Answer:
One of the more comprehensive studies ever conducted was the Pottenger Cat Study in the 1930's. This ten-year study documented the benefits of a raw vs. cooked diet. The results were profound – those cats fed a cooked diet suffered from a plethora of ailments and disease, which were entirely absent in the raw fed group. Even the offspring of the cooked diet groups were epigenetically weaker and prone to sickness and disease.

For your reference, Dr. Pottenger's book is entitled, "Pottenger's Cats: A Study In Nutrition," and the study is also discussed in Dr. Wysong's book, "Rationale for Animal Nutrition." (Wikipedia also has a respectable summarization of this study.)

We are not contending that the RDA, percentages, and AAFCO requirements are entirely "bogus." We agree that, for instance, felines as a general rule need a higher percentage protein and a diet richer in taurine than canines (a fact, incidentally, determined after thousands of felines perished due to taurine deficiency). Many of our own diets are formulated to meet and exceed AAFCO guidelines. But the difference is that we see percentages as a starting point – a basic measuring stick – not the preeminent consideration in diet formulation, or feeding philosophy.

What we are strongly contending, however, is that no cooked food (irregardless of the supposed precision of the percentages), or its "low carb" characteristic, can be fed exclusively if health is the goal. The disease/ailment stricken modern domestic animal population is proof of this.

Please consider that the percentages and AAFCO feeding guidelines have been changed numerous times – who is to say the current percentages are correct? Should we look to ongoing lab tests as surefire indications of the requirements of our companion animals, or should we seek to emulate the natural diet upon which wild canines/felines have subsisted for eons prior to the introduction of modern heat processing, and any discussion of percentages? Does nature have it wrong? As caretakers should we presume the high heat processed "100% complete and balanced" modern companion animal diet, a stark departure from the aforementioned natural diet, is equally nutritious, or should we use "logic" and ample empirical evidence to conclude that it is not?

It seems that you agree the Optimal Health Program™ seems logical, but you feel the need for further "concrete" evidence. There is no such proof for any food. We can, however, offer experiential, empirical, and logical proof from years of Dr. Wysong's veterinary practice, and thousands of testimonials from 35 years of feeding tens of thousands of animals over multiple generations. .

We would ask that you consider the alternative to the Optimal Health Program™ and the illogic of feeding exclusively a heat processed diet the likes of which no wild feline has ever consumed (prior to modernity). Should one follow the time-tested natural model, or the newfound modern heat processed diet, AAFCO guidelines, and (ever-changing...) percentages?

Please spend more time in our "Learn" section at www.wysong.net , as well as examine the following information--most of which is scientifically documented-- by Dr. Wysong (which makes a far better case than can be made in an e-mail):

Please also see:

The Truth About Pet Foods: http://www.wysong.net/products/cat-dog-health-nutrition-truth-about-pet-foods.php

How To Apologize To Your Pets: http://www.wysong.net/products/documents/monographs/legacy/apology_pamphlet.pdf

The Master Key To Health CD: http://www.wysong.net/products/cat-dog-health-nutrition-master-key.php

The 100 Pet Health Truths Program: http://www.wysongpethealth.net/

Living Life As If Thinking Matters: http://www.wysonghealth.net/products/book-living-life.php

Answer:
This is what he has previously written: People first need to be as informed as possible and not be searching for a magic bullet. Health in our modern age is not that simple. Reason, long experience, and controlled scientific studies help us find truth. Testimonials are an indicator, but cannot be relied upon only. Always ask yourself if what is being advocated fits with our natural holistic design. With regard to studies, these need to be controlled and filtered with statistical analyses. Do an Internet search on what controlled clinical studies are. Understanding what "controlled" means is critical. But such studies cannot be relied upon entirely. Even the rigorous FDA studies that allopathic drugs go through can result in unleashing very dangerous and death dealing pharmaceuticals. That's why you must start with a sound philosophical bearing based upon reason and fact. See: http://www.asifthinkingmatters.com/?think=livinglife. Things that do not mesh with this basis in reason should be rejected or viewed with high suspicion. For example, pharmaceuticals that do no more than cover symptoms and introduce into the body substances foreign to it are sure to create problems regardless of what a study shows. Reliance on such studies and regulatory control based upon them is why modern medicine is now the number one killer. See: http://www.asifthinkingmatters.com/fullchapters/livinglife/17_THE_GREATEST_THREAT_TO_HEALTH.shtml