Why are fatty feeders considered bad?

cyberlocc said:
Well Dubia nymphs nutrition is different from adults.
I have seen a few graphs with Dubia Nymphs on it, their Fat content shoots way up if I remember right almost double.

Edit: @nightanole read above, I will look for the Chart. However Dubia Adult =/= Dubia Nymphs at all.


On another note. Looking for that graph, as I sit here with a Big Gulp, drinking empty calories. I think I found the answer James.

The answer is "Fat Feeders" are akin to Soda, or Junk Food. The answer is correct, the question was wrong. The real question is which feeders are Fat Feeders, does Fat Content make them Fatty feeders?

The answer is no, to the later, and Butterworms, Waxworms, to the Former.

The Butterworms and waxworms have large amounts of Fat, Low amounts of Protein, low amounts of C/P, and a low Amount of Ash. They have very little nutritional value, just a bunch of Fat. IE, like a Soda, they are Empty calories.
Click to expand...

Not true, soda is pure sugar and It is fattening because your body stores it very quickly in relation to fats. People in ketosis lose large amounts of weight by utilizing fat the way most of us do with carbs. Then again, caloric intake is still very important. Many fatty foods are filled with vitamins and nutrients, do we know the vitamin content of fatty feeders? Or how those fats benefit/hurt a cham? I doubt it. Fat isn't even close to empty calories, sugar is. Which unused protein is just as bad as excess carbs. Maybe chameleons need excessive protein though? I'm not arguing one way or another other than the thinking that fat is unhealthy empty calories. Saturated fat gets a bad wrap even though it is extremely important! We just tend to get wayyy too much in modern diets.

As for young dubia vs old, at least with mice, older mice carry higher fat, but also a higher vitamin content when compared to pinky mice. I wonder if older roaches carry more vitamins as well?
 
Here’s baby and adult .

1846D5E7-9E4B-4811-813D-53D35D7F0850.jpeg
 
jamest0o0 said:
One large dubia under a calorie? Am I missing something lmao
Click to expand...

One large Dubia is about 1.5grams, as such it's 2.4 calories.

By nights math, a gram of Dubia is 1.6 calories, so a 1.5gram Dubia or Large Dubia is 2.4 calories.

Meaning by Sandra's chart, a 200g Cham should be eating 5 adult Dubia everyday. Which seems high.

Oh and by Sandra and Nights math, 7 crickets equals one adult Dubia (pretty close to what night had thought). If we assume Sandra's 1.4, calories per gram of crickets is right but the internet says its 1.21.

If it's the 1.21 then it would be 8 adult Crickets would be 1 Dubia.
 
Last edited:
Hmm just found this, interesting. So me reading this, and Mealworms are much better than crickets, yet crickets are staple and mealworms are dont feed.

Nutritional-Table-550x781.png


Now we look at the Reptile Charts, and get like 3 things listed and Crickets look good. Look at the Human version and it doesnt look so great, I dont know how things like Chlosterol and Sodium affect Lizards, but thats not showing crickets in the best light comparatively. I also found it odd that Mealies have less Fat.
 
cyberlocc said:
Hmm just found this, interesting. So me reading this, and Mealworms are much better than crickets, yet crickets are staple and mealworms are dont feed.
Click to expand...

From that one study by whatever his name? (Cant remember, but I think I know what you're referring to)

I don't think mealworms are going to cause any real issue in moderate amounts, but the main advantage with cricket/roaches is probably the amount of gutload they can hold. Worms in general don't hold much in the gut?
 
jamest0o0 said:
From that one study by whatever his name? (Cant remember, but I think I know what you're referring to)

I don't think mealworms are going to cause any real issue in moderate amounts, but the main advantage with cricket/roaches is probably the amount of gutload they can hold. Worms in general don't hold much in the gut?
Click to expand...

I meant to attach the pic, I did now. Thats from a Human USDA approved nutritional facts. Now cooking may alter things, but that is interesting our bug charts, whilst being all completely different from each other, show mealworms as more fat, alot more 3x more, I dont see how you can cook that down. I think humans partaking is going to change what data we have. There is no posting Hooey when its human food, with bugs for herps, they can post whatever the heck they want and we wont know.
 
cyberlocc said:
Hmm just found this, interesting. So me reading this, and Mealworms are much better than crickets, yet crickets are staple and mealworms are dont feed.

View attachment 241253

Now we look at the Reptile Charts, and get like 3 things listed and Crickets look good. Look at the Human version and it doesnt look so great, I dont know how things like Chlosterol and Sodium affect Lizards, but thats not showing crickets in the best light comparatively. I also found it odd that Mealies have less Fat.
Click to expand...

Oh wow that is interesting! They both actually have a nice range of nutrition. I bet there's a bodybuilder out there somewhere downing them lol.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Mendez
DIY Aluminum Ledges and Cage Makeover
2
Replies
32
Views
4K
Klyde O'Scope
Klyde O'Scope
Brodybreaux25
Casque for water storage
Replies
6
Views
1K
Syreptyon
Syreptyon
jamest0o0
Found an interesting Q&A on roaches/uric acid
Replies
3
Views
2K
jamest0o0
jamest0o0
Ryan Jarosek
The power of Gut loading and the Blue Bottle Fly
Replies
11
Views
4K
chameleoman
chameleoman
Back
Top Bottom