Very happy to respect your point of view if you'll share what it is WRT the specific question I asked about WPF. My "point of view" is "show me the data". If you say you respect my point of view, then a lot of what you're posting gets a big au contraire, unless the data is presented. Reference the so-called "cholesterol hypothesis myth", for one. Got data? I have. But that's the human side. On to horse food.
I do think the idea that "fixed formula" feeds are clearly superior is worth subjecting to scrutiny. I have NO DOG IN THE FIGHT. I think both ideas have merit. But there is a lot of "spin" with this topic.
Naturally it sounds ideal to say "wouldn't you rather know exactly what's in that bag of grain?" as opposed to "'they' simply put in whatever happens to be available this week". Another way of looking at it is "if the nutritional profile is unchanged, and minus allergies wherein the conscientious owner would have to avoid certain ingredients, is it better or not better to have a very consistent level of nutrients rather than insisting on OATS (for example) when that might mean oats from Farmer A with quality X in this bag and oats from Farmer B with quality Y in the next bag? Yes, they're oats, but if the oats are 8% protein (using that as a simple example) this batch and 12% the next batch, how is that "better" if one's desire is to manage the diet precisely?
I'm not saying I endorse this level of micromanagement of nutrients, BTW. But a lot of people do.
A polypeptide from corn and the same polypeptide from barley are indistinguishable by the animal at the cellular level. The same goes for a starch, a sugar, a lectin, an amino acid, or a mineral. So long as the amounts and ratios of nutrients are correct, and so long as there is no allergy, as unappealing and "unnatural" as it sounds, a mish-mash of this and that is perfectly fine to nourish us. Single ingredients sound "natural" and "wholesome", but that is not the only criterion by which to judge a food product. I'm leaving out the 5000 chemicals and additives. That's a separate topic.
If you take the emotion out of it (and this completely ruins many a sales pitch) and just look at it from a dispassionate, scientific viewpoint, "grain by products" (again assuming they are not contaminated and the animal is not allergic) are just as potentially nutritious as "whole oats" or what have you. But one very definitely has a "wholesome" air about it and the other does not.
Slick marketing can go both ways. The agenda groups understand this and have their own spin doctors madly going at it. Clearly the budgets of the "big companies" are larger, but insidious "marketing" in the guise of books written by "experts" and disguised as scholarly works, puff pieces in magazines, and fake press releases cost almost nothing and have a lot of impact.
Okey-dokey. You want to have a pi$$ing contest with me, here goes:
Where did I ever say I have swallowed whole the WPF's entire message uncritically? Those are words you've put in my mouth. I didn't even bring them up--they were cited by another poster as having some interesting alternative information about soy. You mis-stated their advocacy message and I corrected it based on my reading of their mission. 'Nuff said. I'm not even a member!
With regards to feed bags and what's in them. Once again, talk to people INSIDE THAT WORLD. It was a company rep who TOLD me various industry practices, you think I made that up?
By the same token, it is DOCTORS, MD's like yourself whom I know socially, who have told me unequivocally the following:
Don't use any pill that hasn't been on the market at least 25 years, because they rush them on the market with insufficient data because true studies take too long and cut into profits. It's cheaper to pull it later if there are problems and they settle out of court on the lawsuits. Quote/Unquote. Want more?
Properly constructed and interpreted studies HAVE shown that some statins MAY provide secondary prevention only in SOME men who've already had a heart attack. Nothing more. The mechanism is under debate and may have much more to do with the side effect of reducing general inflammation than "lowering cholesterol." Again, in men (only) who have NEVER had a heart attack there has never been any benefit shown, and not for lack of trying. That is, NO statin drug has been EVER conclusively proven to prevent ANY first heart attacks. However, none of that prevents scripts being written to hundreds of thousands of people, both men AND women, on the basis of nothing more than their age and an arbitrary "number" that gets ratcheted down yearly by a committee. More often than not, a drug that can have debilitating side-effects is being prescribed not even for a DISEASE, but for a STATISTIC. Lo and behold, wonder if 20 years from now we'll find out the inordinate rates of Alzheimer's are being caused by this stuff, and the equally unnatural low-fat, high-grain diet that's causing people to "need" it to begin with!
I heard today that 1 in 80 kids is now autistic. My bet is that has a wee bit to do with feeding developing brains skim milk and megatons of sugar. Sugar, hiding in plain sight, is probably also the No. 1 carcinogen in our diets today. Or at least, that's what the researchers at Sloane-Kettering who are working on insulin and insulin-like growth hormone think. Time will tell.
For three generations, DW, you MD's have had the kind of intellectual power over the population formerly reserved for priests and the Oracle of Delphi. But when you talk to people INSIDE YOUR WORLD, off the record with a few drinks in them, you really find out stuff. There's beaucoup "faith-based chemistry" out there, yes siree!
So stop trying so hard to slaughter the messenger. The very fact that you're taking me on this way, over and over and over, shows that you feel threatened by alternative theories the way religious folk do whose faith is a little shakier than they'd like!
Lady E, you're taking it WAY too personally. My questions are about facts, data, evidence. Nothing personal. No threats on either side. Wowza! The messenger was being asked a couple of questions to clarify a point or two. The message is my target. Let me say it again, for clarity. I loathe pseudoscience and its insidious way of producing misinformed people who are only trying to help themselves. That's it, simple. Don't care one way or the other about soy, vegans, beef, or any of that really. I agree people should think for themselves, but we all have to guard against dogmatic thinking. Myself included.
It's hard to slaughter a messenger who has no clear message, by the way. But you haven't been here long, so I will happily wait and see just what it is you stand for and I invite the dialogue. Someone with 10 years of education in whatever field it is you indicated (nutrition? PhD?) no doubt can teach me a lot. Please don't shoot THIS messenger who isn't even aiming at you.
(The mountains of data about statins are there for the reading. Death rates from heart disease, declining sharply and steadily rather than climbing as they had been for decades. Because of statins. Alzheimer's concerns: unfounded. (there are even studies, crummy ones, indicating statins may HELP--too soon to say) It is the nature of studies and the way Big Pharma works to have to insist that only THIS drug or THAT drug has been shown to prevent or reduce . . . it's coporate- and legal-speak and nothing more. Statins are considered, both in terms of risk AND benefit, a "class effect" and nobody who has the whole picture believes any of that nonsense about only men benefitting or only this subpopulation or that one. Follow your own advice--read the studies critically with the big picture in mind, not the pharmaceutical company)
Believe it or not, not everyone who is an "MD" swallows a party line or acts thoughtlessly based on which drug rep brought them a sandwich in 1999. Why so much hatred, when you clearly have "MD" friends whose opinions you listen to? You don't even know me, nor how I prescribe statins, but you're willing to condemn me with the whole lot of "MDs that you don't personally know". Your prerogative. You're not the first. And IME, talking to people with a few drinks in them doesn't typically yield their finest intellectual output. It does, however, often yield melodrama, axes in need of grinding, and self-important puffery. However, this is an anecdotal observation.
The very fact that you're taking me on this way, over and over and over, shows that you feel threatened by alternative theories the way religious folk do whose faith is a little shakier than they'd like!
You've not seen some of my posts on religion. And you're new here, so how could you know that I've never met an argument I could pass up, or that this topic is (pseudoscience, not soybeans) is my personal favorite? It isn't you.
Yeah, you boozing doctor, take that! ROFL! I really want to see this infamous ranter take you on about cardiac science, that might well make my week! To heck with soy, which I don't care much about anyway, other than the fact that the spreading area of soy fields is causing massive deforestation.
Oh and just to fix the biology part -- Nature doesn't "design" anything and there is no optimal state or "pinnacle of evolution" in any species. There are simply those who pass on their genes and those who don't and sometimes, oh I have to say it, individuals just get lucky. Genetic and allelic frequency are on a continuum, not hard points. And horses living in "nature" don't live to be 35 years old and certainly do not all have a 4.5 body score.
Apparently? Is that supposed to mean that we have gotten our Certificate of Completion from government boot camp of talking points or something? I sure am glad I get all that kickback money so I don't have to eat PB&J every day - oh wait - *hides jam jar*
Oh wait, no, it was a realization that we've had years of training and experience in study design, data interpretation, asking questions, statistical analyses, objective reasoning, biological systems, physiology, and chemistry so we might be able to help provide some dispassionate information from our respective fields to clarify questions like this.
Yeah, yeah, I'm sure it was the second one. Of course all that training was done by ninjas in a location we don't know because we were driven there with a bag over our head and then electrocuted if we gave a wrong answer....the truth has finally come out.
Learning backwards is REALLY difficult. All those tedious years of basic biology, physiology, etc. etc. etc. leading to more advanced study leading to more and more study and building the house on a foundation really does work. It sure is expensive and a long haul, though!
Trying to "reverse engineer" a comprehensive understanding of biology and physiology is TOUGH. Not impossible, but REALLY HARD. One can't just buy a book and start reading and get it, IMO. Especially if the book is a sensational puff piece put out to reveal "secrets nobody will tell you!" But that's a different topic.
It would be like a hobby woodcarver suddenly trying to build a custom house. The guy who started out sweeping up sawdust and a gofer, then an apprentice, then a journeyman, then a sub, then a GC, then a master builder is going to have an easier time AND build a better home.
Or like a casual weekend rider with a day job trying to learn dressage.
<Sigh>, these threads always end the same. Anything you don't agree with is summarily dismissed as "pseudoscience." Since we mentioned religion, I realize this is your Crusade and I'm not going to change that. Party on . . . nothing to do with me, DW.
As for the ones who have ended up name-calling, well, that's the last pathetic refuge of someone who cannot refute the actual argument. Just boring, and reflects on you more than me.
The only thing that made me wade in here is when you completely misrepresented the message of a worthwhile and thought-provoking organization with an interesting take on post-modern nutrition.
There is a great deal of common medical practice today that, when you lift up rocks, doesn't have a whole lot of scientific evidence backing it--surely not of the caliber you demand of others. As for my "agenda," I really don't have one at all. What makes me see red, though, are statements of theory and hypothesis marketed as absolute fact, and unwarranted arrogance to the point of apparent belief in the infallibility of your system. Gee, we had another system or two like that, once . . . They're off their pedestals a bit these days, too. The days have passed when you can count on our major corporate and governmental institutions to protect us from ANYTHING.
Back to the OP's topic at hand:
It comes down to what's in your tool box. MD's and vets have a chemical tool box, so their natural inclination is to solve most problems with chemistry. A chiropractor will want to manipulate, an acupuncturist to adjust the energy, a nutritionist will want to jimmy up what's in the feed bag that could be causing you problems. Any and all of these may be the proper approach to a given problem. Being a BO, I like to solve horses' problems with management my first choice over drugs or any of the other modalities whenever that is possible. As in my posts above, I also believe we create a lot of our own poblems by overcomplicating things. We cease to see the forest, busy analyzing rings in trees.
It's up for the horse owner or human in a predicament to decide how s/he wants to approach it--or even to determine if a "problem" exists at all. One need not assume ignorance and accept received wisdom, certainly not people such as here on COTH. One answer does not fit all.
Feed your horse soy products if they work for him and for you.
If you're having a problem, try feeding something else.
No skin off my bum either way.