# Raw vs Kibble Digestion Rates



## Kadi Thingvall (Jan 22, 2007)

Turns out maybe kibble doesn't digest slower than raw.

http://therawfeedingcommunity.com/2015/01/08/digest-this-kibble-may-actually-digest-faster-than-raw/


----------



## Sarah Platts (Jan 12, 2010)

It's amazing how long myths can perpetuate until someone actually takes the time to test it.


----------



## Hunter Allred (Jan 28, 2010)

I've fed my dogs raw, kibble, and every ratio of the two in between... They are more opportunistic feeders than anything... kinda like in the wild lol. No issues


----------



## Nicole Stark (Jul 22, 2009)

Sarah Platts said:


> It's amazing how long myths can perpetuate until someone actually takes the time to test it.


That's the thing, I never understood why anyone felt it was necessary. But whatever, it's easier to overcomplicate what isn't understood than just figure it out through trial and error and a bit of common sense. Obviously, there's some things that approach doesn't work so well with.


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

TX for passing this along

haven't "digested" it all yet but worth reading a few times imo 

devas voux .... i just had some of that white stuff two weeks ago.

almost puked getting it in and got the runs after i took the pills to get it out .....wonder if that would ever apply to dogs too


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Kadi Thingvall said:


> Turns out maybe kibble doesn't digest slower than raw.
> 
> http://therawfeedingcommunity.com/2015/01/08/digest-this-kibble-may-actually-digest-faster-than-raw/



This is fascinating. I admit that I'm surprised. I need to re-read it (I skimmed).

Thanks for the link.


----------



## Nicole Stark (Jul 22, 2009)

Connie, I read the header and first paragraph yesterday and finished the article today. 

I think there's something else behind this "myth" that is an old and well known carry over from the cult type health movement that occurred in the 1880-1920s or so. More to the point, I have a bit of a thing for old books and happened upon one written in 1922 about mucous producing vs non mucous producing foods, which can be combined and those that should never be combined during a meal as they are guaranteed to produce dis-ease (inflammation = DJD/cancer, etc.) in the body. 

While there wasn't mention in the book about concerns respective to pH at the time, I believe that to a large extent that was the basis for that eventual development which is more well known today in terms of it's relationship to illness and disease. While people wanted solutions for sick dogs, or just wanted to offer their dogs the most apporpriate diet possible conducive to improved and sustained health - even better longevity, they didn't make the obvious correlation when raw feeding initially became popularized. So the "safe" route was to go with the flow in absence of knowing better.

Thus the notion of different digestion rates probably stemmed from that carry over. Most people who started raw feeding usually didn't have the background on nutrition, to include when the movement was in it's infancy where humans were concerned, to make the association and just assumed that because they were of dramatically different composition, then they must digest at different rates (you know, the corn and peanut thing). JMO


----------



## Larry Krohn (Nov 18, 2010)

very good and interesting article


----------

