Use of reduced-energy content maintenance diets for modest weight reduction in overweight cats and dogs.

One option for controlled weight loss for dogs and cats in overweight condition could be to modestly restrict caloric intake using a reduced-energy ('light') maintenance diet, but there is no prior research on the safety and efficacy of such an approach. A prospective observational cohort study was performed in 67 overweight dogs and 17 overweight cats undergoing weight loss using reduced-energy maintenance diets from one manufacturer. Diets were fed at approximately 80% of maintenance energy requirements for ideal bodyweight for a period of 8 weeks. Essential nutrient intake was estimated for each dog and cat and compared with minimum requirement (MR) or adequate intake (AI, when no MR had been demonstrated) as set by the National Research Council in 2006. Weight loss was seen in 56/67 dogs (84%), losing a median of 4.7% (range 15.2% loss to 10.0% gain) of their starting body weight (SBW). Weight loss was also seen in all 17 cats, losing a median of 6.4% (range 2.0 loss to 15.2% loss) of SBW. Of the essential nutrients examined, only selenium, choline, potassium, and riboflavin were less than NRC recommendations in a minority of animals. However, no signs of any nutrient deficiency were observed in any of the dogs or cats during the study. In summary, modestly energy restricting overweight dogs and cats when feeding a low-energy maintenance diet can induce weight loss and might be a useful initial step for weight management. Although no adverse effects were seen, borderline intake of some micronutrients warrants further consideration.

Comparison of the effects of different kibble shape on voluntary food intake and palatability of weight loss diets in pet dogs.

Altering characteristics of a dry proprietary diet can increase chewing, slow ingestion speed and reduce voluntary food intake. Panels of healthy research dogs consumed kibbled weight loss diets with either a l round (pastille) or a cross shape. Two panels ('small-size' panel, dogs<10 kg 'all-size' panel, dogs with a range of sizes) were used to determine palatability (study 1), whilst a third panel ('consumption kinetics panel') was used to determine voluntary food intake [VFI] and meal duration (study 2). Study 3 was a field trial where the cross kibble was fed to client-owned overweight dogs undergoing controlled weight loss, and attitudes of owners were sort. In study 1, dogs in the all-size panel consumed more of the cross-kibble diet than of the round-kibble diet (P < .001), but there was no significant difference in dogs of the small-size panel (P = 1.000). In study 2, VFI was broadly similar for both diets, with no difference in total consumption across all four meals (P = .370). However, meal duration was significantly longer for the cross kibble (meal 1: 292 s; meal 2: 650 s) compared with the round kibble (meal 1: 186 s; meal 2: 282, P < .001 for both). In study 3, owners observed more chewing behaviour (P = .031), slower ingestion speed (P = .031), and a significant decrease in food-seeking behaviour (P = .020) when eating the cross-kibble compared with the round-kibble. Altering the kibble shape of a canine therapeutic weight loss diet can decrease ingestion speed without affecting palatability, but studies are now required to determine the effect on outcomes of weight management.

Comparison of voluntary food intake and palatability of commercial weight loss diets in healthy dogs and cats.

BACKGROUND: Obesity in dogs and cats is usually managed by dietary energy restriction using a purpose-formulated weight loss diet, but signs of hunger and begging commonly occur causing poor owner compliance. Altering diet characteristics so as to reduce voluntary food intake (VFI) can improve the likelihood of success, although this should not be at the expense of palatability. The aim of the current study was to compare the VFI and palatibility of novel commercially available canine and feline weight loss diets. METHODS: The relative performance of two canine (C1 and C2) and two feline (F1 and F2) diets was assessed in groups of healthy adult dogs and cats, respectively. Diets varied in energy, protein, fibre, and fat content. To assess canine VFI, 12 (study 1) and 10 (study 2) dogs were offered food in 4 meals, for 15 min on each occasion, with hourly intervals between the meals. For feline VFI, 12 cats were offered food ad libitum for a period of 18 h per day over 5 consecutive days. The palatability studies used separate panels of 37 dogs and 30 cats, with the two diets being served, side-by-side, in identical bowls. RESULTS: In dogs, VFI was significantly less for diet C1 than diet C2 when assessed on energy intake (study 1, 42% less, P = 0.032; study 2, 28% less, P = 0.019), but there was no difference in gram weight intake (study 1: P = 0.964; study 2: P = 0.255). In cats, VFI was 17% less for diet F1 than diet F2 when assessed by energy intake (P < 0.001), but there was again no difference in gram weight (P = 0.207). There was no difference in palatability between the two canine diets (P = 0.490), whilst the panel of cats diet preferred F1 to F2 (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Foods with different characteristics can decrease VFI without affecting palatability in both dogs and cats. The effects seen could be due to decreased energy content, decreased fat content, increased fibre content, different fibre source, and increased protein content. Further studies are now needed to determine whether similar findings occur in obese dogs and cats on controlled weight loss programmes.

Oxidative stress in dog with heart failure: the role of dietary Fatty acids and antioxidants.

In dogs with heart failure, cell oxygenation and cellular metabolism do not work properly, leading to the production of a large amount of free radicals. In the organism, these free radicals are responsible of major cellular damages: this is oxidative stress. However, a suitable food intake plays an important role in limiting this phenomenon: on the one hand, the presence of essential fatty acids in the composition of membranes decreases sensitivity of cells to free radicals and constitutes a first protection against the oxidative stress; on the other hand, coenzyme Q10, vitamin E, and polyphenols are antioxidant molecules which can help cells to neutralize these free radicals.