>Could you point me towards the reference for the coeficients deviations >etc.? I might still remember enough to convince myself about the >validity of the conclusion we have been discussing.
All of the references and relevant statistics are in the original journal article (umm, just curious, have you even read the study prior to questioning its validity?) which is on my website at www.shady-acres.com/susan/tevis95-96.shtml The article, I might add, was accepted for publication, and presented internationally, into the toughest equine exercise physiology journal in the field, the International Conference for Equine Exercise Physiology. As such, it got torn apart, literally, figuratively, and essentially under a microscope by some of the brightest minds on earth, who *are* formally trained to the nth degree in stats and conclusions drawn thereby. And yes, they are very familiar with endurance as well. They ALL commented my methodology, analysis and conclusions were reasonable, and that ain't easy to come by, given how di
fficult these people are to satisfy. The study now gets used as a reference in the next generation of physiology textbooks, and that ain't easy to come by, either.
So, if my methodology, stat analysis, conclusions and discussion meet with your approval, great, I'm glad to hear it. If it doesn't, I mean no offense whatsoever, Ed, but I'm probably not going to lose sleep over it. This study already had its trial by fire, and trial by ridecamp just doesn't compare.
The study is what it is---information and valid conclusions derived from field data, which by its very nature, provides a plethora of variables that cannot always be minimized or filtered out. We knew that and addressed it accordingly. Nowhere in the study is there a suggestion that its conclusions may or should extrapolate to any other ride than Tevis. Nowhere is there a suggestion that there is a "magic number", or a dire prediction of performance based on these findings, or a dismissal of the multiple intrinsic factors that go into a successful, or unsuccessful ride (Tevis or other). It's a reasonable discussion of the myriad of ways several quantifiable physical parameters may affect performance under certain conditions.
Frankly, the information that is presented is fairly useful and straightforward, and that was the original intent of the study (aside from getting me the master's degree I was pursuing at the time).
It continues to perplex me that more energy is invested on Ridecamp in coming up with reasons why almost any piece of information must be flawed, and therefore of suspect value in the real world, than the energy invested in figuring out how to personally apply decent information towards a more successful, and healthier horse and ride. That's okay with me either way. It does support my conclusions that time spent on a computer would be much better spent on a horse. Having said that, I'm going to go pack for Lost Padres this weekend, and happily go hit the "unsubscribe to ridecamp" button once again.
