What's your answer to this?

>>2470449
Oh no, a headline of undetermined source including the picture of a dog! I lost!

>>2470450
http://vitals.lifehacker.com/are-expensive-pet-foods-any-healthier-than-cheap-ones-1798641249

File: 1487633506016.jpg (89KB, 333x500px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 333x500px

>>2470457
>it's one of gawker media's sites

>>2470457
>Kinja
Into the trash it goes

>>2470449
>pet food

Dogs developed eating the table scraps of humans for thousands of years. Dog """food""" is a modern invention.

>2470449
>“If you buy commercial pet foods at all, you are buying ingredients that humans do not want to eat,”
Well no fucking shit.

>>2470449
I'm not surprised at all.

You can jack up the price of Friskies and yeah, the price doesn't make it better.

It's about quality. Doesn't justify the price tag because it's not as great as companies make it out to be but they know they can do it and cash in on owners finding out Ol Roy is fucking up their dog.

What do you guys feed your pupper?
My little guy gets science diet a mix of wet and dry

>>2470449
So I can switch my dog to Ol Roy from Orijen?

i hate shit like this so much. the article didn't even have a conclusion or an idea
they don't even define "healthy". like they have the same micro and macro nutrients per serving? yeah no shit it's a regulated industry. a steak and a beef hot dog do too. which is ""healthier""??
i feed quality food because the serving sizes are smaller and they have less fibrous fillers in them so my dog doesn't create sloppy disgusting turds for me to scoop.
and everyone i know who has obese, gross, stinky fucked up dogs feeds cheap shitty food. i don't know if it's the food or the kind of people who buy that food but it's real

The "article" doesn't even actually talk about the different price points of dog foods or their nutritional value compared to each other.

Points she actually brings up:

>You can tell from the phrasing on the package just how much meat is in the product.
No shit. This is something anyone invested in their dog's diet knows. What she doesn't mention is that foods that are higher quality (and usually more expensive) are the ones that use the phrasing that indicates such. A shit quality food that costs $15 for 50 pounds just plain can't put "chicken dog food" or "100% chicken" on their ingredient list.

>Dogs and cats can digest grains, and they’re a fine ingredient in food as long as the nutrients are balanced.
Just because an animal can digest something doesn't mean it's fine for them. Grains have less nutritional value than other carb sources that come in grain-free foods. Dogs have to eat more of the food to to take advantage of the same amount of nutrients and their bodies waste more of it, which is why they poop more on food with grain. But every dog is different, which is why some dogs do fine on grain and some don't.

>What about the other reassuring-sounding words on the label?
>talks about buzzwords like "natural" and "holistic"
No shit those don't mean anything.

It sounds like the actual point of the article is "pet foods with fancy buzzwords on them, which are sometimes more expensive, aren't necessarily healthier, and you need to be aware of their actual ingredients and your pet's nutritional needs" but it's a poorly-written, disorganized article that fails to actually prove that point. it takes all of its information from one source written by two professors of human nutrition (whose veterinary knowledge is clearly lacking). In fact, if "Dr. Nestle" didn't seem so fucking obvious, I'd say it was a shill for Purina who wrote the book this article was based on.

>>2470588
TL;DR are "Ol' Roy" and "NATURAL Ol' Roy NOW HOLISTICALLY GRAIN FREE" the same exact fucking thing even though one costs $2 for 50 pounds and the other is $20? You betcha. But is Ol' Roy anywhere close to Merrick or TOTW or Orijen or Wellness? Fuck no.

>>2470588
>You can survive drinking a little motor oil as long as the rest of your diet isnt all motor oil

I hate this article.