Karen wrote:
>For myself, I tend to think that the evidence thus far supports that
>DR/CR would probably result in the same or similar results in ferrets
>as it has in the many other species studied thus far.  Whether we as
>individuals want to try and maintain our ferrets on such a diet is
>totally UP TO US, and no one is really going to condemn anyone who
>doesn't feel up to the task.  It is not an easy thing to do.  In fact,
>if you don't do it correctly, you could do more harm than good, so it's
>important to only attempt it (for yourself, or your family, or your
>pets) if you can do so competently.  Otherwise, there is nothing wrong
>with sticking with the current best diets we have.
 
With an animal with considerations like a high metabolic rate and
tendency toward rapid wasting I personally tend to be cautious.  Your
final point, though, is one of the main ones that I think that people
should take home: these diets are very hard to design and very easy to
botch up.  If it turns out that such caloric restriction is useful for
ferrets (or for certain ferrets, or for ferrets at certain stages of
life) then the safest thing is going to be to have them designed by those
who are veterinary dieticians -- the experts in this specific field.  If
these diets pan out for ferrets then the safest approach is going to be
a prepared food from veterinary dieticians who know what the heck they
are doing, which is used when not coungter-indicated for use for an
individual.
 
MMM wrote:
>And I guess that since I believe nutrition as a whole of study is still
>really in the dark ages (I mean come on folks, how many times have human
>nutritionists done complete about faces on things?), I just cannot even
>begin to imagine there is definitive word on ferret nutrition.
 
You have just illustrated some of my points about common
misunderstandings.  In the first place, nutritionist are NOT experts in
nutrition; they are folks who called them selves experts or ones who have
a level of education which not the equivalent of an RD so -- yes -- that
sub-group does reverse itself more often because as strong a foundation
isn't there as someone with a doctorate in this field or an RD (a masters
level degree in some of the U.S., and a bachelors in others) has.
 
Second: Dieticians, on the other hand, ARE well educated in this field
and really they do NOT tend to change what they say all that often.  Yes,
they do so when new evidence warrants, but they do so FAR LESS than the
general public thinks that they do -- and this is true for ALL fields of
science.  The reason is that reporters and people who are getting the
info from non-academic sources WAY TOO OFTEN treat hypotheses as if they
were facts.  Nor do they tend to report nuances that are essential to
understand.  The upshot of doing that is exactly the annoyed and
frustrated feeling that comes through in what you have said and what so
many others have said.  Hypotheses, even ones on very strong ground,
simply do not always pan out, so it is essential to know hypotheses from
facts not only to better weigh one's actions, but also to not feel like
you've been shot in the gut if a hypothesis does not pan out.  Knowing
the difference reduces pain and frustration, not to mention confusion.
It's also considerate toward others to be careful about using qualifiers.
Besides, it simply is more accurate to be careful to use warranted
qualifiers.
 
BTW, everyone, I do strongly think that learning the possible problems
with a hypothesis is absolutely required for building the strongest case.
Some small ones require adjustments, while problems with foundation
premises can require major rethinking.  They are gifts (albeit not always
pleasant ones to get) which allow for the strongest case to be presented
in the end, and they really do help in the long run.
 
Besides, it seems that there is some are reading upset into things which
should be easy to agree upon -- like using health experts -- and I doubt
that there is strong disagreement on that aspect (though there might be
since I can't read anyone else's mind any more than anyone can ready
mine), so shades of grey should not be confused with emphatic either-or.
 
Some folks here are following Sevie: she once again has some sad
symptoms.  Her Complete A/V Heart Node Block and her insulinoma now have
her to the point where she pays for it when she plays too hard and there
are concerns for her kidneys and so one at such times -- and she can't
monitor herself like she could earlier.  We aren't imposing quality of
life restrictions because her condition could have killed her anytime
in the last 5 months so she may as well have a good time and be spoiled
rotten.  It would be nice if she would make it to Christmas, but it's
more likely that she has a week or two in her, maybe less at this point.
Then again, she has fooled us, the treating vets, and the consulting vets
before so she still may do so.  I do hope that when she goes her heart
just gives out but it is looking more like she is going the hard way
with damage to other organs as a result of her heart problems.
[Posted in FML issue 3971]