Australian Study Finds Vegan Diets Are Good for Dogs

[Deeds]

https://www.9news.com.au/national/vegan-diets-actually-good-for-dogs-australian-study-finds/e8255b5d-fb4d-40c0-a86b-5dff32d29f12

[SchnauzerMax]

And funded by a pro vegan organisation.

Experimental design is a survey - what does your dog primarily eat?

Lots of confounding factors. 

So, maybe the results aren’t as rigorous as the title of the article would lead us to think?

 

[tdierikx]

My aunt makes a living out of writing surveys, and she confirmed that most surveys are specifically designed to slant the results towards the desired outcomes.

 

This survey apparently also collected data regarding cat diets, and funnily enough also found that vegan diets were "healthier"... which, when you consider that cat physiology designates them as obligate carnivores, is concerning when "studies" like this push a scientific falsehood. How they can report any firm outcome when only 9% of the surveyed cats were fed on vegan diets is a mystery to me. Pretty sure that data wasn't collected as to whether the cats were indoor only or free roaming (higher propensity for free roaming cats to catch and eat things that their owners are unaware of, thus negating a true vegan-only diet).

 

Main concerns about this study are that it has been (partly) funded by a pro-vegan entity, and the survey only focused on animals over a one year period. Interesting to note that when you look at the age demographic and diet stats, the vegan choice only starts to increase significantly for dogs aged 5 and over - younger dogs in their main growth stages appear to be fed more conventional diets. Neuter status demographic also finds a higher number of vegan diets in neutered dogs. As we all know, age and neuter status can have significant sway in many health outcomes, yet both of these factors appear to have been downplayed in this study, as the desired outcome is diet based "fact" only.

 

Interestingly, 3 medical issues show higher stats for vegan fed dogs -  heart, liver, and intestinal parasites. Personally, that would have me quite concerned. Also, there were no reports of allergies by vegan feeding owners... probably because those that found their dogs were allergic to the ingredients (grains, etc), went back to a more conventional diet?

 

Despite all of the above, dogs are omnivores, and could very well do just fine on a vegan diet... I'd be more concerned about the results of this survey study on cats, which funnily enough also comes to the conclusion that vegan diets are good for them.

 

T.

 

 

[DogsAndTheMob]

31 minutes ago, tdierikx said:

 

 

 

and the survey only focused on animals over a one year period.

 

 

That’s a very pertinent observation! I skimmed the paper and had some concerns but didn’t consider that. Data for dogs whose vegan diets were discontinued due to health problems would have been excluded whereas the data for dogs who had a change in diet within the other very broad dietary categories would have been included.

I noticed that the measure on veterinarian’s opinion is based on the dog’s “guardian’s” reports of their vet’s opinion rather than direct interviews with veterinarians. I wouldn’t consider that scientifically convincing.

 

The data on number of veterinary visits is split into two categories - one visit vs two or more visits - for analysis. Splitting it into such broad categories is not good science because it’s often done when a more detailed analysis doesn’t produce statistical significance. Basically, the analysts can look at the various splits (1 vs more than one; 2 vs more than 2 etc) and find the split that gives the result they want.

Edited September 10 by DogsAndTheMob

[asal]

excellent way to speed up their date of death, faster population reduction for those still left though peta would be pleased

[Mairead]

You guys must be a nightmare for the marketing people - informed and discerning consumers!

Marketing is the work of the devil.

[Rebanne]

what a load of crap!

[tdierikx]

22 hours ago, DogsAndTheMob said:

The data on number of veterinary visits is split into two categories - one visit vs two or more visits - for analysis. Splitting it into such broad categories is not good science because it’s often done when a more detailed analysis doesn’t produce statistical significance. Basically, the analysts can look at the various splits (1 vs more than one; 2 vs more than 2 etc) and find the split that gives the result they want.

 

We could also go so far as to query whether those dogs presenting to a vet more than once in a 12 month period may have had a pre-existing medical issue necessitating more vet visits, and possibly a reason for trying the vegan diet... but that isn't explored at all...

 

Where is the data that tells us how long any of the surveyed pets had been on the vegan diet? Where is the data indicating why an owner has chosen the diet they have for their pet? Where is the data that shows at what age the owner decided to start feeding a vegan diet? I'd also like to see a breakdown of where owners live (metro, regional, rural), age demographics of owners feeding which diets, etc... so many unknown variables which could be very pertinent to any factual outcome reported.

 

What purpose does peer review have in the grand scheme of things really? Surely if we general members of the public can see such gaping holes in the methodology and purported "results", a thorough peer review should have had similar questions regarding the validity of the reported outcomes?

 

T.