|
|
 Up |
|
  |
Author: TrudeauTrudeau Date: Nov 27, 2007 12:45
Just like with people, diabetes rising in pets
But 'Catkins' diet, Weight Watchers-type programs and new meds can help
By Kim Campbell Thornton
MSNBC contributor
updated 7:06 a.m. MT, Mon., Nov. 19, 2007
The 9-year-old Australian Terrier was drinking a lot of water and urinating
frequently. So his owner took the little dog to her veterinarian, John
Hamil of Canyon Animal Hospital in Laguna Beach, Calif. A urinalysis and
blood work revealed that he had diabetes.
As with people, the incidence of diabetes in cats and dogs is increasing.
Not so much of a problem in decades past, diabetes now affects as many as
one in 50 of the animals, some statistics show, especially pudgy pets.
There is no question from what I know that is published in the literature
that obesity is on the rise, No. 1, and No. 2, diabetes is on the rise
right along with it, says veterinarian Robin Downing, hospital director of
Windsor Veterinary Clinic in Windsor, Colo.
|
| Show full article (5.09Kb) |
|
| | 15 Comments |
|
|
Author: The MasterThe Master Date: Nov 27, 2007 19:37
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007, Trudeau wrote:
> A change to a high-protein, low-carbohydrate diet nicknamed the
> Catkins diet can promote weight loss and make diabetes more
> manageable in cats,
How many people have been told that the Atkins diet is bad for them? I
for one had a doctor specifically tell me NOT to do the Atkins diet, due
to "health risks" that she never specifically mention. Yet here, vets are
promoting an identical diet for cats, called the "Catkins" diet.
Does that mean the human doctors are idiots, or does that mean the vets
are idiots? Or is it simply that it's ok for cats but not people? If so,
why?
According to the story, cats tend to suffer from insulin resistance, the
same as people. Atkins promoters have said time and time again that the
diet is great for diabetics. Yet at least some medical professionals
continue to label it as dangerous.
Kind of a mixed message, isn't it?
|
| |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: IBen GetinerIBen Getiner Date: Nov 28, 2007 11:31
On Nov 27, 6:45�am, trudeau...@ gmail.com (Trudeau) wrote: > Just like with people, diabetes rising in pets
Anyone who's cat has diabetes should have that pet remove from their
care immediately. The cat is a helpless animal and doesn't not know
it's limits when it comes to things like eating and diet. They depend...
|
| Show full article (1.17Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: The MasterThe Master Date: Nov 28, 2007 14:13
On Wed, 28 Nov 2007, Rod Speed wrote:
> Even you should have noticed that what cats eat is very different to what
> humans normally eat. It might just be that they evolved differently, stupid.
...
> Thats life when fools like Atkins just proclaim stuff and
> never bother with proper double blind trials,
And I'm sure the vets did that, right? Get the point now Rod? Or do you
need it physically spelled out for you?
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Rod SpeedRod Speed Date: Nov 28, 2007 20:22
The Master nospam.sdf.lonestar.org.nospam> wrote> Rod Speed wrote
>> The Master nospam.sdf.lonestar.org.nospam> wrote>>> Trudeau wrote
>>>> A change to a high-protein, low-carbohydrate diet - nicknamed the Catkins diet - can promote weight loss and make
>>>> diabetes more manageable in cats,
>>> How many people have been told that the Atkins diet is bad for them?
>>> I for one had a doctor specifically tell me NOT to do the Atkins
>>> diet, due to "health risks" that she never specifically mention. Yet
>>> here, vets are promoting an identical diet for cats, called the
>>> "Catkins" diet.
>>> Does that mean the human doctors are idiots, or does that mean the vets are idiots? Or is it simply that it's ok
>>> for cats but not people? If so, why?
>> Even you should have noticed that what cats eat is very different to what humans normally eat. It might just be that
>> they evolved differently, stupid.
>>> According to the story, cats tend to suffer from insulin resistance,
>>> the same as people. Atkins promoters have said time and time
>>> again that the diet is great for diabetics. Yet at least some
>>> medical professionals continue to label it as dangerous.
|
| Show full article (1.67Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: The MasterThe Master Date: Nov 28, 2007 20:47
On Thu, 29 Nov 2007, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>> Does that mean the human doctors are idiots, or does that mean the
vets are idiots? Or is it simply that it's ok
>>>> for cats but not people? If so, why?
>>> Thats life when fools like Atkins just proclaim stuff and never
bother with proper double blind trials,
>
>> And I'm sure the vets did that, right?
>
> There is no need for double blind trials with animals, fool.
And thus my first question is still valid... So I honestly fail to see
what your problem is with answering it. If you don't know, that's a
perfectly valid answer, just say it.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Rod SpeedRod Speed Date: Nov 28, 2007 21:32
The Master nospam.sdf.lonestar.org.nospam> wrote> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>> Does that mean the human doctors are idiots, or does that mean the vets are idiots? Or is it simply that it's ok
>>>>> for cats but not people? If so, why?
>>>> Thats life when fools like Atkins just proclaim stuff and never bother with proper double blind trials,
>>> And I'm sure the vets did that, right?
>> There is no need for double blind trials with animals, fool.
> And thus my first question is still valid...
I answered that question, you deleted the answer, twice, fool.
> So I honestly fail to see what your problem is with answering it.
Pity I did answer it, twice, and you deleted that answer twice, you silly little pathological hippo liar.
> If you don't know, that's a perfectly valid answer, just say it.
Pity I did answer it, twice, and you deleted that answer twice, you silly little pathological hippo liar.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: The MasterThe Master Date: Nov 29, 2007 17:59
On Thu, 29 Nov 2007, Rod Speed wrote:
>>> There is no need for double blind trials with animals, fool.
>
>> And thus my first question is still valid...
>
> I answered that question, you deleted the answer, twice, fool.
I only delete worthless crap. Since you are insisting that you have
answered it, one can only assume that your answer was the above mentioned
crap. Let me guess the "cats and people are different" revelation, right?
Are you HONESTLY trying to present that as a legitimate answer?
Again, the story said that diabetic cats suffer from insulin resistance,
the same reason why most people get diabetes. The story also said that a
variation of the Atkins diet works on cats to control their diabetes, the
same result that the promoters of the Atkins diet say will happen in
humans. Yet medical professionals say it is a bad diet for people.
So why is it bad for people and not for cats? And your glorious answer is
"cats and people are different."
|
| Show full article (1.69Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: RagnarRagnar Date: Nov 29, 2007 19:05
On Nov 29, 11:59 am, The Master
nospam.sdf.lonestar.org.nospam> wrote:> On Thu, 29 Nov 2007, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>> There is no need for double blind trials with animals, fool.
>
>>> And thus my first question is still valid...
>
>> I answered that question, you deleted the answer, twice, fool.
>
> I only delete worthless crap. Since you are insisting that you have
> answered it, one can only assume that your answer was the above mentioned
> crap. Let me guess the "cats and people are different" revelation, right?
> Are you HONESTLY trying to present that as a legitimate answer?
>
> Again, the story said that diabetic cats suffer from insulin resistance,
> the same reason why most people get diabetes. The story also said that a
> variation of the Atkins diet works on cats to control their diabetes, the
> same result that the promoters of the Atkins diet say will happen in
> humans. Yet medical professionals say it is a bad diet for people.
> ...
|
| Show full article (2.18Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Rod SpeedRod Speed Date: Nov 29, 2007 20:38
The Master nospam.sdf.lonestar.org.nospam> wrote> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> There is no need for double blind trials with animals, fool.
>>> And thus my first question is still valid...
>> I answered that question, you deleted the answer, twice, fool.
> I only delete worthless crap.
Never ever could bullshit and lie its way out of a wet paper bag.
> Since you are insisting that you have answered it, one can only assume that your answer was the above mentioned crap.
Never ever could bullshit and lie its way out of a wet paper bag.
> Let me guess the "cats and people are different" revelation, right?
I ACTUALLY said they clearly evolved differently on what they eat, fuckwit.
> Are you HONESTLY trying to present that as a legitimate answer?
Corse it is on why a diet that is suitable for cats isnt necessarily for humans, fuckwit.
> Again, the story said that diabetic cats suffer from insulin
> resistance, the same reason why most people get diabetes.
And what matters is what evidence there is to support that claim, fuckwit.
And that has no relevance what so ever to your question about
why a diet may be suitable for cats and not for humans, fuckwit.
|
| Show full article (1.87Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
