- Joined
- Dec 29, 2005
- Messages
- 4,940
- Likes
- 0
- Points
- 36
Are dogs omnivores or carnivores?
Are there any other animals out there that have a similar digestive system but are smaller (I was thinking rodent-sized) with a shortish lifespan?
As some people may know Tucker has an aggressive form of lymphoma and I have just recently made the switch to a raw diet. I have read in several places that evidence suggests carbs and sugars may feed cancerous cells and speed up the growth of tumours. It was speculated that feeding a diet very low in carbs (raw) would be beneficial to dogs with cancer because it would slow down the cancers growth and essentially 'starve it'.
This makes me wonder about carbs and cancer from more of a lifetime perspective. Is it possible that dogs fed a carb-heavy diet (I'm thinking of some kibble brands lol) are more likely to develop cancer, and at younger ages, than dogs fed a diet much lower in carbs? I know evidence suggests that cancer is partially genetic and partially environmentally caused, which makes me wonder if had Tucker been fed a low-carb diet his entire life, would he have gotten cancer at the age of 12 rather than 8? Would he have gotten cancer at all? Is it possible that the high amount of carbs being processed by the body is causing or triggering the onset of cancer?
I know the thread I made a few days ago asking if there was any scientific evidence of raw being beneficial turned up a very sad number of studies lol. While I think it is difficult to test dogs because keeping a large number in the lab to control for variables is unrealistic, it WOULD be possible to keep, say, rats or mice.
This makes me wonder if there is a small, rodent-type animal with a shorter lifespan who has a comparable system to that of a dog and would be easy to house in a lab? Ferrets came to mind, but I have heard they aren't cheap and they need large enclosures.
I think a study with 30 or so subjects, half being fed raw and half being fed a middle of the line kibble, could maybe give some evidence one way or the other. Let's say that I used a small rodent-type animal with a high litter yield. I could breed two young adults 3-4 times and get 25-35 babies with which to use in the study. This would control for genetic variability. Half of the babies from each litter would immediately be randomly assigned and put on a kibble-type diet or a raw diet once they were weaned off mom.
They would all be kept in the lab and housed the same way, and as they aged, if/when they got cancer would be recorded. At the end of the day, I would look to if either group had more instances of cancer and if either group developed it younger than the other.
Is there another species out there that would be a good substitute for dogs? Is this a totally dumb study and I am just naive? :rofl1:
Are there any other animals out there that have a similar digestive system but are smaller (I was thinking rodent-sized) with a shortish lifespan?
As some people may know Tucker has an aggressive form of lymphoma and I have just recently made the switch to a raw diet. I have read in several places that evidence suggests carbs and sugars may feed cancerous cells and speed up the growth of tumours. It was speculated that feeding a diet very low in carbs (raw) would be beneficial to dogs with cancer because it would slow down the cancers growth and essentially 'starve it'.
This makes me wonder about carbs and cancer from more of a lifetime perspective. Is it possible that dogs fed a carb-heavy diet (I'm thinking of some kibble brands lol) are more likely to develop cancer, and at younger ages, than dogs fed a diet much lower in carbs? I know evidence suggests that cancer is partially genetic and partially environmentally caused, which makes me wonder if had Tucker been fed a low-carb diet his entire life, would he have gotten cancer at the age of 12 rather than 8? Would he have gotten cancer at all? Is it possible that the high amount of carbs being processed by the body is causing or triggering the onset of cancer?
I know the thread I made a few days ago asking if there was any scientific evidence of raw being beneficial turned up a very sad number of studies lol. While I think it is difficult to test dogs because keeping a large number in the lab to control for variables is unrealistic, it WOULD be possible to keep, say, rats or mice.
This makes me wonder if there is a small, rodent-type animal with a shorter lifespan who has a comparable system to that of a dog and would be easy to house in a lab? Ferrets came to mind, but I have heard they aren't cheap and they need large enclosures.
I think a study with 30 or so subjects, half being fed raw and half being fed a middle of the line kibble, could maybe give some evidence one way or the other. Let's say that I used a small rodent-type animal with a high litter yield. I could breed two young adults 3-4 times and get 25-35 babies with which to use in the study. This would control for genetic variability. Half of the babies from each litter would immediately be randomly assigned and put on a kibble-type diet or a raw diet once they were weaned off mom.
They would all be kept in the lab and housed the same way, and as they aged, if/when they got cancer would be recorded. At the end of the day, I would look to if either group had more instances of cancer and if either group developed it younger than the other.
Is there another species out there that would be a good substitute for dogs? Is this a totally dumb study and I am just naive? :rofl1: