This post is an important analysis of one of the discussions on this forum that was closed by Ed Frawley. I believe that it is important because it is a good example of good and bad practices of information analysis and dissemination. In an age of information being readily available and easily disseminated on the internet, we have the obligation to do this in the most responsible manner. Misleading others is not a good practice -- whather the real motive of the person doing the misleading is good or bad. It is also important to consider that the language and style of the person who posts information will reflect on the credibility of this person – the power and freedom to post information on the internet comes also with some responsibilities and consequences. This post discusses these issues by using a recent discussion on this forum under the topic “To Veg or not To Veg in Raw".
Some of you may have followed an interesting discussion on this topic between Connie Sutherland regarding the importance or lack of importance of feeding dogs a variety of meat sources. It is interesting to note that we mostly agreed regarding the recommendation that it may be a good idea to diversify the meat source in the canine diet. I disagreed with the Connie’s statement that “Please read this entire post. This post is an important analysis of one of the discussions on this forum that was closed by Ed Frawley. I believe that it is important because it is a good example of good and bad practices of information analysis and dissemination. In an age of information being readily available and easily disseminated on the internet, all of us have the obligation to do this in the most responsible manner. Misleading others is not a good practice -- whether the motive of the person doing the misleading is good or bad. It is also important to consider that the language and style of the person who posts information will reflect on the credibility of this person – the power and freedom to post information on the internet comes also with some responsibilities and consequences. This post discusses these issues by using a recent discussion on this forum under the topic “To Veg or not To Veg in Raw".
There was an interesting discussion on this topic between myself and Connie Sutherland regarding the importance or lack of importance of feeding dogs a variety of meat sources. It is interesting to note that we mostly agreed regarding the recommendation that it may be a good idea to diversify the meat source in the canine diet. The disagreement was regarding the statement made by Connie that “Dogs need a variety of protein sources...” because different meats have different proteins.
My position was that essentially all animal protein sources have similar amino acids contents (especially of the 9 essential amino acids), and the main differences are between organ meat and non-organ meat and not between the type of meats. I also claimed that there is no reliable evidence to indicate that the small differences in amino acid content have any impact on canine health. Some people look at nature for examples of the right diet. In nature wild animals would not have access to a diverse meat diet and tend to feed mostly on prey available in their region (e.g., elk, deer, rabbits, or fowls, etc.). Therefore, from both the scientific and the intuitive perspectives, I did not see any support for Connie’s claims.
In my opinion the quality of meat is more important than diversity of the meat type and that it is more important to feed an occasional organ meat for its content of nutrients such as Vitamin A, iron, iodine, etc. I brought several sources to support the various claims I made in my posts -- sources that I carefully read and studied for other reasons. Connie, on the other hand, did not show that she read nor understood the material she found. This book dealt with the importance of amino acids (i.e., protein) for animal nutrition and the importance of all amino acids to be present in animal feed. I never argued with this position. I was not able to find anywhere in this book any indication that relatively small the differences in the content of various amino acids in various meats has an impact on canine health, and that diversity of amino acid relative quantities is important in animal and canine nutrition.
So, why is this even important? This discussion is important because understanding the correct reasons for some of these recommendations may influence our daily decisions and ultimately our dog’s health. For example, given a choice between beef and deer meat I would put more importance to the quality of the meat source – i.e., whether the beef was grass fed, whether the beef was given hormones and antibiotics, or whether the deer was raised in a polluted environment and fed on crops high in pesticide or was hunted in relatively pollution and pesticide free habitat – rather on the diversity of the amino acids of the meat source. The first is clearly supported by both scientific and experience based circumstantial evidence, the second is an unsupported opinion that was written to imply scientific basis but in fact it was not.
After several exchanges back and forth it was clear to me that Connie was not able to show any credible evidence to support her claim of the importance of protein diversity. I decided to end my participation in this discussion and the readers to make up their own mind based on the information that was presented. At this point, Ed Frawley found it necessary to come to Connie’s defense and lecture me on the merits of my positions without even trying to understand my position.
I admit to have an issue with Ed’s condescending and insulting style, but more importantly, this is a good example of a poor way to disseminate information I talked about earlier in this posting. As an owner of this forum with control over its contents, Ed had the responsibility to respond in a more intelligent and responsible way. Before I get into specifics of Ed’s response, I would like to point out that generally I respect Ed’s and Cindy’s opinions and suggestions regarding training and raising of dogs. I particularly liked the fact that Ed seemed to be open minded to learn new training techniques and his service to bring these technique to the general public. I also like some of the products he sells on Leerburg.com, but I am now concerned that given his rough style, what would happen if after ordering a product from him that I do not like – would he appreciate and honor his customer’s point of view or merely dismiss it as “bullshit” because the customer did not agree with his opinion about the quality of a product?
So, let’s look at Ed’s response.
Ed wrote: “You may want to reexamine your facts here. If you go to our web site in the section on feeding dogs you will find a Q&A section on feeding raw.” I read this section and I was not able to find any substantive discussion regarding amino acid content.
I assume Ed was referring to the following quote from Cindy: “Depending on your location you will have access to different local meat sources. We feed beef, lamb, chicken, turkey, pork, goat, buffalo, venison, elk, fish, rabbit. ... Variety is the key to a successful raw diet.” As I already mentioned, I did not argue that variety may be good merely the relative importance of variety relative to other factors as discussed in this and other postings. Cindy did not support this statement with any factual objective evidence – this is her opinion that’s all. She may have had good experience feeding her dogs only lamb and turkey – no one knows for sure, because until someone has a first hand long term experience or scientific study with this diet.
Ed wrote: “I will hazard a guess that Cindy has more experience on feeding raw than anyone in the study you mention.”
This shows that Ed did not read carefully my postings. The discussion was not related to whether to feed or not to feed raw. I am not one who automatically believes that everything that was published by scientifically educated people is automatically correct or more correct than information provided based on practical experience. However, I also believe that the scientific method is the only framework for objectively and consistently understand science related material. Nutrition and biochemistry is science and must be studied using scientific techniques and knowledge.
Practical experience is a good foundation for such a study and must be considered, and at the same time, limitations of such experience must be also appreciated and acknowledged before making wrong conclusions about its implications. After all, it was shown that people made many wrong conclusion based on their intuition, experience, and other beliefs – e.g., earth is flat, earth and not the sun is the center of universe, theory of relativity is wrong because it contradicts our experience with mechanical physics, etc. In light of this, what are Cindy’s qualifications in biochemistry, or what sources her conclusion relied on? When someone has a knee-jerk reaction against anything that seems scientific is not a good reflection on this person’s ability to absorb and disseminate intelligent information.
Ed wrote: “There are plenty of STUPID people and STUDIES out there - don't buy people who lack experience OR have ulterior motives for their work.”
I do not argue with any of these statements as a generality. However, Ed did not read any of the sources that I quoted in my postings. He did not take the time to understand and study these sources. I have an issue with his practice to criticize something he did not take the time to even review not to mention take the time and effort to understand. Criticizing or calling something “stupid” that you do not understand does not indicate to me how SMART you are, it just shows that you do not tolerate an intelligent exchange of ideas if they contradict your limited knowledge based on your limited experience (by definition, everyone’s experience is limited).
Ed wrote: “Keep your motives pure and try to do the best for your dog - don't get bogged down in the bullshit from people who simple don't know.”
What in my posts indicated that my motives were not “pure”? I assume that Ed’s motives to support this forum is to provide an important service to help people interested in raising and training working dogs share and exchange information. By supporting free and intelligent exchange of information on this forum, Ed attracts visitors to his Leerburg.com site who may choose to buy his products. This comes with the responsibility for supporting good practices of dissemination of information and avoiding bad practices. Disseminating information that has no factual foundation, calling something “stupid” that you did not take the time to understand, having a knee-jerk reaction to anything educated/scientific, and using the term “bullshit” liberally towards anything you do not agree and understand are all examples of unhealthy information practices.
My position was that essentially all animal protein sources have similar amino acids contents (especially of the 9 essential amino acids), and the main differences are between organ meat and non-organ meat and not between the type of meats. I also claimed that there is no reliable evidence to indicate that the small differences in amino acid content have any impact on canine health. Some people look at nature for examples of the right diet. In nature wild animals would not have access to a diverse meat diet and tend to feed mostly on prey available in their region (e.g., elk, deer, rabbits, or fowls, etc.). Therefore, from both the scientific and the intuitive perspectives, I did not see any support for Connie’s claims.
In my opinion the quality of meat is more important than diversity of the meat type and that it is more important to feed an occasional organ meat for its content of nutrients such as Vitamin A, iron, iodine, etc. I brought several sources to support the various claims I made in my posts -- sources that I carefully read and studied for other reasons. Connie, on the other hand, shown that she knows how to use Google search, but did not show that she read nor understood the material she found. For example, she found reference to the book titled “Amino Acids in Animal Nutrition”. This book dealt with the importance of amino acids (i.e., protein) for animal nutrition and the importance of all amino acids to be present in animal feed. I never argued with this position. I was not able to find anywhere in this book any indication that relatively small the differences in the content of various amino acids in various meats has an impact on canine health, and that diversity of amino acid relative quantities is important in animal and canine nutrition.
So, why is this even important? This discussion is important because understanding the correct reasons for some of these recommendations may influence our daily decisions and ultimately our dog’s health. For example, given a choice between beef and deer meat I would put more importance to the quality of the meat source – i.e., whether the beef was grass fed, whether the beef was given hormones and antibiotics, or whether the deer was raised in a polluted environment and fed on crops high in pesticide or was hunted in relatively pollution and pesticide free habitat – rather on the diversity of the amino acids of the meat source. The first is clearly supported by both scientific and experience based circumstantial evidence, the second is an unsupported opinion that was written to imply scientific basis but in fact it was not.
After several exchanges back and forth it was clear to me that Connie was not able to show any credible evidence to support her claim of the importance of protein diversity. I decided to end my participation in this discussion and the readers to make up their own mind based on the information that was presented. At this point, Ed Frawley found it necessary to come to Connie’s defense and lecture me on the merits of my positions without even trying to understand my position.
I admit to have an issue with Ed’s condescending and insulting style, but more importantly, this is a good example of a poor way to disseminate information I talked about earlier in this posting. As an owner of this forum with control over its contents, Ed had the responsibility to respond in a more intelligent and responsible way. Before I get into specifics of Ed’s response, I would like to point out that generally I respect Ed’s and Cindy’s opinions and suggestions regarding training and raising of dogs. I particularly liked the fact that Ed seemed to be open minded to learn new training techniques and his service to bring these technique to the general public. I also like some of the products he sells on Leerburg.com, but I am now concerned that given his rough style, what would happen if after ordering a product from him that I do not like – would he appreciate and honor his customer’s point of view or merely dismiss it as “bullshit” because the customer did not agree with his opinion about the quality of a product?
So, let’s look at Ed’s response.
Ed wrote: “You may want to reexamine your facts here. If you go to our web site in the section on feeding dogs you will find a Q&A section on feeding raw.” I read this section and I was not able to find any substantive discussion regarding amino acid content.
I assume Ed was referring to the following quote from Cindy: “Depending on your location you will have access to different local meat sources. We feed beef, lamb, chicken, turkey, pork, goat, buffalo, venison, elk, fish, rabbit. ... Variety is the key to a successful raw diet.” As I already mentioned, I did not argue that variety may be good merely the relative importance of variety relative to other factors as discussed in this and other postings. Cindy did not support this statement with any factual objective evidence – this is her opinion that’s all. She may have had good experience feeding her dogs only lamb and turkey – no one knows for sure, because until someone has a first hand long term experience or scientific study with this diet.
Ed wrote: “I will hazard a guess that Cindy has more experience on feeding raw than anyone in the study you mention.”
This shows that Ed did not read carefully my postings. The discussion was not related to whether to feed or not to feed raw. I am not one who automatically believes that everything that was published by scientifically educated people is automatically correct or more correct than information provided based on practical experience. However, I also believe that the scientific method is the only framework for objectively and consistently understand science related material. Nutrition and biochemistry is science and must be studied using scientific techniques and knowledge.
Practical experience is a good foundation for such a study and must be considered, and at the same time, limitations of such experience must be also appreciated and acknowledged before making wrong conclusions about its implications. After all, it was shown that people made many wrong conclusion based on their intuition, experience, and other beliefs – e.g., earth is flat, earth and not the sun is the center of universe, theory of relativity is wrong because it contradicts our experience with mechanical physics, etc. In light of this, what are Cindy’s qualifications in biochemistry, or what sources her conclusion relied on? When someone has a knee-jerk reaction against anything that seems scientific is not a good reflection on this person’s ability to absorb and disseminate intelligent information.
Ed wrote: “There are plenty of STUPID people and STUDIES out there - don't buy people who lack experience OR have ulterior motives for their work.”
I do not argue with any of these statements as a generality. However, Ed did not read any of the sources that I quoted in my postings. He did not take the time to understand and study these sources. I have an issue with his practice to criticize something he did not take the time to even review not to mention take the time and effort to understand. Criticizing or calling something “stupid” that you do not understand does not indicate to me how SMART you are, it just shows that you do not tolerate an intelligent exchange of ideas if they contradict your limited knowledge based on your limited experience (by definition, everyone’s experience is limited).
Ed wrote: “Keep your motives pure and try to do the best for your dog - don't get bogged down in the bullshit from people who simple don't know.”
What in my posts indicated that my motives were not “pure”? I assume that Ed’s motives to support this forum is to provide an important service to help people interested in raising and training working dogs share and exchange information. By supporting free and intelligent exchange of information on this forum, Ed attracts visitors to his Leerburg.com site who may choose to buy his products. This comes with the responsibility for supporting good practices of dissemination of information and avoiding bad practices. Disseminating information that has no factual foundation, calling something “stupid” that you did not take the time to understand, having a knee-jerk reaction to anything educated/scientific, and using the term “bullshit” liberally towards anything you do not agree and understand are all examples of unhealthy information practices.
Simon
Information analysis and dissemination
Top
Previous Topic
Index
Next Topic
