Ex vivo energy restriction in obese cats reveals more amino acid and vitamin intakes below recommendations with over-the-counter compared to veterinary weight-loss diets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To determine whether cats meet National Research Council (NRC) recommendations for essential nutrient intake when energy restricted on various diets. Methods: 3 diets for each diet group-veterinary weight loss, over-the-counter low calorie (LOWCAL), and OTC adult maintenance (ADULT)-were analyzed for amino acids and vitamins. Theoretical nutrient intakes with each diet under energy restriction were calculated using body weight (BW) and body condition score data of 16 adult obese cats from a previous in vivo weight-loss study. Six energy calculations (R1-6) were used: R1, 70 kcal/current BW0.75; R2, 0.8 X 70 kcal/cBW0.75; R3, 70 kcal/ideal BW (iBW)0.75; R4, 0.6 X 130 kcal/cBW0.4; R5, 0.8 X 70 kcal/iBW0.75; and R6, 0.6 X 130 kcal/iBW0.4. Calculated intakes were compared to NRC recommended allowance (RA) and minimum requirements for adult cats. Results: Crude protein intake was below RA for LOWCAL at R4 and ADULT at R6 and below minimum requirements for ADULT at R6. Tryptophan and phenylalanine plus tyrosine intakes were below RA for ADULT at R4. Choline intake was below RA for veterinary weight loss at R2 and R4 through R6, for LOWCAL at R4 and R6, and for ADULT at R1 through R6. Conclusions: Theoretical energy restriction using purpose-formulated weight-loss food resulted in only choline being below NRC recommendations. Most nutrient intakes met NRC recommendations for LOWCAL and ADULT, except for crude protein, tryptophan, phenylalanine plus tyrosine, and choline intakes. Clinical Relevance: Veterinary professionals should exercise caution when restricting energy for weight loss, particularly with over-the-counter diets, as they may not meet essential nutrient requirements at lower caloric intakes. Veterinary weight-loss foods are recommended to reduce the risk of nutrient deficiencies.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".