Cats Cannot Taste Sweets (2007)
scientificamerican.com
scientificamerican.com
It's worse than that, usually 35-50% carbohydrates. The good (expensive) dry stuff is usually 10-20%. Wet food is often lower, depending on the type, as low as 7% as-fed with pates.
The weight-control labelled food is terrible both for weight and diabetes risk. It trades protein for carbohydrates under the assumption that cats don't absorb the carbohydrates as easily because the cat's liver has to process them. But this means the liver processes them to body fat, and the lack of protein leaves the cat less satiated, so it eats more food.
the tasty innards you're talking about and the “by-products” that are in the industrial cat food are 2 very different things. The “by-products” is hide, horns, hooves, etc. with very heavy dose of strong preservatives, desinfectants and other chemicals.
And we've seen drift -- apparently we used to be able to bait cockroaches with sweet bait (through the middle of the century), but they have adapted to it and it no longer works as bait.
Taste and smell are very strange and defy attempts at reductionism; our brains are basically very evolved olfactory organs. Dealing with smells was so hard that brains evolved to deal with the problem, and then it was just evolution asking the question "what else can we do with this giant block of computational power -- what about ... memory? vision? hearing?"
That's fascinating, where can I read about it?
Hmm, interesting. If I remember correctly, Stephen Jay Gould argued something similar about the human brain, except it wasn't about smell, it was about walking upright. He argued -- or quoted people who argued this -- that it's likely human intelligence arose as a side-effect from the brain structures needed for an upright stance.
Quoting from Wikipedia [1]:
"Gould was a champion of biological constraints, internal limitations upon developmental pathways, as well as other non-selectionist forces in evolution. Rather than direct adaptations, he considered many higher functions of the human brain to be the unintended side consequence of natural selection."
As stated this doesn't pass the smell test because a long list of animals are able to "stand" and walk upright (cats, primates, bears, what have you...) if they so chose. Not to mention kangaroos, birds (who are also capable of things like flight with generally much smaller brains), etc.
On top of that we have taught neural nets to control a humanoid body doing plenty of things, even parkour, but we didn't manage to teach them human levels of intelligence yet. Even non-neural-network solutions do pretty well here with just old-school algorithms.
Walking upright really seems like something you don't need "much of a brain" for. You don't even need to teach a monkey to do it.
> Walking upright really seems like something you don't need "much of a brain" for. You don't even need to teach a monkey to do it.
You do need much of a brain for it -- not intelligence, but brain; Gould argued that "intelligence" and higher brain functions arose as a side-effect. Keep in mind that AI researchers found out "the easy things are hard and the hard things are easy" (i.e. locomotion and fine-grained motor skills are harder than they seem, while logic games, chess and go are easier than they seem).
From Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moravec%27s_paradox):
"Moravec's paradox is the observation by artificial intelligence and robotics researchers that, contrary to traditional assumptions, high-level reasoning requires very little computation, but low-level sensorimotor skills require enormous computational resources."
> As stated this doesn't pass the smell test because a long list of animals are able to "stand" and walk upright (cats, primates, bears, what have you...)
None of those walk upright as their primary means of locomotion, nor are they capable of walking exactly like humans do.
> Not to mention kangaroos, birds (who are also capable of things like flight with generally much smaller brains), etc.
Good point. I don't have an answer for this. Guess you'll have to read some Stephen Jay Gould. I recommend his writing, which is fascinating :)
For instance if you were to tell me that walking upright opened up possibilities, such as creating and using advanced tools, which required larger brains, then I'd definitely be on board with that possibility.
I just choose to interpret that sentence literally and narrowly to make a point about it specifically, not about Gould's theory as a whole (which I haven't read).
I can't quote him exactly because I don't have the book nearby, but Gould argued that higher brain functions (intelligence) were a byproduct of the brain development required for walking upright, no tools or opened possibilities. It's not that walking upright enabled the development of tools and this in turn helped develop intelligence; it's that the brain structure necessary for bipedal walking had the potential to be used for other things, they had "emergent properties". I think he argued the same about the body shape itself, the shape of hips, legs and arms all "enabled" the emergence of human-like intelligence.
Stephen Jay Gould was a pretty well-known scientist (who sadly passed away in 2002) and, regardless of what you think of my possibly misleading summary, I urge to read his books if you have any interest at all in evolutionary science and biology.
Lower order than mammals, admittedly.
We can’t even model smells.
The article said cats are the only mammals that can't taste sweet.
>Our feline friends carry broken versions of the genes that build sugar detectors on the tongue. As such, they’re completely oblivious to the taste of sweet things. So are Asian otters. And spotted hyenas. Sea lions and dolphins too.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/phenomena/2012/03...
Goes nuts for the plastic wrappers you get around Pepsi cans and won't stop licking them. Little weirdo.
Two theories I've heard are that beef tallow is sometimes used in the manufacture of such bags so they might be smelling that. Or it could be as simple as they enjoy the sensation and/or sound of licking the bag. Though, they certainly are weirdos.
The best theory I had was that he was getting a buzz from solvent in the ink or the plastic itself.
Or that he was just odd.
The cat is very attached to my partner, and won't let anybody else touch him (always ready with tooth and claw). Not quite as possessive as a parrot, but he's a bit of a terror. He gets especially violent when he's hungry -- you're allowed to walk past his bowl once, but if you don't return with food, watch out.
But the "taste" you're talking about is the one we tend to use in general language, and it's a complicated mix of touch/texture/temperature sense in the mouth and tongue, taste bud chemical reception, and more than anything else smell, which "fills in the chemical blanks" that the coarse taste senses miss.
Cats miss one but have the others in spades. When they lick and eat random junk, it's for a very good sensory reason. Still weirdos, obviously, but ones with a good excuse.
I always figured that they were just fun to bat around. This explains a lot.
My mom's cat prefers to drink water from a glass like a human. Either that, or from the toilet (to which he can open the door).
When I read the article, I wondered what they could like in marshmallows, but looking it up I bet its this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshmallow#Protein
https://www.purina.co.uk/cats/health-and-nutrition/what-not-...
I've heard this a lot about dogs, and I know it is stated by reputable sources, but the Vet we had growing up told us that this is a myth, and it depended upon the dog; he used to give his dog a pound of fudge every year for christmas, and it had no ill effects except for being somewhat hyper afterwards. I still wonder about his judgment; it doesn't seem like the thing a veterinarian should be telling people. But anyway I wont give chocolate to dogs.
We don't really give her (the cat who likes the melty chocolate chips) much, but she might sneak a lick here or there. I'll be more careful now. Thanks again!
The cat I grew up with (lived 21 years) loved cantaloupe as well. It would smell it from far away and come trotting into the kitchen. Seemed to be able to eat as much of the fruit as we were willing to chop for it.
https://feline-nutrition.org/the-blogs/cats-and-cantaloupe-a...
When one looks at cat treats, the fat component is higher than non-treat cat food.
That said, I had a cat that was absolutely obsessed with eating raisins to the point where we simply couldn’t have them around. To this day I cannot understand what was going on if sweetness was not a factor.
Same cat ate the tops off an entire box of glazed donuts once as well while we were out.
;-)
The second paragraph here is about pica in cats:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_psychopathology#Pica
and a brief web search for alternative sources finds
https://www.cathealth.com/behavior/how-and-why/2231-pica-in-...
He also licked the powdered sugar off half a box of linzer cookies another time.
The frosting, I can definitely see being for the fat...the powdered sugar, I'm baffled by.
His most glorious moment (in his own head, as I imagine it) involved leaping from a loft bed onto a coffee table, grabbing an empty cupcake wrapper (still covered in cupcake crumbs) and swallowing it whole before anyone recovered enough from their shock to stop him. He just sat there afterwards licking his lips with the most satisfied kitty look on his kitty face.
We had one that loved good, sticky bud.
One day, back in the 90's when good pot was hard to get, my brother in law set a big, dank bud on the coffee table. And he was all about having a smoke and good meal too.
Kitty perked right up! She could totally smell it, and from there?
Game on!
So, she jumped up on the table, snatched it and ran!
For the next 20 minutes we all watched this hilarious "get that cat" game happen. Brother in law went after the cat. Room to room. It escalated into closed doors and the cat still escaped him!
At one point, we heard crashing, yelling, and when the door opened, he started to apologize only to have the cat squeak through the cracked door and run out the little outside cat door with that bud.
He found it later, drool and hair covered after the cat had thoroughly mauled it, much like catnip.
Yeah, he smoked on it anyway. We all said, "pass."
The cat had an awesome time. Like, "this is what I DO!"
He was total mess. Loved that cat, but never brought bud anywhere near her again.
Yeah, that look. She had it, mixed with tail up, fur slightly puffed, eyes alight excitement. Total, "YES!" moment for the cat.
Never tried chocolate after brushing my teeth but I don't find 99% / unsweetened dark chocolate particularly offensive.
Bet a friend/family member that they can’t taste the difference between whole/2%/1%/skim milk, or some combination thereof. Blindfold them and have them begin tasting the milks. Now, replace the last milk with orange juice. The brain prepares the body for milk, and the unexpected acidity usually causes a gag reflex, and sometimes vomiting. Keep a bucket handy:
I vowed that day to stop drinking OJ and stick to water.
I'm always wondering how so many people know of this first-hand.
Why are you drinking OJ, something extremely high in sugar, so soon after brushing your teeth?
I don't really get it since my mouth tastes like mint for 30 minutes after brushing, which makes food taste gross.
That's the best time to brush. Otherwise, all the bacteria and the like in your mouth have all night to fester.
I also brush after breakfast, but this is kinda of common knowledge so I'm surprised you don't seem to know it.
At some point, I heard that the opposite was true, ostensibly from a dentist on reddit. According to this anonymous stranger, after eating, your enamel is at its weakest, and you'll do the most damage to your teeth by brushing them. The reason was something about saliva and/or plaque that's been recently fed, I think.
(As a side note, some other dentist(?) in the same thread said that if you're going to brush your teeth once a day, it's most important to brush before going to bed.)
When I'm in a hurry I just get all done in the bathroom, including brushing teeth, and grab a quick breakfast on my way out, which usually involves half a glass orange juice.
Those are the situations where the toothpaste aftertaste can sometimes collide with orange juice, making it super bitter.
But I also specifically use toothpaste that doesn't has sodium lauryl sulfate because it aggravates canker sores in my mouth. I wonder if this is why.
That being said, you still might be right, since the science behind canker sores is a crapshoot to begin with, as I've learned
Personally, what works for me is: If I bite my lip, or feel a sore coming on in general, I immediately have to wash it out. After that, the only way to prevent a full week+ long sore is to put alum (pickling spice) on it for 90 seconds or so, once or twice a day. And of course, I need to make sure I meticulously brush and floss after every meal (of course with toothpaste without laurel sodium sulfate) Usually I can suffice for the normal once or twice a day
And that being said, this isn't exactly scientific. This is 100% just correlation and gathering personal anecdotal data. If I happen to stumble across something better, I'll take it. But all things considered, it's not a particularly bad thing to suddenly feel the need to take extra care of my mouth once a month or so
One time I caught him licking a counter that I had just sprayed with a bitter lime deterrent.
Cats are weird.
When I was younger, we had a cat would get into literally any food available. Fruit, cheese, Doritos, salad.
Though, people are weird, too.
I think you meant "felines".
[UPDATE] Nope, the OP meant felids (though my old eyes parsed it as "fields" (never heard of a "felid" before) which is why I thought it was spell checking or voice recognition gone wrong).
Do we have evidence cats’ ancestors had such a receptor?
If not, it might be simpler to assume there wasn’t evolutionary pressure to not taste sweetness as much as there was a lack of any pressure to taste it.
I'm not a biologist, but the lack of that gene is very conserved across all Felidae, I think (i.e. there isn't a single felid that can taste sweetness) which usually indicates that there's some evolutionary pressure.
The gene is present in all (most?) other mammals except cats. One can reasonably assume that there was some evolutionary pressure to it. A whole family/species most likely does not lose a gene without some major outside pressure. Either the population shrinks suddenly and is recovered from individuals missing the gene, or that gene is eliminated presumably for good reason. This is not evidence but it's the more likely explanation.
Of course laser eyes are great only for the first individual that evolves them. Then basically every other population tends to start dying off because you can't just not use them.
An example in primates is the loss of Vitamin C synthesis, which would have been a handy adaptation during the Age of Sail, but the gene was lost at a time when our common ancestor at a fruit-heavy diet.
They say that all mammals studied so far, including ones close to cats, have the gene except cats... This seems to almost demonstrate that cats must have lost that gene at some point.
https://www.hillspet.com.au/cat-care/behavior-appearance/why...
I found the part about being able to register ATP interesting, as controlling for ATP is one of the most common techniques used to control the quality of hygiene in food production buildings and equipment. I don't know how this applies to nature where you would expect this to be found everywhere, but maybe it's valuable in deserts, snowy areas and similar? Or maybe higher than usual levels can be used to identify areas where rodents and other sources of food could be found?
> Ground, cooked and extruded starches are almost 100% digestible in both dogs and cats, while digestibility of raw (uncooked) starches varies from 0-65% depending on the type of starch.
Could it be that they can taste sweets at a young age but gradually lose that ability?
This person has never met a cat. One of ours is obsessed with sweet foods like yoghurt, honey, pastries. Which we don’t generally let her have because of her teeth.
Yogurt has protein, and many varieties have a lot of fat. Pastries tend to be fatty (butter/lard). Honey's less obvious, but my cat would lick clean wooden spoons just for the texture; perhaps yours likes something about the stickiness?
My little chonk monster is actually pretty good with food, and isn't interested in human food much at all, possibly because he had to fend for himself for a few months before he imposed himself on me. He's certainly partial to the odd pigeon which are too slow/stupid to get away.
He currently has mostly dry kibble and water, but with the odd wet pouch for some variety.
I've tried him on a little milk before and he wasn't bothered, but I have semi-skimmed lacto-free, so I don't know if it offends his taste-buds or not.