Events
Groups
Rider Directory
Market
RideCamp
Stuff
Well, seems to me that speed is factored in by observing where the horse
finished at the end of Tevis. Last I checked, the fastest horse
finished first. Because all the horses have to be out of the vet checks
within a certain time window, I did make the assumption that there were
no horses that hung around the starting line until three in the
afternoon, then sprinted to Auburn.
As far as muscle structure, the vast majority of the horses were of
Arabian or primarily Arabian blood, therefore it is safe to assume that
muscle fiber populations over a large group would be for the most part
typical of Arabians, not Quarter Horses or Belgians. Although there are
certainly going to be differences between individuals, the statistical
design took this into account and still came to the same conclusion.
> Secondly, you could have gone to any racetrack and asked any groom "why
> do they use exercise boys in the AM verus jockeys" and they could have
> told you that "they want more weight in the AM so as to run faster in
> the afternoon with less weight" turned away winked and said to himself
> "what a greeny".
I guess I'm being dense and missing your point. Yes, I'm aware that
they do this at tracks, but it still doesn't change the fact that the
statistics very clearly showed NO correlation between success and rider
weight over a 100 mile course under the conditions previously
described. Again, I think this is apples and oranges. A maximal
effort, one mile sprint at 35 mph, anaerobic levels cannot be compared
to 50 or 100 miles of uneven, rough terrain at 6-10 mph at sub-maximal,
aerobic levels. You are metabolically using entirely different
physiological systems and the stresses induced under each scenario are
entirely different.
BTW, I just checked with a friend of mine who rides ex for Waynes
Lukas. She describes herself as the "fattest" rider in the barn at 140
lb. Big difference between a 140 lb rider on a morning workout and a
220 lb rider on a 100 mile trail, don't you think?
> I beat everyone in the Southeast in 1987,88,89 and 90 at 164lbs. in 1994
> at 181lbs. I was getting beat by the same riders especially if I choose
> to run with them the last quarter of mile.I would have them beat by two
> lengths until the last 10 yds. then my horses' ears would flop and they
> would run by me.
Ah hah. You said you were running with them the last quarter mile. At
THAT point, I would agree your heavier weight made a much bigger
difference because now you're running at maximal levels---which means
anaerobic, burning sugars instead of fats and because your horse's
workload is higher, he is also accumulating lactic acid much more
quickly and therefore tiring much more quickly. After such a sprint, I
would be interested to see what the comparative blood lactate levels are
between your horse and theirs. I'm willing to bet yours are
considerably higher, and therefore your horse quit before theirs did,
and hence you got beat.
One question---if weight throughout the rest of the ride was such a huge
disadvantage while exercising at sub-maximal levels, by what magic did
you happen to be at the finish in order to be in a position to sprint
for the finish at all against the lightweights? I'm missing something
here.
> I want you to ask any Navy Seal or Green Beret " if they fought better
> with a pack on or without a pack".
> I would ask you to take a 10lb. pack and train with another person
> without a pack of comparable physical ability then race over a course
> ...see who wins.
Unfortunately, human exercise physiology is not my field, equine
exercise physiology is, and I continue to stand by this particular study
and its results. And actually, my dad was a Green Beret and he said it
depended on how badly he needed to not be wherever the hell he was <g>.
> When you multiply speed times weight then distance becomes your
> denominator and fatique is the answer.
True. But if one horse is conditioned to a higher level of fitness by
having been accustomed to carrying more weight, then I still believe the
field is considerably leveled.
Anerobic fatique increases over
> distance and sets in faster when speed is increased.
However, the majority of endurance is not at anaerobic levels. If it
was, observed lactate levels would not be at the relatively low to
moderate levels that have been observed through significant amounts of
field research. At sub-maximal, aerobic levels, the energy cost is
being supplied through the usual TCA and lipolysis cycles and the horse
that is simply better conditioned and is ridden smarter is the horse at
a higher advantage. Demonstrated by the fact that there are plenty of
heavyweight riders that are consistently right up there at the top, not
just in my study.
> The other side of the coin is ---- do you know if the horses that you
> monitored were coming to the race peaked or were they tailing off.
No, of course not, because there is no feasible way of analyzing
comparative blood panels for 500 horses. I also can't look at whether
one rider has better equitation than another, or how good the nutrition
is, or whether or not they're in heat or has a load of parasites or
whether the horse is feeling grumpy that day. However, again, this is
why the results are derived from hundreds of datapoints, not just a
dozen. That's kinda the whole point of statistics and design analysis,
wouldn't you agree?
> That's the question that all the scientific work has yet to answer...
No offense, but I can think of lots of more interesting questions, since
"peaking" is at least reasonably answered for an individual horse by
measuring serial blood parameters. And for that matter, I don't see
alot of value of comparing one horse's peak to another, as "personal
bests" are going to vary between horses, whether they're "peaked" or
not.
> I am afraid you haven't told us anymore than any racetrack tout or poor
> racetrack groom couldn't have told us.
Well, I disagree, but thanks for the comments, anyway.
> One thing I can tell you is "Don't bet your money on the horse that
> carries the heavyweight against any winning featherweight" if you do you
> will wind selling the "Green Sheet" like all the losers!!!
Don't tell that to Chris Knoch.
Thanks for the discussion.
Susan Evans Garlinghouse
Events
Groups
Rider Directory
Market
RideCamp
Stuff