Fancy Feast Carb Confusion...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Amy&TrixieCat

Amy&TrixieCat

Member Since 2011
After following this link ( New Carb Chart ) from Leo's condo, I'm all confused about Fancy Feast carbs now. I've been giving Trix a 50/50 blend of Fancy Feast Classic Chicken Feast and BG 96% chicken for a while now. I can't find the "FF Classic Chicken Feast" on this new chart, but I do see a "FF Gourmet Chicken" that has carbs at almost 8%. However, in searching elsewhere online, I can't find that "FF Gourmet Chicken" actually exists...so I'm wondering if "FF Gourmet Chicken" and "FF Classic Chicken Feast" are the same thing, and if I've been feeding her way too many carbs. It would certainly explain why she started needing more juice.

Any ideas? I'm not sure if that made any sense, and after all this time I'm once again so thoroughly confused!
 
Amy, I am a little confused too. I have been giving Simon FF chicken classic alot lately because he is not wanting to eat Wellness. I am wondering too if this could be causing Simon's numbers to be a little higher.
 
The numbers in that link are quite a bit higher for a lot of the food on the list than I have seen them anywhere before. I some of them jumped a lot - liked chopped grill went from 2 to almost 8%?? The Chicken jumped as high. Yikes.

All of the Fancy Feasts were relabeled a couple of years ago and some of them (not all) were reformulated, but at the the time they were relabeled the company gave out new numbers and they hadn't jumped that much.

The Fancy Feast Classic Chicken Feast was the relabeling of FF Gourmet Chicken and are the same thing. Even at the 7.72%, the chicken is within the range for diabetic cats. Could be lower, but definitely not as low as Janet & Binky charts indicate.
 
Interesting, Georgia...now I'm really wondering. Of course, FF was on sale a couple weeks ago and I really stocked up! Trix likes the Wellness chicken, but it seems to drive her numbers up a bit. She'll eat the BG, but only if I mix in the Fancye Feast. Ugh...could it be back to the drawing board for us???
 
Thanks, Melanie...that answers my question! I think 7.72% is a bit high for Trix. We've got her regulated again (for the most part) but on twice as much juice. I'm going to try and phase out the FF, and see what happens...
 
I'm really surprised at this new chart, everything I feed Leo and thought was <5% is waaaaay higher on this new chart. What do we do now???? Can we trust this new chart?
 
Hey all,
Just to settle your nerves or defuse some panic here...

The two charts are comparing apples to oranges. The Binky's charts are fine, and you can go by those numbers on FF or any other brand of food.

The new chart you link to is giving you the "dry matter basis" figures.
Binky's list gives you the % calories from carbs. THAT is the number you want to be below 7%, not the dry matter basis figures.

Dr. Lisa points out the difference here:
http://www.catinfo.org/?link=cannedfoods#As_Fed,_Dry_Matter,_Calories
As mentioned many times on this website, a valuable resource for information regarding the composition of many commercial foods can be found on Janet and Binky's chart. However, it can be an extremely frustrating task to try and get actual measured values out of a company but fortunately, Janet is a stickler for detail and her chart only includes food for which she has obtained the more accurate actual measured values versus the vague guaranteed analysis numbers on the can.

That said, and as noted above in the Contacting Pet Food Companies section, please call the companies in question if you desire the most current information on any food that you are feeding. Formulations can change frequently and it would be impossible to keep the chart completely current.

You will notice that Janet lists the protein, fat, and carbohydrate values in terms of 'percentage of calories' from each component (metabolizable energy values) versus listing them as dry matter basis or as fed weights. All 3 columns on her chart add up to 100%. If you are interested in how Janet computes the 'calories from' values from the wet or dry weights, please see her FAQ page or this section above.

The 'wet weight' or 'as fed' values are what you see on the side of the can under 'guaranteed analysis'. This information is not very useful since, by definition, minimums and maximums are inaccurate
Click to expand...
.


Also, Purina recently changed some of the ingredients (4 or 5 months ago in the Friskees Pates. Lots of people here were concerned because their cats stopped eating it, or were experiencing problems like diarrhea or vomiting suddenly. I called Purina and found out that they had changed one or two additives. I don't remember where it is in Health, but there's a long thread about it from this past year. I asked specifically if there were any changes made to the Fancy Feast Classics line. I was told "no, except for the new labels on the cans, everything else is the same".

So, I think you're all okay with the FF classics listed on the "old" Binky's canned chart.
http://binkyspage.tripod.com/CanFoodOld.html

Hope that helps,
 
Thanks, Carl....still a bit confused, but to keep myself LESS confused, I'll stick with Janet and Binky.....

Whew...what a whirlwind my brain was in for a while there :lol: !
 
Well, both charts are "right", they just aren't comparing the same thing. When we tell people "feed low carb, under 10% and under 7% is even better", we are referring to "Binky's" carbs as a percentage of calories figures.
If that new chart was "the chart" that we normally point people towards, we'd have to come up with a different line-in-the-sand, I suppose, to make them understand which ones were good, and which were not so good. From what I saw, all of the foods on that newer chart were higher than their counterparts on Binky's lists, which makes sense because, again, they aren't looking at things as a "% of calories". I think this is the 3rd thread I have seen pointing out how numbers off of newer charts don't match Binky's charts. But it is usually due to the "apples vs. oranges" sort of thing.
 
THANK YOU CARL!

I was wondering how all these numbers went so out of whack, but read through the post and it sounded like the person called the company and got the numbers... :? So without the other dry matter numbers (fat, protein, etc) these numbers don't really do us any good do they?



I think the problem people are finding following J&Bs is they state they haven't been updated since 2008 (the old one where FF is says its even older I think). Most of the foods have been reformulated since then and sometimes its hard to just trust it wasn't changed too much. I know someone called on the lower FFs when the labels changed and they had been reformulated then and all moved up slightly.
 
Melanie,
There are apparently some sort of formulas you can use to calculate the %'s
If you are interested in how Janet computes the 'calories from' values from the wet or dry weights, please see her FAQ page or this section above.
Click to expand...
, but I didn't look them up. Since Janet already did the math, I wasn't going to reinvent the wheel ;-)

I would think that they would come in handy if say a company suddenly changed the recipe for a flavor or brand, and we could get information from the company that we needed to do the calculations. In a perfect world, we'd get them to do the math and give us the numbers for the values that matter most to us, and then we could update Janet's charts. If someone invents new foods or flavors, we could do that also.
 
Carl is right. When you are looking at the nutritional analyses of foods, you want to look at either the "as-feds" or the "dry matter basis". Do not pay any attention to the guaranteed analysis....that just gives you mins and maxs and not the actual value of the foods as actually tested. Also, what we want to know for feeding our cats is not the % of carbs but the % of CALORIES from carbs.

Looking at as-feds and DMB, you'll get two different sets of numbers. For an example, I am going to use Wellness Beef and Chicken. I asked the company for their nutrient profile substantiation. That is the results of the testing they do to determine the exact as feds or dry matter basis.

DMB 46.23% protein 39.24% fat 5.91% carbs

As-fed 11.11% protein 9.43% fat 1.42% carbs

For high quality human-grade cat foods, there are 4 calories/gram of protein, 9 calories/gram of fat, and 4 calories/gram of carbs. Janet developed an xcel chart to calculate the numbers easily and I've attached it. But look at the computations below:

DMB 46.23 protein x 4 = 184.9 calories 39.24 fat x 9 = 353.2 calories 5.91 carbs x 4 = 23.6 calories Total calories = 561.7
Divide each by total calories so 184.9/561.7 = 32.9% calories from protein; 353.2/561.7 = 62.9% calories from fat; 23.6/561.7 = 4.2% calories from carbs

As-feds 11.11 protein x 4 = 44.4 calories 9.43 fat x 9 = 84.9 1.42 carbs x 4 = 5.7 Total calories = 135
Divide each by total calories 44.4/135 = 32.9% calories from protein; 84.9/135 = 62.9% calories from fat; 5.7/135 = 4.2% calories from carbs

So you see that calculating the percentages of calories from carbs from DMB and as-fed gives you the same numbers. BUT if you take the DMB or as-fed numbers as percentages without converting it and determining the calories from each, then you don't have a realistic number. In the example above, if you were just looking at % carbs by DMB, you would think that the 5.91 is the percentage of carbs in Wellness. But it is not the %calories from carbs and that's what we actually need to know. Either way you calculate it, Wellness Beef and Chicken has approx 4% calories from carbs.

With the numbers on the new food chart, you are just getting the % carbs from DMB; you aren't getting the %calories from carbs. Make sense? You need protein, fat, and carbs values to determine the %carlories from carbs.
 

Attachments

Thanks for all the clarification, and sorry causing a minor panic! I just saw the numbers in that "new" chart and thought, "Hey! That's why I've had to double Trix's juice!" My head just started spinning. Boy it would be soooo nice if this one little aspect of FD was simple - like being able to just look at a can (without calculator in hand!) and know that it's a "safe" food. Ah well, I can dream, can't I?
 
Amy: I agree totally. I don't understand why some companies are so reticent to openly share their DMB and as-feds and to put them on their websites. When I run into companies that are either reticent or the people do not understand what I'm asking for, I refuse to buy the food.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top