incans, mayans, egyptians, minoans...persians, romans. advances Farming and agriculture allowed others in the civilization to focus on becoming other things...they did not have to worry about getting thier own food. They could worry about making things, like plaster...bricks, weapons, tools and the farmers farmed. But another thing that seems to be really prominent...is that civilazations who do primarly hunt for thier food...never made it far. We were not great predators, we were pretty shit at it. That's why We just removed ourself from needing to be a predator. We put the cows in pens, and the corn in rows...And screw the bull shit about trying to sneak up on prey.


----------



## Ignacio Ahedo (Jan 15, 2010)

Paul.

Open the mouth of your dog. Watch it. Now stand in front of a mirror, open your mouth and observe. Can you see any differences?


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

:-k Does this mean that if raw feeders switch to cooked food the dogs will get all fat and lazy like most of human kind?  #-o:wink:


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Bob Scott said:


> :-k Does this mean that if raw feeders switch to cooked food the dogs will get all fat and lazy like most of human kind?  #-o:wink:



Yes.



:lol:


----------



## Paul Fox (May 25, 2009)

Anne Vaini said:


> Paul - there's nothing to debate.  Read some of the threads about raw diets - we've discussed this before.


Fair enough, maybe the thread should have said “ for those of the opinion raw is twue” this program turns some of those theory’s on their heads.


----------



## Paul Fox (May 25, 2009)

James Downey said:


> Theres actually pretty substanial evidence that says cooking vegetables reduces the nutritional value of them. Also, Carbon build up on anything, (burnt food) causes cancer.


I think what your talking about is boiling the shit out of vegetables, then yes they lose lots of their nutritional value.

If I eat or give my dog raw vegetables, 50% seems to go straight through and out the other end it tact so you have to wonder how much benefit they are nutritionally.

If I microwave them gently, they digest and thus we must surely absorb a lot more of the goodness.

There is no mention of charred/burnt meat, just showing meat some heat.


----------



## Paul Fox (May 25, 2009)

Ignacio Ahedo said:


> Paul.
> 
> Open the mouth of your dog. Watch it. Now stand in front of a mirror, open your mouth and observe. Can you see any differences?


Comedy genius. =D>

How about you educating me on your point, I like to learn something every day.:grin:


----------



## Paul Fox (May 25, 2009)

Bob Scott said:


> :-k Does this mean that if raw feeders switch to cooked food the dogs will get all fat and lazy like most of human kind?  #-o:wink:


Look at your average Indian (as in from India), you don’t see many fatties there.

We was fine in the UK until we got into bed with the US after the wars and started buying and copying the way huge corporations that swamp the market with processed shit, That is what makes people fat along with sitting on their asses 23hrs a day. I have heard it said many times that we were at our fittest during rationing, and we cooked food then.

The portion size helps also. As the program states, you get more out of cooked food so you don’t need to pile huge buckets of chips and burgers down your throat.

At least we dont have twinkies here yet :wink:


----------



## Charlotte Carlson (Mar 5, 2009)

Hi Paul.
You are correct that raw vegetables will go straight through your dog without being absorbed UNLESS
they are pureed. 
Dogs lack the digestive enzymes to properly break down plant matter otherwise.


----------



## Tammy St. Louis (Feb 17, 2010)

>>>You are correct that raw vegetables will go straight through your dog without being absorbed UNLESS
they are pureed.>>


or litley cooked,, went to a seminar with Monica Segal she said the same,, not absorbed unless pureed or litley cooked, very litley


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

Tammy St. Louis said:


> >>>You are correct that raw vegetables will go straight through your dog without being absorbed UNLESS
> they are pureed.>>
> 
> 
> or litley cooked,, went to a seminar with Monica Segal she said the same,, not absorbed unless pureed or litley cooked, very litley


Or partially digested as in Green Tripe. I don't feed any veg but I do feed Green Tripe, usually 2 - 3 times a week.


----------



## Ignacio Ahedo (Jan 15, 2010)

Paul Fox said:


> Comedy genius. =D>
> 
> How about you educating me on your point, I like to learn something every day.:grin:


 
Paul,

human digestive system and dog digetive system are in fact very different. Dogs as wolfs obtain nutrients from food in a different way than humans. What is good for a wolf/dog may not be as good for us (like gree tripe).

cheers


----------



## Paul Fox (May 25, 2009)

Ignacio Ahedo said:


> Paul,
> 
> human digestive system and dog digetive system are in fact very different. Dogs as wolfs obtain nutrients from food in a different way than humans. What is good for a wolf/dog may not be as good for us (like gree tripe).
> 
> cheers


Agreed.

That does not change the fact that the program claims that meat that is cooked is better and you need less of it.

Maybe green tripe is ok for humans once it is cooked?? (but I wont be trying it)

Does anyone have a link to a scientific study of dogs with raw v cooked data??


----------



## Matt Grosch (Jul 4, 2009)

my dog has gotten diarrhea from raw beef and raw chicken, a few minutes before I logged on to this site I had wondered if dipping a raw drumstick in boiling water for 5-10 seconds would be of help


----------



## Charlotte Carlson (Mar 5, 2009)

Don't know of any scientific dog studies, but there is a pretty well known study with cats called the Pottenger Cat Study. To oversimplify - one group of cats was fed raw meat and the other cooked. Over time the raw group fared much better with the cooked group developing a host of problems.
Seems that important enzymes are lost when food is heated.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Seems to me y'all are trying to outsmart Mother Nature. If canines were meant to have cooked meat, she would have seen to it that prey animals ran around half baked. If they were meant to be vegetarians, they would be able to digest there own veggies. Seems pretty simple to me.


----------



## Kadi Thingvall (Jan 22, 2007)

Matt Grosch said:


> my dog has gotten diarrhea from raw beef and raw chicken, a few minutes before I logged on to this site I had wondered if dipping a raw drumstick in boiling water for 5-10 seconds would be of help


I've seen this help with dogs before, I have always wondered if it's because they couldn't handle the amount of fat on the meat, and lightly cooking it removed some of that fat. I've also suggested it to people whose dogs wouldn't eat raw meat. Which is surprisingly more common then you might think. A quick boil of just the outside (not effecting the bone) made it palatable enough to the dog to get them to eat it, and then the owner just slowly cooked it less each time. And yet these same dogs will happily raid the cats litterbox. Go figure.


----------



## Paul Fox (May 25, 2009)

Don Turnipseed said:


> Seems to me y'all are trying to outsmart Mother Nature. If canines were meant to have cooked meat, she would have seen to it that prey animals ran around half baked. If they were meant to be vegetarians, they would be able to digest there own veggies. Seems pretty simple to me.


Good point Don, but are not a lot of us on here doing just that in various ways trying to mould our dogs into what we want?

Is crating a dog going some thing mother nature would have intended for? how about being kennelled alone? How about spending hours in the back of a police car waiting for the opportunity to bite a human?? Not really things mother nature would have intended but because we learned to cook, we were able to domesticate and use to our advantage as the top predators we are (allegedly).

Cooking meat means more energy etc with less input (which the program claims) for humans. If your logic is correct, why did mother nature not supply neanderthals/humans food half baked back in ‘da day’ I wonder.


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Suppose one chose to give cooked meat to dogs .... how would the lack of calcium from the boneless meat be addressed? (You know that dogs use a lot of calcium, and in fact the calcium the way it "comes" in the digestible bones of RMBs is the correct ratio; imagine that! :lol: )

Cooked bones are certainly not something I would give the dog.

So now you're talking about cooking the meat, boning it, and supplementing the missing calcium? :-o

Charlotte, you are correct about enzyme loss with cooked meat, and long story short, the digestive system of the dog is designed to use the digestive enzymes in the raw meat.

The entire canid system from teeth to poop is designed to process raw meat and bones as well as other scavenged foodstuffs.

However, the nutritional disaster of boneless meat for dogs is enough convincing for me.

The reason I am posting to what Anne correctly says (IMO) is a non-debate is that I would be afraid that someone might see this thread and start feeding a cooked boneless diet. Dogs use a lot of calcium, and a boneless meat diet (unless it's carefully and knowledgeably supplemented with calcium) is a disaster to their bones, teeth, and organs.


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Kadi Thingvall said:


> I've seen this help with dogs before, I have always wondered if it's because they couldn't handle the amount of fat on the meat, and lightly cooking it removed some of that fat. I've also suggested it to people whose dogs wouldn't eat raw meat. Which is surprisingly more common then you might think. A quick boil of just the outside (not effecting the bone) made it palatable enough to the dog to get them to eat it, and then the owner just slowly cooked it less each time. And yet these same dogs will happily raid the cats litterbox. Go figure.


Kibble-fed dogs are sometimes suspicious of the new texture when they're presented with raw meat. When I've had this happen, I've given ground meat for a couple of meals and then stopped grinding it; the dog recognizes the taste s/he liked in the ground version and the weird texture isn't as suspicious then.  Or at least that's what I assume is the issue, since so far I've never seen a dog refuse ground raw meat.

And yes, I know folks who successfully used Kadi's suggestion, too: _A quick boil of just the outside (not effecting the bone) made it palatable enough to the dog to get them to eat it, and then the owner just slowly cooked it less each time._

Going from kibble to raw can also be a "sudden-fat" challenge, and I deal with that by starting the dog on poultry backs or other parts that I've peeled the skin and gobs of visible fat from. I add the fat back in over the course of a few days, and the fat challenge is over.


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Paul Fox said:


> ... Cooking meat means more energy etc with less input (which the program claims) for humans.


Dogs and humans have very different GI systems. 

Applying human food theories to dogs is not particularly useful. 


JMO!


----------



## Lynn Cheffins (Jul 11, 2006)

Connie Sutherland said:


> So now you're talking about cooking the meat, boning it, and supplementing the missing calcium? :-o


...kinda sounds like canned dog food - I think that has been done ...:-k


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Lynn Cheffins said:


> ...kinda sounds like canned dog food - I think that has been done ...:-k



:lol: :lol:

Yeah, I've heard of this .....


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Paul Fox said:


> Good point Don, but are not a lot of us on here doing just that in various ways trying to mould our dogs into what we want?
> 
> Is crating a dog going some thing mother nature would have intended for? how about being kennelled alone? How about spending hours in the back of a police car waiting for the opportunity to bite a human?? Not really things mother nature would have intended but because we learned to cook, we were able to domesticate and use to our advantage as the top predators we are (allegedly).
> 
> Cooking meat means more energy etc with less input (which the program claims) for humans. If your logic is correct, why did mother nature not supply neanderthals/humans food half baked back in ‘da day’ I wonder.


Paul, I didn't say I bought the idea of cooked meat bringing energy. If that was all there was to it I could slam a 3 oz (or whatever it is) of pure energy, a couple tablespoons of sugar, a king sized snickers, a couple cups of strong coffee. There is more to it. Besides, we are king of the mountain because we made weapons(equalizers) that would reach out and keep us a safe distance from things that would eat us. Surely you wouldn't think you can go rip a 400# bear apart because you cooked a rare steak. Matter of fact, because of the strong aroma of cooked meats, I imagine a lot of your "superior(man) predators" ended up on the menu while cooking.

As far as the rest of what we do that is not in accordance with mother nature....I totally agree. You don't realize how much I agree. Because of the symbiotic relationship that has evolved between dog and people, we have seemed to have forgotten they are a different species and have different needs. What is good for the goose is not necessarily good for the gander.


----------



## Paul Fox (May 25, 2009)

Don Turnipseed said:


> we are king of the mountain because we made weapons(equalizers) that would reach out and keep us a safe distance from things that would eat us. Surely you wouldn't think you can go rip a 400# bear apart because you cooked a rare steak.


However, we are top of the food chain. Could that be because we learned to cook?

Maybe if hogs learned to cook meat, in 6 million years, they may develop a brain capable of making a weapon to defend its self from a predator.(tongue in cheek)


----------



## Paul Fox (May 25, 2009)

Lynn Cheffins said:


> ...kinda sounds like canned dog food - I think that has been done ...:-k


You miss the point. Canned food is processed shit with more moisture than meat. The study is about fresh meat shown some heat, two totally different things.


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

If you decide to go with cooking your dog's meat and you aren't up on the calcium requirements for boneless meat, please PM me (or read up on it) so you can add the appropriate amount of calcium.

There are a hundred reasons for feeding healthy dogs raw rather than cooked meat, but it's all been addressed here many times since the board started 4 years ago. 

The biggest problem I see, though, isn't with cooking the meat; it's with someone maybe deciding to go with cooked boneless meat without addressing the calcium-phosphorous ratio.


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Paul Fox said:


> Canned food is processed shit with more moisture than meat.


Fresh muscle meat varies per type and cut, of course, but it averages 75% water. (About 18-22% is protein, and then the rest is fat, carb, and minerals.)

Canned dog food also averages 75% water.


----------



## Matt Grosch (Jul 4, 2009)

Connie Sutherland said:


> Dogs and humans have very different GI systems.
> 
> Applying human food theories to dogs is not particularly useful.
> 
> ...




which is why I always wonder where people got the whole "too much protein is bad for the kidneys/etc" thing when it isnt even true for people


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Wasn't it Purina-Ralston that did a study years ago where one test group was fed a high rate of protien(above 50%) as compared to a group fed a lower protien? Seemed to me that high protien group outlived the other.
Moisture is something I always had a problem with in kibble. I hate the idea of poaying for 18% moisture when the dogs have a tub of whater sitting there. If they want more moisture, I figured they knew where to get it. The food I feed is 10% I think....but something has to hold it together.LOL


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Matt Grosch said:


> which is why I always wonder where people got the whole "too much protein is bad for the kidneys/etc" thing ...


Fortunately, that myth has been debunked by nutritionists like Lew Olson, Mary Strauss, and others. Luckily, any recent vet manual or research paper will invalidate that golden oldie. Kirk's Veterinary Therapy XIII, Small Animal Practice, page 861: "...restriction of protein intake does not alter the development of renal lesions nor does it preserve renal function. .... the authors do not recommend reduction of dietary protein in dogs with renal disease or reduced renal function in order to achieve renoprotective effects." 

_High quality _protein is the actual critical factor of a good diet for renal-impaired dogs.

I have many saved resources on this topic.


http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/content/abstract/121/11_Suppl/S128

http://www.dogaware.com/wdjseniordiets.html

http://web.archive.org/web/20041208102742/http://www.dog.com/vet/nutrition/05.html

http://www.dogfoodproject.com/index.php?page=protein_myth


Veterinary Services Department, Drs. Foster & Smith, Inc.:
_"The myth that high-protein diets are harmful to kidneys probably started because, in the past, patients with kidney disease were commonly placed on low-protein (and thus low-nitrogen) diets. Now we often put them on a diet that is not necessarily very low in protein but contains protein that is more digestible so there are fewer nitrogen by-products."
_


From http://web.archive.org/web/20011215124346/acmepet.petsmart.com/content/health/senior.html :
_Until recently, protein restriction was recommended in an effort to protect renal function. Limiting protein fails to prevent urinary filtration problems . . . Indeed, newer research shows dietary protein is not detrimental to kidney function. On the contrary, protein restriction can result in impaired wound healing, diminished immune function and lowered enzyme activities and cellular turnover. Those dogs with impaired renal function do better with dietary phosphorus restriction; however, limiting this mineral is unlikely to delay the onset of renal disease or to benefit healthy geriatric dogs."
_

From http://www.canismajor.com/dog/iamssym1.html#KIdney :
_“'For years, physicians and veterinarians have treated renal failure by reducing protein levels in diets,' said Gregory Reinhart PhD, an Iams researcher. 'After working with leading universities, we have now found that restricting protein in a dog's diet may do more harm than good by potentially putting the companion animal at risk of protein malnutrition.'”_

I have more if anyone wants it.


----------



## Ignacio Ahedo (Jan 15, 2010)

Paul Fox said:


> Good point Don, but are not a lot of us on here doing just that in various ways trying to mould our dogs into what we want?
> 
> Is crating a dog going some thing mother nature would have intended for? how about being kennelled alone? How about spending hours in the back of a police car waiting for the opportunity to bite a human?? Not really things mother nature would have intended but because we learned to cook, we were able to domesticate and use to our advantage as the top predators we are (allegedly).
> 
> Cooking meat means more energy etc with less input (which the program claims) for humans. If your logic is correct, why did mother nature not supply neanderthals/humans food half baked back in ‘da day’ I wonder.


Paul,

One thing is to domesticate an animal and another different thing is to pretend make changes on their digestive system. Or do you think it would be easy to shift a cow diet (grains) to fish, for instance. Just think, what if in the near future tuna become cheaper than corn? are we going to feed with tuna to poultry? 

Dogs needs raw foods because their digestive system function with that kind of food. Humans needs to cook the meat because our system is not designed for digest raw meat. As simple as that.

Dogs/wolves have been around for many years doing well with raw meat. Why do you want to cook for them? save energy!

cheers


----------



## Paul Fox (May 25, 2009)

Ignacio Ahedo said:


> Why do you want to cook for them? save energy!


I don’t and wont be but I thought the study was interesting and was valid for discussion.


----------

