Hi Bob,
Thanks for responding to my diet questions.  I still have a couple bones to
pick with you, mostly from the previous post.  In one case, I can say you
are actually completely totally wrong (a rarity for you)!
 
You wrote:
>Carbohydrates are simply nothing more than one or more carbon atoms bonded
>to several hydrogen atoms.  See?  Hydrated carbons?  Carbohydrates?  The
>simplest carbohydrate is CH4; that is, 1 carbon bonded to 4 hydrogens.
 
No, that's a hydrocardon, not a carbohydrate.  "Hydrate" means "water" and
carbohydrates have the formula H2(HCOH)n.  The simplest carbohydrate is
thus H3COH, or methanol (the only alcohol which is also technically a
carbohydrate).  And fats do not have the same chemical formula, they are
not so oxygenated, hence far more effort is required to turn them into
simple sugars, which are further oxygenated to form H2O and CO2.
 
>I believe there is a statistical correlation between consuming starch
>filled food and insulinoma in ferrets, but I cannot predict which ferret
>will or will not contract pancreatic disease.  And in all honesty, I might
>be wrong.  As for the rest of the arguments about Iams, I think you are
>debating minutia.  I mean, if it is bad to eat corn because the
>carbohydrates might cause disease, what's the difference if you are eating
>rice?  You are talking about percentage points, NOT REAL DIFFERENCES.  If
>one causes a problem in 50% of a population and the other in 65%, THEY ARE
>BOTH STILL BAD!  It's like arguing one bullet makes a smaller hole as it
>rips through your heart.
 
I agree with your first premise, but diagree with your conclusion.  If you
can reduce disease by 23% [(65-15)/65] simply by changing one ingredient,
that is a very big deal and great improvement.
 
>First you have to prove the link, THEN figure which ones are better than
>others.
 
To use your smoking analogy, for DECADES, the tobacco industry denied the
link between smoking and cancer had been proven.  Does that mean they were
justified in continuing to push their unregulated poison on us?  Even if
the link was unproven, there was sufficient evidence to warrant concern,
and therefore sufficient reason to look for ways to reduce exposure
(including more regulation) and the risk of disease.
 
If there are simple ways to improve kibble diets, we should pursue that
vigorously.
 
Linda Iroff
BA, Chemisty, with high honors, University of Virginia, 1974
MA, Chemisty, Princeton University, 1976
[Posted in FML issue 3012]