![]() |
RE: [RC] Weight - heidiTruman, I hate to do literature searches, but there sure was a lot of
hard science substantiating the fact that weight has roughly 1/20th the
effect on aerobic work that it does on anaerobic work when I had it
crammed down my throat in exercise physiology class. Had some
more presented in veterinary CE (by Dr. Coffman, if memory
serves--citing various equine researchers) at AERC conventions.
It's a handy ploy to call the science you don't like "irrelevant
babble" but that doesn't make it not so.
Given the proper level of fitness to do the job and a backpack that
fits properly, no, there isn't a big difference between somebody
Bruce's size packing a 35# pack and a 50# pack on a hike--but there is
a WHALE of a difference between him trying to run the 50 yard dash with
one versus the other.
I'm a fat old lady, and I can still toddle up the driveway quite
comfortably with a 50# bag of grain on my shoulder, once I get it UP
there and balanced so that I am not fatiguing specific muscle groups
(unlike the anaerobic heave-ho to get something like that up over my
head to put it on a horse)--and my "fit" weight would be not much more
than half of Bruce's. And at the speed at which I can travel
aerobically (which at my fitness level is only a walk) it doesn't make
much difference if it weighs 35# or 50#. (My dog food bags weigh
35#, and my Equine Senior and beet pulp bags weigh 50#, so I think I
have a pretty good one rat study on this one.) Now, if you make
me travel anaerobically with either one, all bets are off!
Heidi
PS: Bruce, you'd better share pictures of you in the
dress--can you top Barney in his tu-tu?
|