Fresh Dog Food Study for Senior Pets Faces Major Methodology Backlash

A recent study claiming that fresh, human-grade dog food improves metabolic health in senior dogs has faced sharp criticism. BSM Partners, an independent research group, identified major flaws in the methodology, data accuracy, and transparency of the findings published in Metabolites on October 17, 2025.

The study, led by Dr. Heather Huson, suggested that fresh diets could support healthier ageing in older dogs. But BSM Partners has questioned its reliability on multiple grounds. The research compared two dog foods with key differences in processing and nutrient content. One was described as 'fresh and minimally processed,' while the other was an experimental kibble not sold commercially. BSM Partners argued that these differences made the results unclear, as the study did not isolate the effect of freshness alone.

Transparency issues also raised concerns. The report failed to detail cooking methods, exact food intake, and whether the dogs took medications during the trial. BSM Partners further disputed the claim that the test food met FDA and AAFCO standards for being 'fresh' or 'minimally processed.'

Serious errors emerged in the study's nutrient data. BSM Partners found systematic math mistakes in the vitamin and mineral tables, with vitamin A and copper levels potentially reaching toxic amounts for dogs. They also criticised the peer-review process, warning that weaker studies can slip through in newer or less rigorous journals.

The study itself involved 22 senior dogs over a year, tracking metabolic changes between the two diets. However, BSM Partners argued that the experimental kibble used did not reflect typical commercial products, further undermining the findings. As of now, the journal Metabolites has not publicly addressed the criticism. The study's conclusions about fresh dog food and metabolic health remain under scrutiny. BSM Partners' review highlighted problems with data accuracy, methodology, and transparency. Without a response from the journal or researchers, the validity of the findings stays in question.