Verification help on my own % of cals spreadsheet...

[hellolucy]

I am trying to create a spreadsheet I can use when I have the GA, DMB, or as-fed values to convert the food to % of calories quickly. There are some foods I can't find on Dr. Pierson's chart, and would like to be able to do my own analysis on the side. Would someone mind doing a review of this spreadsheet (link below) and letting me know if it makes sense? I am not super familiar with the calculations but did a bit of research to pull this together and want to ensure it's right. This assumes you can use/enter either the GA, DMB, or as-fed values (yellow cells) depending on what you have, and the rest will calculate for you. The carbs in the % of cals section will turn red if it goes over 10%.

Link to spreadsheet

 

[Elizabeth and Bertie]

Would someone mind doing a review of this spreadsheet (link below) and letting me know if it makes sense?

Just did a calculation on (a copy of) your SS and also on my ancient Excel doc and both came out the same.
(My old doc multiplies protein and carbs by 3.5, and fat by 8.5 to get calories. Then divides 'cals from carbs' by the 'total cals%' to get percentage of calories from carbs.)

You may well have done what I have been 'intending' to do for a few years, and that is to make an easily accessible (and easy to use) Google doc for calculations. Well done you!!!


...The only thing with US foods, and I hesitate to say this because of the wonderful work you've done, is that the GA analysis data isn't reliable, so it is necessary to get the DMB or as-fed values from the manufacturer or manufacturer's website.

 

[hellolucy]

Just did a calculation on (a copy of) your SS and also on my ancient Excel doc and both came out the same.
(My old doc multiplies protein and carbs by 3.5, and fat by 8.5 to get calories. Then divides 'cals from carbs' by the 'total cals%' to get percentage of calories from carbs.)

You may well have done what I have been 'intending' to do for a few years, and that is to make an easily accessible (and easy to use) Google doc for calculations. Well done you!!!


...The only thing with US foods, and I hesitate to say this because of the wonderful work you've done, is that the GA analysis data isn't reliable, so it is necessary to get the DMB or as-fed values from the manufacturer or manufacturer's website.

Woohoo!!! Thank you so much for looking at it Feel free to download, use, distribute...if it helps any other pet owners, that would make me so happy!

I did read that GA was not nearly as reliable as the as-fed or DMB numbers. I added it in there more as a "hail mary" type of thing if that's all the info I had at that moment. If the as-fed or DMB aren't available at that moment, will the GA give a decent ballpark estimate, assuming one follows up on by requesting the as-fed or DMB numbers? I added an asterik/note to the spreadsheet in case anyone else ends up using it that as-fed or DMB is preferable.

 

[Elizabeth and Bertie]

If the as-fed or DMB aren't available at that moment, will the GA give a decent ballpark estimate, assuming one follows up on by requesting the as-fed or DMB numbers?

(So sorry for delay in responding )

A calculation using the GA analysis, coupled with a close look at the ingredients list (to check for any carb sources) may well provide enough info to enable the caregiver to decide whether the food is worth taking a punt on or not. Ultimately though it is very much that the 'proof of the pudding is in the eating'; but those who are hometesting should soon be able to tell what effect the food is having on the cat's blood glucose.

Regarding the GA analysis though, just 1 - 2% of difference in protein, fat, or water content, for example, can make a big difference to whether a food is or isn't suitable.
A wet cat food product may state in the GA analysis that it has a maximum of 78% water. And on that basis the carb calculation may come out as seeming to be below 10% calories from carbs. But if the water content is actually less than the maximum, if it is say, 76 or 77% and not 78%, then that could mean that there is actually 1 or 2% more carb content in the food proportionally by weight (since the percentages have to add up to 100%...)
And with fat (which is very calorie dense), the label may state that the food has a minimum of 5%; but if that is actually 6% and not 5%, then that could mean that there is less carb% in the food proportionally than seems to be the case using the GA analysis....
This is why GA isn't that reliable... But there are times when the data can't be obtained, and we just have to go on the information that we do have...

Feel free to download, use, distribute...if it helps any other pet owners, that would make me so happy!

I would love to put your link in my UK info for others to use, and I know of others who might like to use it also.
A couple of things... I'm not very tech savvy at all , but I'm assuming that people go to your link and (as I did), open it and then make a copy of that to use? Is your original 'safe' from being mucked up by other people?
And of course I'll give the credit to you for your work. Shall I use your FDMB user name, or another name?

Eliz

 

[hellolucy]

I would love to put your link in my UK info for others to use, and I know of others who might like to use it also.
A couple of things... I'm not very tech savvy at all , but I'm assuming that people go to your link and (as I did), open it and then make a copy of that to use? Is your original 'safe' from being mucked up by other people?
And of course I'll give the credit to you for your work. Shall I use your FDMB user name, or another name?

Sorry for the delay! Yes, I think you should just be able to make a copy from the link and all will be good. The FDMB username is fine, and I figure that will allow anyone who has issues with the file and/or link to reach out and I can send them a copy. Anything to help the fur babies and their owners make life a little bit easier is fine by me!