This was taken by weight tape, but was also calculated by applying the
heart girth measurement to a formula developed by Hardman that was the
original source for the development of the weight tape. We also
verified our methods back at the lab by measuring a whole bunch of
horses and then putting them on the livestock scale and comparing the
numbers.
All the measurements were taken at the pre-ride vet check. We did not
measure the horse's during or after the ride, because the focus of our
study was in another direction other than weight loss during the ride
itself. However, Dr. Carlson at Davis collected some data on weight
loss at Tevis a few years ago and we're trying to figure out a way to
incorporate that data into either this or another study.
>
> >The conclusions drawn from at least this particular study was that
> >horses are capable of carrying weights in excess of 30% of their own
> >body weight for 100 miles, IF the horse has sufficient body fat to
> >supply the ongoing demands for metabolic fuel. The thinner a horse is,
> >the quicker he is going to run out of energy in direct proportion to how
> >much weight he has to carry.
>
> A caution about this should be taken by all the newer riders.
> The key word is sufficient body fat. You want a horse that is in
> proper weight, not too fat, not too skinny. Each horse will be
> different. A thinner horse isn't good, but neigher is the fatter horse.
Thank you for pointing this out. I should have mentioned that of the
horses that scored above a 6.0 and above body condition score, not one
finished. It's open to debate as to whether too much fat was the cause
or the effect---that is, did too much fat contribute to overheating or
some other problems that caused a pull, or was the excessive fat simply
a symptom of not enough conditioning. None of these "fatter" horses had
what I would have called really impressive muscling underneath the
pudge. However, there were only a few horses that were in this category
and not enough to make a statistically viable statement, but it is an
interesting point.
>
> A different study was taken at a the OD and ROC a few years back
> concerning the amount of feed given to horses. The results of the
> ride were figured in to the final tally. The horses that did the
> best were those that were feed the most calories per mile of training.
> The numbers were those given by the riders in a written survey.
We tried asking for some management practices, but part of the problem
is that there's no way of verifying how accurate those answers are. For
example, we wanted to know how far riders were planning to go on foot,
and some would answer x number of miles, but how can you verify whether
that actually happened the next day or not? Everybody's wound up and
ambitious the day before at Tevis, but it's a different story when it's
110 degrees and you're at the bottom of the canyons. One known marathon
runner said he was only going to run/walk about fifteen to eighteen
miles of the trail, but we later found out from a crew member that in
actuality he ran MUCH more than that, and was cagey about his answers
because he didn't want to be criticized for running what's supposed to
be a horse race.
Anyway, just a comment on the difficulties of sometimes getting good
data in field research.
Since we're on the subject of endurance research, there was a
dissertation by Mikhail Holstrum from Uppsala, Sweden that indicated a
horse's potential for "elite" performance in jumping based on joint
angles, bone lengths, etc. I talked to him when he came to visit L.A.
and he thought the methodology would apply to endurance horses as well.
This would be a terrific study to quantifiably identify what
conformational factors are more important than others, if the funding
were made available to one of the groups trying to do research on
endurance horses (not just neceesarily me). Just me up on my soapbox
again trying to get some support for some research funding within the
sport. OK, I'll climb down now. ;->
Thanks for the post, Wendy. See ya.
Susan