Social Question

JaneraSolomon's avatar

Is it ok to starve your pet?

Asked by JaneraSolomon (1142 points ) February 9th, 2012

Not starve it to death, but keeping it lean in the hope of helping it to live longer. Studies have shown that starved rats for instance live a lot longer than normal rats and obese animals have the shortest lifespans.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/story/2009/07/15/f-calorie-restriction-lifespan-extension.html

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

83 Answers

chyna's avatar

NO. OMG what a stupid, asinine thought. Do you want to starve your entire life to make for a longer life? No. It makes no sense.

Response moderated (Writing Standards)
jonsblond's avatar

A healthy diet and consistent exercise sounds more appropriate.

and is there such a thing as a normal rat? srsly?

Pandora's avatar

No. I could live longer if I ate all my vegetables and fruits and exercise regularly and be totally obsessed with my weight and general health and live a long and healthy life. But how happy will I be?
You should never put your pet in a position to be obese in the first place but it shouldn’t be starving either. Those lab mice are probably fed really nutritious foods and very little fat. That is why they can survive on very little food. Most people will not know what is really healthy for their pet and will under nourish their pet and never give it proper exercise.
Its a horrible idea. I want my dog to live a long life but I watch what he eats and give him the protiens he needs and he gets regular exercise. A lot more than I do. His weight has been perfect all 11 years of his life. And I clean his teeth too. Good dental hygiene helps pets too.
But I’m not going to watch him starve. I fill his bowl everytime its empty and its out all day long and he eats exactly what he needs, when he needs it.
Its more important to have a happy pet who isn’t paronoid about his next meal.

Aethelflaed's avatar

See how like halfway down the page they say that stuff only works if you’re a rat? And not if you’re a human, or a dog, or a cat, or a bunny, or a horse, or anything other than a rat? Yeah.

Plus, it’s one thing to maybe feed your pet a little bit less so they aren’t obese, but starving them is animal abuse.

Jude's avatar

This question is disturbing. So is the fact that they have Dakota Fanning as their avatar.

mallei's avatar

Our vet told us the portion size listed on the cat food bag is too generous. She had us restrict our adult cat to about half a cup of food (metered out over the course of a day). Our cat, who was never obese, is leaner now, but she clockwatches for every next meal.

JaneraSolomon's avatar

It’s far more disturbing @Jude that you would attack someone for a thoughtful question that arises from current research that is cited in the question. I don’t starve my animals NOR DO I STUFF THEM WITH JUNK and allow them to become obese and diabetic, which you probably think is perfectly fine. That’s called “killing with kindness” and it certainly isn’t kind.

YARNLADY's avatar

Only feed your pet enough to keep them healthy. Do not overfeed them. Discuss the correct amount for your pet with your veterinarian.

SavoirFaire's avatar

No. Starving an animal is different than feeding it properly. By definition, you are causing undue suffering whenever you starve an animal.

JaneraSolomon's avatar

What constitutes “feeding it properly” is very much under debate as several contributors have pointed out, and the advice from a veterinarian often contradicts package directions. “Starving” is being used in professional circles somewhat differently from older uses of the word. It doesn’t mean neglect and it doesn’t mean trying to kill an animal. You might be more comfortable with the term “calorie-restricted diet” but as you can see in this article, “starving” is the term currently used by researchers:
“FGF21 And Starving Our Way To Longevity”
http://www.science20.com/news_releases/fgf21_and_starving_our_way_to_longevity

SpatzieLover's avatar

Do you eat only 1200 calories per day @JaneraSolomon?

JaneraSolomon's avatar

Do you change your underwear regularly, @SpatzieLover?
The question isn’t about me.

jonsblond's avatar

wow, troll much @JaneraSolomon?

SavoirFaire's avatar

@JaneraSolomon The people you cite are still using the word “starvation” in a technical way. In that context, it refers to a particular metabolic process. Regardless, those who wish to use technical terms bear the burden of explaining their meaning in advance. If were to ask “does anyone here beat their wife?” it wouldn’t do to wait for twelve posts to go by before saying “and by ‘beat’ I mean ‘love’ rather than the normal sense of that word.”

JaneraSolomon's avatar

@SavoirFaire maybe you ought to re-read the question because not only was it explained there, but also a reference was given.

FutureMemory's avatar

@JaneraSolomon I have it on good authority that @SpatzieLover changes her underwear daily.

I bet you wear granny panties, don’t ya?

nikipedia's avatar

I wouldn’t do lifespan expanding calorie restriction on myself, so I wouldn’t do it to my pets, either.

augustlan's avatar

[mod says] Flame off, folks. No need to make this personal.

Sunny2's avatar

“Starve” is an emotionally charged word. Perhaps you meant to upset us. Would you use that word if you were talking about your child and feeding them so they would not be overweight? I don’t think so. I think we’d all agree that eating healthfully and exercising are positive goals for us all.

SavoirFaire's avatar

@JaneraSolomon You think I ought to re-read the question, I think you ought to re-read my answers—keeping in mind the context in which they were given. It seems to me that starving an animal is inappropriate on either the ordinary reading or the technical one. To repeat what has been said above by others, the mere extension of life is not intrinsically good. As the saying goes: “it’s not the years in your life that count, it’s the life in your years.”

Or to put it another way.

Bellatrix's avatar

I wouldn’t starve my pets but I don’t overfeed them either. We do moderate what they get to eat. They aren’t super skinny, but they are within their healthy weight range for their breed. I also don’t feed them lots of titbits and treats. They get treats, but we don’t dole them out all the time.

Buttonstc's avatar

Could everybody take a deep breath and realize that she didn’t choose the best word in the world for asking this question?

Can we postpone the crucifixion for awhile?

To answer your Q specifically, Janera:

I’ve had numerous cats over the years. Some really naturally skinny (Asian/oriental heritage like Siamese) others bigger boned and chubbier (cobby cats like Norwegian Forest/Main Coon types).

I basically give them free choice since this is how cats eat in the wild.

My last chubby cat lived 19+ years and died from a fast growing tumor under the tongue. She wasn’t enormous. 15 lbs. Would she have lived longer had I restricted her to being no more than 10 lbs.

Obviously not. The same tumor would likely have killed her at the same time. And how much longer could she have possibly lived?

Velvet loved food. Mostly people food. So I’d give her small pieces of whatever I was eating and she was a very happy cat. Should I have consistently refused and kept her obsessively at 10 lbs.? Would she have had a better quality of life for all those years. I say no !

I like Bill Maher’s take on it. He is a MAJOR animal lover and advocate.

He said that there were two things that his dogs looked forward to the most. Their only two pleasures in life (since they’re neutered).

And those were FOOD and his return home each day. He didn’t stuff them with food. But “if they’re a bit fatter than they should be and they live a year or two less, at least they were happy years. And when they die a year of two earlier, there are tons of dogs in shelters whose time is running out before they’re killed. So a new dog gets adopted and gets a full life of love and food rather than being gassed that day without a chance.

The old dog dies and makes a place for another one. That’s the cycle of life”

I like his viewpoint. And there are far more cats than dogs overpopulating shelters all over.

So if one of my slightly pudgy cats died a year or two sooner, they saved the life of another who may have died that day at 8 mos old.

Once a kitten is out of the “cute fuzzy” stage, their chances for living drop off sharply. I’ve never had a kitten (they’re annoying anyhow). Mine were all 10 mos. to a year or more, including Velvet.

Her death opened a spot for the next. I think she’d be OK with that and glad I didn’t obsess about restricting her food.

I’m not advocating to overstuff your pets. But cats are pretty self regulating. Dogs will eat everything in sight if you let them.

Cats are typically not that way. And they’re definitely not rats.

Everyone makes their own choices.

JaneraSolomon's avatar

Thanks @Buttonstc for actually answering the question. There seems to be a vicious contingent here that are also not good at reading entire questions but prone to attacking based on a single word. I’ve known people with cats that were obese and diabetic, and frankly these were not happy cats despite being fed anything they wanted for a long time. My own cat seems inclined to overeat and I don’t want him to end up that way.
It’s funny that people go insane at the use of the word “starved,” and it makes me wonder if they have ever been within a thousand feet of a child, for I hear them saying “what’s for dinner, I’m starved!” all the time. Further the usage in this context is meaningful, because there’s a threshold at which metabolic changes occur that are associated with longevity. Anyway, the word is from the literature, which I DO actually read, it’s not my own word choice.

jazmina88's avatar

No. My rescue doesnt eat much. He gets scraps and food and treats.

My sweet dog in my profile pic would eat anything. a loaf of bread.

we all have different metabolisms.

FutureMemory's avatar

There seems to be a vicious contingent here that are also not good at reading entire questions but prone to attacking based on a single word.

Accurate observation.

Buttonstc's avatar

I don’t necessarily see it in the same way as you and FM (sorry pal :)

Most Flutherers are not so much vicious as they are passionate about their point of view, especially where their pets are concerned (particularly cats) and they also don’t choose the best words as well.

If you think this is bad, try some of the threads regarding Theists in general. (not even specifically narrow minded Christians) Simply believing in any type of deity, regardless of how nebulous, brings on a shitstorm of judgementalism and presumption that you’re ignorant by default. I’ve only ever seen one decent civilized thread on the subject mainly due to a widely respected OPs promise to vigorously flag ANY off- topic comments.

This thread is pretty mild compared to the majority of those about religion. Ha !

And I will state the obvious once again. I don’t care what literature you’re quoting, using the word “starve” is like waving a red flag before a bull due to the common understanding of the word currently in the culture at large.

I don’t care about how a “niche” group chooses to use/define it. It’s simply inflammatory and there’s no way around it. There isn’t any wiggle room about it.

The basic principle at work here is quite similar to the use of the word retarded. Because some nitwits decided to start hurling it as an insult, the current cultural understanding of the word limits its meaning to that only.

One can argue till blue in the face that the original precise meaning of the word is “slower than average” with no insult intended. But that won’t fly.

I have a niece with Down Syndrome whom i love dearly and “slower than average, (ie:retarded)” is the most accurate descriptor of her learning process. Yet I dare not use that one word to describe how she learns things. So, I don’t even bother trying to make a case for it.

Perhaps, if one is a baker, one MIGHT get away with a referance to adding something to “retard the action of the yeast” but I wouldn’t count on that either.

So a perfectly usable word with an originally precise meaning, ends up on the rubbish pile of current culture.

I care little who thinks they can use “starve” with impunity merely because they themselves are using it with a precise meaning. If it’s not the popular cultural understanding of it, you’re just SOL and wasting a lot of energy trying to justify it. It just won’t fly.

But, you’re merely “guilty” of VERY sub-optimal word choice. You have not committed the “unpardonable sin.”

You had no evil intent. Merely poor word choice.

Good grief ! Get a grip, folks !She’s not the cat torturer.

Perspective, perspective, perspective :)

Buttonstc's avatar

@Janera

I understand what you’re saying about trying to avoid creatinga diabetic cat.

However, if you do some further research, you’ll find that more wholistically minded Vets and owners are convinced that diabetes (and other problems) are far more related to WHAT you feed the cat rather than HOW MUCH.

So many of the commercially available cat foods are very heavily unbalanced with way too much grain/vegetation ingredients.

Cats are what’s known as “obligate carnivores”

Even the domesticated ones are not that far removed from the rest of their family in the wild. As far as food needs go, they are identical to lions, tigers etc.

In the wild, the only grain based food eaten is found in the stomachs of their prey. That’s not a whole lot. The rest is ALL meat, bone, etc.

Unless they have a stomach upset and eating grass to purge themselves, you don’t see Lions, Tigers, Cheetahs etc snacking on berries, corn or wheat. If just doesn’t happen.

Regardless of how much they pig out on meat, cats in the wild are not at risk from diabetes. They can eat as much meat/ protein as they can stuff into themselves.

Domestic cats being fed a diet with so much grain are at risk for more than just diabetes.

This is not the way God and Nature designed their systems to work.

This certainly isn’t my big brainstorm. Check out the info surrounding a “natural prey diet” if you really want to avoid diabetes (and a whole lot else)

It’s really not so much about the AMOUNT of food you feed then. It’s much more about the INGREDIENTS of the meals.

Bellatrix's avatar

I agreee with @Buttonstc. What we feed them is as, and very likely more, important than how much. Many cats especially seem to be pretty good at regulating how much they eat. Although you do of course find ‘fat’ cats. Can’t say I have ever had one. My cat often leaves food. We were feeding ours kangaroo mince until we found out it was loaded with preservatives. So I am currently looking for an alternative.

Dogs on the other hand seem very prone to eating anything they are given.

Buttonstc's avatar

Ha ha. Yeah. Most dogs are total pigs. They even eat socks, shoes, underwear, books, rocks and things you can’t even imagine. And loaded baby diapers and cat poop as well, including the litter :)

Not the most discriminating palates on the planet :) that’s for sure.

Cats are way too finicky and far too dignified for such antics. They really are pretty much self regulating.

Bellatrix's avatar

I know.. I have two that fit that bill… oh dear. Then they want to kiss you…

Buttonstc's avatar

ROFL. I’m laughing so hard I’ve got tears in my eyes.

I once had a German Shepherd who ate several pairs of my orthopedic shoes. Not chewed. Ate most of.

That was an expensive lesson.

BTW

Kangaroo Mince? Do they have said Mince in Koala variety as well ?

Aussies are merciless :)

Bellatrix's avatar

lol no Koala mince. We don’t eat Koalas. I don’t think they are listed as endangered but they are at risk because of the loss of habitat, chlamydia and now there is a fungus threatening trees they feed on.

On the other hand, roos can be in plague proportions. We do have to cull them. It is very healthy meat too. Very low in fat. Humans eat it and it tastes good. My cat loved it. There was an expose though about the levels of preservatives in the fresh meat being sold. So we stopped feeding it to him.

Oh my at ‘ate your shoes’! And orthopedic shoes… a very expensive snack!!

Adirondackwannabe's avatar

Easy guys. Starve isn’t the “right” word but there are studies at Cornell that if you limit the intake of an animal to slighty below what would provide the maximum daily weight gain the animal tends to outlive the ones that are given the amount to maximize weight gain. Overfeeding is worse. It tends to shorten lifespans.

JilltheTooth's avatar

I agree that the word “starve” is a poor choice. Even with a careful reading of the details and article, one tends to approach the Q negatively based on the wording of the main question. Also @JaneraSolomon , you mention more than once that the alternative is to overfeed and over “treat” one’s pets.
That said, I agree with many here that the quality of life for the pet is not solely contingent on longevity due to leanness. I think most of us have a pretty good handle on the mean, maybe our pets are not as lean as lab animals would indicate is optimal for maximum number of years lived, but personally, my concentration is on the continued good health and happiness of my animals, which includes things like fun and affection as well as a healthy diet and appropriate exercise.

SavoirFaire's avatar

I find it very interesting that what I take to be an extremely dry and pedantic point about the definition of the word “starve” is being understood as an attack. I figured most people would just roll their eyes and say I was being overly technical.

Jude's avatar

My apologies.

Buttonstc's avatar

Well, eye rolling was my initial reaction. Unfortunately you weren’t here with me at home to witness it :) wink, wink…..

Pedantic came afterward….

:D

JilltheTooth's avatar

@SavoirFaire , dry and pedantic point or not, the word “starve” has a very negative index, especially when coupled with the word “pets”. You can’t really be surprised by all sorts of reactions to it…

Response moderated (Flame-Bait)
SavoirFaire's avatar

@JilltheTooth Oh, I’m not surprised. I just didn’t think anything I wrote was interesting enough to be taken so seriously and get such a strong reaction from @JaneraSolomon.

Response moderated
JilltheTooth's avatar

Your strong reactions are pretty telling, themselves, @JaneraSolomon . You seem to be spending a fair amount of energy reacting to the negative comments, and little to none responding to the others.

SpatzieLover's avatar

@JaneraSolomon Almost all of my animals far exceed the average lifespan. How? Through proper care, nutrition, and love.

The study you cited has nothing to do with domesticated animals whatsoever.

JaneraSolomon's avatar

Personal attacks have no place in a forum such as Fluther, and when they are placed because someone hasn’t even taken the time to fully read the question or follow the referenced link, that’s just sad. I have no vested interest in negative or positive responses to the question itself, but I’m not your doormat and I won’t simply sit quietly while small minded people make ignorant remarks like “asinine question.”
This is a legitimate area of study that has been reported on by the American Medical Association and the New England Journal of Medicine, among others.

Adirondackwannabe's avatar

Hey guys, it’s friday, the sun is shining here, I saw a guy riding his Harley yesterday, how about we agree to be civil with everyone.

Response moderated
Jude's avatar

I suggest that we let it go. I was in the wrong, and (as you can see above), I apologized.

Response moderated
JilltheTooth's avatar

Well, if people don’t take the time to fully read the details, then ignore the post. If people have misunderstood the details, maybe you didn’t state them as clearly as you thought you did. And would you really have us believe that you are so naive as to not understand what the initial emotional reaction would be to the question “Is it ok to starve your pet?” before one even gets into the details? Really?

SpatzieLover's avatar

This is a legitimate area of study that has been reported on by the American Medical Association and the New England Journal of Medicine, among others

Yes @JaneraSolomon, for human beings. Humans may make a choice as to how they treat their bodies.

SavoirFaire's avatar

{sigh} I think it is quite well established that I am a fan of thinking about issues and consequences and options, both here on Fluther and through my career as a moral philosopher. Please take your hypocrisy—complaining about personal attacks while making them, complaining about “ignorant comments” when you’ve posted exactly the same thing on other threads—and consider your own state before complaining about others.

JaneraSolomon's avatar

Ignorant: Lacking knowledge, information, or awareness about something in particular: “ignorant of astronomy.” Not reading all of a question does indeed leave you ignorant of its context and subject, and comments made prior to fully reading said question are indeed made in ignorance.

SpatzieLover's avatar

@JaneraSolomon Why are you ignoring my comments?

Why are you flame-baiting old questions?

SavoirFaire's avatar

@JaneraSolomon I did read it all. I just didn’t give you the answer you wanted. If you don’t want to read what people have to say, don’t ask.

JilltheTooth's avatar

Just a word, @JaneraSolomon , your severe reaction to a couple of users’ responses here could have some consequences, if you care. You may be an intelligent person, but you are not likely to be perceived as anything but a tantrum-y child with this kind of reaction. It’s very hard to take you seriously at this point.

JaneraSolomon's avatar

@SpatzieLover, I don’t think it’s at all clear that this research doesn’t apply to domestic animals. Experts in the field state “studies in animals” many of the articles don’t specify what kinds.

“Studies in animals show reduced metabolic rate after caloric restriction increases longevity—that is what we know,” says Spyros Mezitis, MD, an endocrinologist at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City.
But “if you eat less than 1,500 calories a day, you have less energy expenditure so you have a lower metabolic rate, and, in animals, this results in an increased life span,” he says.”
http://www.webmd.com/healthy-aging/news/20110427/new-clues-on-low-calorie-diets-and-longer-life

This article in Slate specifically mentions dogs:
“The underfed mice also retained their sleek coats and ability to zip through mazes into old age, while normally fed mice ended up scruffy and lost. Subsequent investigations in animals ranging from fruit flies to dogs to primates have confirmed the benefits of going through life hungry.”
http://www.slate.com/articles/life/human_guinea_pig/2007/02/my_starvation_diet.single.html

And as to “flame baiting,” I have deep concerns that some of you consider it perfectly reasonable to make a comment such as “what a stupid, asinine thought,” and even when I complained about it, it wasn’t moderated. If that is what you want out of Fluther, fine, I can certainly reply with “what a stupid, asinine question” to questions as well.

JilltheTooth's avatar

I said it in a PM, I’ll say it in the open. You can’t know if that comment was flagged or not, only the moderators and the Community Manager and the founders can see. It may be being discussed as we speak. And simply because something is flagged does not mean it is taken down. And if you read the rest of the post, you’ll see that Chyna had indeed read the details, and was expressing an opinion on the subject, not personally attacking you, unlike your behavior on her questions, where you also mis-quoted her.

JaneraSolomon's avatar

Actually @JilltheTooth, given that I had flagged it prior to the appearance of Augustlan’s comment ”[mod says] Flame off, folks. No need to make this personal.” I do actually know the moderator had indeed already been here and left. And nor did I claim Chyna hadn’t read the details, but only that her attack was personal. It’s not an asinine thought according to many of the experts in the field I’ve already cited. I welcome her to disagree with the starvation approach, I don’t welcome her to throw out personal attacks.

JilltheTooth's avatar

Oh, dear, @JaneraSolomon , I think you are still not understanding. Because you were offended and think it was a personal attack does not mean that the arbiters will agree. And again, you don’t know how many might have flagged it. And the fact that you are so very upset by that kind of remark indicates that you may have very little experience with open Q and A sites, as all the others I have seen are much more offensive. There, of course, may be lots of private sites that are not, I don’t have experience with those, but learning to ignore the stuff you don’t like is a good life skill.

And you never did respond to my previous query: “And would you really have us believe that you are so naive as to not understand what the initial emotional reaction would be to the question “Is it ok to starve your pet?” before one even gets into the details?” Which does have some bearing on the attitudes you encountered in the responses you received.

jonsblond's avatar

@JaneraSolomon It’s not an asinine thought according to many of the experts in the field. I’m wondering why you put the word “cruelty” in the tags if you feel it’s ok to keep your pet lean by limiting its food. just curious Were you wondering if others would think it’s cruel to do this to their pets? (Fluther is full of many animal loving users. I think you can see why some reacted the way they did because of your choice of words, starve and cruelty. Pets can be a pretty sensitive topic here at Fluther.)

chyna's avatar

@JaneraSolomon Why are you stalking all my questions and flaiming them? Do you not have anything better to do? Most people on this thread took offense to your question, so why stalk all of my questions? Better yet, why are you still here on fluther?

JaneraSolomon's avatar

@jonsblond I fully recognize that one could decide to give an animal small portions out of love and concern for its health and long life, while another could call that abuse. It is a thorny question, I’m fully aware of that, and among civilized, educated people, discussing thorny questions can make for interesting discussions.

@chyna if you take the time to read my concerns it should be clear that I don’t think your comment “OMG what a stupid, asinine thought.” has any place here or elsewhere. Would you like your questions answered that way? Apparently your skin is thin, but your comments are thick.

JilltheTooth's avatar

@JaneraSolomon : Why yes, that is indeed a very good point. Among civilized, educated people, discussing thorny questions can make for interesting discussions. However, when such questions are worded in an inflammatory way, and the not unexpected angry responses follow, then it seems there is unlikely to be any impression of the asker being either “civilized” or “educated” when she behaves as a spoiled child would, stalking a responder and continuously complaining about the posts she doesn’t like, rather than actually discussing with the posters who addressed her question in a manner that she liked.
Beyond silly, really. Done here.

chyna's avatar

@JaneraSolomon If there are any comments you don’t like, flag them, as I have yours. I also am done with this.

Response moderated (Flame-Bait)
Eggie's avatar

I agree that @chyna should not have posted what she posted about the asinine thing. I see how that could be offensive to @JaneraSolomon….but you also have no right to flame bait. You are not solving anything and you are not making any point. As bad as the comment @chyna posted she did it out of feeling for the question that you asked and expressed herself in a wrong way, but you flame baiting is doing that out of revenge and spite which makes what you did more in the wrong. As for answering the question….no it is certainly not ok to starve your pet or any animal in your responsibility. Why this not ok because it is inhumane, and you can expose the animal to a lot of health problems. Denying the animal food could weaken their immune system as well as do other damage to their health.

john65pennington's avatar

There is only one situation, when it is okay to starve your pet.

When your pet is about to have some type of surgery the next day, at your vet’s orders, it is okay to not allow food or water the night before.

This is the ONLY reason.

Response moderated
JaneraSolomon's avatar

Perhaps you’re more comfortable with language like “OMG what a stupid, asinine thought.” I’ll keep that in mind.

Jude's avatar

@JaneraSolomon Would you be willing to drop this and move on (continue on with Fluther)?

SpatzieLover's avatar

@JaneraSolomon the comment on the asinine thought is a personal opinion, not a personal attack. Her comment is directed toward the thought behind your question. I quite agree with @chyna. She articulated what I was thinking when I simply typed “No”.

As for the research:
Researchers have looked at how caloric restriction affects rats, mice, monkeys, fruit flies and yeast. And they’ve found strong evidence of longer, healthier lives and delayed signs of aging.

^These are all lab tests.

If you are seriously interested in this subject or on putting this to test, I urge you to attempt it on yourself, first. You can try the Calorie Restricted Diet and see how difficult a lifestyle it is to maintain.

As for animals:
I have had dozens of domesticated animals of my own. Some had severe health problems. Some have been handicapped. Some were obese due to health, emotional or abuse related issues. ALL of my animals have lived to their expectancy. As I stated above, almost all of my animals have lived beyond the average lifespan.

There are so many ways to increase lifespan. Starving is not a way I would ever go about increasing my life, or any of my animals lives. Period.

This last comment of yours is insulting your inteligence level. Seriously. You presented your question in a way that incited emotion from animal loving jellies.

You could have easily stepped back into this thread without hostility. you could have opened up a discussion about animal longevity. You could have asked the mods to help you mod/re-word your question.

Take some responsibility for the words you chose to use.

Response moderated (Personal Attack)
Response moderated
Response moderated
SpatzieLover's avatar

BTW @JaneraSolomon The Wiki page on Calorie Restriction cites the actual studies.

SuperMouse's avatar

@JaneraSolomon @chyna was clearly referring to the idea of starving a pet, not you as the person who started a thread discussing the idea of starving a pet. I do not believe it was a personal attack in any way shape or form.

Buttonstc's avatar

Wow. Just wow. Did this thing ever continue downward while I slept.

No, she’s not a troll. But the confusion about it is becoming more understandable.

@Janera

Please don’t make me regret defending your intention in the Q in the first place. I really don’t enjoy looking like an idiot.

Your Q has been adequately answered by most pet owners participating here.

Even if you could prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that following calorie restriction assisduously would add several years to each pets life, most here agree with Bill Maher’s viewpoint and would not change their feeding habits for their pets. PARTICULARLY CATS.

If you make a different choice for your cat, that is your right to do.

It really is that simple. Honestly. Please stop flogging a dead horse.

Yes, Chyna didn’t have the best choice of words in reacting to your Q. BUT NEITHER WAS YOUR WORD CHOICE OPTIMAL EITHER.

Will the only thing to satisfy you be if she were to personally stand on your doorstep with a razor blade, open a vein and bleed out in front of you? That won’t be happening anytime soon. I won’t allow it :)

Do you realize youre starting to SOUND kind of hysterical? Please just drop it already. Is it really worth it to you to alienate all of Flutter in the process?

If the answer is yes, then there’s little left to say.

If you’re skeeving out someone who originally took your side (that would be me:) maybe you could see that as a need to take a deep breath, take a step back and leave this all alone for awhile until some perspective returns ?

Believe me, your point has been made and completely understood. I just don’t agree with it FOR MY PETS and stated why.

All the other animal lovers here seem to feel likewise. That’s pretty much it in a nutshell. Citing more studies won’t change anything. Please just drop it already. You aren’t doing yourself any favors.

Perspective, perspective, perspective.

Buttonstc's avatar

EDIT

Just a little side note here. I normally never shout in CAPS for an entire sentence. Normally a word or two for emphasis at the most.

@Janera

That I resorted to overusing CAPS for the first time on Fluther should drop you a clue as to how frustrating it is for me to try to communicate with you.

You’re simply not listening to me or anyone else.

Hey, can’t a Mod just step in here and shut down this thread already?

All in favor, raise your hands please.

Buttonstc's avatar

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=Q1enUz-Qq8s

For those who prefer lovely pictures over words. Or for horse lovers.

augustlan's avatar

[mod says]

A) I did see the flag on @chyna‘s comment, as did every other mod. It was not removed because we do not consider that a personal attack. She was attacking the position, not the person.

B) I am going to close this thread. I don’t see how any good can come out of it at this point.

This discussion has been archived.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther