- If you took a cooking class and
the teacher used certain types of pots and pans and ingredients, wouldnt you likely
use the same when you got home? If you took a course in cabinet making and the
instructor emphasized oak or maple, wouldnt you likely use that when you built your
kitchen? If an aerobics instructor teaches a particular routine and advocates a
certain brand of athletic shoe, wouldn't this likely be what you would use?
- We naturally defer to
instructors. After all, we are paying for their expertise. If were
novices, why would we not want to rely on their knowledge? Some students do,
however, continue to grow after the classwork ends and may ultimately end up disagreeing
entirely with the teacher and doing something dramatically different. But the
majority stay in the rut.
- Physicians and veterinarians
fall into the same mold. They think what they think and do what they do because it
is what they have been taught in medical institutions. Surgical techniques, favorite
drugs, diagnostic regimens, suture materials, and general practice philosophy all vary
from clinic to clinic depending upon where the practitioner went to school.
- In veterinary practices the
same holds true for feeding recommendations. But here there is more uniformity than
in almost any other clinical area. Clinics virtually across the country all
recommend the same clinical diets and prescribe certain foods for certain
disease conditions. This bias did not come from critical thinking and a well rounded
education in nutrition. Significant nutrition classes are lacking in veterinary
schools and in their place we have indoctrination by certain manufacturers who have
maneuvered their way into schools by grants, funded chairs, and free or substantially
discounted pet food products for students to use during their clinical courses. Some
of these diets are designed with the same allopathic bent (treat the symptom, not the
cause) as most modern pharmaceutical oriented medicines. Veterinary students are led
to believe that such diets are scientific because they have fancy analyses
attached to them, or have certain nutrients cleverly manipulated.
- Thus are born low protein, high
protein, low ash, high fiber, low purine, low magnesium, low calorie, etc. diets in an
endless array of artificially manipulated foods "scientifically" designed to
- You are going to be hard
pressed to convince these folks that you can achieve better health and healing by
converting your pet to more natural, whole Wysong foods supplemented with "table
scraps" and raw foods. But that's too simple. It's a step backward.
- This is not to say there are
not some veterinarians who have risen above the pack. Through independent study and
critical thinking some have rejected the notion that foods should be designed like drugs
and have instead embraced our concept of returning animals to their archetypal genetic
- But in the main, medical people
do what they were taught and take safety in conformity. Changing is just not
something humans find easy to do. Being different than your professional colleagues
may raise eyebrows and subject you to professional criticism.
- So, when you are faced with
nutritional dogma from professionals who often now have the added incentive of remaining
true to form because there is a vested interest in carrying the products they recommend in
their clinic, dont be surprised.
- If you want optimal health for
yourself and your companion animals, continue to grow and be convinced in your
understanding. True health is Mother Nature obeyed, and does not come from a chemists
lab or from edicts from professionals brainwashed by clever pet food marketers who have
bought their way into veterinary schools. You take control by being informed - and
seek advice only from those who have grown in their knowledge and understanding of
nutritional prevention and lifestyle beyond that which was learned during school.
- THE BEST FOOD
- Everyone seems to have an
opinion about what is best to feed their companion animal. Some think canned foods
are best, others dry. Many think whichever food is most palatable is the best.
- There are a lot of dont
feed opinions. Dont feed soy, dont feed corn, dont give too
much fat, dont use pet foods with by-products in them, or wheat, or plant lectins,
or yeast, or bone meal, etc. There are an increasing number of pet owners who are
troubled by ethical concerns about feeding any animal product to their pets and attempt to
feed their captive carnivores vegetarian diets.
- The pet food industry by and
large, along with animal nutritionists, attempts to argue that as long as certain
analytical minimums are met for protein, fat, vitamins and minerals, it makes little
difference what the source of these components are. This sounds plausible on a
theoretical basis, but it opens the door for manufacturers to throw together basically any
concoction as long as it achieves certain percentages on the label. It denies the
natural complex nutritional needs of all creatures. But manufacturers can argue with
various studies on laboratory colonies of animals fed a certain food over a certain number
of weeks. They can also cite examples of animals who have become champions raised on
their analytically based diets.
- Eating beliefs can take on an
almost religious character. Like in religion where hundreds of different sects can
each claim to be The Truth, and you need not fear disproof since adjudication will not
occur until the afterlife, eating beliefs may not bring consequences for decades or even
generations into the future.
- The body is extremely adaptable
and will attempt to survive on whatever it is provided with. But if the food is
incorrect, the body will ultimately be stressed beyond its ability to adapt with resultant
loss of vitality, and then disease and degeneration. Unfortunately, these
consequences are so far removed from the eating cause that few make the connection and
understand the relationship.
- So, how do we sort through all
of these competing ideas? I am going to describe for you a very simple picture that
is so reasonable you need not even look for proofs. Follow along with me and see if
you dont agree.
- Consider the logic of the
following three premises:
Just like a tree is
genetically adapted to absorb certain nutrients, and a lion is genetically adapted to
thrive on prey, and a deer is genetically adapted to browse on vegetation, pets too must
be genetically adapted to a certain kind of food.
The majority of foods
we are presently exposed to are a product of the Industrial Revolution and occupy a small
part of the genetic history of pets. Here is the time line again. The last 200
years during which humans and their companion animals have been exposed to most modern
foods, if represented on a linear time line, would occupy only 1 inch on a line 276 miles
long, the total length of which represents the estimated time for life on Earth.
genetically-adapted-to food for pets must predate them. In other words, how could
animals exist before the food they needed to survive existed?
- If you consider these three
premises, it becomes apparent that the best food is that food which animals would be able
to eat as it is found in nature.
- Would tofu or pasta qualify?
No, because they are found nowhere in nature. Would oatmeal porridge qualify?
No, because oatmeal porridge is found nowhere in nature. Would sprouts
qualify? No, because nowhere in nature would sufficient sprouts be available to
sustain pets. Would beet pulp, brewer's yeast, hydrogenated soybean oil, or for that
matter, looking at humans also, hamburgers, french fries, pop, breakfast cereals, canned
foods, candy, sports drinks, muscle building powders, vitamins and minerals, mashed
potatoes, carrot cake or fig newtons qualify? No. None of these are found as
such in nature.
- Imagine yourself and your pet
placed in nature in the total absence of modern technology. Ask yourself the
question, what would you eat... and what could you eat? You could eat and digest
fruits, nuts, insects, worms, eggs, and animal flesh. These are about the only food
substances in nature humans or pets are capable of digesting without technological
intervention. These are in fact the very foods that are the mainstay of nomadic
primitive societies and wild animals. Only when these foods become scarce do
unpalatable, inedible foods such as most grains and vegetables become cooked and processed
to change their palatability and increase digestibility.
- This is an extremely simple
nutritional principle that is not explained in any nutritional textbook. It cuts
through all the theory, belief and guess work. It matches natural bodies with
- Our immersion in modern cookery
and food processing has misled us. Foods such as pasta, granola, tofu, cauliflower
and lettuce - which are marketed as the ultimate health foods - are in fact not natural
human or animal foods at all. These products either do not exist in nature, or in
their raw precooked form are unpalatable and even toxic. For example, raw soybeans
contain a variety of chemicals which can stunt growth and interfere with the bodys
digestive enzymes. Eat enough of them and youll die. Modern grain
products are a result of agriculture and in their raw form are unpalatable, indigestible
and also toxic. How in nature would one ever find enough
kernels of rice or wheat or barley to even make up a meal, even if they were edible in
their raw form? Who, if they were really, really hungry, and had a choice, would eat
raw broccoli, cauliflower or lettuce? These vegetables are only now made palatable
by cooking or doctoring with manufactured dressings.
- Now this creates somewhat of a
dilemma. Knowing what our natural diet is and consuming it are two different things.
We are so acclimated to the modern diet that the notion of eating or feeding raw
meat, for example, is nauseating to most. Nevertheless, as evidenced by primitive
(but nutritionally advanced) peoples, raw meat and organs can be eaten with great
nutritional benefit to humans and animals, and they are totally digestible and nontoxic.
- It would be very difficult to
achieve this ideal quickly or easily. But if you keep this principle in mind it
helps you emphasize the appropriate, genetically-adapted-to foods. This does not
mean that you cannot or should not feed any processed or cooked foods. It simply
means that if you do, you will be stressing your pets genetic capabilities and will
not be achieving optimal health.
- It is with this knowledge in
hand that I cannot tell you to exclusively feed
our processed pet food, much less anyone else's. You simply
must supplement raw, fresh, natural foods to the diet of your pet if you are hoping to
achieve optimal health.
- In the meantime, we will
continue to evolve our diets so that they reflect, in manufactured form, the closest thing
we are able to produce to mimic the natural diet. Thus by sprouting grains and using
whole grains we are achieving better nutrition than using grain fractions or unsprouted
grains. We are also continuing to increase the amount of fresh meat and organ
ingredients. In essence, every innovation we make in our
foods is an attempt to achieve as close to the ideal diet as possible in processed form,
always recognizing and always reminding our customers that it is still at best only second
best to the raw, whole, natural prey diet of pets.
- A combination of Wysong Diets
and the supplements as recommended below in the Wysong Feeding-For-Health Program, along
with fresh food feeding, is without doubt the very best diet that can be fed to achieve
optimal health and require the least amount of compromise.
- Soy For Cancer And Heart Disease
- Soy contains a variety of
phytonutrients which are being studied for their beneficial effects. I have talked
previously of the value of the phytoestrogens in soy (see Wysong Health Letter Vol. 8, No. 3). Now a
class of phytonutrients called isoflavones is found to be related to a lower incidence of
heart disease and to have a protective effect against cancer. Soy is in tofu and
also in Wysong Peanut Butter Plus and Whole Soy granules.
Biochemical Society Transactions, 1996; 24:
- Aging And Vitamins
- As we get older we lose
digestive efficiency and thus the ability to absorb vitamins and minerals.
Unfortunately, at the same time increasing age requires more optimal levels of
nutrients. In one study it was found, for example, that 50% of geriatric outpatients
had low blood levels of B vitamins. When these B vitamins decrease, a whole range of
degenerative conditions can ensue - including heart disease, cancer, strokes, and
cognitive impairment. Vitamin/mineral supplementation, at least at RDA levels such
as in Wysong RDA, is certainly a wise course of action for any aging individual.
of the American College of Nutrition, 1996;15;3:231-236