Originally Posted by Lyzelle
As Adrienne said, meat also has sugar.
And I never mentioned an optimum diet, but that the dog adapted to getting the most out of it's environment. The dog became the optimum consumer, not vice versa. This article changes nothing about what we already know about the diets of dogs. It proved that they are scavengers, and adapted to eating sub-par foods to survive. Nothing less. Dogs are still individuals who react differently to different foods, as I said in my first post.
But personally, I won't be feeding my dogs a diet consisting of foods they would eat to purely survive (starches, rotting meat, garbage) over what I know would be healthier for them.
But at what point does adapting to a particular component of a diet change that component from sub-par to being considered part of the normal, healthy diet? At some point in the distant past eucalyptus leaves were probably the subpar food source, but try feeding a koala bear anything else.
That's obviously an extreme example, but... the point stands. I think what this study opens the door to demonstrating is that there are probably a lot more foods that are "healthy" for dogs and they really are more generalist than many people have been previously willing to consider.
What I would really, REALLY love to see someday is someone doing something similar to this but comparing different individuals to one another and trying to correlate results to those individuals' tolerance of different types of food. Hopefully it will be done in my lifetime.