08/24/2026
If Kibble Is So Bad, Why Do Some Dogs Live Long Lives?
A client asked me a question yesterday that I believe deserves a serious, science-based answer and discussion.
My client has been feeding her dog a raw diet because, like many pet parents, she genuinely believes she is choosing the better, more health-promoting option. However, she has observed something that does not fit neatly into the usual "kibble vs. fresh food" narrative:
She knows of many dogs, past and present, who consume kibble and have lived very long, healthy lives.
So naturally, she asked me if her decision to feed a raw diet was actually the right decision.
This is a question that deserves more attention. It highlights an important fact that is frequently misunderstood in canine nutrition:
Dogs don't require "fresh food." They require nutrients.
Does this surprise you? Truthfully, the body does not "care" whether zinc came from beef, a mineral premix, or another ingredient. It doesn't care whether vitamin E came from a whole food or was supplemented. And it doesn't care whether calcium came from a bone or seaweed calcium.
A dog's physiology requires adequate amounts of essential nutrients, in appropriate proportions, every day. PERIOD.
That is the foundation of nutrition...and where kibble teaches us something important.
A properly formulated complete-and-balanced commercial diet is, fundamentally, a nutrient-delivery system. The manufacturer formulates the food to provide required nutrients at specified concentrations for the intended life stage.
That means a dog eating the same complete diet every day can receive a nutritionally adequate diet without every individual meal containing a perfectly balanced assortment of muscle meat, organs, vegetables, eggs, fish and supplements.
The formulation has already done that mathematical work.
Truth be told, that is one reason dogs can, and do, live long lives eating commercial diets.
Now don't get me wrong! Their longevity does not prove that kibble is inherently superior. But it absolutely demonstrates that the format of the food is not the determining factor in nutritional adequacy.
Now consider the homemade raw diet.
My client's diet was made from foods that many people would consider exceptionally nutritious.
✔️ It was fresh.
✔️ It was raw
✔️ It consisted of human-grade meats
✔️ The quality of ingredients were exceptional
✔️ It looked wholesome
But when I analyzed the recipe, it was severely deficient in every mineral and deficient in most vitamins.
That is not a theoretical problem.
That is a nutritional problem.
This is honestly where I wish pet parents would stop confusing fresh food and ingredient quality with nutritional completeness.
A diet can contain excellent fresh ingredients and still fail to provide the nutrients required to maintain normal physiology and to produce longevity.
A bowl of fresh food is NOT a nutrient profile, and it is certainly not a formulation.
A recipe containing meat, organs, raw meaty bones, vegetables and berries may look nutritionally impressive, but appearance tells us almost nothing about whether the diet supplies adequate:
▪️ Calcium
▪️ Phosphorus
▪️ Zinc
▪️ Copper
▪️ Manganese
▪️ Iodine
▪️ Selenium
▪️ Iron
▪️ Vitamin A
▪️ Vitamin D
▪️ Vitamin E
▪️ B vitamins
▪️ Essential fatty acids
▪️ And numerous other required nutrients
It also does not tell us whether those nutrients are present in appropriate amounts relative to one another. This is known as nutrient ratios. Ratios are vitally important for nutrient absorption potential.
Nutritional formulation matters!
"But my dog looks healthy."
I hear this all too frequently...and I understand why.
A dog can have beautiful eyes, a shiny coat, excellent energy and normal stools while a diet is nutritionally inadequate. Understand that some nutritional deficiencies don't produce dramatic clinical signs immediately. The body also has adaptive mechanisms and stores for certain nutrients.
Clinical disease can therefore be the late manifestation of a nutritional problem, rather than the first indication that something was wrong. This is the reason why nutritional science cannot be reduced to:
"My dog has eaten this for years and seems fine."
While that observation is meaningful, it is not a nutrient analysis.
This may surprise pet parents...
I am not arguing that kibble is automatically better than fresh food, rather I am demonstrating something much less controversial:
👇
A nutritionally complete commercial diet is preferable to an unbalanced homemade diet.
Period.
If someone feeds kibble that meets established nutrient requirements, their dog may be receiving adequate nutrition.
If someone feeds a homemade raw or cooked diet that is severely deficient in calcium, zinc, iodine, vitamin D, vitamin E and other nutrients, calling it "fresh" does not correct those deficiencies.
Freshness cannot compensate for missing nutrients.
That said, "complete and balanced" does not mean "perfect." This distinction matters, too.
Nutritional adequacy is the foundation, not necessarily the ceiling.
There are legitimate reasons someone may choose a properly formulated fresh-food diet.
Fresh foods provide different nutrient matrices, fatty acids, amino acids, minerals, vitamins and biologically active compounds. Diets can also be customized around an individual dog's energy requirements, preferences, gastrointestinal tolerance and specific medical circumstances.
But once a pet parent chooses homemade feeding, they inherit the responsibility for nutritional formulation.
That's the trade-off.
You don't get to remove the formulation requirements simply because the ingredients are fresh.
This is why I am so persistent about nutrient saturation.
When I formulate a canine diet, I am not asking if a dog looks healthy. I am questioning whether the diet actually meets that specific dog's physiological requirements.
‼️That means evaluating the diet quantitatively, not aesthetically.
It means looking at nutrient concentrations, energy density, life stage, body weight, essential nutrient requirements, mineral relationships and the individual dog's circumstances.
Because ultimately:
A dog eats food.
The body uses nutrients.
Those are related, but they are not the same thing.
📌
My client's question really motivated me to think about the overall "kibble vs. fresh" argument.
Perhaps the better concern is not which type of diet is best, rather we should be concerned more about which diet is actually providing the nutrients each individual dog requires in the amounts that are optimal to produce stellar health and longevity.
A diet does not become nutritionally complete simply because we put fresh ingredients in the bowl.
And kibble does not become nutritionally inadequate simply because it came out of a bag.
The science is in the nutrient profile, not the marketing category.
And that is exactly why I will continue to strongly advocate for properly formulated raw and cooked diets.
Not simply because they are fresh, but...
because they are nutritionally complete.
Your dog needs nutrients. Give the nutrients the credit.
— The Holistic Canine 🐾 theholisticcanine.us
Professionally formulated fresh-food diets:
theholisticcanine.us/services
DIY NRC balanced meals at home:
"Fresh-Food Feeding Explained" eBook
Available on our website
https://theholisticcanine.us/ebook/
