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

["Susan Garlinghouse" <suendavid@worldnet.att.net>]

>
> Rilly? Shall we take a poll? Better yet, let's look it up in an online
> medical dictionary:
>  http://www.medical-dictionary.com/
>
> Hmm, "no match for cachexic". Not quite as common as you would have us
> believe. Certainly not a "very basic word". But I've now encountered it
and
> probably won't forget it.

Maybe I needed to be even more basic.  Try cachexia.  It's in Dorland's
Medical Dictionary and at least at CSU, they won't even bother to stop
lecturing long enough to explain what it means.  Different world, I guess.


>  You mean aside from data from 600 endurance horses?>
>
> As you say, it's not quite that simple.

But you're trying to make it just that simple, by saying all my conclusions
are Wrong. Obviously.  Clearly Incorrect.  I've been arguing all along it's
a deeper pond than that.


> Not here to disprove your data or make a career out of studying it. Just
> reading your statements and trying tomake sense of them, whenever
possible.

Can't believe that someone who claims to read 7000 abstracts a month
couldn't blow through one little ICEEP study in a few minutes.



>  >Please notice in several places that I referred to the cachexia
explanation
>  as a hypothesis that I haven't yet clinically demonstrated.  And no, a
>  catabolic horse is not necessarily excessively thin, while a cachexic one
>  is.>
>
> Ah, so cachexia does not refer to a metabolic state but rather a disease
> state?

Not necessarily, it refers to a state of malnutrition which may be caused by
disease or simply through malnutrition itself.  One of the theories we're
testing at Swanton, however, is that horses in low body condition react to
exercise stress as they would to disease state, ie increased cortisol,
changes in leukogram, etc.


>
>  > I was attempting to provide you with a simpler explanation using terms
>  you were more comfortable with.>
>
> Might be better to let me struggle with the real stuff rather than the
> simplifications--something's being lost in translation, I think. Just try
to
> use words that can be found in a medical dictionary.

I did.

> You're wrong.

It'll take more than repetition and volume to win this debate, Tom.


>  Again, the cachexia is a theory to possibly explain the findings.
There's
>  precedence in cnacer-related nutritional studies to lend it some weight
>  until we collect more data.  But can I tell about a horse's relative body
>  fat stores by looking at him?  You bet I can.>
>
> Again, let's not lump muscle triglycerides with adipose tissue--this is
the
> error you're making.

Where do you think those IMTG are coming from?



>  >If the cachexic horse has reduced muscle mass, than he has less
substrate,
>  fewer fibers to recruit---fewer resources for the same amount of work.
That
>  means more work per fiber and if intensity of exercise continues, a
higher
>  likelihood of operating closer to the fiber's upper limits.  I'm not
saying
>  the entire system as a whole is running entirely anaerobic, I'm
suggesting a
>  higher percentage of them are---resulting in faster glycogen useage,
higher
>  lactate production and a faster time to fatigue.>
>
> Boy, that's a real stretch of logic. And, not the way it happens.

Well, that's the glory of research.  I'm not only allowed to have innovative
thought, I'm allowed all the rope to hang myself.  Guess we'll see.  Either
way, the answer is useful.


>  >Does it matter what the fuel cost is per mile, as long as the horse has
>  enough resources onboard for the event at hand?>
>
> Sure it does--because the cost is more than just fuel--as outlined above.


And never mind that the end results were uneffected.


>
>   >Or are you just refusing to
>  consider that traditional thought could possibly be wrong? >
>
> I don't care one whit if thought is traditional--just as long as it's
> logical. You're out in space with this concept.

Nope.  Not even close.


> But not particularly willing to climb into the tunnel with you. You're
trying
> to wheedle your way out of this sad and erroneus delusion with your
> characteristic resort to insult. And you'll probably be offended when I
> respond in kind, as I always do.

<appropriate pause>

BAHAHAHAHAHA.  Wheedle, that's good.  Tom, I don't need your help or
approval with my work, never did.  Just because you don't understand it
doesn't discount it.


>  >Can you come up with a better explanation why the incidence of metabolic
>  failure was so screamingly high among these horses?  We're not talking a
>  dozen horses or so, we're talking consistent results among 600 horses.>
>
> Analyzed subjectively after the fact. That's one reasonable explanation.

Nope.  The original hypothesis was totally different, as a matter of fact.
Measured for parameters, analyzed, got totally unexpected results, now
trying to find out why.  It's called good objective research.  You can call
me a dishonest researcher if you like, but won't change reality.


> That'll be the day. I've carefully pointed out where the hogwash lies in
your
> arguments, and if I fail to become a True Believer, if I fail to perceive
> anything of substance in your deep dark pond of thought, then, hey, why
> consider it further?

Again, phooey.  You still can't find the hogwash, it just goes against what
you've chosen to believe.  I couldn't care less if you believe it or not,
I'm just defending what was a good, solid field study.  Find me better data
with the same parameters and you'll have some ammunition.  Until then,
you're just a barking dog.

> Always willing to support a comrade in the quest for truth, wherever it
may
> lie.

Well, thanks again.  Always fun sparring with you.

Susan G