Pottenger's Cats - A Study in Nutrition

[Guest guest]

Pottenger's Cats - A Study in Nutrition

by Francis M. Pottenger, Jr., MD

_http://www.ppnf.org/catalog/ppnf/Articles/PottsCats.htm_

(http://www.ppnf.org/catalog/ppnf/Articles/PottsCats.htm)

 

Between the years of 1932 and 1942, Dr. Francis Marion Pottenger, Jr.

conducted a feeding experiment to determine the effects of heat-processed food

on

cats. His ten-year cat study was prompted by the high rate of mortality he was

experiencing among his laboratory cats undergoing adrenalectomies for use in

standardizing the hormone content of the adrenal extract he was making.

Because there were no existent chemical procedures for standardizing biological

extracts, manufacturers of such extracts necessarily had to use animals to

determine their potency. As cats die without their adrenal glands, the dose of

extract required to support their lives calibrated the level of the extract's

potency.

In his effort to maximize the preoperative health of his laboratory animals,

Francis fed them a diet of market grade raw milk, cod liver oil and cooked

meat scraps from the sanitarium. These scraps included the liver, tripe,

sweetbreads, brains, heart and muscle. This diet was considered to be rich in

all

the important nutritive substances by the experts of the day, and the

surgical technique used for the adrenalectomies was the most exacting known.

Therefore, Francis was perplexed as to why his cats were poor operative risks.

In

seeking an explanation, he began noticing that the cats showed signs of defici

ency. All showed a decrease in their reproductive capacity and many of the

kittens born in the laboratory had skeletal deformities and organ malfunctions.

As his neighbors in Monrovia kept donating an increasing number of cats to

his laboratory, the demand for cooked meat scraps exceeded supply and he

placed an order at the local meat packing plant for raw meat scraps, again

including the viscera, muscle and bone. These raw meat scraps were fed to a

segregated group of cats each day and within a few months this group appeared in

better health than the animals being fed cooked meat scraps. Their kittens

appeared more vigorous, and most interestingly, their operative mortality

decreased

markedly.

The contrast in the apparent health of the cats fed raw meat and those fed

cooked meat was so startling, it prompted Francis to undertake a controlled

experiment. What he had observed by chance, he wanted to repeat by design. He

wanted to find answers to such questions as: Why did the cats eating raw meat

survive their operations more readily than those eating cooked meat? Why did

the kittens of the raw meat fed cats appear more vigorous? Why did a diet

based on cooked meat scraps apparently fail to provide the necessary

nutritional

elements for good health? He felt the findings of a controlled feeding

experiment might illumine new facts about optimal human nutrition.

The Cat Study of Francis M. Pottenger, Jr., MD is unique. There is no

similar experiment in the medical literature. The pathological and chemical

findings were supervised by Francis in consultation with Alvin G. Foord, M.D.,

professor of pathology at the University of Southern California and pathologist

at

the Huntington Memorial Hospital in Pasadena. Accordingly, the studies met

the most rigorous scientific standards of the day and their protocol was

observed consistently.

Since The Cat Study is unique, its findings are frequently quoted and

misquoted in order to justify the ideas of others. For example, one author of a

popular selling book states that 200 cats died of arthritis; this indeed did

not

happen. Another author states that the cats were fed sprouts and survived in

full health for four continuous generations. Again, no such experiment took

place, and yet this misinformation has been traced over a dozen or more

different articles and books.

A frequent criticism of The Pottenger Cat Study is that it was not properly

controlled. Here it is necessary to ask, " By what standards? " Every one of

the studies followed strictly defined protocol. All variables in the stock of

the animals were reported and explained. Because some of the test procedures

may seem crude forty years later, this in no way invalidates the facts that

the procedures were meticulously controlled and that the results of the

experiments were reported as observed.

Another criticism is that the cats were kept in an artificial environment

unrelated to real living conditions. Such a criticism overlooks the

experimental necessity of maintaining a controlled environment to provide valid

findings. It also overlooks the evidence that given specific living conditions,

specific changes repeatedly occurred in the health of the cats under

observation.

Another frequent criticism is that the experimental work done on cat

nutrition has no appropriate application to human nutrition. Francis M.

Pottenger,

Jr., MD never stated that a one-to-one comparison could be made between his

findings in cat nutrition and his findings in human nutrition. He did say:

" While no attempt will be made to correlate the changes in the animals studied

with malformations found in humans, the similarity is so obvious that parallel

pictures will suggest themselves. "

All too often, self-appointed authorities will state categorically that they

do not believe other's observations and so seek to close the door on any

further inquiry into these observations. They declare, " Because I do not

believe

the facts as presented, they are not so. " Far better for science if

responsible individuals maintain an attitude of open inquiry and test the

observations of others before forming rigid opinions. In the case of The Cat

Study,

human welfare might well be served of concerned researchers made every effort

to

discover if valid correlation's can be made between cat nutrition and human

nutrition. It must be remembered that cats and humans both are mammalian

biological systems.

It would be of great value to the field of nutrition to repeat The Cat Study

within the parameters of present day technology and with the use of present

day antibiotics. Most of the cats on deficient diets died from infections of

the kidneys, lungs and bones. If these infections were eliminated as a cause

of death by antibiotics, it would allow the cats to reveal their ultimate

degenerative fates. As an extension to this experiment, it would be of interest

to study the effects of vitamin and mineral supplementation in the diet of

cooked food fed animals.

It is our effort in this monograph to present the observations made by

Francis M. Pottenger, Jr., MD on the effects of deficient and optimum nutrition

in

cats and human beings as recorded in his articles and clinical records

written between the years of 1932 and 1956. Nothing has been added or

subtracted

from his findings, and for the most part, the words describing his work are

his own. Though some of the scientific interpretations have not withstood the

test of time, the observations are valid. A careful and selective

interpretation by an inquiring mind will readily differentiate the two.

PPNF recommended reading:

Pottenger's Cats: A Study in Nutrition

by Francis M. pottenger, Jr., MD

First published in 1939, this monumental but highly readable book is

designed to preserve the classic study of Dr. Price's worldwide investigation

of the

deleterious effects of processed foods and synthetic farming methods on

human health, and the promise of regeneration through sound nutrition. This

bestseller contains guidelines for approaching optimum health and reproduction,

now and through future generations, as did the primitives. Dr. Price has been

universally accepted as one of the foremost authorities on the role of foods

in their natural form in the overall health pattern and the development of

degenerative illnesses as a result of the addition of processed foods to our

diet.To learn more about Dr. Pottenger: _CLICK HERE_

(http://www.ppnf.org/catalog/ppnf/pottenger.htm) :