 |
[RC] What the Abstracts Say...and Don't Say (was: Beet Pulp) Part 1 - katswig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxFor the sake of brevity, I have removed the title, author and assorted other reference information provided by Tom Ivers and am including only the abstracts about beet pulp studies for a discussion of interpreting what they say, and more importantly highlighting what they DON'T say. (Although the information may be contained in the full papers. I don't know because I haven't read them; after all, Tom told me that all an intelligent person needs to do is read the first and last lines of the abstract to understand any scientific paper, so yes, part of my point here is to demonstrate just how absurd that notion is). The first abstract: ------------------- In a cross-over study with six mature horses, the effect of iso-energetic replacement of dietary glucose by beet pulp on macronutrient digestibility, nitrogen metabolism and mineral absorption was studied. The test ration contained 25% beet pulp in the total dietary dry matter. Beet pulp feeding significantly lowered crude fat and non-structural carbohydrate digestibility, but had no significant effect on digestibility of other macronutrients, faecal and urinary nitrogen excretion and the faecal to urinary nitrogen excretion quotient. However, on the beet pulp diet, plasma ammonia and creatinin concentrations were significantly lower than on the glucose diet. No diet effect on magnesium absorption was observed. It is suggested that dietary beet pulp stimulates the conversion of ammonia into urea. What is says they did: Using six adult horses they changed their diets to replace 25% of the dry matter with an amout of beet pulp so that the amount of simple sugar (dietary glucose) in the ration would be the same. What it doesn't say: It doesn't say what was taken OUT of the diet to make room for the beet pulp. It doesn't say how this feed change was effected, nor does it say what the rest of the diet was. As a consequence any measured effects could have been a result of, among other things, a) ANY feed change or b) what was taken out rather than what was added. It doesn't say what other nutrients in the diet were affected by the change to beet pulp. It also doesn't say what, if any, exercise these horses were doing. Consequently, one should be careful in extrapolating any findings to horses that have a different work program, since work definitely has an effect on how feed is digested and metabolized. What is says they observed: The change in diet had a measurable effect on how much fat and non-structural carbohydrates (in which sugar and startch are included) was digested. The change in diet had no measurable effect on other macronutrients (like, maybe, protein), no measurable effect on nitrogen, and no measurable effect on magnesium (take note of this, it is relevant). The change in diet appeared to have some effect on how protein (since amonia and creatinin are aspects of protein metabolism) is metabolized (although not whether it is digested, since digestion is but a small part of metabolization) and/or made available. It also speculates (that is what "it is suggested..." translates to) that this effect has something to do with how amonia is metabolized as a waste product. What it doesn't say: It doesn't say anything about any other minerals. cont.. -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Ridecamp is a service of Endurance Net, http://www.endurance.net. Information, Policy, Disclaimer: http://www.endurance.net/Ridecamp Subscribe/Unsubscribe http://www.endurance.net/ridecamp/logon.asp Ride Long and Ride Safe!! =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
|