 |
[RC] TB Fitness - Ridecamp GuestPlease Reply to: ti Tivers@xxxxxxx or ridecamp@xxxxxxxxxxxxx ========================================== I find it interesting that when Mr. Ivers does not like a conclusion, for example: "Fitness levels in horses decline slower than in humans", he states that one can not rely on studies of TB's since they are not fit or the study did not look at enough parameters.> then maybe you'll be interested in the actual facts supporting that conclusion on my part. The typical TB, most days, exercises on track for 1 to 1/2 miles, easy--about 5-6 minutes of work. When actually racing, TBs have more days off than government employees. Once every 5-7 days, the TB will "breeze"--that is, exercise at some significant speed--typically for less than a minute. The typical TB spends more time on the hotwalking machine than the track, and most of its day in the stall. In contrast, elite human athletes spend 4-6 hours a day at hard work. Lance Armstong only spends 3-4 hours a day at work, but that exercise is taken at 80% maximal effort or more. If you're going to track declines in fitness in athletes, you must have some fitness to track. A horse doing next to no work will, obviously, be nearly as fit, or maybe more fit, if turned out in a paddock for 90 days. Lance Armstrong won't. Is this at all logical to you, Ma'am? A couple of days ago he quoted a study of TB's that had concluded that 2yr olds that are raced hard do not break down as fast as TB's that don't start training until 3 yr olds. This study agrees with his conclusions so he imlpied we should believe it. I read of this study in another publication. It is one of those preliminary studies that implies a better study is needed. It analyzed race starts, so there is a distinct possibility that there were differences between the population that was raced as 2 yr. olds and the population started as 3 yr. olds.> Nearly all academic research concludes that more study is necessary. That's how you get funding for the next project. However, the statistics of this particular study stand until more research is done. Academic science is always just a pointer anyway--says that of 360 directions to go, this one just might be more promising than the rest. I read the science, a lot of it, and as these pointers come up, you'll find clusters of them pointing in pretty much the same directions. That's a good clue, wouldn't you say? But to find those clustered pointers, you DO have to read the science--all of it. What I would suggest here, rather than another wearying (to others) personal attack, is cites of some science you have read. Then the subject can be properly discussed. Otherwise, you're expressing an opinion built out of thin air--like many on RC. You are very lucky to have a forum like this. The fact that you can pen a coherent sentence gives you far more attention than you actually deserve, given the total lack of factual information in your posts. Note that even though this post is an in-kind response to a personal attack, it does contain pertinent facts. Read a little and you'll be able to find some facts that you can attempt to use in your next personal attack and people will think you're a lot smarter. I'm ready for a fact war if you are. I can even find some facts for your side, once you take a position. ti =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Ridecamp is a service of Endurance Net, http://www.endurance.net. Information, Policy, Disclaimer: http://www.endurance.net/Ridecamp Subscribe/Unsubscribe http://www.endurance.net/ridecamp/logon.asp Ride Long and Ride Safe!! =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
|