Gut loading frenzy

[DocZ]

There are several papers that suggest that some chameleons regulate their uvb exposure depending on need. So, for example, panther chameleons given no dietary d3, will bask more. There’s a few pertinent articles sites in the bibliography of:

https://www.chameleonforums.com/blogs/the-philosophy-of-gutloading-part-2.2438/

I’ve read your Gutloading blog before, it’s tremendous. thank you for putting it together. It influenced my care very early on
I totally agree that dietary D3 is not entirely necessary for chameleons. I still give RevitalizeD3 once or twice per month to hedge my bets, But it’s the lowest on the market for D3 that I’ve seen

I can’t remember which episode, but Bill Strand mentions some Unpublished data Dr Ferguson received from a colleague that gave a weekly requirement for dietary D3 to prevent MBD (in panthers I think). If I remember correctly, it was 25-30 IU D3 per week. Bill extrapolated from this by weighing out needed to cover “a weeks worth of crickets” and found that a supplement with 20000 IU/lb was required to meet this level of D3 Through the diet. This happens to be the level in Repashy Calcium plus

 

[DocZ]

I’ve read your Gutloading blog before, it’s tremendous. thank you for putting it together. It influenced my care very early on
I totally agree that dietary D3 is not entirely necessary for chameleons. I still give RevitalizeD3 once or twice per month to hedge my bets, But it’s the lowest on the market for D3 that I’ve seen

I can’t remember which episode, but Bill Strand mentions some Unpublished data Dr Ferguson received from a colleague that gave a weekly requirement for dietary D3 to prevent MBD (in panthers I think). If I remember correctly, it was 25-30 IU D3 per week. Bill extrapolated from this by weighing out needed to cover “a weeks worth of crickets” and found that a supplement with 20000 IU/lb was required to meet this level of D3 Through the diet. This happens to be the level in Repashy Calcium plus

Check out March 25, 2020
Larry Talent was the person Dr Ferguson was speaking with

 

[PetNcs]

Because we do not have access to the vegetation present in the home ranges of chameleon habitats as commercial produce. Just because you can't get one specific plant does not mean that another plant with a similar nutrient profile is going to be "unnatural". It may not be the same but it can have the same benefits.

I agree
And show me where I state that it has to be exact same. I have never said that. We can find similar but we do not even try. If they eat arabian grasses, we gmcan give them american sikilar grasses, but not Papaya and nutternut squash, as this is far from similar.

 

[PetNcs]

Please do tell me how "natural" the clothes on your back are compared to your ancestors. This is not a good argument to just say because it's not the exact same thing that is it unnatural and therefore harmful.

We talk about diet and not about clothing. I umderstand that your attempt is metaphorical nit it is so heavily misleading that the message is lost. And harmfuľmess I jabe explicitely defined and gave examples somitnis unfair timteist my wirds here this way. Butnak am used ti this from you with all respect because yoj always do.

 

[PetNcs]

We do not recommend citrus or almonds in gutload so not even sure why you feel that is a battle worth fighting.

Well, if thisnis not true, then itnis a lie. i do notmumderszand why you destroy the constructive and fair denaze here With such strange lie, that can be immediately proven to be false just looking at the gutloading chart you have here on this pages. I am shocked

 

[PetNcs]

Crickets are not ingesting large parts of plants that remain intact, they are digesting it into nutrients first, which then the chameleons consume. So whether or not chameleons can digest plant matter is irrelevant because feeders can.

Inhabe the impression you have not read the thread at all

Exactly this I am stating so why do you argue against stating the same? (That once digested, it was Not a gutload but foodmof feeders, it is fine)

I talk about the GUTLOAD
IT MEANS ABOUT THE CONTENT OF GUTS THAT IS SUPPOSED NOT TO BE DIGESTED BY THE INSECT BUT BY THE CHAMELEON. And this IS RELEVANT

and I explained this repeatedly. I ansolutely do not understand the meaning of this comment.

 

[Kaizen]

We talk about diet and not about clothing. I umderstand that your attempt is metaphorical nit it is so heavily misleading that the message is lost. And harmfuľmess I jabe explicitely defined and gave examples somitnis unfair timteist my wirds here this way. Butnak am used ti this from you with all respect because yoj always do.

I think her point was that if the same nutrients can be found in something completely dissimilar, then that seems like a good alternative.

 

[PetNcs]

The scientific papers listed above say that nutritional value of feeders does increase depending on what is fed, which is the entire purpose of gutloading. Do you have scientific sources that say otherwise?

You miss the most important point
Amd this is the definition of GUTLOADING
which you evidently mix up with the term FEEDING.

I ANSOLUTELY AGREE with tje statement that:
“ The scientific papers listed above say that nutritional value of feeders does increase depending on what is fed”
But readnit thiroughly olease. “ ...WHAT IS FED”
Which means: “what is seallowed by the feeder and Digested”

But NONE OF THE ABOVE MENTIONED PAPERS PROOFS, that: “ The scientific papers listed above say that nutritional value of feeders does increase depending on what is GUTLOADED”,
It means “what is offered to rhe insect TO SWALLOW, STORE SHORT TIME IN THE INTESTINE UNDIGESTED IN ORDER TO BE DIGESTED NY RHE CHAMELEON DIEEXTLY, to which rhe feeders is shortly after the gutloading FED.

You simly miss the whole lohic what I make emojasymon it and argument against me with something that I say too and very explicitly

 

[PetNcs]

Thanks for posting these papers. This is great evidence that high quality feeding of feeders increases their nutritional value.

Which ai ansolutely agree on and we have even defined it as a special term HQF
While HIGH QUALITY FEEDING IS imcreasing theirnnutritiinal value,
The gutloading, however is meaningless and potentially harmful

 

[Kaizen]

So, can we all just agree to scrap ‘gutloading’ in favour of hqf?

 

[ferretinmyshoes]

You miss the most important point
Amd this is the definition of GUTLOADING
which you evidently mix up with the term FEEDING.

I ANSOLUTELY AGREE with tje statement that:
“ The scientific papers listed above say that nutritional value of feeders does increase depending on what is fed”

Arguing that it’s “gutloading” vs “feeding” is semantics and doesn’t change anything in the grand scheme of things. If it improves nutritional content and the chameleon benefits that’s the only part that matters.

 

[PetNcs]

I’ve read your Gutloading blog before, it’s tremendous. thank you for putting it together. It influenced my care very early on
I totally agree that dietary D3 is not entirely necessary for chameleons. I still give RevitalizeD3 once or twice per month to hedge my bets, But it’s the lowest on the market for D3 that I’ve seen

O do not agree in full with this
I agree with this statement THEORETICALLY, under the comdition that WE PROVIDE ENOUGH UV. And this, we are almost never sure about!!! Because we csn not control the amount of UV, the chameleon gets. Itnis enough that the chameleon is 2in too dostant from the source or the source is old or does not wmit the UV comstantly and we het into the deficite.

This is why I steongly recommend low foses of D3 as BACKUP and SAFETY MEASURE, as we can not be sure how much (and whether enough) UV exposure the chameleon got and we have absolutely no means how to measure, test or monitor it.

 

[ferretinmyshoes]

So, can we all just agree to scrap ‘gutloading’ in favour of hqf?

Unfortunately we cannot. The industry standard term is “gutloading”. It is what everyone knows and even though some people do not have enough familiarity with it. We can’t just decide one day to change the term used and expect that to change across the board in reptile keeping. Chameleon Forums is not the only one using that term. And “high quality feeders” to me means they are inherently higher quality, not that we are making them so. So I can see where there would be confusion there on the part of the general populace.

 

[PetNcs]

I think her point was that if the same nutrients can be found in something completely dissimilar, then that seems like a good alternative.

This is well possible but noone ever made this cimparison
Noone ever stjdied the foodmof feeders
Noone took samoles
And noone said: this component we can find in this plant ans therefore we sunstitute it with it

Noone ever

 

[Kaizen]

Unfortunately we cannot. The industry standard term is “gutloading”. It is what everyone knows and even though some people do not have enough familiarity with it. We can’t just decide one day to change the term used and expect that to change across the board in reptile keeping. Chameleon Forums is not the only one using that term. And “high quality feeders” to me means they are inherently higher quality, not that we are making them so. So I can see where there would be confusion there on the part of the general populace.

Fair enough, I’m happy to stick with ‘gutloading’.

 

[PetNcs]

So, can we all just agree to scrap ‘gutloading’ in favour of hqf?

YES! And we jabe xame tomthatncomsensus aleeady, we jist need tomreopen the denate necause somene whomeven did nit oay aztemtion tomthe danate in derail and even did nitmcjeck that imdeed citrus and almonds ARE in the by CF recommended gutload, chimesnin and destroys the consensual debate fir nothing

 

[ferretinmyshoes]

Well, if thisnis not true, then itnis a lie. i do notmumderszand why you destroy the constructive and fair denaze here With such strange lie, that can be immediately proven to be false just looking at the gutloading chart you have here on this pages. I am shockedView attachment 280528

You love to throw anyone under the bus for disagreeing with you. Your very first statement on this thread was a lie by your own standards when you say “there’s no science” and I list 24 scientific papers in my first response. Get over yourself.

Dose is the poison. Those are not recommended as staple ingredients. There is not enough cyanide in almonds to be significant and if you think there is please provide documentation to support that. And because something is acidic it will causes metabolic acidosis? This is absolutely false and not based on anything biologically. Not even worth arguing further than that.

I brought science, you bring insults. I will discuss science if you’d like to partake. You can dislike me all you want but that doesn’t mean you can’t be civil in discourse.

 

[Kaizen]

...and I’m sort of disappointed that hqf won’t catch on.. Well, Kaizen shall have to find a new way to become famous.

 

[PetNcs]

Arguing that it’s “gutloading” vs “feeding” is semantics and doesn’t change anything in the grand scheme of things. If it improves nutritional content and the chameleon benefits that’s the only part that matters.

And this is what I strongly disagree with you with all respect dramatically. It is you who plays with words in the care sheets and allows people to read amd remember imprecise statements and says it is good enough.
I protest
It is NOT the same!!!
We have the obligation to use terms properly and not be tolerant to layman interpretation that something what is similar is same if itnis NOT THE SAME!!!

Why to say hutloading is same as digestion? When It IS NOT true?! It is so wrong that in any exam about physiology or dietology and related matters If I would state that, I would not pass that exam. In any peer reviewed article, the papers would be rejected if using such mess! So, why we should allow falsifying and intentional impreciseness here? It is IMHO a terrible disservice to the community! And I can NOT accept that someone also with a doctoral degree dares to advocate that!

 

[ferretinmyshoes]

Gutloading to me means that a feeder has ingested food for long enough to digest it so the nutrients are present not only in the digestive tract but also in the bloodstream. Which is why there is a time stipulated for gutloading to be successful after offering food to the feeders. Do you disagree with that being the goal?