If long term , broad participation studies with rigorously reproducible methods came to the conclusion that a vegan diet is a viable option then i would be open to switching.
The issue isn't which food is the most nutritious, it's that the evidence available in general doesn't yet support a conclusion on mid to long term viability.
You could have a team of world class nutritionist vets custom make you the best mixture and you would still have the same issue.
Another indication you haven't actually read any of the papers, even the titles
3/5 of the papers are for both dogs and cats.
I'm aware the title of the post you linked to was exclusivity about cats, the content of the majority of papers was not.
No goalposts were moved i was responding to the information you posted, if you aren't going to actually read them yourself your opinion on what constitutes goalposts means nothing.
Other than the final line, nothing in my response even mentions dogs.
However, lets say we only apply what i said to cats, every single point still stands.
I'm assuming you don't have any actual arguments or you would have mentioned them instead of picking up on a single word that doesn't actually change the content of the response.
Feel free to surprise me though.
the meta analysis found no major implications to health.
What it said was the current evidence which is potentially bias and only from short term and limited quality studies indicates there are no major implications to health.
However, these beneficial findings were relatively consistent across several studies and should, therefore, not be disregarded.
Agreed, it's a reasonably promising start and with all the caveats in place it does have some merit, but "should not be disregarded" isn't the same as "go ahead, everything is fine".
It’s hardly radical, and with proper care cats can be fed a nutritious and tasty diet with not animal products.
It's not radical to think this might pan out to something beneficial, no.
But currently it's still a gamble and to argue from a position that glosses over the many many caveats of the studies you provided is disingenuous and weakens your overall argument.
That you personally think the risk is worth the reward is your own business, presenting the situation as containing no risk is not.
TL;DR;
Posting a link to a bunch of other links you don't seem to have actually read isn't a good basis for an argument
Scientific evidence, sure, but if you'd actually read them you'd see they aren't as inline with your argument as you seem to think.
Do you mean the one behind a paywall
Perhaps the one consisting almost entirely of owner reported (and thus inherently bias) results
Maybe the meta-study that specifically calls out how little quality and volume there is in this areas of study, comments on how self-reported studies are bias and in conclusion basically says:
“It doesn’t seem to immediately kill your pets in the limited studies that have been done, we have even seen some benefits, but we don’t have enough quality data to be that confident about anything”
How about this one which is again largely based on self-reported results.
You should actually read the "Study Limitations" section for this one.
Or the last one which is about vegetarian diets, again goes out of it's way to specifically call out the lack of current research and that the majority of current research supporting these diets is "rarely conducted in accordance with the highest standards of evidence-based medicine"
I'm aware i'm cherry picking quotes and points here, but only to illustrate that these papers aren't the silver bullet you seem to think.
Not to say there is no validity to the argument that these diets can be beneficial but it's a far cry from vegan diets are scientifically proven safe for cats and dogs.
Ah...i think i see the problem.
If what you've understood so far from my responses has been "this person thinks cat's are being force fed cucumbers" then I'm not sure I'm best placed to help you, that's a job for a professional.
Just for completeness sake I'll address your response but it seems there might be bigger obstacles in play than i had first thought.
you do understand that people are not force feeding cats cucumbers.
See above
the food is indistinguishable from the meat versions.
incorrect, it might be similar but so far (again, according to your provided meta study) there has been no conclusive research to suggest an equal nutritional profile in the medium to long term.
See my previous response about gambling.
I'm not sure any further conversation on this subject is going to garner anything new if you are unable (or unwilling) to comprehend and respond to points raised.
Good luck.
so obviously provide your cat with nutritious food. if the cat is not eating the food then find something it will eat.
And that's the issue, the short to midterm studies are relatively bias (as shown by your own provided meta-study), show you need supplements to stave off issues (taurine etc) and are somewhat inconclusive.
There are no long term studies.
It's a "It doesn't seem to immediately kill your pets in the limited studies that have been done, we have even seen some benefits, but we don't have enough quality data to be that confident about anything"
Of an option between a known good and a potential good , one of those is more certain to produce a good outcome.
at the moment these are new fields of studies.
Agreed, and making potentially life altering long term decisions based on new fields of study comes with risks.
I'm not saying it won't or can't work, I'm saying it's a gamble. At the moment it's a sketchy gamble based on incomplete fields of study with limited quality results and it's a gamble you are making on behalf of another life that can't consent.
If you want to roll the dice on this, that's on you.
For me, i would consider that kind of risk to be too great for the sake of my personal beliefs.
Either way, if you are going to be trying to convince people there is no risk you're probably going to have a hard time with anyone who understands how to read the papers you provided.
there is food available that is vegan, palatable and nutritious.
so there is no problem.
A strong claim to be making when the meta study you provide specifically goes out of it's way to say "we don't really know yet"
quality of life is subjective to measure at the best of time.
Sure, no arguments here.
The findings so far so do not demonstrate a problem if the cat is cared for.
Your own citation doesn't even show that , so unless you have another that definitely concludes this I'm not sure where you are getting this from.
As i said above, at best it's stating:
"It doesn't seem to immediately kill your pets in the limited studies that have been done, we have even seen some benefits, but we don't have enough quality data to be that confident about anything"
how else will you study quality of life from a cat?
Empirically and with a structurally repeatable methodology.
Preferably with funding provided by a somewhat neutral party.
The meta-study you provided specifically calls out the problem with self reported studies.
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.
The whole section : "4.1. Evidence Considerations" specifically points out the inadequacies and limitations of the studies under analysis.
As does the conclusion section : "5. Conclusions"
Which to my personal interpretation says
"We haven't found anything overtly damaging, some benefits even, but the research is lacking in scope, sample size and length is largely from potentially biased sources"
"If you are going to feed your cat or dog a vegan diet, use the commercial ones as they are less likely to be problematic"
emphasis on the potentially there, lest you think I'm claiming absolute bias in my interpretation.
I asked you to show peer reviewed studies that prove cats will not find vegan food palatable.
You asked for nutrition and palatability, the nutrition part is covered in the inconclusive nature of the meta study conclusion section, neither strongly for nor against until higher quality research is available.
Going back to a previous comment
You asked for peer reviewed studies into the palatability and nutrition of vegan cat food.
I provided.
Your provided studies made no mention of a particular palatability metric (i could have missed it however). The fact that they eat either type of food would imply a measure of palatability both ways, but if you have something definitive I'd be interested to see it.
cheery picking laws aside
That would imply there was "cherry" picking to be set aside.
cherry picking in this case would imply picking only the law(s) that supports the bias of the poster, to the exclusion of other laws that contradict this position.
I'd be interested in seeing the contradicting laws you think would make this cherry picking, do you have any links ?
That is a good question, I know where the button is for the website (it's in the sidebar, in my UI it's green) but the app im using doesn't have an obvious button
You don't need to suspect you can check for yourself, modlog exists.
/r/onetruegod would like to know if you have some time to discuss ..well...the aforementioned one true god
As i specifically said, this doesn't address the actual issue.
In case i haven't been clear, the current state of nutritional science on this matter has no consensus on mid to long term outcomes.
So taking the all of the experts in the world and creating the pinnacle of vegan pet nutrition will still garner a best guess, because, and i'm going to bold this part on a separate line:
THERE IS NO WAY TO TELL WITHOUT DOING THE ACTUAL WORK
It is potentially being done now, great, wishful thinking and anecdotal results are not a replacement for actual study.
Outstanding, and when they've provided repeatable results from long term studies with quality methodology and reasonable sample sizes that will make a big difference.
Until then it's a gamble with potentially life altering consequences (for the animals i mean)
Each to their own, your own subjective comfort doesn't prove validity, neither does my subjective discomfort prove a lack of it.
For you the risk might be worth it, but to pretend there is no risk is delusional.