Table 5.
Effect of feeding control 1 or one of two functional foods (FF1 and FF2) 2 for six months (T6) on serum concentrations of major fatty acids (FAs) in cats compared with their baseline values (T0) 3.
| Fatty Acids (mg/dL) | Renal Protective Foods | SEM | p-Values for Food Effect 4 | p-Values for Food Comparisons 5 | p-Values for Time Effect 4 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control | FF1 | FF2 | FF1 vs. Control | FF2 vs. Control | ||||
| Individual: | ||||||||
| C16:0, T0 | 24.5 | 24.3 | 22.5 | 1.2 | ||||
| Change, T6 − T0 | +1.1 | +0.61 | +0.53 | 1.0 | 0.19 | 0.52 | 0.25 | 0.51 |
| C16:1, T0 | 0.76 | 0.63 | 0.66 | 0.04 | ||||
| Change, T6 − T0 | +0.57 | +0.31 | +0.50 | 0.06 | 0.07 | <0.01 | 0.34 | <0.01 |
| C18:0, T0 | 43.9 | 39.7 | 37.1 | 1.1 | ||||
| Change, T6 − T0 | +0.5 | +2.2 | −0.4 | 0.7 | <0.01 | 0.10 | 0.36 | 0.07 |
| C18:1, T0 | 22.5 | 24.6 | 21.4 | 1.1 | ||||
| Change, T6 − T0 | +3.5 | +1.5 | +2.3 | 0.7 | 0.33 | 0.01 | 0.14 | <0.01 |
| C18:2 (n − 6), T0 | 48.4 | 51.6 | 42.7 | 1.2 | ||||
| Change, T6 − T0 | +4.6 | +0.7 | +2.3 | 1.1 | 0.26 | 0.01 | 0.13 | <0.01 |
| C18:3 (n − 3), T0 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | ||||
| Change, T6 − T0 | +0.07 | +0.08 | +0.06 | 0.01 | 0.88 | 0.45 | 0.19 | <0.01 |
| C20:4 (n − 6), T0 | 18.1 | 16.7 | 15.6 | 0.5 | ||||
| Change, T6 − T0 | −1.4 | −4.1 | −4.6 | 0.5 | <0.01 | <0.01 | <0.01 | <0.01 |
| C20:5 (n − 3), T0 | 0.09 | 0.09 | 0.09 | 0.01 | ||||
| Change, T6 − T0 | +0.77 | +1.79 | +1.81 | 0.17 | <0.01 | <0.01 | <0.01 | <0.01 |
| C22:5 (n − 3), T0 | 0.62 | 0.56 | 0.63 | 0.03 | ||||
| Change, T6 − T0 | +0.56 | +1.18 | +0.98 | 0.11 | <0.01 | <0.01 | 0.01 | <0.01 |
| C22:6 (n − 3), T0 | 2.05 | 2.53 | 2.41 | 0.09 | ||||
| Change, T6 − T0 | +1.18 | +2.99 | +2.30 | 0.28 | <0.01 | <0.01 | <0.01 | <0.01 |
| Sums: | ||||||||
| SFA 6, T0 | 68.5 | 64.1 | 59.7 | 1.7 | ||||
| Change, T6 − T0 | +1.8 | +3.1 | +0.3 | 1.1 | 0.19 | 0.44 | 0.36 | <0.01 |
| MUFA 7, T0 | 23.2 | 25.2 | 22.1 | 0.6 | ||||
| Change, T6 − T0 | +3.8 | +2.0 | +2.8 | 0.6 | 0.51 | 0.04 | 0.23 | <0.01 |
| PUFA 8, T0 | 72.5 | 75.3 | 64.5 | 1.8 | ||||
| Change, T6 − T0 | +6.2 | +2.1 | +2.5 | 1.4 | 0.02 | 0.04 | 0.07 | <0.01 |
| (n − 6) PUFA 9, T0 | 70.4 | 72.7 | 62.0 | 1.7 | ||||
| Change, T6 − T0 | +4.2 | −2.7 | −1.7 | 1.4 | <0.01 | <0.01 | <0.01 | 0.35 |
| (n − 3) PUFA 10, T0 | 2.1 | 2.6 | 2.5 | 0.2 | ||||
| Change, T6 − T0 | +2.0 | +4.9 | +4.2 | 0.5 | <0.01 | <0.01 | <0.01 | <0.01 |
| Ratios: | ||||||||
| (n − 6):(n − 3), T0 | 35.4 | 28.5 | 26.3 | 2.0 | ||||
| Change, T6 − T0 | −13.7 | −14.3 | −13.0 | 1.8 | 0.96 | 0.79 | 0.79 | <0.01 |
| PUFA:SFA, T0 | 1.06 | 1.19 | 1.08 | 0.01 | ||||
| Change, T6 − T0 | +0.06 | −0.03 | +0.043 | 0.01 | <0.01 | <0.01 | 0.14 | 0.12 |
1 Control food was prepared by Hill’s Pet Nutrition, Inc. and was similar to the pre-trial food in protein and fat content, but had added fiber, fish oil, α-tocopheryl acetate, and ascorbyl monophosphate. See ingredient label in Table 2. 2 The two functional foods differed from control food in degree of supplementation with functional lipids, presence of botanicals (fruit and vegetables), and pea and chicken protein concentrations. See ingredient labels in Table 2. 3 Values are LSM, n = 15 (control), n = 15 (FF1), n = 14 (FF2). 4 To determine food and time main effects, data were analyzed as repeated-measures-in-time, randomized design using GLM in PROC MIXED and the Satterthwaite approximation to determine the denominator degrees of freedom for the tests of fixed effects. 5 To determine whether food effects were different between control food and functional food diets, we compared changes (difference between values at six months and baseline; T6 − T0) for cats fed control food and experimental foods (change for cats fed FF1 vs. change for control; and change for cats fed FF2 vs. change for control), using an unpaired t-test. 6–10 See Table 2.