lol the way their body is set up means that they turn meat proteins into energy - we do the same with carbs. It is the exact reverse for them they do it with protein (meat protein).
They can digest vegies but only certain ones but still need their energy from meat - thats why things like grains, onions, large amounts of garlic, raisins, currents, walnuts, mushrooms ARE POISONOUS lol as ..... they cant digest them...

Edit: I hope the OP isnt put off giving a dog a bone after reading your posts....... lol why would you cook the meat and take all the goodness out? Why would you give a dog a cooked bone when it will splinter after cooking but not before!!??????

James, I do realise you're trying to lend support to the carnivore/raw argument, but your assertions are, at least partially, incorrect. The issue has already been discussed in the thread, with relevant citations from the literature. Did you read them?

You're correct that dogs can and indeed do obtain energy from some of the amino acids present in protein and, more importantly, from the glycerol present in fat. The process is called gluconeogenesis, during which a non-carbohydrate nutrient is transformed into glucose. From there, different process called glucogenesis can transform it (glucose) into glycogen for storage depending on current ATP ('energy') demand. Dietary protein is much better spent on repairing and (re)building muscle, whereas fat is the preferred energy source. Indeed a dogs' whole system is designed around using fat as fuel, rather than protein per se.

Actually, as previously proven in the thread, dogs can't really digest vegetables in their natural state at all. Feed a dog a raw carrot, and watch what comes out of the other end virtually unscathed!

To be of any nutritious benefit, vegetable (and fruit) matter needs to be blended/puréed, possibly cooked, and held in the canine digestive system for some time. Commercial food manufacturers often use agents like beet pulp for this purpose. Even then vegetable matter is only minimally digestible and confers minimal nutrition versus the calorific effort of digestion.

More importantly, I'd be interested to hear how something (in your assertion onions, garlic, raisins, currants, walnuts, and mushrooms) can be poisonous because it can't be digested... How can something which is not digested affect the system in any way, let alone act as a poison on that system? Such an item would be basically inert.

I'm not having a go, don't misunderstand me! What you said was in principal correct, but lest I be accused of being blindly pro-raw I thought it worth posting this mild correction to your post. I'm not blindly pro-anything except evidence-based investigation. That works for both sides of the argument when the need arises.

Basically you're right about what you say, but for the wrong reasons.

From what I heard - they transform proteins into energy I cant remember the technical name for it but i dont think it was "glucogenesis". It may possibly have been but if I find it ill post it

as far as digesting vegies fully, id say so long as B vits were extruded or some level of keratin then digestion would be taking place.. hey ho

Not glucogenesis mate, that's the conversion of glucose into glycogen for storage as I said. Gluconeogenesis is the conversion of non-carbohydrate nutrients (some amino acids from protein, glycerol etc) into glucose. They look similar, but are very different pathways.

See Gluconeogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Cheers.

I cant find what the term was I thought it began with 'H' personally. To answer your above about items being poisonous. I am meaning if they were able to fully digest them they would have no reactions against the proteins - causing them no serious harm, seen as they do have reaction (severe) to them they are not capable of digesting those specific proteins/enzymes whatever and making use from them. Allegries come from the body coming into contact but not being able to cope with a foreign material - which is exactly what is going on there, they cannot process the item.

Ah so you meant they can't tolerate them rather than can't physically digest them. That makes more sense.

mm not even finnished my tea yet!

I wouldnt say tollerate either really given the complete shut down they can have to some foods..??

It's OK, suffice to say I know what you mean.

I dont mean so say your not wholey right - I know you know a fair bit on this, just thought id put my two cents feet in

Not true at all. As a human I love eating raw meat and fish, too. never had a problem. Sashimi is a big thing in Japan