MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4402541925 · doi:10.1093/jas/skae234.131

291 Isoenergetic reduction of dietary macronutrients changes body composition and physical activity in cats, regardless of body condition, when fed to maintenance

2024· article· en· W4402541925 on OpenAlexaffabout
Hannah Godfrey, Érico de Mello Ribeiro, Shoshana Verton-Shaw, Anna K. Shoveller, Darcia Kostiuk, Janelle Kelly, Jennifer Saunders-Blades, Adronie Verbrugghe

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Science · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiet and metabolism studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComposition (language)CATSBody weightChemistryAnimal scienceFood scienceBiologyInternal medicineEndocrinologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Commercial extruded cat foods deviate noticeably from the natural diet of wild cats and contain greater carbohydrate and less protein. This alteration in macronutrient distribution is postulated as a potential factor in feline obesity, yet the precise role of carbohydrates in either predisposing to, or treating, obesity in cats remains inconclusive. This study explored the effects of diets differing in protein, fat, and carbohydrates (NFE) on physical activity and body composition when fed to adult male cats to maintain body weight (BW). Three extruded diets were formulated for adult maintenance according to AAFCO in an isoenergetic approach using the same ingredients in varying proportions: low-protein (LP; protein 28% of metabolizable energy [ME], fat 40% ME, NFE 32% ME), low-fat (LF; protein 42% ME, fat 30% ME, NFE 30% ME), or low-carbohydrate (LC; protein 36% ME, fat 41%ME, NFE 23% ME). Lean (n = 9) and obese (n = 9) adult male neutered cats were fed each diet for 4-wk in a 3 x 3 Latin square design. Physical activity was measured via actigraphy on d 15 to 21 of each period. On d 23 total tissue mass (TTM), body fat mass (BFM), lean soft tissue mass (LSTM), and bone mineral content (BMC) were assessed by dual energy x-ray absorptiometry. Daily food intake and weekly BW were recorded. Data were statistically analyzed in SAS Studio via the GLIMMIX procedure with diet and body condition (bc) as fixed effects and cat as subject. A Tukey post-hoc analysis was performed to assess multiple comparisons when significant (P < 0.05). Body weight (Pbc < 0.0001), TTM (Pbc < 0.0001), BFM (Pbc < 0.0001), LSTM (Pbc < 0.0001), and BMC (Pbc = 0.004) were greater in obese compared with lean cats. Regardless of body condition, LSTM was greater in cats consuming the LF diet (P = 0.010). Daily physical activity was similar between lean and obese cats; however, activity as a ratio of light:dark activity was greater for lean cats compared with obese (Pbc = 0.027). Additionally, cats were more active during dark hours when fed LC and LF (Pdiet = 0.016), though no difference was observed for activity during light hours (P = 0.452). These findings support previous observations regarding body composition disparities between lean and obese cats. Contrary to previous reports, no discernible distinctions in voluntary physical activity were noted between lean and obese cats. In previous studies, both high-carbohydrate and high-fat diets reduced voluntary physical activity when fed to maintain BW which was attributed to a potential alteration in mood and energy levels seen in other species. An increase in physical activity in cats consuming the LF diet could suggest a similar pattern. Future research should explore the metabolic implications of varied macronutrient distributions to expand upon the physiological insights presented herein. Funding for this study was provided by Champion Petfoods, Mitacs Accelerate, and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Council of Canada.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.294 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Animal Science→Same topicDiet and metabolism studies→French-language works237,207→