extruded food vs. gently baked

[marelize]

i’ve been down the dog food rabbit hole so many times, i’m sick of myself talking about it. obviously i’ve combed this forum and understand that hills, royal canin and purina have research for years (though i am skeptical because who pays for this research? feels a bit fishy). however, this doesn’t answer a question i’ve had about extruded vs. gently baked food. specially, what happens when food is charred during the extrusion process.

we lost my soul dog to cancer two years ago. she was a mixed breed with no health issues and was only 8 when she was diagnosed with hemangiosarcoma. she wasn’t on a grain free diet, but was on limited ingredient foods from various manufacturers (not one of the big three). it was traumatic, and that caused us to go down the rabbit hole of raw food benefits vs. kibble. we’d love to do raw right, but we have a toddler and the time just isn’t there.

so i guess my question is is there research out there for what the extrusion process does to the food and cancer correlations?

edit: while i’m here, another question is about the ratios of protein, fat, carb, water. yes, i’ve been down the ketonaturals worm hole too. are there any foods from the big three that reach keto ratios?

 

[sevilodorf]

@marelize There is zero evidence extrusion causes cancer. It is cooked at lower temperatures than most of our food is. No reputable expert thinks this is plausible or a problem.

Raw food is exceptionally dangerous and the expert consensus on that is not debate-able. Nobody with a young child in particular should be feeding it because of the pathogenic risks. These diets risk spreading antibiotic resistant disease (in humans too), among other things and every regulatory agency out there recommends against it.

https://www.reddit.com/r/DogFood/wiki/index/raw/

Who else should be funding dog food research? There is no substantial philanthropy or tax money for that. It's not "fishy" at all.

People seem to misunderstand what that science means. It's not Hills performing a study to see if Hills food is good and saying "yep, this study says it's good."

It's stuff like running digestibility trials on various ingredients. Then Hills has the knowledge and expertise to use those ingredients in their formulas. Or evaluating the gut microbiota and how that impacts certain diseases. Purina has one evaluating the impact of multi-chain triglycerides to support brain function in aging dogs. Based on that knowledge, they can more effectively formulate senior diets. And the folks producing that research -- the hands-on experts -- are also involved in formluation. THAT is incredibly valuable.

Moreover, the actual experts agree that producing this science is valuable, whether or not you agree on a gut level: https://www.reddit.com/r/DogFood/wiki/index/start/

Please also see our wiki intro which links to a great article on conflicts of interest. It explains why dismissing science just because it's funded by an interested party is not a sound way to approach research. Even more so in the dog nutrition space because there simply are not "independent" sources of funding at all.

https://www.reddit.com/r/DogFood/wiki/index/introduction/

This article is linked in the wiki, but I think it's especially important to pull out because it does a great job of debunking some of these fear-mongery things about the way kibble is produced

https://skeptvet.com/Blog/wp-conten...RxROHNurUKmjqct0VjR-yBQVoH_bfVq04NOvqA0PVHhFc

Hemangiosarcoma is thought to have a strong genetic link btw. I'm sorry about your dog, but it is a massive leap to think food caused that.

Edit: There is zero research supporting a "keto" diet for healthy pets, though the only folks even approaching actual research on that (re: the MCT studies referenced above) are the science-backed brands. There is a reason they don't have weird ratio diets promoted by anti-vax bloggers.

 

[bailey2017]

@marelize Regarding your edit;

Unnecessary Ketogenic diets (doing the diet without it being explicitly prescribed by a nutritionist/dietician for specific disorders) are not even proven to be beneficial in us humans, let alone dogs. In fact, many reputable sources claim that it may potentially be dangerous long term for people if not being used to manage a disability

I would not suggest limiting your dog’s nutritional values unless it is absolutely necessary (ex: dogs with kidney disease may need less protein)