Source
r/dogs•
DigitalClutter

[link] [discussion] new peer reviewed study showing link between non-traditional diets and nutritional dcm in dogs

Link

Original article here

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0233206

Development of plasma and whole blood taurine reference ranges and identification of dietary features associated with taurine deficiency and dilated cardiomyopathy in golden retrievers: A prospective, observational study

Results

Golden retrievers eating non-traditional diets had significantly lower taurine concentrations and more frequent systolic dysfunction. Breed specific reference intervals are higher than previously reported across breeds.

Conclusions

Non-traditional diets, which were typically grain-free and contained legumes in this study, were significantly associated with and have increased relative risk for the identification of taurine deficiency and echocardiographic abnormalities consistent with nutritionally-mediated DCM. These findings were identifiable in the absence of clinical signs and support the findings of multiple previous studies and the ongoing FDA investigation.

Eta-for anyone not already aware of this issue, this is a good place to start https://vetnutrition.tufts.edu/2019/07/dcmupdate/ it has a summary and links to all the fda reports as well and was some of the more recent information prior to the study linked above (which being from PLoS is open access to all).

Posted May 18, 2020, 2:46 PM UTC · edited

6556
3TipsyCoachman3Freya: ChiDacshterrier•

Just for anyone reading this who thinks they can just add taurine or feed a food that has taurine added, this from the Tufts update of 2018:

"Most dogs being diagnosed with DCM do not have low taurine levels. Some owners continue to feed a BEG diet but supplement taurine thinking that this will reduce their risk for heart disease. In our hospital, we currently measure taurine in all dogs with DCM, but more than 90% of our patients with DCM in which taurine has been measured have normal levels (and the majority are eating BEG diets). Yet some of these dogs with DCM and normal taurine levels improve when their diets are changed. This suggests that there’s something else playing a role in most cases – either a deficiency of a different nutrient or even a toxicity that may be associated with BEG diets. Giving taurine is unlikely to prevent DCM unless your dog has taurine deficiency. And given the lack of quality control for dietary supplements, you can introduce new risks to your dog if you give a supplement without evidence that she needs it."

http://dcmdogfood.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/vetnutrition.tufts_.edu-Its-Not-Just-Grain-Free-An-Update-on-Diet-Associated-Dilated-Cardiomyopathy.pdf

32
DigitalClutterOPPoodle Posse 🐩🐩🐩•

Excellent addendum, thanks for adding it!

10
UrgulliblDVM•

Particularly important to note on reddit. So many engineers and/or tech people who think the organism is as easily predictable as a computer or other machine.

5
Whyzocker•

Could you tell me what BEG diet means? I went to google it but all i found was just articles talking about how it may cause DCM not what it was.

3
DigitalClutterOPPoodle Posse 🐩🐩🐩•

Boutique exotic grain-free

7
Whyzocker•

Thanks

2
3TipsyCoachman3Freya: ChiDacshterrier•

Sure! It is an acronym that stands for Boutique brands, Exotic proteins, and Grain free. Those are the categories that are recommended to avoid right now.

6
Whyzocker•

Thanks ^^

2
Swmbo60•

Just spent a bundle at a veterinary cardiologist in Phoenix. Have an 8 yo lab/boxer mix with newly diagnosed DCM. He said to avoid any type of legume ( peas, lentils, beans, soy) and sweet potato. He suggested Hills science diet 7+ and Vetriscience cardiac strength supplement. He said the research is still ongoing but the grain free really seems to be the culprit. We had been feeding Nutro weight control (she's a chonker). He said plain old Purina is better than some of the expensive stuff 🤷. He also said that mild cases can reverse with just the diet change so fingers crossed.

17
3TipsyCoachman3Freya: ChiDacshterrier•

Fingers crossed for both you and your dog. It’s really scary, but huge kudos to you for getting your dog the medical treatment they need.

8
Swmbo60•

Thank you

3
YellowBudgie•

Thanks for this. As much as I'd love to support local Canadian dog food brands, I can't as long as they aren't willing to prove that they meet all wsava guidelines. I was feeding my dog Nutrience Subzero, and although they weren't on the list for DCM cases, I couldn't get passed the grain free part. Not to mention it was so much more expensive. So now I feel better having her on PPP sport, and my wallet does too lol.

However, what about the grain free foods under the big companies? I know Purina has grain free kibble, and I see peas in some of their ingredients. Should people avoid those as well?

Also, I know legumes in general should be avoided, but what about sweet potatoes and potatoes? I see mixed opinions about it.

11
Dog1andDog2andMe•

Purina fell prey to the marketing fads too with high protein and grain-free versions --> things that weren't scientifically shown to be important for dog nutrition and so definitely a case of drive for $$ winning out over science... thus, I out of an abundance of caution avoid the Purina grain-free varieties and varieties with legumes or potatoes. Not worth taking a risk

10
3TipsyCoachman3Freya: ChiDacshterrier•

The current recommendation is to avoid all grain free formulations, even from the brands that meet WSAVA recommendations. It will be interesting to see if those grain free food formulations, which I assume have the same science backing them, contain any key to DCM. It is possible it is not grain free that is the issue, but rather the substitutes for grains, especially when combined with other ingredients.

10
ilovecarrotcakesgolden monster•

Thank you for posting!

9
SaxyMcPro•

How am I supposed to select a good food for my dog??!!?

So much conflicting information out there.

DogFoodAdvisor rates several grain-free brands at the top of their list. Some dog forums seem to push the "raw" diet, others push ONLY grain-free, others a chicken-rice-broccoli diet. And now the Reddit dog community is "anti-grain-free." I now have no idea what is actually best.

My dog, a chihuahua mix, has been fed Taste of the Wild and Merrick (both grain-free varieties) her whole life. She occasionally gets little tidbits of human food, and various dog treats which I'm not very particular about. Will her grain-free diet lead to heart problems? I was previously told that grains - and other simple carbs - tax their endocrine system and leads to health problems. How am I supposed to sort this out?

At this point, I might just switch between regular and grain-free, and hope that reduces her health risks on any and all fronts.

9
DigitalClutterOPPoodle Posse 🐩🐩🐩•

I wouldn’t use dog food advisor to make any choices as the person running it is not a vet or a nutritionist but a human dentist. It’s not based on anything scientific.

I would take my vet’s advice above anyone else.

Personally, I would not feed anything grain free at all or from a non wsava compliant company. It’s not worth the risk.

23
3TipsyCoachman3Freya: ChiDacshterrier•

So, part of this is that you have to look at your sources. That website is run by a human dentist with zero veterinary training, let alone specialization in veterinary nutrition. It’s like your hair dresser advising you about how to solve a nagging medical problem. Zero value.

The current recommendation by actual veterinary nutritionists who are studying this issue is to feed a grain inclusive formula from a brand that meets WSAVA recommendations. Those are Purina, Eukanuba, Science Diet, and Royal Canin. That is the best proxy for safety we have at this time.

TotW and Merrick both implicated in a large number of DCM cases. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1025466

Boutique companies have spent a lot of money in marketing that is not backed by science, in order to push people away from already established brands and towards their own. The pet food industry doesn’t require much in the way of research for safety and efficacy, and many companies decided to skimp on that.

23
binaryvisionsSanchez | Thai mix•

The current recommendation by actual veterinary nutritionists who are studying this issue is to feed a grain inclusive formula from a brand that meets WSAVA recommendations. Those are Purina, Eukanuba, Science Diet, and Royal Canin. That is the best proxy for safety we have at this time.

Yep. u/SaxyMcPro the best we can do is follow the current state of real science associated with dog food, which is the WSAVA guidelines.

Science is hard, slow, and expensive. DogFoodAdvisor is not science. To be blunt, the vast majority of raw and grain-free food advocates are not using scientific methods either. There's a lot of hand-waving and pseudo-scientific nonsense.

The only good reason for raw food diets is owners who have special-case dogs who have very specific dietary needs (like allergies) that aren't suited to kibble diets. If your dog doesn't have a set of known allergens that prevent them from being fed a WSAVA-certified food, then there's no good reason to be doing special purpose diets. And you definitely should not switch back and forth.

14
SaxyMcPro•

My frustration is that the Real Science^(TM) advice seems to keep changing. Now the concern is heart-problems in relation to legumes, previously it was endocrine problems from too much sugar/simple-carbs, or avoiding bone meal and cheap fillers which are hard on kidneys. Some say only wet food, better for digestion. Others are anti-wet food, since dry is better for dental health. Some people are anti-kibble, others are anti-raw, and everyone claims science is on their side.

Is "anti-grain-free" just the next fad? How am I supposed to judge?

I just want to feed my dog food that she likes and won't hurt her. I'm willing to make a change but still don't know what direction to go in.

1
binaryvisionsSanchez | Thai mix•

Now the concern is heart-problems in relation to legumes, previously it was endocrine problems from too much sugar/simple-carbs, or avoiding bone meal and cheap fillers which are hard on kidneys. Some say only wet food, better for digestion. Others are anti-wet food, since dry is better for dental health. Some people are anti-kibble, others are anti-raw, and everyone claims science is on their side.

If you want to know what the science says, you need to read primary literature (i.e. peer-reviewed scientific papers). Most people are not drawing their conclusions via scientific method and empirical evidence. There is a tremendous amount of junk science that isn't supported by anything other than some person making a statement that they believe to be logical. That's not science.

First, it's true that Real Science changes over time. That's normal and important. As more data is gathered, methods and testing improve, our conclusions change. You should be prepared to accept and adapt to that. It's not a bug, it's a feature. The evolution of scientific claims are not fads, they are the best available information at the time.

Second, be thoughtful about what you're considering to be Real Science^TM . A blog entry expressing an opinion, even by a veterinarian, is not science. Even if it seems logical. We should all be very critical when people make medical claims - what does this person have to gain by what they say? Are there logical fallacies in their claims? Was it objective? To be honest, I don't actually know of much literature that has ever supported a grain-free diet. There is a lot of literature supporting the inclusion of grains.

Most people are not equipped to assess the science themselves, so you should be looking to recommendations from professional associations, like the WSAVA. They are not endorsing fads. They are looking at the state of the current science around nutrition, and making recommendations. This isn't Reddit saying you should feed a certain food. This is saying that you should look towards a professional, global, scientific organization and follow their recommendations.

I understand your concerns. We all only want what's best for our pets. But there is a current, known, real concern around feeding grain-free diets and I don't have any science that suggests grain-free is beneficial at all. So I'm going to follow the science.

2
[deleted]•

Why are we talking about raw food diets now? DCM is not implicated with raw food diets, but with kibble-only diets. Not canned, fresh, or raw. Kibble.

-3
binaryvisionsSanchez | Thai mix•

There is absolutely not enough evidence to suggest that raw diets are safe. There is not a statistically large enough number of people feeding raw to know that, so let's not be too dismissive.

And the point here is, if you want an empirically proven, scientifically "safe" diet, you should go with the WSAVA guidelines and feed a kibble that adheres to them.

Exotic diets - whether grain-free, raw, or whatever else - have not had the same level of rigor applied to them. Feed what you like, and if you're doing with a vet or a nutritionist's help I think that's terrific, but don't confuse anecdotes with science.

9
TwzlGolden Retrievers•

DogFoodAdvisor

That guy is a dentist. I love my dentist but I only talk to him about teeth and hairbands. Those are his two areas of expertise.

6
[deleted]•

One thing no one here mentions is that almost all cases are associated with kibble-only diets. Add canned or fresh food to their diet.

-2†
SaxyMcPro•

Why are you being downvoted? There is no explanation by those doing so.

Do you have any resources to support your claim?

1
[deleted]•

It has to do with the hivemind on this subreddit. Most people here feed Purina Pro Plan kibble and they don’t like being told otherwise. Any mention of feeding otherwise and you’ll get downvoted. It was not like this a few years ago.

It’s the original study. Right on the FDA website.

(https://www.fda.gov/animal-veterinary/outbreaks-and-advisories/fda-investigation-potential-link-between-certain-diets-and-canine-dilated-cardiomyopathy)

There is another data point no one here wants to talk about. Out of 560 dogs who developed DCM, 452 were fed kibble-only diets. Next highest was 24 for mixed diets. Next was 26 for unknown. 9 for raw. 4 total for canned, tubbed, homemade, refrigerated, etc.

It’s pretty clear that there is a link between kibble and DCM, with grain-free kibble being the worst culprit. But there is no evidence to suggest that grain-free diets of other forms have any effect. Interesting that no one on this sub brings it up, even though this data is equally as damning as the brand list and it’s just as prominently listed on the FDA website, something that everyone loves to cite but doesn’t actually read. Even when you google “DCM and dry food diets”, there are 3-4 results and the FDA is not one of them. No company in the right mind would admit that there’s anything wrong with feeding kibble. Even boutique brands. Both traditional pet food companies and bougie pet food companies have a stake in it, and both of them publish biased responses to the whole thing. The only results are from fresh or raw food companies. Really makes you think.

Here is what I think, with no hard scientific evidence, just what I was able to read. Kibble, no matter the brand, is low in actual amino acids because the extrusion process denatures proteins. They are already low protein to begin with because it’s kibble. After cooking, there is so little useable taurine left that companies add synthetic premixes. It’s typically boutique brands that refuse to add premixes because they like to tout being natural. There is tons of research about how the extrusion process of kibble destroys vital nutrients and it’s not new. We are now seeing the aftermath, yet people are still scared of discussing it, and companies are using it to point fingers at each other. DCM is multi-factorial so there are other factors such as some ingredients interfering with the absorption of taurine. But those ideas are only vaguely researched. Even if peas and potatoes had some role, I believe there’s a huge difference between feeding 5% peas and potatoes you’ll find in a canned or fresh food, to 30-60% you’ll find in most grain-free kibble.

Thanks for taking the time to ask and read this! I’m concerned that no one is reading the study they’re freaking out over. You will find out very quickly it’s unpopular here to feed anything but 100% WSAVA approved kibble. Even suggesting “add some fresh meat to their kibble” is not welcome.

2
SaxyMcPro•

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. It has seemed to me that each online community has its go-to recommendations, almost a dogma. Really makes it hard to make sense of things. I can accept that 30%-60% peas/potato could be bad for long-term health, but is replacing that with 30%-60% simple-carbs/sugars any better? That's what's so unclear about this. Even that WSAVA FAQ says that grains are fine "as long as the overall diet is complete and balanced," but with no explanation of what that means other than "only buy food on our list." How do I know WSAVA is actually driven by science, and not corporate donation dollars?

I'm thinking of switching to Eukanuba, some combination of kibble and wet, but it's a work in progress.

2
PM_ME_UR_PUPPY_DOGVet Student | German Shepherd Dog•

Why do a good portion of these DCM dogs improve when placed on a non-BEG kibble? Especially when hereditary DCM is only progressive and irreversible.

2
are-you-my-mummycollie•

So do we know if the problem is due to the ingredients used to replace the grain -legumes seem to be mentioned in particular here. And do we know the mechanism? Or is the connection to DCM just recently discovered?

5
DigitalClutterOPPoodle Posse 🐩🐩🐩•

Nope, just that in this study, the association between non-traditional beg foods (that have a high proportion of legumes) and heart abnormalities is significant statistically when compared to dogs fed what are considered traditional “normal” dog food. The conclusion states:

“The current study affirmed our hypothesis and further validates the findings of multiple previous studies and the FDA alert [28–32]. Grain free diets, produced by small companies, including legumes within the top 5 ingredients represent a risk for the development of taurine deficiency and echocardiographic abnormalities consistent with DCM in the golden retriever. Golden retriever specific reference intervals for whole blood and plasma taurine concentrations are proposed. Further research to evaluate these findings in additional dog breeds and elucidate the causative mechanisms behind these results is indicated.”

It’s worth reading the study to know what it shows, its limitations and what is still unknown.

3
corgiwolfe•

Thanks for the summary. I've been worried because my dog actually does noticeably better grain-free, so it's good to know at least part of the issues have to do with the cheap fillers and legumes. We've been on NutriSource High Plains with good results. Someone had suggested Taste of the Wild as a more cost friendly alternative, but I was comparing the labels and it had a lot of legumes and peas, and you needed to feed 1-1/2 times more for the same or less nutrition. We're back to NutriSource, but should I start mixing in like their Chicken and Rice formula? This is all very confusing.

1
atlantisgateshih tzu mystery mix•

Nutrisource High Plains grain free option is also REALLY high in legumes though. It has chickpeas and lentils. There's no evidence that mixing kibbles is going to be enough to solve the problem - especially if eating legumes is preventing the uptake of nutrients.

The safest option is to feed a brand that meets WSAVA guidelines.

I'd recommend going to a vet and thinking about an elimination diet to figure out what kind of grains your dog can tolerate, or if you absolutely have to be grain free, to get a prescription diet, or at least a retail diet that meets SOME WSAVA guidelines (Like Purina's grain free options). Feeding boutique grain free diets is probably the least safe option out there.

10
LuckiestPierre69•

I usually just give my dogs Purina one, because that’s what the shelter gives me for free. My dogs love it, and they seem to be just healthy. I did buy some purina pro plan today, because I ran out of purina one. It’s salmon flavor and they are really liked it. Are these considered poor dog foods, I would not consider my an animal nutritionist. Even with the one small animal nutrition class I took in high school.

1
DigitalClutterOPPoodle Posse 🐩🐩🐩•

Any of purina’s grain inclusive foods whether one or proplan are a safe bet, as Purina as a company does meet wsava guidelines. I’d keep doing what you’re doing there (I feed Purina and Royal canin myself); these diets are usually very well-recommended by vets as well.

1
LuckiestPierre69•

Cool, appreciate it.

1
attackultrasound•

Those are certainly not bad foods! I’ve been in the veterinary field for close to 10 years (attending vet school this fall) and Purina Pro Plan is their top of the line food. It’s one we commonly recommend to clients, what the vet school I currently work at feeds their dogs, and what mine get too. Purina One is also a good food, I’d chose that over a BEG diet any day.

Purina is a larger established company, like Hills and Royal Canin, so they can afford to conduct research on their foods and ensure they are nutritionally balanced. They are all AAFCO accredited meaning they meet the requirements for being a complete balanced diet. A lot of the exotic meat sources (kangaroo, etc) have little research done to ensure they are nutritionally appropriate for animals.

The big thing with dog foods is feeding a grain inclusive diet that is AAFCO accredited. Again, I’ve been in the field for nearly a decade and haven’t met a single vet that recommends a raw or grain free diet, all of that is just marketing ploys.

1
Ducks_have_heads•

We already know that Goldens are Predisposed to DCM. If you want to get useful data you need a diverse group, that's study design 101.

1
DigitalClutterOPPoodle Posse 🐩🐩🐩•

I agree additional work using a diverse range of breeds of dogs is a necessary study as well and hopefully will be done sooner than later.

But to say that it is study design 101 to have a diverse group wholly depends on the point of a study. I’m a scientist by profession and often in my own research program want to only compare something within a species to remove species differences from the equation altogether, controlling for certain variables (as in this particular study, breed) is often key to figuring out if the thing you are testing is what is causing an observed difference vs other variables you aren’t controlling for. The point here is to remove breed as a factor and only look at diet while trying to homogenize the group as much as is possible (thus the same breed). I’d absolutely agree a diverse group of random dogs fed the two diet types could also be done and yield additional evidence as well to strengthen or refute the hypothesis.

Goldens do have issues with taurine deficiencies at higher rates than other breeds it seems (and I think another reason they were used here is because they are showing nutritionally related dcm at higher levels than other breeds thus it would be likely to see it in a group of goldens and allow comparisons to be made, that some dogs in the group would possibly have heart issues), however a comparison between goldens fed one type of diet vs another, while breed is controlled for, and finding a significant difference there between the two groups with respect to heart abnormalities is useful information with respect to research on how diet plays a role in nutritional dcm. It’s not useless information and this study certainly provides data to be used to continue this vein of research.

3
Ducks_have_heads•

I wasn't criticising the study, I was criticising your title and some of the comments. It's interesting that diets effect retrievers, and is useful information.

But it doesn't show a link in dogs it shows a link in golden retrievers. I'm also a scientist by profession, and if your goal is to look at the effect of diets and DCM then you don't use a model that had a prepositions to developing the disease.

It's kind of like looking at diets that causing Lung cancer by studying what smokers eat. Its useful information for the smokers sure, not so much for the general population. Sure you might find smokers who eat less healthy may have increased risk of lung cancer, but that doesn't necessarily apply to non smokers because they don't have the other massive risk factors.

1
DigitalClutterOPPoodle Posse 🐩🐩🐩•

Fair enough about the title, was just trying to get the info out there as it seemed relevant to many on this sub and wasn’t being as specific as I could have been. I tried to edit my title earlier after I’d posted but it turns out you are unable to so, only the content, so rather than delete my post I left it as is.

But I’d disagree to some extent that in this case using a group that is known to be more easily affected by the issue is a problem for gathering baseline data, in order to even establish that there is an actual link between diet type and the dogs getting dcm and that it’s not just randomly happening to golden retrievers either; it is still related to diet even in breeds where it is occurring at higher rates.

As far as I know there hasn’t been any study actually showing this difference between diet types in any dogs via direct comparison, just the correlation as shown in the fda reports, and to me it makes sense that you’d start with a breed where you are likely to get some actual cases of dcm in your study group. It’s not common enough across dogs (or at least known to be, I assume there are in reality many more unreported cases so maybe this isn’t even an issue) as far as I’ve read that you’d be potentially able, in a random or diverse group, to have enough individuals having heart abnormalities to make any robust conclusions (at least in a study this size, obviously if the sample sizes were high enough that shouldn’t be an issue but assuming the authors are limited for whatever reasons and are stuck with a lower sample size).

ETA-To put what I’m thinking another way using lung cancer:

Let’s say we have a hunch there’s a relationship between smoking and lung cancer but this hasn’t been established, it’s so far correlative.

So we take the state with the highest incident of lung cancer, let’s say it’s Georgia. Now using a sample of only people from GA, we look for lung cancer in smokers and non smokers and we find that even though people from GA as a state have higher rates of lung cancer in general, those that smoke have it at an even higher rate than those that don’t . We might conclude there seems to be a link between smoking and lung cancer even in a specific group of people that seem predisposed to it (which may be related to the incident of smoking in that that state overall as higher than average or that there is an ethnicity that lives in that state that as a group has higher rates of lung cancer in general compared to the general population but we aren’t testing that or establishing that here as part of our study). Now we want to follow up by looking at people across different states to see if this relationship between lung cancer and smoking holds up and hopefully conclude that smoking does directly increase lung cancer rates regardless of demographic tested.

5
Ducks_have_heads•

To respond to your edit.

I get what you're saying. But since in this case, we know that Georgians are genetically predisposed to lung cancer (i.e., goldens and DCM). From your hypothetical study, we can't make any broad claims about smoking and lung cancer in Floridians who happen to have a very low incidence of lung cancer.

All we've shown is that populations with a risk of lung cancer shouldn't smoke.

See my exercise/cardiovascular disease example in my other reply to this comment.

Again, useful data, for smokers from Georgia, but not necessarily broadly applicable. My worry here is that we're misrepresenting the results by generalising the results.

1
Ducks_have_heads•

I do just want to be clear to anyone reading, I'm not denying the link, I'm just trying to make sure the science is accurately represented so we don't start drawing broad conclusions as is so common around health concerns. I think the preliminary link between grain-free diets and DCM is concerning and should probably be avoided for now. Especially in the absence of any demonstrable benefit to these diets.
> it is still related to diet even in breeds where it is occurring at higher rates.

But if Goldens are more sensitive to developing DCM then diet could easily exacerbate that problem and introduce complications in a way that it wouldn't necessarily in a less susceptible population.

I'm not saying this study shouldn't be done, i'm saying that we need to be careful in our interpretation of the study. It's good to know when and where it is dangerous but isn't necessarily applicable across populations.

​

Another example, cardiovascular exercise may be dangerous to someone predisposed to heart problems e.g., obese smokers or genetic predisposition. Because they're predisposed to heart disease we can't then generalise that cardiovascular exercise is dangerous to the general population or that it's only a little bit dangerous in those not predisposed.

So if we wanted to look at the benefits of exercise it would be wrong to use the at-risk population as a baseline because the effects are the exact opposite. Instead, exercise stresses an already weak heart leading to complications that don't exist in a healthy population.

The others probably had their reasons, but personally, I think the study resources could've been more helpful put into a less susceptible breed.

> in a random or diverse group, to have enough individuals having heart abnormalities to make any robust conclusions

I totally agree there are probably far more cases than what has been reported to the FDA. But If it were true that you couldn't make robust conclusions after completing a study with a diverse group then that would indicate little risk feeding associated with those diets. That's precisely why I'd really like these studies to use a different breed, or more diverse breeds so we can make some more solid broader recommendations.

It's great for owners of goldens though.

0
3TipsyCoachman3Freya: ChiDacshterrier•

Do you have a link to Goldens being predisposed to DCM? My understanding from everything I have read is that they are NOT predisposed, which is why a flurry of cases in Goldens raised an alarm. See the second paragraph:

https://www.vetmed.ucdavis.edu/news/uc-davis-investigates-link-between-dog-diets-and-deadly-heart-disease

And here under "Cause":

https://www.vet.cornell.edu/hospitals/companion-animal-hospital/cardiology/canine-dilated-cardiomyopathy-dcm

And here, 5th paragraph:

https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/dogs-some-popular-grain-free-diets-could-be-risk-heart-disease

2
Ducks_have_heads•

Good question!

I was being a little bit sloppy in my wording there. They're predisposed to taurine-deficient DCM (see refs. at the bottom). Don't know if you've read the rest of the thread with OP about why it's inappropriate to draw general conclusions about diet when using a model that's predisposed to the disease you're looking at (taurine-deficient DCM in this case) or if it's obvious to you. Either way happy to discuss further with you.

Quickly for others, Golden's clearly have some issues with Taurine that other breeds don't which leads to DCM. Either goldens don't produce enough or they need more, i'm not sure. I haven't read that deeply in that cause but wasn't referenced in the papers i read, so I'll assume we're not sure.

But let's say, hypothetically, these grain-free foods interfere with taurine in some way (lower taurine levels, inhibition of absorption, or something else). If other breeds don't have that sensitivity, maybe they produce enough, or they just don't need as much then grain-free food isn't bad for them because they'd be getting their required taurine for appropriate heart health.

That's just a hypothesis of course, but it demonstrates why broad across-breed conclusions can't really be drawn.

Just to head of a potential question, With certain kinds of nutrients, more isn't necessarily better. Your body can only use so much and discards the rest. In some cases, more can even be harmful.

These are the papers cited in OP article regarding Golden's sensitivity to Taurine deficient DCM

https://jaaha.org/doi/abs/10.5326/0410284

https://avmajournals.avma.org/doi/abs/10.2460/javma.2003.223.1137

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1939-1676.1995.tb01076.x

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0209112

1