Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Study suggests that cats may get health benefits from vegan diet

ElizabethofYork said:
My contempt is for pseudo-science and lack of academic rigour.
Click to expand...
Here's the journal it was published in.

PLOS One (stylized PLOS ONE, and formerly PLoS ONE) is a peer-reviewed open access mega journal published by the Public Library of Science (PLOS) since 2006. The journal covers primary research from any discipline within science and medicine. The Public Library of Science began in 2000 with an online petition initiative by Nobel Prize winner Harold Varmus, formerly director of the National Institutes of Health and at that time director of Memorial Sloan–Kettering Cancer Center; Patrick O. Brown, a biochemist at Stanford University; and Michael Eisen, a computational biologist at the University of California, Berkeley, and the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.

Submissions are subject to an article processing charge, and according to the journal, papers are not to be excluded on the basis of lack of perceived importance or adherence to a scientific field. All submissions go through a pre-publication review by a member of the board of academic editors, who can elect to seek an opinion from an external reviewer. In January 2010, the journal was included in the Journal Citation Reports and received its first impact factor of 4.411
Click to expand...

In September 2009, PLOS One received the Publishing Innovation Award of the Association for Learned and Professional Society Publishers.[38] The award is given in recognition of a "truly innovative approach to any aspect of publication as adjudged from originality and innovative qualities, together with utility, benefit to the community and long-term prospects".
Click to expand...

en.wikipedia.org

PLOS One - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
 
editor said:
And if you'd bothered to read on:

However, this funder played no role in study conceptualisation, design, data collection and analysis, preparation of the resultant manuscript nor decisions relating to publication.
Click to expand...
what i find strange is that most people would describe the people who er own pets as pet owners. not as guardians. it seems to me that there's some agenda present in the language of the article which your bullshit detector has not as yet detected.
 
editor said:
Here's the journal it was published in.

en.wikipedia.org

PLOS One - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
Click to expand...

Maybe I'm being overly cynical, but does this bit not kind of suggest they'll print more or less anything as long as you pay for it

according to the journal, papers are not to be excluded on the basis of lack of perceived importance or adherence to a scientific field.
Click to expand...

And to be honest editor, you do have a tendency to post studies or articles supposedly backing your pet positions which on close examination prove to be either dodgy or rather more ambivalent than you claim.

Many a little more rigor from you would avoid some of threads immediately descending into demolitions of stuff you've posted.
 
andysays said:
Maybe I'm being overly cynical, but does this bit not kind of suggest they'll print more or less anything as long as you pay for it



And to be honest editor, you do have a tendency to post studies or articles supposedly backing your pet positions which on close examination prove to be either dodgy or rather more ambivalent than you claim.

Many a little more rigor from you would avoid some of threads immediately descending into demolitions of stuff you've posted.
Click to expand...
In a way that's science. You have to use a critical eye on any data you are using to prove or disprove a theory.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chz
Plos One is pretty easy to get into I think - it's not exactly Nature or anything - but it is legitimately peer reviewed. I don't think there's enough here to declare this to be dodgy research or whatever, although the conclusions are pretty weak (it doesn't come within a million miles of being 'proof' of anything) it does look basically legit.

The double standard is quite amusing though given the previous 'funded by the meat industry!!!1' stuff.
 
beesonthewhatnow said:
Any person choosing to be vegan is fine by me. Anyone pushing that - entirely human - set of morals, values and choice onto a creature entirely unsuited to it… not so much.
Click to expand...
Pets are already being pushed all sorts of weird shit. Have you seen what goes into dog and cat food?
If it's proven that a vegan diet can be healthy and enjoyable for pets, then surely you'll agree that's something we should aim for, given the clear environmental benefits? Or is the idea to be ridiculed because vegans?
A meta-analysis on the impact of food, which included 38,700 farms and 119 countries, observed that food production is responsible for 26% of total anthropogenic greenhouse gas emission (GHG)7. According to the authors, animal production, including fish, is responsible for 31% of GHG, and crops are responsible for 27%. The land use corresponds to 24% of emissions, of which 16% are related to animal production and 8% to crops. The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimates that 50% of the habitable land and 70% of freshwater withdrawals are used for agriculture8.
Click to expand...

www.nature.com

Environmental impact of diets for dogs and cats - Scientific Reports

Food production is responsible for almost one-quarter of the environmental impact and, therefore, its importance regarding sustainability should not be overlooked. The companion animal population is increasing, and an important part of pet food is composed of ingredients that have a high...
www.nature.com www.nature.com
 
Monkeygrinder's Organ said:
Plos One is pretty easy to get into I think - it's not exactly Nature or anything - but it is legitimately peer reviewed. I don't think there's enough here to declare this to be dodgy research or whatever, although the conclusions are pretty weak (it doesn't come within a million miles of being 'proof' of anything) it does look basically legit.

The double standard is quite amusing though given the previous 'funded by the meat industry!!!1' stuff.
Click to expand...
Pretty sure the vegan pet food lobby (if it even exists) is the teensiest, tiniest fraction of the size of the pro-meat lobby. And of course - unlike the meat industry - what they're proposing would actually be good for the environment.


www.theguardian.com

Inside big beef’s climate messaging machine: confuse, defend and downplay

A Masters of Beef Advocacy program teaches ‘scientific sounding’ arguments on cattle’s sustainability in an all-out public relations war
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com

morningstaronline.co.uk

Meat industry propaganda and the climate crisis

We are familiar with the damage tobacco and fossil fuels do — and know that they have spent billions on hiding this. But we largely do not realise the pernicious effect of the meat industry on obscuring the drastic need to reduce animal consumption to fight global warming, writes IAN SINCLAIR
morningstaronline.co.uk morningstaronline.co.uk
 
Fez909 said:
This study was funded by ProVeg, who have this to say about themselves: "ProVeg UK is a part of ProVeg International, a food awareness organisation working to transform the global food system by replacing 50% of animal products globally with plant-based and cultivated foods by 2040."

It's worthless, even without some of the conclusions:

"Overall the vegan cats scored better on all health indicators, although these differences were not statistically signifiant."

And it's basically a re-hash of an earlier study by the same guy (2021): Vegan pet food as healthy for cats and dogs as meat, says veterinary professor
Click to expand...
Self reporting questionnaire of vegan cat owners.
Robust.

:facepalm:
 
beesonthewhatnow said:
Any person choosing to be vegan is fine by me. Anyone pushing that - entirely human - set of morals, values and choice onto a creature entirely unsuited to it… not so much.
Click to expand...
Not to mention the "five freedoms" of animal welfare, which inform the 2006 animal welfare act:
  • need for a suitable environment
  • need for a suitable diet
  • need to be able to exhibit normal behaviour patterns
  • need to be housed with, or apart, from other animals
  • need to be protected from pain, suffering, injury and disease.
 
Funky_monks said:
Self reporting questionnaire of vegan cat owners.
Robust.

:facepalm:
Click to expand...

Yeah we did this all before with dogs, same "research method" etc:

www.urban75.net

'Vegan diets are healthier and safer for dogs' says The Guardian about University of Winchester survey

Well, who would have thought? Vegan diets are healthier and safer for dogs than conventional meat-based diets, according to the largest study to date, as long as they are nutritionally complete. The diet and health of more than 2,500 dogs were followed over a year using surveys completed by...
www.urban75.net www.urban75.net
 
beesonthewhatnow said:
No, it’s to be ridiculed because obligate carnivores.
Click to expand...
Right. So dogs and cats should only be eating meat they've hunted and roadkill because they're obligate carnivores (we'll ignore all the stuff that in pet food that isn't remotely natural) and there's no point looking for more environmentally sustainable alternatives in a climate crisis because obligate carnivores. Gotcha.
 
Mad that people can suggest things that go against yer actual animal welfare legislation as some kind of good idea because of some odd desire to get every creature to just eat plants.
 
editor said:
Why is it 'worthless' exactly?
Click to expand...
I'm very surprised by that, as it looks (if you actually read the article) as tho ak went and sought the funding, it certainly didn't land by magic on his desk. And that being the case, you'd expect any people providing funding to ask what it's for and what results are anticipated. I doubt proveg offer money to research where a positive result for their cause is doubtful.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

frogwoman
Increased pesticide use due to bat extinctions may have led to 1300 child deaths in US
Replies
6
Views
340
lazythursday
L
cupid_stunt
Extracting heat from the sewers.
Replies
7
Views
490
platinumsage
platinumsage
weltweit
US Senate passes sweeping climate, tax and healthcare package
Replies
7
Views
384
likesfish
likesfish
Lee Japser
Meeting: White supremacy, neo colonial consumer capitalism and the climate catastrophe.
Replies
5
Views
497
8ball
8ball
Back
Top Bottom