Re: Re: Definitions and a time out

["Kirsten Price" <splash@dakotacom.net>]

Okay, I'll step up to bat here.

Tom, I think a large part of this discussion with Susan revolves around a
lack of understanding as to what the body condition scores represent in the
real world.  Having seen Susan's presentation, including slides of some of
the horses and the corresponding body condition scores....

Yes, there are people who attempt to ride horses in "the walking hat rack"
condition.  Now, a 3.5 is not in danger of starving or anything, but they do
have very obvious ribs and protruding hips. Susan supplied photos of various
example horses from Tevis to illustrate the condition scores.

My personal thought is that at least some of this general lack of concern
over body fat stores results from the old beliefs that a horse needed to be
downright skinny to be a successful endurance horse.  I still hear these
comments from people who haven't been involved in the sport since the 1970s
or so. "The skinnier the better."  It's also just darn hard to keep weight
on many horses while asking for the kind of energy output required to
condition and compete. Until Susan's study, people did not realize how
important adequate body fat stores were.

Susan's study clearly showed that when you were talking about a condition
score of around 3 or even 4, those horses had a significantly reduced
completion rate than those horses with a condition score of 5 or 5.5.  This
isn't a difference between obeisity and anorexia... just a difference
between adequate body fat stores and inadequate body fat stores to complete
a very difficult 100 mile course.

Having adequate body fat stores was a sufficiently critical factor to
outweigh (pardon the intentional pun) any other factors that we might
logically think contribute (and probably do contribute) to the relative
success or completion potential of a horse/rider combination. That doesn't
mean that those factors aren't a factor or aren't important. But, I think I
can sum Susan's conclusions up (pardon me Susan) by saying that if your
horse has inadequate body fat stores, it won't matter whether you're a
featherweight or a heavyweight, a good rider or a sack of potatos. In either
case he's going to run out of gas.  Maybe he runs out of gas earlier with
the heavyweight or the sack-'o-potatos, but either way... he doesn't make
the finish line.

I'm not fat and I'm in good shape (okay, okay... like every one else, I
would like to shed 10 lbs).  But I will never be a featherweight (I'm
5'10").  That part, I can't adjust.  But, I can certainly improve my riding
skill (can't we all). I can also make sure that my horse has proper
nutrition; I can pay attention to hydration and feeding strategies; AND I
can make sure that my horse has ADEQUATE body fat stores to see him through
a 100-mile ride (whenever I actually get to do one.... he's only just
turning 5).

Bottom line, all of the things you (Tom) discuss certainly have an impact
(at least intuitively where there are no studies as yet to back it up).
However, all of those things you mention won't, by themselves, yield a
completion in the face of inadequate body fat.  If you look at the overall
appearance of the horses with condition scores of 3.5 ... I'll bet you'll
agree that the horse looks too dang skinny.  Earlier you said that you or
your UAE clients prefer horses running "lighter" (forgive me if it's an
inaccurate paraphrase).  But from the photos and video (and I admit, it's
not a lot) I've seen from top UAE horses in general, they still look like
they're in the range of at least a 4 and I'd say 4.5 or 5 looks pretty
common. My guess is that you're simply not running into the problem with the
horses you are working with. And, no other studies have been done looking at
completion rate from the perspective that Susan's did.

I vote that the comparisons between the studies you cite and Susans are
similar to the old "Apples and Oranges" saw.  They just aren't looking at
the same thing!

Consider it a bunt and I'm waiting at first base for the next at bat.

Kirsten

Kirsten Price
(Ex-geologist/biologist and current poor law student)
Tucson AZ


> In a message dated 7/27/00 8:42:30 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
> suendavid@worldnet.att.net writes:
>
> << Yes, I think that's an important point.  I absolutely agree a pasture
>  puddin' would be at a disadvantage, probably heat-related.  When I say
"good
>  condition", I mean a condition score of 5, just as Sarah describes, no
hips
>  or pins sticking out, and ribs easily felt but hard to really see.  As
>  compared to an emaciated horse that looks like a walking hat rack.
>
>  Susan G >>
>
> Do people actually attempt to ride horses in that condition?
>
> ti
>
>
> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> Ridecamp is a service of Endurance Net, http://www.endurance.net.
> Information, Policy, Disclaimer: http://www.endurance.net/RideCamp
> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>
>