A High-Protein, High-Fiber Diet Designed for Weight Loss Improves Satiety in Dogs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Weight-loss programs for dogs are often hampered by increased begging and scavenging behavior that ensues when food intake is restricted. HYPOTHESIS: A diet formulated to contain a high content of both protein and fiber is more satiating than diets that contain only high fiber or high protein. ANIMALS: Six entire female adult dogs (2 Shetland Sheepdogs, 2 Brittany Spaniels, 2 Labrador Retrievers) participated in the satiety studies; 105 adult female dogs of various breeds and ages were used for the palatability studies. METHODS: Three diets (high protein [103 g/1,000 kcal] high fiber [60 g/1,000 kcal] [HPHF]; high protein [104 g/1,000 kcal] moderate fiber [35 g/1,000 kcal] [HP]; moderate protein [86 g/1,000 kcal] high fiber [87 g/1,000 kcal] [HF]) were tested. Voluntary food intake was measured in 5 sequential crossover studies, and palatability was assessed with food preference tests. RESULTS: Protein digestibility was significantly lower for HF (mean +/- SD; 77.7% +/- 2.52%) than for both HPHF (81.1% +/- 0.96%) and HP (81.1% +/- 1.65%) (P < .001). Short-term food intake (food ingested when offered for 15 minutes every hour for 4 hours) was lower for HPHF than for both HP and HF (P = .038). Medium-term intake (food ingested when offered 3 hours after first meal) was lower for both HPHF (27 +/- 22.2 kcal/kg(0.73)) and HF (41 +/- 6.8 kcal/kg(0.73)) than for HP (57 +/- 18.8 kcal/kg(0.73)) (P = .041). Voluntary food intake 3 hours after feeding a restricted meal (25% daily maintenance energy requirements) was significantly lower on the HPHF diet than on either the HP (-51%, P = .0051) or HF (-47%, P = .014) diets. However, there was no significant difference between the energy intake on the HP and HF diets (7%, P = .37). The HPHF and HP diets had equivalent palatability, and both were more palatable than the HF diet (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE: The HPHF diet had a satiating effect as evidenced by reduced voluntary intake compared with HP and HF diets, and has the potential to lead to greater compliance in weight-loss programs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".