Jump to content
BC Boards

hemangiosarcoma/diet ?


jb777
 Share

Recommended Posts

My old Ally was 14 when diagnosed with hemangiosarcoma. She had been fed good quality kibble (at least the best I could afford) all her life. She was always very fit & healthy. She had been to the vet a few months prior for her yearly, all good and in better shape than most dogs half her age. She suddenly wouldn't eat and just seemed uncomfortable. I would love to blame it on the cancer on the kibble...something...anything...But it was just something terrible that happened. Sometimes there just isn't anything to blame. If you go ahead with your plan to feed raw, just do the research to make sure you are feeding a balanced diet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 160
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Sad to say I'm not much into watching what kibble I feed. Yes I get mine at Wal-Mart. I lost a rot that was 5 years old to cancer. He was on the same kibble that I'm still feeding. I have fed that same food for 30 plus years and have had several dogs in that time.My GSD maintaines his 95 lb with no problem and my BC is also on it and she is just fine. He is the only one I had a problem with. I noticed he was off his feed for a couple of days. Took him to the vet and they ran some blood test. His white count was out of this world according to my vet. They kept him for a few days and it was apparent that he wasn't going to get any better, so I made the decision to put him out of his misery. Doc said he had never seen a dog with the counts he was getting an still be alive. Afterword he sent him to Perdue University and they said there was not an organ in his body that wasn't ate up with cancer. I still miss my boy but I never blamed the food. It was just one on those unfortunate things that happen in life.

I realize people and dogs are not the same but my brother in law just found out he has sorosis of the liver. He was never a drinker. An look at all the little kids that have cancer. Cant blame that on what they ate.

I feel for anyone that has lost a dog as I have lost several in my 51 years and it's never easy. Sometimes there just aren't any answers as to why and nothing that you or anyone could of done that would of changed the outcome. Maybe extended it a little but the end result probably would of been the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If anybody out there has a dog that was diagnosed with cancer discuss treatment options with your vet. If you aren't satisfied with what your vet says or want a 2nd opinion, ask them if they would refer your dog to a dog oncologist. If there isn't a dog oncologist in your area, ask your vet if they would consult with one. If your vet refuses to refer your dog or consult with a dog oncologist, find another vet.

 

If you click on the link below, scroll down to the bottom of the page. I don't know how current/utd the list is but it can be used as a starting point.

 

http://www.caninecancer.com/wheretoget.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you pull his/her other posts, it's also been the fault of water and spaying at 6 months old. The dog had worms before death according to a July 9 post, so now we can account for weight loss. I guess I'll be reading next that kibble causes worms.

 

I believe it was actually an earlier post on this board that brought up hemangiosarcoma, not a vet diagnosis.

 

I feel compelled to tell the op to quit grasping at straws, my SAR dog died from this exact same thing in two days, was fed impeccably, blah blah blah... Reasoning is clearly out. I'd quit following but it's like a train wreck of scientific reasoning, I just can't take my eyes off it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dogs can survive on a no carb diet but can they thrive? Dogs (like humans) need some carbs.

 

I'm not sure this is true. AFAIK, dogs have no requirement for carbohydrates. I've seen citations to this effect, including one National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences, “Nutrient Requirements of Dogs and Cats”, 2006 Edition, National Academies Press, Washington, DC. (http://www.dogfoodadvisor.com/canine-nutrition/dog-food-carbohydrates/)

 

If I'm mistaken, I'd appreciate your pointing to some reliable reference that indicates dogs' need for carbohydrates..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure this is true. AFAIK, dogs have no requirement for carbohydrates. I've seen citations to this effect, including one National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences, “Nutrient Requirements of Dogs and Cats”, 2006 Edition, National Academies Press, Washington, DC. (http://www.dogfoodadvisor.com/canine-nutrition/dog-food-carbohydrates/)

 

If I'm mistaken, I'd appreciate your pointing to some reliable reference that indicates dogs' need for carbohydrates..

 

According to the Virginia-Maryland Regional College of Veterinary Medicine:

 

"Carbohydrates provide energy and are made up primarily of sugars, starches and cellulose (fiber).

Carbohydrates are supplied in the diet from plant sources such as grains and vegetables. The sugars

are 100 percent digestible. Starches, which are the largest part of most plant carbohydrates, need to be

cooked before they can be digested and utilized by the dog. Cellulose is not digestible, but it is used for

its fiber content in the diet, which helps prevent constipation, diarrhea and maintain gastrointestinal

health.

Carbohydrates are a direct source of energy and are also protein-sparing nutrients. Without

carbohydrates and fats, the dog’s body must convert protein to glucose to obtain energy; consequently,

these proteins are no longer available for the building and maintenance of lean body tissues."

 

You can find the whole article here;

http://www.vetmed.vt.edu/vth/sa/clin/cp_handouts/Nutrition_Adult_Dog.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, but this doesn't speak to a need for carbohydrates in a dog's diet. So not quite the same thing.

 

And, yes, I'm aware of the relatively recent findings of DNA adaptations in dogs that allow them to digest carbs, which probably led to their evolution from wolves . But, again, the ability to digest carbs isn't the same thing as a nutritional requirement for them.

 

There is also this:

 

"Carbohydrates

 

All animals have a metabolic requirement for glucose to supply energy for organs, including the central nervous system, and to supply substrate for synthesis of compounds such as pentoses and glycoproteins. Provided the diet contains sufficient glucose precursors (amino acids and glycerol), the glucogenic capacity of the liver and kidneys is usually sufficient to meet the metabolic need of growing animals for glucose without inclusion of carbohydrate in the diet (Brambila and Hill, 1966; Chen et al., 1980).

 

Beagle puppies have been fed purified, canned diets ranging in composition from 0 to 62 percent of metabolizable energy from carbohydrate (cornstarch) and from 13 to 76 percent of metabolizable energy from fat (corn oil, tallow, and lard) to determine if dietary carbohydrate is required for growth and maintenance of normal blood glucose levels (Romsos et al., 1976). Protein (20 to 25 percent of energy) in these diets was derived from approximately equal proportions of lean beef and isolated soybean protein. Weight gain of the 2-month-old Beagles fed the carbohydrate-free diet containing 24 and 76 percent of energy from protein and fat, respectively, for 8 months was comparable to the gain of pupies fed diets containing 20 to 62 percent of energy from carbohydrate. Pups fed the carbohydrate-free diet also maintained normal plasma glucose concentrations and normal rates of glucose utilization (estimated by disappearance of [2-3H] glucose) (Belo et al., 1976). These results agree with earlier reports demonstrating that growing rats (Chen et al., 1980) and chickens (Brambila and Hill, 1966) do not appear to have a dietary requirement for carbohydrate provided adequate dietary glucose precursors are available in the form of glucogenic amino acids and glycerol." (Nutrient Requirements of Dogs, Revised 1985, p.7. http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=15&page=7)

 

It does go on to explain how bitches in this study lacking carbs had fewer live pups and pups that thrived, but that experiments w/ nursing pups showed no ill effects from carb free diets.

 

It would be interesting to see if the experiments w/ gestation were repeated with perhaps some dietary modifications (e.g.raw fed, more fat, increased food, etc.) have ever been attempted and, if so, what the results were. I do know there are people breeding naturally reared dogs on raw diets, at least some of whom are using prey model, which doesn't generally include carbs. But the evidence I've seen does seem to suggest that for growth, maintenance and nursing, carbohydrates aren't a requirement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd like to see some more recent studies than 20+ years ago. Our scientific understanding of nutrition (and other healthi issues) has changed dramatically in the past quarter century.

 

Do I think all dogs require carbs? No. Do I think that some might do better with carbs in their diet? Yes. Domestication did change the wolf/dog diet. That doesn't mean a dog can't thrive on the diet a typical wolf would consume, but it also doesn't mean that a dog requires a typical wolf diet in order to thrive.

 

J.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

jb777,

Do you understand the difference between anecdotal evidence and scientific research? Testimonials can certainly be compelling, but they are not research supported by sound scientific methods. Many of us have shared anecdotal evidence here (which you choose to ignore because it doesn't match your preconceived notions), but most of us also make a point of noting that such evidence isn't proof of anything. Why you can't or won't understand that is beyond me.

 

I for one would accept the conclusions of a 20+ year old scientific study over a thousand YouTube videos making what are essentially unsubstantiated claims. You clearly find anecdotal videos to be a valid substitute for real science, but as one would think you'd realize by now, most of the rest of us do not.

 

J.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm offering the other side of the kibble equation. The one that worked for my dog. You can take your CARBS and keep'em!

 

You guys all work for the kibble cops or something?

 

Hey JB, pull over. That's right. Stop right there buddy. No, no. Don't you feed that Dog fresh food. Oh no! We are taking that fresh food away! And you must now feed your dog Carbs made in China or wherever. Remember that kibble recall? Hey JB that's call thinning the herd. That's the way we do things around these parts!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And you know what? Plenty of raw feeders on this forum have disagreed with your conclusions. What part of that don't you get? I personally don't care what you feed: I simply find it frustrating (and I'm sure I speak for many who have responded to you) that you continue to draw hard and fast conclusions based on your own suppositions and some flimsy anecdotal evidence.

 

No one has argued that you shouldn't feed raw. They have simply disagreed with your conclusion that kibble caused your dog's cance and death. Apparently just as you can't seem to discern between anecdote and science you can't discern the difference between disagreeing with your conclusions and no disagreement with a raw (non-carb) diet.

 

Believe what you want. Feed what you want. Just don't expect the rest of us to come running to your support when you draw idiotic conclusions based on nothing more than your need to find something to blame for the loss of your dog.

 

J.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd like to see some more recent studies than 20+ years ago. Our scientific understanding of nutrition (and other healthi issues) has changed dramatically in the past quarter century.

 

I would, too. And if you'll recall, the first one I posted was from a 2006 publication.

 

Do I think all dogs require carbs? No. Do I think that some might do better with carbs in their diet? Yes. Domestication did change the wolf/dog diet. That doesn't mean a dog can't thrive on the diet a typical wolf would consume, but it also doesn't mean that a dog requires a typical wolf diet in order to thrive.

 

Which is why I also mentioned the DNA changes in dogs that allow them to digest carbs.

 

And I don't recall anywhere saying that dogs require a typical wolf diet in order to thrive. I was responding to an erroneous statement that dogs require carbohydrates in their diets.

 

Picking nonexistent nits again. I'm really not quite as stupid as you seem to like to make me out to be. Or is it that you get off on putting people down?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can't believe I'm doing this again, but RAW/FRESH/NATURAL FOOD DID NOT KEEP MY DOG FROM GETTING CANCER. My dog was eating the "ideal diet" according to you (raw and The Honest Kitchen) and she still got cancer. The exact same cancer that your dog got. You are conveniently ignoring evidence such as that because it does not fit within your hypothesis. You are also ignoring the fact that commercially raised chicken contains arsenic due to antibiotic overuse. Arsenic is a known carcinogenic. Your dog ate a diet of mainly chicken for years. Carbs may feed cancer, but arsenic can cause it. I'm not saying this so there is something else to beat yourself up over, rather to once again point out the fact that there is no perfect across the board perfect life extending, risk free diet that will prevent all diseases for a dog. Going by your anecdotal experience method I would have to assume just the opposite that you do since my raw/naturally fed dog died if cancer at 12 and the previous GSD mix ate mostly cheap grocery store kibble, lived to be 15 and was incredibly healthy and active throughout her entire life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The general rule of thumb in a cancer-fighting diet is: Low carbs and High Omega-3 fatty acids. Cancer cells thrive on carbohydrates, so we do not include them in the diet - carbs are our enemies. Fatty acids nourish the dog rather than the cancer - they are our friends.

 

http://www.helpyourdogfightcancer.com/Nutrition.shtml

 

Over the last years, evidence has accumulated suggesting that by systematically reducing the amount of dietary carbohydrates (CHOs) one could suppress, or at least delay, the emergence of cancer, and that proliferation of already existing tumor cells could be slowed down.

 

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/757713

 

The premise is that since cancer cells need glucose to thrive, and carbohydrates turn into glucose in your body, then cutting out carbs literally starves the cancer cells.

 

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/03/10/ketogenic-diet.aspx

 

In short, Dr. Ogilvie’s research found that cancer cells easily metabolize simple carbohydrates (including sugar), and use them to produce energy and reproduce. However, tumor cells cannot readily use fats. So, a diet low in carbs and high in quality protein and fats will essentially help to starve the cancer cells and reduce the likelihood of cancer cachexia, or wasting as a result of depleted body fat stores.

 

http://www.fightcaninecancer.com/cancerdiet1.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can't believe I'm doing this again, but RAW/FRESH/NATURAL FOOD DID NOT KEEP MY DOG FROM GETTING CANCER. My dog was eating the "ideal diet" according to you (raw and The Honest Kitchen) and she still got cancer. The exact same cancer that your dog got. You are conveniently ignoring evidence such as that because it does not fit within your hypothesis. You are also ignoring the fact that commercially raised chicken contains arsenic due to antibiotic overuse. Arsenic is a known carcinogenic. Your dog ate a diet of mainly chicken for years. Carbs may feed cancer, but arsenic can cause it. I'm not saying this so there is something else to beat yourself up over, rather to once again point out the fact that there is no perfect across the board perfect life extending, risk free diet that will prevent all diseases for a dog. Going by your anecdotal experience method I would have to assume just the opposite that you do since my raw/naturally fed dog died if cancer at 12 and the previous GSD mix ate mostly cheap grocery store kibble, lived to be 15 and was incredibly healthy and active throughout her entire life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The general rule of thumb in a cancer-fighting diet is: Low carbs and High Omega-3 fatty acids. Cancer cells thrive on carbohydrates, so we do not include them in the diet - carbs are our enemies. Fatty acids nourish the dog rather than the cancer - they are our friends.

 

http://www.helpyourdogfightcancer.com/Nutrition.shtml

 

Over the last years, evidence has accumulated suggesting that by systematically reducing the amount of dietary carbohydrates (CHOs) one could suppress, or at least delay, the emergence of cancer, and that proliferation of already existing tumor cells could be slowed down.

 

http://www.medscape....warticle/757713

 

The premise is that since cancer cells need glucose to thrive, and carbohydrates turn into glucose in your body, then cutting out carbs literally starves the cancer cells.

 

http://articles.merc...genic-diet.aspx

 

In short, Dr. Ogilvie’s research found that cancer cells easily metabolize simple carbohydrates (including sugar), and use them to produce energy and reproduce. However, tumor cells cannot readily use fats. So, a diet low in carbs and high in quality protein and fats will essentially help to starve the cancer cells and reduce the likelihood of cancer cachexia, or wasting as a result of depleted body fat stores.

 

http://www.fightcani...ancerdiet1.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've already heard that one.

 

Darn, I missed it somewhere in the slop of this thread.

 

The general rule of thumb in a cancer-fighting diet is: Low carbs and High Omega-3 fatty acids. Cancer cells thrive on carbohydrates, so we do not include them in the diet - carbs are our enemies. Fatty acids nourish the dog rather than the cancer - they are our friends.

 

 

Bingo - got the answer I am looking for as to the OPs intentions. Nothing we say matters because s/he is apparently hawking a "vet" diet, I'm sure selling a book, and probably several other items - maybe even cancer safe food bowls because I'm sure that caused it, too... Too bad they couldn't stir up the desired reaction and just kept repeating in the event that someone, somewhere might eventually believe them... :wacko: (the smiley is appropriately names wacko) I added emphasis in the above.

 

I'm not sure what I learned from this thread - other than some people are denser than I thought possible... I've had fun repeating myself though - I do it every day with my kid, so why not online, too! I'll keep watching the trainwreck from afar, if nothing else, the op has entertainment value.

 

ETA: nevermind, took it out... pointless

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Troll or someone who has lost all perspective due to grief? I don't know but now it seems jb777 is not only beating up him/herself over killing that dog with kibble, but seems to be enjoying riling board members who have tried to engage in an honest conversation, offered sympathy and provided helpful information. My thought is jb777 needs to move on, in more than one sense, and so should we.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Roxnne,

Aside from the age of the studies (and IIRC there were two of you who posted studies, but only you seem to think I get my jollies by somehow attacking you for a general comment about scientific studies), my post was not directed at you, but just a general comment on diets for wolves vs. diets for dogs. I can't help if you persist in thinking I'm picking on you for some reason, when in fact I'm not. You'll note that in that post that offended you so, I did not quote you, nor did I address it to you (unlike this post, where I have done both). I was trying to explain to the OP and people in general that there is no one catch-all diet that works for all dogs--and I have made similar comments many times before in other threads without people taking offense at them.

 

In the future I will make every attempt to make clear when I am responding specifically to you so that you can get past whatever idea you have that I am somehow harassing you or nitpicking what you say. I can't help it if you choose to take everything I write in the same thread in which you are also posting as a personal put down. I can assure you that is not the case, but I can't stop you from persisting in that belief. I have better things to do than pick fights with people like you. Sheesh!

 

And I don't recall anywhere saying that dogs require a typical wolf diet in order to thrive. I was responding to an erroneous statement that dogs require carbohydrates in their diets.

 

Picking nonexistent nits again. I'm really not quite as stupid as you seem to like to make me out to be. Or is it that you get off on putting people down?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It wasn't in this slop. It was on another site. But it was amusing. That OP thought that since she fed a new kibble and the next day the dog had worms in its stool, the worms must have come from the kibble. We had to explain about how kibble is made, in detail. And then explain, in detail, the lifecycle of a tapeworm, and I'm not sure she did ever believe us. Just like this thread, actually.

Darn, I missed it somewhere in the slop of this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Taking the OP at face value I shouldn't be surprised at the capacity of some people to indulge in denial.

 

In the last couple of weeks I have watched 2 documentaries about such people, one about a woman who took her 7 year old son on the run to avoid an operation to remove a malignant brain tumour having fallen under the influence of a quack who had persuaded her that he wasn't as sick as all the professionals told her and what he needed was to be put in a hyperbaric chamber, the other about a Texas family who seemed to accept that a 23 year old foreigner was their 16 year old boy who hade gone missing 3 years before, despite the fact that the stranger looked nothing like him and spoke with a distinct accent.

 

This thread sort of reminds me of those people.

 

If the OP's dog did die of haemangiosarcoma then her allowing the dog to become grossly overweight and failure to seek prompt veterinary advice is unlikely to have resulted in the death of the dog, as so many have reiterated ad nauseam.

 

However, if one lesson should be learned it is that the next dog may die because if the same happens again and the OP doesn't recognise signs that need urgent investigation vital time could be lost. If one of our dogs started dropping weight for no apparent reason most of us would know that our first call should be to the vet, not You Tube and the ill informed theorists who lurk there.

 

Unfortunately the dog's obesity is all too easily explained.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...