Re: RC: Re: overweight an issue? - Weight vs. lean mass

[Onefarmgirl@aol.com]

In a message dated 7/26/00 1:40:32 PM Pacific Daylight Time, Tivers@aol.com 
writes:

<<  In addition, my initial statement was that a smaller horse,  
 give all other variables the same, will pay a bigger price for having the 
 same 170 lb rider on his back than a larger horse. I believe that statement 
 holds up as well, despite your initial argument against. >>

This seems to be a pretty key question, about which you have a fundamental 
disagreement.    Tom/Susan - correct me if I am wrong in my synopsis here:

Without getting into serious extremes of weight for either horse or rider , 
and assuming for the sake of discussion that fitness variables are 
standardized - 

 Susan seems to be saying that the TOTAL weight (horse and rider) is more 
"costly"  from the standpoint of lamenesses, and that so far her work shows 
no difference in regards to metabolic problems [i.e. even a heavier rider is 
better off with a lighter horse?] 

whereas Tom is saying that a heavier rider is a greater burden on a lighter 
horse than s/he would be on a 'proportionately' heavier horse.  

If I have the disagreement straight, Tom certainly seems to have common sense 
[an oxymoron for sure] on his side, but Susan seems to have the only field 
trial data on hers.   

In any case, keep the posts coming.   These are very worthwhile discussions 
of the data that we have currently and how we can apply it and how we can 
target more study and and and....
pat farmer