Pottenger's Milk Study reveals better health in cats fed raw diets.

A cat study that still makes nutrition coaches pause

If you’ve ever chatted with a client about raw vs cooked foods, you’ve likely heard a dozen versions of “raw is better, or cooked is safer.” The conversation gets even more interesting when you throw history into the mix. One famous benchmark in nutrition science is Pottenger’s Milk Study, a mid-20th-century look at how diet processing affects health across generations of cats. The punchline? Cats fed a raw diet tended to show the best health outcomes—better vitality, fewer illnesses, and stronger reproductive health compared with groups fed cooked foods. Let me explain what that finding was, what it means today, and how it lands in practical coaching conversations.

What the study actually did (in plain terms)

Pottenger didn’t test a single dish or a single nutrient. He ran parallel groups of cats on different dietary patterns: raw milk with raw meat, raw milk with cooked meat, cooked milk with cooked meat, and so on. Over time—and across generations—the cats on the raw milk/raw meat combination generally looked healthier: more energy, steadier weight, more robust offspring, and fewer health hiccups. The groups that leaned toward cooked ingredients tended to show more health problems as the study progressed. It’s a remarkable example of how food processing can influence biological outcomes, especially when you watch a population over several generations.

Why this matters beyond the feline world

As a nutrition coach, you’re not teaching cats, obviously. But the study offers a telling reminder: the way we process food can alter nutrient integrity, enzyme activity, and how the body uses what it’s given. Raw foods contain enzymes and microcomponents that cooking can degrade or alter. In theory, that preservation could support smoother digestion and better nutrient availability—at least in some contexts. On the flip side, cooking also makes many foods safer and sometimes more bioavailable. Think of lycopene in tomatoes, beta-carotene in carrots, or the protein structure in certain plant foods that becomes easier for the body to digest after a gentle heat treatment.

So, should you take this as a direct prescription for people? Not exactly. Pottenger’s study is an animal study, and humans have different digestive systems, dietary needs, and safety concerns. It’s a provocative piece of the nutrition puzzle, but it’s not a turnkey guide for human diets. The larger takeaway is about the quality of the diet— how close to whole, minimally processed foods someone eats, how diverse the nutrients are, and how the cooking methods used affect nutrient stability and absorption.

A practical lens for NAFC coaches

Here’s how the core idea translates into client conversations and plans, without pretending there’s a universal “raw is best” rule for humans.

1. Emphasize overall diet quality over single choices

• Clients often fixate on raw vs cooked as the central decision. In practice, the more impactful target is the pattern: a diet rich in whole foods, varied nutrients, and mindful preparation methods.

• A helpful question to start with: “What does a typical week of meals look like, and where could you increase whole-food options without adding stress?”

• The aim isn’t perfection on every meal, but consistency in nutrient-dense choices.

2. Acknowledge the benefits and limits of cooking

• Cooking can improve safety and palatability, expand the range of edible foods, and boost certain nutrient bioavailability. Raw isn’t inherently superior in every situation, especially when safety and balance are concerns.

• For clients who love raw foods, validate their preferences but ensure safety and balance are front and center. For others, celebrate the versatility cooking offers—seasoning, texture, and appetite regulation all play a role in adherence.

3. Safety and balance aren’t optional

• When raw diets are considered, safety becomes a real conversation, especially for people with compromised immunity, pregnant clients, or those who handle foods for others (families, kids). The same applies to pets, where raw feeding has specific veterinary considerations.

• A practical stance: advocate for clean handling, proper storage, and balanced menus that cover essential nutrients. If clients want to experiment, frame it as a short-term, monitored choice rather than a long-term default.

4. Personalize within evidence

• People aren’t cats, and nutrition recommendations must respect culture, preferences, access, and medical history. A client’s success hinges on sustainable patterns, not a perfect macro or a single dietary label.

• Use the study as a reminder to pay attention to processing levels, yes, but tailor advice to real-world contexts: budgets, cooking facilities, taste preferences, and risk factors.

5. Teach the why behind nutrient availability

• Cooking changes the chemistry of foods. Some nutrients become more available after heat; others degrade. Help clients understand these nuances without turning the conversation into a science lecture.

• A simple way to explain: “Cooking can unlock certain nutrients in some foods, while protecting others from spoilage; your task is to balance the plate so you get a steady supply of what your body needs.”

A few coaching-ready takeaways

• Prioritize variety and color on the plate. More vegetables, fruits, whole grains, lean proteins, and healthy fats generally translate into a wide spectrum of nutrients and compounds that support health.

• When clients lean toward raw foods, discuss practical safety steps and nutrient balance, and consider professional input if the plan is shifting dramatically.

• Use cooking methods that preserve nutrients without sacrificing safety. Gentle steaming, sautéing with reasonable heat, and minimal processing often strike a practical balance.

• Remember that real-world adherence matters more than any single dietary label. The “why” behind a client’s choices matters as much as the “what.”

A quick digression that helps anchor the idea

If you ever study general nutrition or work with clients who are curious about ancestral diets or detox myths, you’ll notice a common thread: people crave authenticity in their food choices. The Pottenger study taps into that longing—humans and animals alike may feel better when foods are closer to their natural, minimally processed state. But the modern pantry is crowded with pathogens, food safety concerns, and busy schedules. The best coaching meets clients where they are: it respects their values, answers their questions with credible context, and builds a plan that feels doable today and durable tomorrow.

Practical questions to spark thoughtful plans

• What foods do you genuinely enjoy, and how can you protect their nutrient quality through cooking or preparation?

• Are there particular health goals that influence how you approach raw versus cooked foods (digestive comfort, energy levels, gut health, or appetite control)?

• What’s your safety perimeter for handling, storage, and preparation? If you’re considering raw foods, who can you consult to ensure a balanced intake?

• How does your budget, time, and kitchen setup shape your options? What’s a realistic weekly plan that minimizes stress?

Putting it all together for coaching success

Pottenger’s Milk Study gives us a dramatic, attention-grabbing reminder about the impact of food processing on health in a controlled animal setting. It’s not a blueprint for human dietary choice, but it is a catalyst for a richer, more nuanced conversation about nutrient quality, cooking methods, and dietary pattern. For NAFC coaches, it’s a prompt to emphasize practical, evidence-informed guidance that respects client preferences while ensuring safety and balance.

In the end, the goal isn’t to chase a perfect label—raw, cooked, or somewhere in between. It’s to cultivate eating habits that provide steady energy, robust digestion, and long-term health. And if you ever find yourself in a discussion about raw foods, you can ground it with a simple, honest line: “Food processing changes what’s available to your body. The safest, most effective approach is a balanced pattern of whole foods, tailored to your tastes, needs, and life.”

A closing thought

Nutrition coaching is about clarity as much as it is about care. The Pottenger study is a useful chapter in a much larger book. It invites curiosity, invites questions, and invites you to guide clients toward healthier, sustainable choices—whether those foods come with a little extra heat, a lot of texture, or a preferred raw edge. The most powerful tool you have is not a single dietary dogma, but your ability to listen, adapt, and translate science into real life—one tasty, attainable plate at a time.