• Lightor@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      This study was essentially them asking cat owners information, no direct observation. This may be a surprise but people lie, especially when they really want something to work.

      No one is going to admit they hurt their cat by pushing a diet they believe is right.

      • Kroxx@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        Hey that’s a really good point lets see what scientific literature says about that:

        4.1. Evidence Considerations-To date, only sixteen studies have looked at actual health-related outcomes in dogs and cats fed vegan diets, as opposed to performing nutrient evaluations of diets. However, the majority of these studies utilized small sample sizes (ranging from 2–34 animals) for the direct investigation of outcomes. Whilst survey studies evaluating guardian-reported outcomes generally encompassed larger numbers of animals, these are subject to inherent biases due to participant selection, as well as the reliability of lay people making judgements around somewhat subjective concepts, such as health and body condition.

        It then goes on to say:

        The risk of bias assessment performed on the experimental trials suggests, at best, an unclear risk of bias across the studies. There were some particular aspects of poor performance (or reporting), especially around randomization and blinding. This has been reported previously in animal studies [42], where researchers have probably not taken on board some of these important facets of experimental design and reporting to the extent that human clinical researchers have [43,44]. This remains a major concern impeding reproducibility, and where internal validity of the study is impacted, also leads to wastage of animal and financial resources [42].

        Seems like the science backs your claim up partially. I would call it bias instead of lying though.

        Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9860667/

          • Kroxx@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            Which is exactly why pet owners shouldn’t be fucking with it, maybe down the road but as it stands right now the average pet owner shouldn’t be experimenting on their poor kitties.

            • davepleasebehave@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              4 months ago

              It’s what’s happening. people report their findings. the findings seem positive for the moment.

              That’s the results of these peer reviewed studies.

              those are the facts for the moment.

              And as I have constantly said, if the cat enjoys the food and it provides all the nutrients, what’s the problem?

              • Lightor@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                4 months ago

                Yes, the extremely subjective and biased findings look good. Which in science means nothing.

                • davepleasebehave@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  it’s a good way to do measure quality of life… he goes into how they measure it and the limitations in the video.