Abstract
Objectives
The aims of this study were to determine owners’ perception of their cats’ quality of life (QoL), and whether there is a correlation with weight-loss variables, as well as to identify the main difficulties owners encounter during controlled weight loss in their obese cats.
Methods
The study was carried out as an e-questionnaire survey addressed to owners of cats starting a weight-loss programme. The e-questionnaire was provided at a single time point after the conclusion of the study (24 weeks).
Results
Nineteen completed questionnaires were included. Eighteen cats had a lower weight at the end of the weight-loss period, two of which had successfully reached their target weight. Mean weight loss was 13.84% body weight at a rate of 0.53% weight loss/week. Although the perceived QoL was not correlated with weight-loss variables (P >0.05), it increased over time, even in cats that did not reach their target weight, and was statistically correlated with increased activity (r = 0.73; P <0.01), mobility (r = 0.78; P <0.01) and play time (r = 0.61; P <0.01). The main difficulties encountered by owners were not giving (32%) or permitting the cat to eat extra food (26%). The main presumed difficulty for the cat was having its food decreased over time (53%). Most owners considered their cats happy (42%) and quite happy (53%) during the study, and no statistically significant correlations were found between the weight loss, food-seeking behaviour and stress parameters (P >0.05).
Conclusions and relevance
Although several difficulties were encountered throughout the study, increased QoL and energy levels in their cats were noticed by owners. A positive perspective on weight-loss programmes is important to keep owners motivated and achieve the target weight in their cats. Furthermore, this survey provides insights into the perceived difficulties of weight-loss regimens in cats.
Keywords: Questionnaire, nutrition, feeding regimen, health, weight reduction
Introduction
Reaching a cat’s target body weight (TBW) during a weight-loss programme (WLP) can be challenging and often takes several months. Controlled weight-loss (WL) studies in experimentally induced obese cats have revealed a faster WL rate (%WL/week) than WLPs in privately owned obese cats.1–5 Poor compliance by pet owners has been identified as a major factor for this lower success rate. 5 Previous studies have shown that owners may be more compliant at the beginning of the WLP and that their compliance decreases over time. 5 Keeping owners motivated and committed to the WLP is one of the largest difficulties in helping cats reach their TBW. Despite these difficulties, the motivation and commitment of owners should improve the success rate.
Several adverse health effects have been linked to overweight/obesity.6,7 Nonetheless, in dogs, a reduction of 6% body weight (BW) is beneficial to health. 8 Focusing on the cat’s well being and quality of life (QoL) during a WLP is a good approach to keep the owner encouraged, successfully achieve the TBW 9 and improve the cat’s health. If the perceived increase in QoL is larger than the encountered difficulties, the WLP will succeed.
The assumption has been made that some factors, such as the cat’s perceived QoL, energy level (activity, mobility, interaction, play time), food-related behaviour, stress and difficulties encountered during a WLP, will influence a cat’s WL. Thus, this study aimed to determine the perceived QoL of client-owned obese cats in a WLP, to understand the main difficulties experienced by an owner during a WLP and, consequently, help cats to reach their TBWs.
Material and methods
An online survey was designed to collect information from the owners of obese cats after following a feline WLP facilitated by the first author (unpublished) at the Small Animal Teaching Hospital of Ghent University as part of a broader scientific study. The Ethics Committee on Animal Research and Testing in the Faculty of Veterinary Sciences (EC2017/43) approved this study and written informed consent was obtained from the owners.
Enrolment
The owners of adult obese cats (body condition score [BCS] ⩾7/9) were recruited. They were asked to complete a form with information on the cat’s BW, feeding regimen, the presence of other animals in the household, medical history and whether they were indoor-only cats or had outdoor access. In addition, owners were asked to indicate the cat’s BCS based on a 9-point scale with illustrations.10,11 To obtain a general health screening and to exclude any underlying conditions, all cats underwent a complete physical examination, blood count, serum biochemical and urinalysis. To be admitted to the study, the cats’ BCS were assessed by a trained veterinarian. Finally, the cat owners were provided with oral and written information on obesity risks and the importance of WLPs.
Study overview
All cats were randomly assigned to one of two isonitrogenous and isocaloric dry diets containing different concentrations of omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids (see Table 1 in the supplementary material). These diets had been designed specifically for WL purposes, presenting higher nutrient levels on a calorie basis. For this study, no difference was made between groups for the statistical analysis.
During the study, owners were advised to prevent uncontrolled outdoor access, stimulate the cats’ activity, add food puzzles and give 3–6 meals daily. In multi-animal households, the cats were fed separately or through an automatic feeding station that could only be opened by a specific individual’s microchip. Additionally, owners were not allowed to provide extra food and had to prevent the cats from eating other food.
The study included a 1-week adaptation period, an 11-week weight-maintenance period, followed by a 12-week WLP. Cats that failed to accept the study diet within the adaptation period were excluded. Initial food allocation was determined by the estimation of TBW based on the initial BCS. Each BCS point higher than the ideal (>5/9) represents +10% BW.10,11 The current BW was then divided by a factor based on the percentage of overweight/obesity (1.2, 1.3 and 1.4 for a BCS of 7, 8 and 9, respectively) and the diet was then given at 70 kcal/kg0.75. Owners were instructed to weigh the dry food daily on a gram scale and measure the cats’ food intake and weight weekly. Follow-up was regularly done via email, and energy intake (EI) readjustments were undertaken by ±5–10% based on changes in the cats’ BW during the weight-maintenance period. Finally, owners were requested to bring their cats to consultations after 12 and 24 weeks, during which BW and BCS were recorded, and a physical examination performed. The mean %WL/week was calculated and, to start the WL period, EI readjustments were carried out by ±10–20% if the WL was not between 0.5% and 2%/week. At the end of the study, the ‘need to lose more weight’ was set by the veterinarian based on the final BCS, in which a BCS of 5 was considered ‘none’, a BCS of 6 ‘a bit’, a BCS of 7 ‘some’ and a BCS of 8 or 9 ‘a lot’.
Survey design
The non-blinded survey was hosted online on SurveyMonkey (https://www.surveymonkey.com) and was addressed to the owners at a single time point, after the end of the 24-week study period. The e-questionnaire included a 10-point Likert scale (ranging from 0 to 10, where 0 = low/poor and 10 = high/excellent) and single options from a dropdown menu. The survey comprised 52 questions divided into six sections: weight and BCS; QoL; energy level; eating behaviour; general behaviour; and perceived difficulties (see Table 2 in the supplementary material). Answers were mandatory to proceed through the survey, and mostly only one answer per question was possible. Depending on the answer, some questions led the respondents to a set of extra questions. Ten-point Likert scale questions were used to calculate the difference in owner perception ‘before’ and ‘after’ the study (‘difference’ = value ‘after study’ – value ‘before study’). Single options from a dropdown menu were transformed into scores to facilitate statistical analysis interpretation. In addition, respondents were considered unreliable, and their questionnaires were not considered when the answer to a duplicated question was not consistent.
Statistical analysis
Data were exported into Microsoft Excel and descriptive statistics were performed. WLP variables were calculated as an average of the full study period. Pearson correlation coefficients (r) were analysed using SPSS v25.0 software (IBM) to explore the relationship between WLP variables and data from the questionnaire. Variables compared included differences in EI; WL percentage (%WL); %WL/week; difference in veterinarian-assessed BCS; perceived differences in QoL, energy level and food-related/general behaviour; and owner perceptions of initial BCS, initial/final QoL, ‘QoL if the cat was not obese’, WL, ‘need to lose more weight’ and WLP value/usefulness. Furthermore, a non-parametric analysis (Mann–Whitney U-test) was processed using SPSS v25.0 to compare %WL/week, differences in QoL, food-seeking behaviour, stress and happiness of cats that used or did not use food puzzles. The level of statistical significance was set at P <0.05.
Results
Descriptive results
Twenty-five cats fulfilled the primary criteria, as previously specified, and 22 owners completed the questionnaire; three were excluded owing to lack of reliability. Although the study was designed to have a weight-maintenance and a WL period, 57% (n = 11) and 84% (n = 16) lost weight (>5% BW) during the first and second periods, respectively. Full details of the animals and WLP are shown in Table 1. Only two cats reached their TBW by the time that of survey completion.
Table 1.
Baseline variables and outcomes of the weight-reduction phase in 19 cats with obesity included in the study
| Variable | Summary data |
|---|---|
| Age (years) | 5 (1–11) |
| Sex (n) | |
| Castrated male | 7 |
| Spayed female | 12 |
| Breed (n) | |
| European Shorthair | 11 |
| British Shorthair | 3 |
| Maine Coon | 1 |
| Ragdoll | 1 |
| Russian Blue | 1 |
| Cornish Rex | 2 |
| Previous dietary composition (n) | |
| Dry food | 13 |
| Dry and wet food | 6 |
| Previous supply of treats (n) | |
| Yes | 6 |
| No | 13 |
| Previously housed (n) | |
| Outdoor access | 5 |
| Indoor | 14 |
| Multiple household animals (n) | |
| Yes | 11 |
| No | 8 |
| Weight (kg) | |
| Week 0 | 6.95 (4.78–13.5) |
| Week 24 | 6.03 (3.51–10.98) |
| BCS (/9) | |
| Week 0 | 8.37 (7–9) |
| Week 24 | 7.53 (5–9) |
| Energy allocation (kcal/BW0.75/day) | |
| Week 0 | 70 |
| Week 12 | 63.75 ± 10.58 |
| Week 24 | 59.35 ± 9.18 |
| Duration (weeks) | |
| Weight-maintenance period (0–12) | 12.6 (11.6–14.6) |
| Weight-loss period (12–24) | 14.2 (12–19.3) |
| Total study period (0–24) | 25.1 (24–28.6) |
| Weight loss (%) | |
| Weight-maintenance period (0–12 weeks) | 6.29 ± 5.14 |
| Weight-loss period (12–24 weeks) | 7.54 ± 4.27 |
| Total study period (0–24 weeks) | 13.84 ± 7.39 |
| Rate of weight loss (%WL/week) | |
| Weight-maintenance period (0–12 weeks) | 0.5 ± 0.41 |
| Weight-loss period (12–24 weeks) | 0.61 ± 0.34 |
| Total study period (0–24 weeks) | 0.53 ± 0.28 |
Continuous data with a normal distribution are expressed as mean ± SD, while continuous data that are not normally distributed are expressed as median (range)
BCS = body condition score; BW = body weight; WL = weight loss
Weight and BCS
The cats’ estimated BCS given by the owners was compared with the BCS as judged by the veterinarian. There was an agreement of 53% (n = 10), while 11% (n = 2) and 37% (n = 7) of owners overestimated and underestimated their cats’ BCS, respectively (Figure 1).
Figure 1.
Comparison between veterinarian-assessed 9-point body condition score (BCS) and owner’s estimation of their cat’s BCS before the start of the study. Cats were categorised according to the BCS assigned by the veterinarian before the study. For each score, owners’ responses are depicted as an agreed estimation, overestimation and underestimation
In response to ‘How important is it to keep your cat in a good BCS?’, 100% of owners had a positive reaction; 16% (n = 3), 53% (n = 10) and 32% (n = 6) responded ‘somewhat important’, ‘very important’ and ‘extremely important’, respectively. Concerning the importance of a WLP in obese cats, 16% (n = 3) of respondents described it as ‘somewhat important’, 58% (n = 11) as ‘very important’ and 26% (n = 5) as ‘extremely important’. Owners were also asked if they could see a difference in their cat’s BCS after the study; the median score was 7.81 (range 2–10) on a 10-point Likert scale. Regarding the ‘need to lose more weight’ at the end of the study, 16% (n = 3) reported ‘none’, 26% (n = 5) ‘a bit’, 26% (n = 5) ‘some’ and 32% (n = 6) ‘a lot’. A comparison between the owner’s report and the veterinarian-assessed BCS is shown in Figure 2. Finally, in response to ‘Was it worth the effort of following a WLP?’, 11% (n = 2), 32% (n = 6) and 58% (n = 11) reported ‘more or less’, ‘a lot’ and ‘totally, I would do everything again’, respectively.
Figure 2.
Comparison between veterinarian-assessed body condition score (BCS; 9-point scale) and owner’s estimation of their cat’s need to lose more weight at the end of the 24-week study. Cats were categorised according to the BCS assigned by the veterinarian at the end of the study. For each cat, the need to lose more weight was defined by the veterinarian and was compared with the owners’ responses. A BCS of 5 represented ‘no need to lose more weight’; a BCS of 6 represented the ‘need to lose a bit more weight’; a BCS of 7 represented the ‘need to lose some weight’; and a BCS of 8 or 9 represented the ‘need to lose a lot more weight’. For each category, the owner responses are depicted as an agreed estimation, underestimation or overestimation
QoL
When owners were asked to rate their cats’ QoL before and after the study, the median was 7.2 (range 5–10) and 8.6 (range 8–10), respectively (Figure 3). At the end of the study, the reported QoL improved in 14 (74%) cats and remained the same in five (26%). When owners were asked to indicate the cat’s QoL if it was not overweight/obese, 11% (n = 2), 63% (n = 12) and 26% (n = 5) reported ‘about the same’, ‘better’ and ‘a lot better’, respectively.
Figure 3.
Mean owner rating of their cat’s quality of life, activity level, grooming behaviour, and hair quality before and after a 24-week study on a 10-point Likert scale. Error bars represent the SD
Energy level
At the end of the study, owner-reported activity increased in 14 cats (74%) and was maintained in five (26%). The median activity score was 4.5 (range 1–8) and 6.5 (range 2–9) before and after the study, respectively (Figure 3). Meanwhile, owner-reported mobility increased in 11 cats (58%) and was maintained in eight (42%). Ninety-one percent (n = 10) of owners that used food puzzles believed their cats were more active; 9% (n = 1) reported no difference in activity over time. In contrast, 50% (n = 4) of the cats that did not use puzzles were considered more active; the other half showed no presumed change.
When owners were asked to indicate how interactive the cat was with people/animals after the study, 53% (n = 10), 42% (n = 8) and 5% (n = 1) of owners reported ‘the same’, ‘a bit more’ and ‘much more’, respectively. Additionally, 5% (n = 1), 26% (n = 5), 63% (n = 12) and 5% (n = 1) of owners reported that their cat’s play time ‘decreased a bit’, ‘was kept the same’, ‘increased a bit’ and ‘increased a lot’, respectively.
Food-related behaviour
Appetite decreased in nine cats (47%), was maintained in three (16%) and increased in seven (37%), according to the owner reports. Meanwhile, food-seeking behaviour decreased in two cats (11%), was maintained in 12 (63%) and increased in five (26%). Fifty-eight percent (n = 11) of owners reported attempting to use food puzzles; of these, 36% (n = 4), 18% (n = 2), 36% (n = 4) and 9% (n = 1) reported ‘great success’, ‘success’, ‘mild success’ and ‘no success at all’, respectively. Forty-two per cent (n = 8) of owners reported using automatic feeders and only 16% (n = 3) combined their use with food puzzles. The median percentage of food given through food puzzles and automatic feeders was 53.5% (range 0–100) and 61% (range 1–100), respectively.
When owners were asked why they did not use food puzzles, 50% (n = 4) reported that they did ‘not know it was possible’ and 50% (n = 4) reported it was ‘not possible due to another animal(s) at home’.
General behaviour
After 12 weeks owner-reported stress increased in three cats (16%), was maintained in 15 (79%) and decreased in one (5%). After 24 weeks, owner-reported stress was maintained in 18 cats (95%) and decreased in one (5%) vs 12 weeks. Furthermore, only one owner (5%) reported that their cat ‘did not seem happy’ during the study, while 53% (n = 10) considered their cats to be ‘quite happy’ and 42% (n = 8) ‘happy’.
Owner-reported grooming time increased in eight cats (42%), was maintained in nine (47%) and decreased in two (11%). Hair quality increased in seven cats (37%) and was maintained in 12 (63%). The grooming time and hair quality score increased over time vs baseline, ranging from 5.9 (range 1–9) to 6.6 (range 1–9) and 7.1 (range 3–10) to 8.1 (range 6–10), respectively (Figure 3). Sixty-eight percent (n = 13) and 95% (n = 18) of owners reported normal cat faeces before and after the study, respectively.
Difficulties
Finally, respondents were asked to report the main difficulties they encountered during the study. Thirty-two per cent (n = 6) of owners responded it was difficult ‘not to give extra food’, 26% (n = 5) that it was difficult ‘to limit the access of the cat to other types of food’, 21% (n = 4) that it was difficult ‘to weigh the cat weekly’, 11% (n = 2) that it was difficult ‘to bring the cat to appointments’, 5% (n = 1) that it was difficult ‘to measure the cat’s daily food intake’ and 5% (n = 1) that it was difficult ‘to keep the cat indoors’. More details regarding the perceived difficulty level for each statement are presented in Table 2. When owners were asked what would possibly present as the main difficulty for their cats during the WLP, 53% (n = 10) believed it was ‘to have the [cat’s] food decreased over time’; 21% (n = 4) thought that the main difficulty to their cats was ‘not to have access to other food’. Sixteen percent (n = 3) thought that their cats were struggling to ‘not receive extra food’, 5% (n = 1) presumed that their cat’s main difficulty was ‘being kept indoors’ and 5% (n = 1) thought the main difficulty for their cats was ‘coming to the appointments’.
Table 2.
Difficulties encountered by the owners during their cats’ weight-loss programme
| A lot/really hard (%) | Quite a lot/hard (%) | Not that much/not too hard (%) | Not (hard) at all (%) | Number of participants (n) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Not giving extra food | 42 | 11 | 42 | 5 | 19 |
| Limiting the cat’s access to other types of food* | 29 | 36 | 21 | 14 | 14 |
| Adding food puzzles/slow feeders to the cat’s daily routine † | 18 | 0 | 9 | 73 | 11 |
| Preventing the cat stealing human food | 16 | 32 | 32 | 21 | 19 |
| Keeping the cat indoors ‡ | 14 | 0 | 29 | 57 | 7 |
| Weighing the cat weekly | 5 | 32 | 32 | 32 | 19 |
| Bringing the cat to appointments | 5 | 32 | 42 | 21 | 19 |
| Measuring the cat’s food intake | 0 | 11 | 58 | 32 | 19 |
| Increasing the number of meals § | 0 | 27 | 67 | 7 | 15 |
| Getting the cat used to food puzzles/slow feeders † | 0 | 9 | 64 | 27 | 11 |
Only for owners that had other animals at home
Only for owners that added food puzzles and/or slow feeders to their cat’s daily routine
Only for owners of cats that had access to the outdoors before the start of the study
Only for owners that increased the number of meals for their cats
Association between variables
Table 3 shows the Pearson correlation coefficients for the survey variables. Owners’ WL perception was positively correlated with the %WL (r = 0.63; P <0.01) and %WL/week (r = 0.65; P <0.01), and negatively correlated with the difference in BCS (r =−0.66; P <0.01) and to the need to lose more weight after completing the study (r =−0.55; P <0.01). The difference in BCS assessed by the veterinarian was negatively correlated with the owners’ perception of WL (r =−0.66; P <0.01) and positively correlated with the ‘need to lose more weight’ after the study (r = 0.56; P <0.05).
Table 3.
The associations between the different questions of the survey (Pearson correlation coefficients)
| Variables | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| WLP data variables | 1 | Difference in energy intake throughout the study | 1.0 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2 | Total weight loss (%WL) | 0.477* | 1.0 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 3 | Rate weight loss (%WL/week) | 0.473* | 0.996** | 1.0 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| BCS assessment | 4 | Initial BCS assessment – owner | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 1.0 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| 5 | Initial BCS assessment – veterinarian | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.490* | 1.0 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| 6 | Final BCS assessment – veterinarian | −0.4 | −0.525* | −0.500* | 0.2 | 0.538* | 1.0 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| 7 | Difference in veterinarian-assessed BCS | −0.523* | −0.794** | −0.782** | −0.1 | −0.1 | 0.800** | 1.0 | |||||||||||||||||||
| QoL perception | 8 | Initial QoL | −0.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | −0.3 | −0.1 | −0.2 | −0.1 | 1.0 | |||||||||||||||||
| 9 | Final QoL | 0.478* | 0.546* | 0.569* | 0.3 | 0.2 | −0.2 | −0.4 | 0.3 | 1.0 | |||||||||||||||||
| 10 | Difference in QoL | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.457* | 0.2 | 0.1 | −0.1 | −0.831** | 0.3 | 1.0 | ||||||||||||||||
| 11 | QoL if cat not obese | 0.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.4 | 0.1 | 0.0 | −0.1 | −0.605** | −0.4 | 0.4 | 1.0 | |||||||||||||||
| Weight and BCS perceptions | 12 | Importance of keeping the cat in a good BCS | 0.2 | −0.1 | −0.1 | 0.1 | −0.1 | 0.2 | 0.3 | −0.2 | 0.1 | 0.2 | −0.1 | 1.0 | |||||||||||||
| 13 | Value/usefulness of WLP | 0.4 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | −0.2 | 0.0 | 0.1 | −0.1 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.0 | 0.820** | 1.0 | |||||||||||||
| 14 | Weight loss – owner’s perception | 0.3 | 0.628** | 0.653** | 0.2 | 0.0 | −0.528* | −0.656** | −0.1 | 0.4 | 0.3 | −0.1 | −0.1 | −0.1 | 1.0 | ||||||||||||
| 15 | Need to lose more weight | −0.3 | −0.528* | −0.497* | −0.1 | 0.3 | 0.626** | 0.559* | −0.3 | −0.3 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.3 | −0.547* | 1.0 | |||||||||||
| Energy level | 16 | Difference in activity level | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.0 | −0.2 | −0.2 | −0.707** | 0.0 | 0.727** | 0.4 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.0 | 1.0 | |||||||||
| 17 | Difference in mobility | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | −0.1 | −0.2 | −0.2 | −0.674** | 0.2 | 0.781** | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.0 | 0.814** | 1.0 | |||||||||
| 18 | Difference in interactivity | 0.1 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.0 | −0.2 | −0.2 | −0.490* | −0.3 | 0.3 | 0.516* | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 1.0 | ||||||||
| 19 | Difference in playing time | 0.3 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.0 | −0.613** | 0.0 | 0.605** | 0.543* | 0.1 | 0.1 | −0.1 | 0.2 | 0.640** | 0.803** | 0.2 | 1.0 | |||||||
| Food-related behaviour | 20 | Difference in appetite | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.2 | −0.1 | −0.2 | −0.3 | −0.2 | −0.1 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.2 | −0.3 | 0.4 | 0.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 1.0 | |||||
| 21 | Difference in food-seeking behaviour | −0.490* | 0.1 | 0.1 | −0.2 | 0.0 | −0.1 | −0.1 | 0.1 | −0.3 | −0.2 | −0.1 | −0.3 | −0.4 | 0.3 | −0.3 | 0.1 | −0.1 | 0.0 | −0.2 | 0.477* | 1.0 | |||||
| General behaviour | 22 | Difference in stress after 12-week study | 0.634** | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.487* | 0.0 | −0.1 | −0.1 | −0.3 | 0.3 | 0.479* | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | −0.2 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.4 | −0.1 | 1.0 | |||
| 23 | Difference in stress after 24-week study | 0.521* | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.1 | −0.1 | −0.2 | −0.1 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.1 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.2 | −0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.5 | 0.0 | 0.900** | 1.0 | |||
| 24 | Difference in grooming | 0.535* | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.0 | −0.4 | −0.603** | −0.4 | −0.1 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.3 | −0.3 | 0.3 | 0.535* | 0.1 | 0.4 | 0.3 | −0.1 | 0.514* | 0.510* | 1.0 | ||
| 25 | Worthiness of following the WLP | 0.3 | 0.0 | 0.1 | −0.1 | −0.1 | −0.1 | 0.0 | −0.1 | 0.1 | 0.2 | −0.1 | 0.4 | 0.612** | 0.4 | 0.1 | 0.4 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.0 | 0.2 | 0.0 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 1.0 | |
P <0.05
P <0.01
WLP = weight-loss plan; WL = weight loss; BCS = body condition score; QoL = quality of life
Perceived QoL was positively correlated with an increase in cat activity (r = 0.73; P <0.01), mobility (r = 0.78; P <0.01) and playing time (r = 0.61; P <0.01). The stated QoL before the study was negatively correlated with the perceived ‘QoL if the cat was not obese’ (r = 0.61; P <0.01). The QoL of the cats perceived by their owners at the end of the study was positively correlated with the difference in EI (r = 0.48; P <0.05), %WL (r = 0.55; P <0.05) and %WL/week (r = 0.57; P <0.05).
There were no significant correlations between %WL and %WL/week with energy level, food-seeking behaviour or stress. However, the difference in EI was positively correlated with perceived stress (r = 0.52; P <0.05) and negatively correlated with food-seeking behaviour (r =−0.49; P <0.05). The difference in the activity was also positively correlated with the difference in mobility (r = 0.81; P <0.01) and play time (r = 0.64; P <0.01). The WLP value/usefulness was positively correlated with the degree of importance of carrying out a WLP in a cat (r = 0.61; P <0.01).
No significant difference was observed between cats fed in combination with or without food puzzles in the %WL/week (P = 0.37), QoL (P = 0.65), food-seeking behaviour (P = 1.0), happiness (P = 0.17) or stress (P = 1.0; see Figure 1 in the supplementary material).
Discussion
To our knowledge, few studies have shown improvement in perceived QoL in cats after a WLP;12–14 nonetheless, one study 14 compared perceived QoL with BCS and %WL/week, and did not find a statistical correlation with the cats’ QoL. Additionally, there are no published data assessing the difficulties encountered by owners during WLP.
Weight and BCS
Agreement between veterinarians and cat owners on cats’ BCS differ between studies, being better in poor/ideal BCS than overweight/obese conditions.15,16 The present study also showed an increased underestimation for higher BCS points, and, for the first time, cat owners kept underestimating BCS after the WLP, and underestimated their cat’s need to lose more weight. Clear communication about BCS and TBW 17 reassessment is essential to avoid premature WLP discontinuation. Interestingly, owners could identify larger differences in the cat’s BCS when %WL and %WL/week were higher. At the same time, their perception of the need to keep decreasing the cat’s weight diminished. Moreover, by the end of the study, all owners demonstrated positive reactions towards WLP, to ‘keep a good BCS in their cat’ and the value/usefulness of the WLP.
QoL
In a previous feline WLP study, improved activity and QoL were detected after 5.5% and 8.1% WL, respectively. 12 Although no correlation was seen in the current study between the perceived QoL in cats and %WL, QoL increased over time and the final QoL rating was positively related to the difference in perceived energy level. This suggests that owners might relate their cat’s energy level with its QoL; thus, emphasis on these parameters (mobility, playing time, activity) to keep the owner motivated can be decisive.
Energy level
A prior study found that lean cats have higher energy levels than overweight cats; 18 however, energy expenditure was reduced after energy restriction. 19 During a WLP, the cat’s activity should be promoted to increase energy expenditure and achieve a negative energy balance. 17 In humans, WL increases activity,20,21 but, in cats, literature supporting this idea is inconsistent.19,22,23 In the present study, an increase in the activity score was seen without a correlation between the WL variables and the cat’s perceived energy level. Although the role of a cat’s activity during a WLP is not understood, stimulating it can be a good alternative to strengthen the human–animal bond and decrease stress. 24
Food puzzles
Food puzzles have been suggested to increase activity 25 and promote mental well being;26,27 therefore, they are often proposed in WLP. 17 Although group-controlled studies have failed to prove an increase in activity, 28 in the present study the vast majority (91%) of owners believed that their cats were more active when puzzles were used. However, the use of puzzles did not influence the perceived QoL in the cats, as was observed in another study. 13 Environmental enrichment has been shown to decrease signs of stress, 29 facilitate WL 4 and decrease food-seeking behaviour. 30 In contrast, owners that added food puzzles did not see a decrease in stress level, %WL/week or food-seeking behaviour in their cats. Nevertheless, including food puzzles was not difficult for the majority of owners, and most cats adapted to it well. Even after the veterinarian advised adding food puzzles to the cats’ routine, four owners reported they did not know it was possible, highlighting the importance of improving communication between veterinarians and owners as owners might not understand or, owing to an overload of information, not remember all the recommendations given. Although there are no proven benefits of food puzzles in improving WL results, their inclusion is recommended to help mental well being,26,27 especially in indoor cats.
Weight loss, and food-related and general behaviour
To ensure 0.5–2% of WL/week and the achievement of TBW, readjustments of EI over time might be needed. 31 Consequently, food-seeking behaviour could be increased, 3 as was observed in the present study. Nonetheless, despite this finding, stress did not appear to decrease the perceived QoL in the cats. Although the perceived stress increased at the beginning of the study, it remained stable during the WLP (12–24-week study). In addition, there was no statistical correlation between stress and %WL/week. These findings suggest that an initial diet and/or food-management change might be more relevant in affecting stress than WLP.
Grooming is a normal cat behaviour, but excess or lack of grooming may affect a cat’s well being. Decreased grooming time has been described in obese cats due to a reduced ability to reach all body areas, 6 increasing the risk of dermatological disorders. However, overgrooming has been linked to stress, 32 and in some cases it can result in alopecia.33,34 Although evaluating grooming behaviour is difficult, by the end of the current study, owners described an increased grooming time together with improved hair quality, suggesting a positive consequence of the WLP.
Difficulties
More than half of owners (53%; n = 10) believed that the main difficulty of the WLP from the cats’ point of view was having their food decreased over time. Nevertheless, owners still associated the increased %WL and %WL/week with greater overall QoL. In the present study, the average %WL/week was in the lower advised range (0.5%/week), with a mean decrease of 15% EI over time (59 kcal/kg0.75). To avoid decreasing food over time, a larger decrease in the initial EI to achieve a higher %WL/week (1–2%/week) at the beginning of a WLP might be suggested.
One owner (20%) reported struggling to keep the cat indoors and although the cat’s EI was reduced by 12% and the owner observed a slight increase in the activity level, the cat maintained its weight. However, non-supervised outdoor access and food indiscretion cannot be excluded.
Although only six owners fed treats to their cats before starting the study, all owners reported difficulties with not feeding extra food when the study ended. This finding emphasises the importance of a detailed anamnesis and a complete overview of the diet. 35 Giving treats is common in feeding regimens,36,37 and positively affects the owner’s psychological health; 38 however, it can increase EI and is a risk factor for obesity.15,39,40 No treats were included in the present study; however, anecdotal data suggest a possibility of treat feeding <10% EI14,41,42 without causing nutritional imbalances. 41 To overcome this difficulty, low-calorie treats could be included under energy reallocation. Previous studies have suggested greater outcomes in WLPs using exclusively dry diets;12,43 however, wet diets designed for WLPs can be an alternative to treat feeding.
Limitations
The data obtained in this study should be interpreted with caution as the population was small, there was no control group and the questionnaire was not formally validated. Although a time frame (before the study, at 12 weeks and at 24 weeks) was described in the questionnaire, all data were collected by the end of the study. This implies a limitation on the study design and could have led to an overestimation of the ‘24-week study’ parameters and an underestimation of ‘before the start of the study’ and ‘12-week study’ answers. As relying on owners’ recall imposes a bias in the study, it would be interesting to repeat a similar survey at different time points for more consistent data. Furthermore, energy-level parameters were only assessed subjectively, and more objective measures should follow to confirm these findings. Despite its limitations, the study certainly offers valuable insights into the difficulties that cat owners have during a WLP, assisting veterinarians with managing difficulties in achieving a cat’s TBW and improving cats’ QoL.
Conclusions
The current study showed an improvement in cats’ QoL after a 24-week period, which was positively correlated to a difference in perceived energy level. The main difficulties with the WLP were related to not feeding extra food and decreasing the amount of food over time. Finally, stress did not significantly influence the perceived QoL of the cats, owners had a good impression of the WLP and the majority expressed the significance of the WLP to their cats.
Supplemental Material
The composition of experimental food used for weight loss in cats.
Description of survey domains and representative survey items.
Comparison of weight loss rate, differences in the perceived quality of life, food seeking behaviour, happiness and stress of cats that used or did not use food puzzles.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank all the cat owners who completed the survey and allowed their cats to participate in the study. They also acknowledge Sofie Moreels for the grammar revision.
Footnotes
Accepted: 28 July 2022
Author note: This paper was presented, in part, as an abstract and a poster presentation at the European Society of Veterinary and Comparative Nutrition Congress, in Munich, Germany, 2020.
Supplementary material: The following files are available online:
Table 1: The composition of experimental food used for weight loss in cats.
Table 2: Description of survey domains and representative survey items.
Figure 1: Comparison of weight loss rate, differences in the perceived quality of life, food seeking behaviour, happiness and stress of cats that used or did not use food puzzles.
The study was supported by Dechra Veterinary Products, which employs Francis Pastoor and Lobke Heip.
Funding: Food and funding were provided by Dechra Veterinary Products. The sponsors were involved in the study design. At the time of the study, Camila Baptista da Silva was undertaking a residency in comparative animal nutrition sponsored by Dechra Veterinary Products.
Ethical approval: The work described in this manuscript involved the use of non-experimental (owned or unowned) animals. Established internationally recognised high standards (‘best practice’) of veterinary clinical care for the individual patient were always followed and/or this work involved the use of cadavers. Ethical approval from a committee was therefore not specifically required for publication in JFMS. Although not required, where ethical approval was still obtained, it is stated in the manuscript.
Informed consent: Informed consent (either verbal or written) was obtained from the owner or legal custodian of all animal(s) described in this work (either experimental or nonexperimental animals) for the procedure(s) undertaken (either prospective or retrospective studies). No animals or humans are identifiable within this publication, and therefore additional informed consent for publication was not required.
ORCID iD: Camila Baptista da Silva 
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2545-0388
References
- 1. Michel KE, Bader A, Shofer FS, et al. Impact of time-limited feeding and dietary carbohydrate content on weight loss in group-housed cats. J Feline Med Surg 2016; 7: 349–355. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2. German AJ, Holden S, Bissot T, et al. Changes in body composition during weight loss in obese client-owned cats: loss of lean tissue mass correlates with overall percentage of weight lost. J Feline Med Surge 2008; 10: 452–459. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3. Bissot T, Servet E, Vidal S, et al. Novel dietary strategies can improve the outcome of weight loss programmes in obese client-owned cats. J Feline Med Surg 2010; 12: 104–112. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4. Clarke DL, Wrigglesworth D, Holmes K, et al. Using environmental and feeding enrichment to facilitate feline weight loss. J Anim Physiol Anim Nutr 2005; 89: 427. [Google Scholar]
- 5. O’Connell EM, Williams M, Holden SL, et al. Factors associated with overweight cats successfully completing a diet-based weight loss programme: an observational study. BMC Vet Res 2018; 14: 1–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6. German AJ. The growing problem of obesity in dogs and cats. J Nutr 2006; 136: 1940S–1946S. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7. Tvarijonaviciute A, Ceron JJ, Holden SL, et al. Effects of weight loss in obese cats on biochemical analytes related to inflammation and glucose homeostasis. Domest Anim Endocrinol 2012; 42: 129–141. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8. Marshall WG, Hazewinkel HAW, Mullen D, et al. The effect of weight loss on lameness in obese dogs with osteoarthritis. Vet Res Commun 2010; 34: 241–253. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9. German AJ. Weight management in obese pets: the tailoring concept and how it can improve results. Acta Vet Scand 2016; 58: 57. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10. Bjornvad CR, Nielsen DH, Armstrong PJ, et al. Evaluation of a nine-point body condition scoring system in physically inactive pet cats. Am J Vet Res 2011; 72: 433–437. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11. Laflamme D. Development and validation of a body condition score system for cats: a clinical tool. Feline Pract 1997; 25: 13–18. [Google Scholar]
- 12. Flanagan J, Bissot T, Hours MA, et al. An international multi-centre cohort study of weight loss in overweight cats: differences in outcome in different geographical locations. PLoS One 2018; 13: 0200414. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13. Dodd LE, Werre SR, Shepherd ML. Effect of food toys on owner-perceived quality of life of cats during a prescribed weight loss plan. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2021; 259: 87–89. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14. Hadar BN, Lambrecht KJ, Poljak Z, et al. A technology-enhanced weight-loss program in multiple-cat households: a randomized controlled trial. J Feline Med Surg 2022; 24: 726–738. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15. Courcier EA, O’Higgins R, Mellor DJ, et al. Prevalence and risk factors for feline obesity in a first opinion practice in Glasgow, Scotland. J Feline Med Surg 2010; 12: 746–753. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16. Kienzle E, Bergler R. Human-animal relationship of owners of normal and overweight cats. J Nutr 2006; 136 7 Suppl:1947S–1950S. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17. Michel K, Scherk M. From problem to success: feline weight loss programs that work. J Feline Med Surg 2012; 14: 327–336. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18. de Godoy MRC, Shoveller AK. Overweight adult cats have significantly lower voluntary physical activity than adult lean cats. J Feline Med Surg 2017; 19: 1267–1273. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19. Villaverde C, Ramsey JJ, Green AS, et al. Energy restriction results in a mass-adjusted decrease in energy expenditure in cats that is maintained after weight regain. J Nutr 2008; 138: 856–860. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20. Jeffery RW, Wing RR, Sherwood NE, et al. Physical activity and weight loss: does prescribing higher physical activity goals improve outcome? Am J Clin Nutr 2003; 78: 684–689. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21. Moredich CA, Kessler TA. Physical activity and nutritional weight loss interventions in obese, low-income women: an integrative review. J Midwifery Womens Health 2014; 59: 380–387. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22. Nguyen P, Leray V, Dumon H, et al. High protein intake affects lean body mass but not energy expenditure in nonobese neutered cats. J Nutr 2004; 134 8 Suppl: 2084S–2086S. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23. Pallotto MR, de Godoy MRC, Holscher HD, et al. Effects of weight loss with a moderate-protein, high-fiber diet on body composition, voluntary physical activity, and fecal microbiota of obese cats. Am J Vet Res 2018; 79: 181–190. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24. Rehnberg LK, Robert KA, Watson SJ, et al. The effects of social interaction and environmental enrichment on the space use, behaviour and stress of owned housecats facing a novel environment. Appl Anim Behav Sci 2015; 169: 51–61. [Google Scholar]
- 25. Schipper LL, Vinke CM, Schilder MBH, et al. The effect of feeding enrichment toys on the behaviour of kennelled dogs (Canis familiaris). Appl Anim Behav Sci 2008; 114: 182–195. [Google Scholar]
- 26. Dantas LMS, Delgado MM, Johnson I, et al. Food puzzles for cats: Feeding for physical and emotional wellbeing. J Feline Med Surg 2016; 18: 723–732. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27. Delgado M, Dantas LMS. Feeding cats for optimal mental and behavioral well-being. Vet Clin Small Anim Pract 2020; 50: 939–953. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28. Naik R, Witzel A, Albright JD, et al. Pilot study evaluating the effect of feeding method on overall activity of neutered indoor pet cats. J Vet Behav 2018; 25: 9–13. [Google Scholar]
- 29. Buffington CAT, Westropp JL, Chew DJ, et al. Clinical evaluation of multimodal environmental modification (MEMO) in the management of cats with idiopathic cystitis. J Feline Med Surg 2006; 8: 261–268. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30. Buffington CAT. External and internal influences on disease risk in cats. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2002; 220: 994–1002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31. Brooks D, Churchill J, Fein K, et al. 2014 AAHA weight management guidelines for dogs and cats. J Am Anim Hosp Assoc 2014; 50: 1–11. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32. Rochlitz I. Feline welfare issues. In: Turner DC, Bateson P. (eds). The domestic cat: the biology of its behaviour. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p 207. [Google Scholar]
- 33. Dodman N. Psychogenic alopecia in cats: 11 cases (1993–1996). J Am Vet Med Assoc 1999; 214: 71–74. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34. Waisglass SE, Landsberg GM, Yager JA, et al. Underlying medical conditions in cats with presumptive psychogenic alopecia. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2006; 228: 1705–1709. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35. Macmartin C, Wheat HC, Coe JB, et al. Effect of question design on dietary information solicited during veterinarian-client interactions in companion animal practice in Ontario, Canada. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2015; 246: 1203–1214. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36. Becker N, Dillitzer N, Sauter-Louis C, et al. Feeding of dogs and cats in Germany [article in German]. Tierarztl Prax Ausg K Kleintiere Heimtiere 2012; 40: 391–397. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37. Vandendriessche VL, Picavet P, Hesta M. First detailed nutritional survey in a referral companion animal population. J Anim Physiol Anim Nutr 2017; 101: 4–14. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38. White GA, Ward L, Pink C, et al. “Who’s been a good dog?” – owner perceptions and motivations for treat giving. Prev Vet Med 2016; 132: 14–19. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39. Bland IM, Guthrie-Jones A, Taylor RD, et al. Dog obesity: Veterinary practices’ and owners’ opinions on cause and management. Prev Vet Med 2010; 94: 310–315. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40. Russell K, Sabin R, Holt S, et al. Influence of feeding regimen on body condition in the cat. J Small Anim Pract 2000; 41: 12–18. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41. Michel KE. Nutritional management of body weight. In: Fascetti AJ, Delaney SJ. (eds). Applied veterinary clinical nutrition. Chichester: Wiley, 2012, pp 109–124. [Google Scholar]
- 42. Yaissle JE, Holloway C, Buffington CAT. Evaluation of owner education as a component of obesity treatment programs for dogs. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2004; 224: 1932–1935. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43. German AJ, Titcomb JM, Holden SL, et al. Cohort study of the success of controlled weight loss programs for obese dogs. J Vet Intern Med 2015; 29: 1547–1555. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Supplementary Materials
The composition of experimental food used for weight loss in cats.
Description of survey domains and representative survey items.
Comparison of weight loss rate, differences in the perceived quality of life, food seeking behaviour, happiness and stress of cats that used or did not use food puzzles.