Veggie patch soy dogs

Disclaimer: Compensation was provided by Amwell via Momtrends. The opinions expressed herein are those of the author and are not indicative of the opinions of Amwell or Momtrends. It all started after a long week of work, where I had been sitting in […]. Your email address will not be published. Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Set aside. About Veggie Patch Veggie Dogs: You and your kids will love them because they have all of the great taste of traditional hot dogs, but none of the nitrates. We also ranked veggie dogs based on the amount of sodium, fat, and protein in each product and on whether they contain organic ingredients. What's your favorite vegan burger and vegan dog? We'll publish some comments in our e-mail newsletter, VRG-News.

To subscribe to VRG-News, go to www. She is the co-author of Simply Vegan and the most recent American Dietetic Association position paper on vegetarian diets.

Thanks to Lisa Kobs, RD, for researching product information for this article. The contents of this website and our other publications, including Vegetarian Journal, are not intended to provide personal medical advice. Medical advice should be obtained from a qualified health professional.

We often depend on product and ingredient information from company statements. Please use your best judgment about whether a product is suitable for you. To be sure, do further research or confirmation on your own. Any page on this site may be reproduced for non-commercial use if left intact with credit given to The Vegetarian Resource Group and each page linked to www.

Click here to see our Privacy Policy. Web site questions or comments? Please email. Rankings for Vegan Burgers and Dogs Products were rated based on their sodium, protein, and fat content and on organic ingredients. Higher rankings indicate a product low in sodium and fat, moderate in protein, and based on organic ingredients. You may want to do further evaluation based on your own criteria.

In addition, intestinal transit and absorption of soy protein in dogs may differ from animal proteins Zhao et al. The present study was performed to determine if processing procedures and source of proteins have different effects on GFR in dogs. Four clinically normal adult mongrel dogs weighing 20 to 28 kg were fed a weighed amount of commercially available adult maintenance dogfood for 2 mo.

Food consumption was measured daily, and body weight measurements were performed weekly. Daily protein intake during the 2-mo period was calculated. PMI Feeds, St. Corn, corn gluten feed, meat meal, soybean meal were sources of protein. Eight adult mongrel dogs weighing 8 to 13 kg had renal mass surgically reduced as previously described Finco et al. Dogs were fed weighed amounts of a diet prepared for dogs with renal compromise Iams Co.

Ground corn grits, soy protein isolate, chicken digest, corn gluten meal were sources of protein for 5 mo, and during the last 2 mo food intake was measured daily, and daily intake of protein was computed. Casein, soy meal, soy flakes, purified soy protein and pork liver were obtained from suppliers [Protein Technologies International, St. Louis, MO soy flakes, purified soy protein ; Sigma Co.

Louis, MO casein, creatinine , Clarke Co. Milling, Athens, GA soy meal ]and analyzed for protein concentration. Calculations were performed to determine the amount of each preparation required to supply the quantity of protein consumed by each dog daily during the prior 2 mo. Normal dogs were tested with casein, soy meal, soy flakes and purified soy protein. Based on results from normal dogs, the dogs with reduced renal function were tested with casein, pork liver and purified soy protein.

All dogs were subjected to the same protocol for measuring GFR Finco et al. After 16 h without food, dogs were placed in Pavlov slings and catheters were placed in a saphenous vein, a jugular vein and the urinary bladder. Two protocols were employed. After a min equilibration period, the bladder was emptied and rinsed with sterile saline 0-time , and three min urine collections were made. The bladder was emptied and rinsed thoroughly at the end of each collection period. Blood samples were obtained from the jugular vein catheter at 0, 20, 40 and 60 min.

Immediately after min samples were obtained, each dog was fed a test protein. Material not consumed voluntarily was force-fed within 15 min to assure prompt and complete intake of the calculated quantity of protein.

Hourly collections of urine and blood for GFR measurement were continued postprandially for 4 or 5 h. Dogs with normal renal function were tested on d 1, 8, 15, 22 and 29, with a 7-d interval provided to prevent carryover effects. On d 1, one dog received casein, the second soy meal, the third soy flakes, and the fourth purified soy protein. Protein assignments for subsequent days were in the sequence of casein, soy meal, soy flakes and purified soy protein. On d 29 dogs had GFR measured without feeding in order to determine if renal function changed independently of protein intake during the several hours of study.

Dogs with reduced renal mass were tested on days 36, 50 and Based on results from normal dogs, three soy proteins were eliminated and an additional animal-source protein was added see Discussion section. On d 36, two dogs received casein, three dogs received purified soy protein, and two received pork liver. Protein assignments for subsequent days were in the order of casein, purified soy protein and pork liver. On each day an eighth dog had GFR measurements made without feeding, to serve as a time control.

Joseph, MI. Creatinine clearances were calculated using the standard urinary clearance formula. For calculations, the plasma concentration of creatinine was computed as the mean of plasma concentration at the beginning and end of each urine collection period.

Preprandial values for GFR for each dog were computed as the average of the three min clearance measurements performed before feeding each protein.

Postprandial values for GFR were computed as the average of the four or five hourly clearance measurements following the preprandial measurements.

Preprandial and postprandial measurements of GFR for each protein were compared using a paired-comparison t test. Normal dogs ingested 4.

Dogs with reduced renal mass ingested 4. Body weight remained stable in all dogs during the 2 mo prior to testing and during the testing period. Preprandial measurement of GFR in normal group 1 dogs 2. No significant change in GFR occurred when normal dogs were not fed. Glomerular filtration rate of normal dogs and dogs with reduced renal mass before and after feeding a protein meal.

Casein, purified soy protein and pork liver caused a significant increase in GFR in dogs with reduced renal function, but no change in GFR occurred in the unfed dogs Table 1. In both dog groups for all proteins tested, GFR began increasing during the first hour postprandially, and was stable or declining by the fifth hour postprandial. Effect of protein feeding on the magnitude of change in glomerular filtration rate in normal dogs and dogs with reduced renal mass.

The results of the present study are not in agreement with studies in humans that demonstrated a different effect of vegetable and animal proteins on acute renal hemodynamic measurements. Our study indicates that in both normal dogs and those with reduced renal mass, an acute increase in GFR occurred, regardless of protein source.

Some studies in humans have suggested that the differences in physiologic effects observed between animal and vegetable proteins could be related to nonprotein components unique to vegetable sources. Legumes such as soy contain trypsin inhibitors, phytic acid, saponins and isoflavones, which could alter the digestibility of the protein or have other physiologic effects Anderson and Wolf , Zhao et al.

Because various processing procedures may change the quantity or activity of these soy constituents, we evaluated three soy preparations in our study of normal dogs.

The lack of difference in hemodynamic effects between the least processed and the most processed soy preparations indicated that processing did not alter protein absorption significantly. Because different soy preparations had similar effects in normal dogs, a single soy preparation was used in dogs with reduced renal mass. Another animal protein was added in this group because results with casein in normal dogs approached but failed to reach significance.

Pork liver was chosen because severe glomerular lesions have been found to develop in cats with reduced renal mass consuming a pork liver protein source Adams et al. In dogs with reduced renal mass, the three proteins tested caused a significant increase in GFR, and no significant difference was detected among the sources of protein in the magnitude of GFR response.

These findings do not support the hypothesis that pork liver protein causes renal hemodynamic changes different from casein or soy protein. Classic studies performed in normal dogs nearly 50 y ago first demonstrated the effect of protein on GFR Smith , but initial studies were conducted using amounts of protein far in excess of daily requirements.

The quantity of protein administered to dogs in the present study to measure acute hemodynamic effects was based on daily protein intake for the preceding 2 mo. Stable body weight in all dogs during the 2-mo pretest period indicated that energy intakes were adequate. Since diets are formulated to provide adequate protein when energy needs are met, the diets were probably adequate in protein content. Some claims of different hemodynamic effects from vegetable and animal proteins reported in humans could be related to failure to control the quantity of protein ingested.

Indeed, some studies of humans have failed to detect a difference in hemodynamic effects between animal and vegetable proteins Mansey et al. Soy protein compared to casein has been reported to slow progression of renal failure in rats with reduced renal mass Williams and Walls and , Williams et al. However in these studies protein effects on GFR were not measured, and it is possible that factors other than renal hemodynamics explain long-term renal benefits attributed to soy proteins.

Other changes attributed to soy foods include alteration of plasma lipid profiles, Kirk et al.